We need a geoengineering forum..."Chemtrail" properly geoengineering, threads do not belong instan

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

I am unaware of those - what are they?

it also continually does stuff that it does not cove up.

Sorry - but this line of "proof" for anything simply isn't proof at all.

It is reason to be suspicious if you want to be suspicious - but it does NOT show that something is actually happening.

Less lethal than what?

All het proposed versions of SRM by stratospheric injection of aerosols involve SOx, not any of ther others at all - why do you mention them?

Mat provided the link info here: link.

2) for the conduct of a narrow class of research in emergency settings; and 3) for use by the Department of Defense (DoD) of specific investigational products in combat exigencies

That they do stuff they do not cover up does not invalidate my argument. They are guilty of carrying on tests for years and labeling those that bring them to light as mentally ill. A similar pattern is being evidenced here on ATS where those that thing geoengineering/adaptation is currently going on are called paranoid schizophrenic, paranoid, and other mental health insults.

There is plenty of anecdotal "whistleblower" data that it is happening. That on top of the billions they are pouring into geoengineering/adaptation is plenty of reason to be suspicious given their track record of proceeding with operations years ahead of their admitting.

Less lethal than the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, MK ULTRA, and radiation experiments I referenced here.

All the others have been repeatedly mentioned throughout the geoengineering papers including some we have not mentioned such as H2So4. Re-watch "What In The World Are They Spraying" and you can hear geoengineers talk about some such as aluminum. Mat referenced barium at least that I remember already in this thread, and many others throughout this and several threads which we discuss this topic.

I find it fascinating that mat offers scientific paper after scientific paper and they are all ignored.

Originally posted by pianopraze
That they do stuff they do not cover up does not invalidate my argument.

No it doesn't you are right.

That aprt of your argument is simply illogical anyway, and I was tryingto illustrate it for you.

Basically yuor argument is:

1/ They have kept stuff secret in the past
2/ We can't find any actual evidence it's happening now but we have suspicions it is
3/ Therefore they are keeping it secret from us like that other stuff.

And there is just no logical link from the 2 premisses 1 & 2 to teh conclusion 3.

They are guilty of carrying on tests for years and labeling those that bring them to light as mentally ill. A similar pattern is being evidenced here on ATS where those that thing geoengineering/adaptation is currently going on are called paranoid schizophrenic, paranoid, and other mental health insults.

where is that?

If anything Matty is the most prolific insulter!!

There is plenty of anecdotal "whistleblower" data that it is happening.

No - there is no whistleblower evidence at all. Whistle blower evidence is from someone who is actually part of somethingrevealing secrets about it.

What there it lots of is annecdotal eyewitness evidnce of chemtrails - but with no systematic method of being able to show what is a chemtrail and what is a "normal" contrail beyond the old argument "if it is persistant it is a chemtrail" - which ALSO has no credible basis in fact.

Eyewitness do see what they see - I do not argue against that.

However I do take issue with the conclusion that "it's a chemtrail" when there is no method for determining what is and is not a contail/chemtrail.

That on top of the billions they are pouring into geoengineering/adaptation is plenty of reason to be suspicious given their track record of proceeding with operations years ahead of their admitting.

But suspicion is still not proof of anything happening.

Suspicion is a state of mind, an attitude. It is a useful attitude in amny cases.

But it ceases to be useful, IMO, when it become the jsutification for making a conclusion in the absence of facts.

Less lethal than the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, MK ULTRA, and radiation experiments I referenced here.

For which I am sure we are eternally grateful - thanks for eh elink.

All the others have been repeatedly mentioned throughout the geoengineering papers including some we have not mentioned such as H2So4. Re-watch "What In The World Are They Spraying" and you can hear geoengineers talk about some such as aluminum.

I miut havemissed that bit - can yuo tell me at what stage of hte programme it occurs in so I can go straight to it?

I find it fascinating that mat offers scientific paper after scientific paper and they are all ignored.

I do not ignore them - I look at them and try to see what his point is - because he usually doesn't actually tell us why he thinks they are important or relevant!!

Often I can't see any relevance. when there is somethign obviously relevant to geo-engineering they are invariably proposals, or research, or discussions about what MIGHT happen one day. Occasinally they are completely the opposite of what he says they are.

In short, the stuff he posts isn't proof of anythng other than the well known and very public research into geo-engineering that hasn't resulted in anythnig actually happening, yet, and certainly does not explain anything to do with the chemtrails that everyone seems to be compalining about.

US House hearings stratospheric aerosol program
Feb. 2010
webcast
gop.science.house.gov...

NASA TO RELEASE PILOT SURVEY; HALL URGES BALANCE OF TRANSPARENCY, CONFIDENTIALITY

gop.science.house.gov...

WASHINGTON D.C. - October 31, 2007 – Today in a hearing before the House Committee on Science and Technology, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin agreed to release data from a controversial airline safety study by the end of the year.
The National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS) study has recently been in the press due to an Associated Press (AP) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Today, Griffin agreed to release the data, once it is appropriately “scrubbed” to protect the anonymity of the pilots who were surveyed. He also expressed his regret for the language NASA used in responding the FOIA request, saying, “I regret any impression that NASA was in any way trying to put commercial interests ahead of public safety. That was not and never will be the case.”

Griffin continued, “I have directed that all NAOMS data that does not contain confidential commercial information, or information that could compromise the anonymity of individual pilots, be released as soon as possible.”

Science and Technology Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) praised Administrator Griffin’s candor and commitment to transparency, saying, “I do want to associate myself with NASA Administrator Mike Griffin’s public statement that lays out the agency’s philosophy on the treatment of research data. Like him, I believe NASA ought to be in the business of putting information in front of the public, not withholding it.

“That being said,” Hall continued, “every care should be taken to protect the identities of survey respondents. NAOMS promised pilots complete confidentiality to ensure their candid participation, and that ought not be breached. If information is disclosed that may allow respondents to be identified, there will be a serious chilling effect in future survey efforts funded by the federal government, whether we’re talking about pilots or other citizen groups who provide our government meaningful insight into a whole host of activities. In the case of NAOMS, we should be cognizant of striking a balance between transparency and confidentiality.”

Echoing the need for stringent confidentiality in order to elicit candid survey responses from pilots, Captain Terry McVenes, Executive Air Safety Chairman for the Air Line Pilots Association, who represents some 60,000 air line pilots, said that, “Regardless of the solution, it is important to keep in mind that raw data, distributed without appropriate analysis and scrutiny to ensure its validity, can lead to unintended consequences… Just as importantly, if raw data are simply distributed to the general public without the quality controls I’ve mentioned, it would undermine the confidence that pilots and the airline community have that voluntarily and confidentially supplied safety data will remain secure.”

Also testifying at today’s hearing were: Mr. Jim Hall, Managing Partner, Hall and Associates LLC, and Former Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); Mr. Robert S. Dodd, Safety Consultant and President, Dodd & Associates LLC; and Dr. Jon A. Krosnick, Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences, Stanford University

NASA National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS) Information Release

www.nasa.gov...

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Office of Inspector General
Washington, DC 20546-0001
March 31, 2008
TO: Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Research
FROM: Assistant Inspector General for Auditing
SUBJECT: Final Memorandum on the Review of the National Aviation Operations
Monitoring Service (Report No. IG-08-014; Assignment No. S-08-004-00)

www.nasa.gov...

On October 22, 2007, The Washington Post published an Associated Press news article,
“NASA Sits on Air Safety Survey,”
1
concerning NASA’s denial of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the data collected via the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS). One of the reasons cited for the denial was that the “[r]elease of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey.” That statement and the implication that the Federal Government spent taxpayer dollars to gather safety
data that NASA was withholding to protect commercial interests prompted a congressional inquiry.

On October 31, 2007, the NASA Administrator appeared before the House Committee on Science and Technology, along with the NAOMS principal investigator; the NAOMS Project survey methodologist; and the Executive Air Safety Chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA),

to answer questions concerning NAOMS and the survey data. Subsequently, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review of NAOMS, with the overall objective of reviewing the management of NAOMS.
We focused on understanding the history and status of NAOMS, to include its objectives, funding, and plans for using the NAOMS survey data. See Enclosure 1 for details on our scope and methodology

NASA Sits on Air Safety Survey

www.washingtonpost.com...

By RITA BEAMISH
The Associated Press
Monday, October 22, 2007; 6:27 PM
MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. -- An unprecedented national survey of pilots by the U.S. government has found that safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognized. But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits.

NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million federal safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since shutting down the project more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge its survey data publicly.

After The Associated Press disclosed details Monday about the survey and efforts to keep its results secret, NASA's chief said he will reconsider how much of the survey findings can be made public.

"NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public, not on how we can withhold it," NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a statement. He said the agency's research and data "should be widely available and subject to review and scrutiny."

AVIATION SAFETY
NASA’s National Aviation Operations
Monitoring Service Project Was Designed
Appropriately, but Sampling and Other
Issues Complicate Data Analysis
www.gao.gov...

The NAOMS project was conceived and designed in 1997 to provide broad,long-term measures on trends and to measure the effect of new technologies and policies on aviation safety. Following the 1996 formation of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, and the commission’s 1997 report to the President committing the government and industry to “establish[ing] a national goal to reduce the aviation fatal accident rate by a factor of five within ten years and conduct[ing] safety research to support that goal,” NASA worked with FAA and NTSB to set up the Aviation Safety Investment Strategy Team within NASA.
11
This team organized workshops, examined options, and recommended a strategy for improving aviation safety and security. One of its recommendations led to NASA’s Aviation System Monitoring and Modeling (ASMM) project, a program to identify existing accident precursors in the aviation system and to forecast and identify potential safety issues to guide the development of safety technology.
12
ASMM, within NASA’s Aviation Safety and Security Program, was to provide systemwide analytic tools for identifying and correcting the predisposing conditions of accidents and to provide methodologies, computational tools, and infrastructure to help experts make the best possible decisions. ASMM was expected to accomplish this by, among other things

NAOMS focused its development efforts primarily on air carrier pilots. After planning and development, a field trial, and eventual implementation of the air carrier pilot survey and a smaller survey of general aviation pilots, the project effectively ended when NASA transmitted a Web-based version of the air carrier pilot data collection system to ALPA in January 2007.


To describe the history and nature of the NAOMS project, we researched, reviewed, and analyzed related material posted on several NASA Web sites and provided to us directly by NASA and its contractor for NAOMS. We reviewed relevant documents on the House of Representatives’ Committee on Science and Technology Web site. We examined relevant documents produced by the Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle), National Academies, and others as well as information produced for the National Research Council. In addition, we reviewed a number of relevant reports, articles, correspondence, and fact sheets on the NAOMS project and air safety. Many of the publicly available materials we reviewed are named in the bibliography at the end of this report.


The NAOMS survey was intended to provide a better understanding of the safety performance of the aviation system, and to allow for the computation of general trends over time, in order to supplement safety systems. A survey with a different goal—one that was investigative or intended to understand the causes of events—would seek information different from those asked for in the NAOMS questions. Depending on the customers’ intended use of the data, developers of a future survey might consider writing questions that asked about, for example, the causes of engine failures or details about air crews’ experience of engine shutdowns. Whereas questions such as the latter would be consonant with NAOMS’s goal of describing precursors to safety events, the former would be more investigative. Developing a detailed analysis plan in conjunction with the questionnaire would help ensure that the survey included questions relevant for specific analyses.


We provided NASA and the Department of Transportation with drafts of this report for their review and comment. NASA reiterated that NAOMS was a research and development project and provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. NASA also expressed concern about protecting NAOMS respondents’ confidentiality, a concern we share. However, we noted that other agencies have developed mechanisms for releasing sensitive data to appropriate researchers. The Department of Transportation had no comments. We also provided a draft of this report to Battelle (NASA’s contractor for NAOMS) and the survey methodologist for NAOMS for their review. Battelle provided no comments on the draft report. The survey methodologist reported that he found the draft report to be objective and detailed, and that he believed i will contribute to the public debate on NAOMS. He also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate

Aviation System Monitoring and Modeling (ASMM) Project Team's "Morning Report" was honored at R&D 100 Awards Ceremony

human-factors.arc.nasa.gov...

Aviation System Monitoring and Modeling (ASMM) Project Team's "Morning Report" was honored at R&D 100 Awards Ceremony Oct 20, 2005 The Aviation System Monitoring and Modeling (ASMM) Project Team received a prestigious R&D 100 Award from the editors of R&D 100 Magazine for the development of the Morning Report of Atypical Flights tool. Morning Report was also the recipient of the previously unannounced Editors' Choice Award for "the innovation most likely to impact public safety." Morning Report analyzes massive amounts of operational data to identify patterns and events that could signify problems during flight. The technology was developed by researchers at Pacific Northwest Laboratory in a joint effort with researchers at NASA Ames Research Center, Battelle Memorial Institute, Flight Safety Consultants, and ProWorks Corp. The awards banquet was held on October 20, 2005 in Chicago, Illinois. Tom Chidester, ASMM project lead, and Irv Statler from the ASMM project office at NASA Ames attended. The Morning Report of Atypical Flights tool searches for the unexpected and reveals the unknowns. The tool automatically analyzes the flight data recorded by each aircraft in an airline's fleet during a selected period of time. Then it brings to the safety analyst's attention all of the flights that were deemed atypical in a multivariate statistical analysis with respect to the main body of comparable flight data. Morning Report has also received a NASA Space Act Award and a patent is pending.

Welcome to the NASA Earth Science Mission
INTEX-NA
Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment - North America

www.espo.nasa.gov...

The Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment (INTEX-NA) is a major NASA science campaign to understand the transport and transformation of gases and aerosols on transcontinental and intercontinental scales and their impact on air quality and climate. A particular focus in this study is to quantify and characterize the inflow and outflow of pollution over North America. INTEX will also provide important validation of satellite observations with ongoing satellite measurement programs, such as Terra, Aura, and Envisat. The experiment will be conducted over the continental United States during the summer of 2004 using a variety of science aircraft. Several coastal and continental sites across North America have been selected as bases of operation. The experiment will be supported by forecasts from meteorological and chemical models, surface and satellite observations, and ozone probe releases.

The INTEX-NA campaign will be greatly facilitated and enhanced by a number of concurrent national and international field campaigns. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the principal U.S. partner for NASA and will field coordinated airborne and shipboard platforms. Plans are also underway for the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and France to conduct concurrent airborne campaigns to measure the transport of pollution from North America into the eastern Atlantic and to Europe. Synthesis of the combined observations from surface, airborne, and space platforms will maximize scientific results and should directly benefit scientific understanding of air quality and its relation to climate change.

INTEX is sponsored by the NASA Office of Earth Science Tropospheric Chemistry Program.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/389f904863f6.jpg[/atsimg]

Earth Science Project Office

www.espo.nasa.gov...

The Ames Earth Science Project Office is a small group of success-oriented individuals providing project management for NASA's Science Mission Directorate field research. We provide planning, implementation and post mission support for large, complex, multi-agency, national and international field campaigns. We have a long history of successful field campaigns, beginning in 1987 with both the Stratosphere-Troposphere Exchange Project (STEP) and the Airborne Antarctic Ozone Expedition (AAOE) experiments. Our primary customer has been NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Program, but in recent years our customers have included the Atmospheric Chemistry and Modeling Analysis Program, the Tropospheric Chemistry Program, the Radiation Sciences Program, Atmospheric Dynamics and Remote Sensing, the Suborbital Science Program, and the EOS satellite validation program

FIELD EXPERIMENTS

geo.arc.nasa.gov...

ARCTAS
In Spring and Summer 2008 NASA will conduct a campaign called Arctic Research of the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites (ARCTAS). The spring deployment will target arctic haze, anthropogenic pollution in general, stratosphere-troposphere exchange, and sunrise photochemistry. The summer deployment will target boreal forest fires, stratosphere-troposphere exchange, and summertime photochemistry. ARCTAS will be part of the international IPY/POLARCAT arctic field program for atmospheric composition.

+ Read more

INTEX-B / MILAGRO
In March 2006 several coordinated experiments studied gaseous and aerosol pollutants originating primarily in Mexico City. The March phase of INTEX-B (the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment) was closely coordinated with MILAGRO (Megacity Initiative: Local and Global Research Observations). Our airborne sunphotometer, AATS-14, flew on the J31 aircraft based in Veracruz, Mexico, measuring aerosols and water vapor in outflow from Mexico City and biomass burning regions of Mexico and Central America.

+ Read more



ALIVE
ALIVE
Set for September 2005, ALIVE (Aerosol LIdar Validation Experiment) IOP will conduct further validation studies of the Raman and a Micro Pulse Lidars at the DOE ARM's Souther Great Plains Site in Oklahoma. The AATS-14 will fly onboard SkyResearch's J31 aircraft along with the NASA RSP instrument.
+ Read more


INTEX - ITCT - ICARTT
In Summer 2004 several coordinated experiments studied air quality, intercontinental transport, and radiation balance in air masses carried across the US and over the Atlantic to Europe. NASA organized INTEX-NA. NOAA organized NEAQS - ITCT 2004. And Europeans organized ITOP. ICARTT was formed to enhance the synergy between ITCT, INTEX, and ITOP.

AATS-14 participated in INTEX and ITCT by flying on a twin turboprop Jetstream-31, based at Portsmouth, NH in July and August 2004. Its goal was to help characterize aerosol radiative properties and effects in flights that sample polluted and clean air masses in coordination with measurements by other INTEX-ITCT platforms, including aircraft and a ship.

+ Read more


EVE
The primary purpose of this experiment is to validate the over-ocean MODIS aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements at 1.6 and 2.1mm aboard the Terra and Aqua platform. The primary tool for validating the MODIS AOD is the 14-channel NASA Ames Airborne Tracking Sunphotometer, AATS-14, which will fly aboard the CIRPAS Twin-Otter aircraft out of Monterey, CA. The timing of the experiment is chosen to coincide with the maximum transport of Asian dust to the US West coast, one of the few aerosol species with considerable AOD in the near-IR.

+ Read more

ARM Aerosol IOP

ARM Aerosol IOP
To gain improved understanding and model-based representation of aerosol radiative influences an IOP was conducted at the Department of Energy's ARM Southern Great Plains Site in north central Oklahoma, in May 2003. The IOP carried out a variety of closure experiments on aerosol optical properties and their radiative influence. Additionally, measurements of the aerosol chemical composition size distribution will allow testing of the ability to reconstruct optical properties from these measurements.

+ Read more

ADAM 2003
The Asian Dust Above Monterey-2003 (ADAM-2003) project is a surface and airborne observational field study to investigate the properties and effects of the natural and anthropogenic Asian aerosols transported to the west coast of the United States in the springtime. ADAM-2003 took place from April 1-30, 2003 based out of the Monterey, CA. AATS-14 operated onboard the CIRPAS Twin Otter.

+ Read more


SOLVE II
The SAGE III Ozone Loss and Validation Experiment (SOLVE II) examined the processes controlling ozone levels at mid- to high latitudes. Measurements were made in the Arctic high-latitude region in winter using the NASA DC-8 aircraft, as well as balloon platforms and ground-based instruments. The mission acquired correlative data needed to validate the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) III satellite measurements which are used to quantitatively assess high-latitude ozone loss.
+ Read more

CLAMS
The CLAMS aircraft field campaign ran from July 10 through August 3, 2001. It wais a shortwave closure experiment targeting clear (cloud-free) sky conditions. Our AATS-14 instrument was integrated on the CV-580.
+ Read more


ACE-Asia
The first major airborne/shipborne campaign of ACE-Asia took place in March-April 2001. Both of our instruments, AATS-14 and AATS-6, were involved in the experiment. AATS-14 was integrated on the CIRPAS Twin Otter. AATS-6 flew on the NCAR C-130. Both planes were flown out of Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station, Japan.
+ Read more


3rd ARM Water Vapor IOP
3rd ARM Water Vapor IOP
The ARM water vapor IOP was conducted to study lower tropospheric water vapor profiles at the Southern Great Plains site in Oklahoma. The emphasis was on the intercomparison of lower atmosphere water vapor measurements. Our AATS-6 took ground-based measurements of water vapor and aerosols.
Other website to visit:
ARM site for the Fall 2000 Water Vapor IOP

SAFARI 2000
The SAFARI-2000 dry season campaign took place in August-September 2000 in South Africa, Zambia, Namibia and nearby countries. AATS-14 flew on the UW CV-580 and measured aerosols and water vapor.
+ Read more

PRiDE
The PRiDE experiment was conducted in June-July 2000 in Puerto Rico. Our AATS-6 instrument on the SPAWAR Navajo was used to measure African dust, other aerosols, and water vapor.
+ Read more


2nd ARM Water Vapor IOP
2nd ARM Water Vapor IOP
The ARM water vapor IOP was conducted to study lower tropospheric water vapor profiles at the Southern Great Plains site in Oklahoma. The emphasis was on the intercomparison of lower atmosphere water vapor measurements. Our AATS-6 took ground-based measurements of water vapor and aerosols.

Other website to visit:
ARM site for Fall 1997 Water Vapor IOP

ACE-2
ACE-2 studied European and African aerosols in Summer 1997 near the Canary Islands and Southwest Portugal. The AATS-14 instrument flew on the CIRPAS Pelican, and the AATS-6 instrument took surface measurements from the R/V Vodyanitskiy. Please see a list of our ACE-2 publications on the website.
+ Read more

TARFOX
The TARFOX experiment included AATS-6 on the UW C-131A and the first flights of AATS-14 on the CIRPAS Pelican. TARFOX was designed to measure and analyze aerosol properties and effects in the US eastern seaboard, where one of the world's major plumes of industrial haze moves from the continent over the Atlantic Ocean. It included coordinated measurements from four satellites, four aircraft, land sites, and ships. The website has a list of our publications from the TARFOX program.
+ Read more

Earth Science Project Office

MACPEX Home Page

www.espo.nasa.gov...

The Mid-latitude Airborne Cirrus Properties Experiment (MACPEX) is an airborne field campaign to investigate cirrus cloud properties and the processes that affect their impact on radiation. Utilizing the NASA WB-57 based at Ellington Field, TX, the campaign will take place in the March / April 2011 timeframe. Science flights will focus on central North America vicinity with an emphasis over the DoE ARM SGP site in Oklahoma.

Some of the major science questions to be addressed by MACPEX will include:

• How prevalent are the smaller crystals in cirrus clouds, and how important are these for extinction, radiative forcing, and radiative heating?

• How are cirrus microphysical properties (particle size distribution, ice crystal habit, extinction, ice water content) related to the dynamical forcing driving cloud formation?

• How are cirrus microphysical properties related to aerosol loading and composition, including the abundance of heterogeneous ice nuclei?

• How do cirrus microphysical properties evolve through the lifecycles of the clouds, and what role do radiatively driven dynamical motions play?

In addition to the in situ measurements, flights will be coordinated with the NASA EOS / A-Train satellite observations for validation, as well as, evaluation of new remote-sensing retrievals for future Earth Science Decadal satellites. The detailed measurements aquired by MACPEX will also be used to improve cloud model parameterizations in Global Climate Models (GCMs).

The MACPEX mission is supported by the NASA Earth Science Research and Analysis Program under the Atmospheric Composition Focus Area. The aircraft and support provided by the NASA Airborne Science Program.

Earth Science Project Office

ATTREX Home Page
www.espo.nasa.gov...

ATTREX Logo
Despite its low concentration, stratospheric water vapor has large impacts on the earth’s energy budget and climate. Recent studies suggest that even small changes in stratospheric humidity may have climate impacts that are significant compared to those of decadal increases in greenhouse gases. Future changes in stratospheric humidity and ozone concentration in response to changing climate are significant climate feedbacks.

While the tropospheric water vapor climate feedback is well represented in global models, predictions of future changes in stratospheric humidity are highly uncertain because of gaps in our understanding of physical processes occurring in the Tropical Tropopause Layer (TTL, ~13-18 km), the region of the atmosphere that controls the composition of the stratosphere. Uncertainties in the TTL chemical composition also limit our ability to predict future changes in stratospheric ozone.

Airborne Tropical Tropopause Experiment (ATTREX) will perform a series of measurement campaigns using the long-range NASA Global Hawk (GH) unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to directly address these problems.

ARM
geo.arc.nasa.gov...

GRIP
grip.nsstc.nasa.gov...

The Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes (GRIP) experiment was a NASA Earth science field experiment in 2010 that was conducted to better understand how tropical storms form and develop into major hurricanes. NASA used the DC-8 aircraft, the WB-57 aircraft, and the Global Hawk Unmanned Airborne System (UAS) configured with a suite of in situ and remote sensing instruments used to observe and characterize the lifecycle of hurricanes.

The GRIP deployment was 15 August – 30 September 2010 with bases in Ft. Lauderdale, FL for the DC-8, at Houston, TX for the WB-57, and at NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, CA for the Global Hawk. This campaign capitalized on a number of ground networks, airborne science platforms (both manned and unmanned), and space-based assets. The field campaign was executed according to a prioritized set of scientific objectives. In two separate science solicitations, NASA selected a team of investigators to collect NASA satellite and aircraft field campaign data with the goal of conducting basic research on problems related to the formation and intensification of hurricanes.

The spaceborne and airborne observational capabilities of NASA put it in a unique position to assist the hurricane research community in addressing shortcomings in the current state of the science. The relatively recent launch of several new satellites, the prospect of using a high-altitude UAS for hurricane surveillance, and the emergence of new remote sensing technologies offered new research tools that needed to be explored and validated. Of great importance were new remote sensing instruments for wind and temperature that can lead to improved characterization of storm structure and environment.

The GRIP hurricane field campaign and research project were managed by Dr. Ramesh Kakar, Weather Focus Area Leader within the Earth Science Division, NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Dr. Kakar was primarily responsible for assembling the science team and the instrument payload for the NASA aircraft participating in this field experiment.

NASA Core Aircraft
airbornescience.nasa.gov...

Research at the Nexus of Air Quality and
Climate Change
9 January 2008
www.arb.ca.gov...

PROPOSAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION MEASUREMENT PROGRAM

geo.arc.nasa.gov...


Impact of multi-scale dynamical processes and mixing on the chemical
composition of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere during INTEX-NA
www.espo.nasa.gov...

ARM Other Aircraft Campaigns
www.arm.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract and hold water molecules from the surrounding environment through either absorption or adsorption with the adsorbing or absorbing material becoming physically 'changed,' somewhat: by an increase in volume, stickiness, or other physical characteristic of the material as water molecules become 'suspended' between the material's molecules in the process. While some similar forces are at work here, it is different from capillary attraction, a process where glass or other 'solid' substances attract water, but are not changed in the process, e.g. water molecules becoming suspended between the glass molecules. Hygroscopic substances include sugar, honey, glycerol, ethanol, methanol, diesel fuel, sulfuric acid, methamphetamine, many salts (including table salt), and a huge variety of other substances. Zinc chloride and calcium chloride, as well as potassium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide (and many different salts) are so hygroscopic that they readily dissolve in the water they absorb: this property is called deliquescence (see below). Sulfuric acid is not only hygroscopic in high concentrated form, its solutions are hygroscopic down to concentrations of 10 Vol-% or below. More commonly, a hygroscopic material will tend to become damp and "cake" when exposed to moist air (such as salt in salt shakers during humid weather). Because of their affinity for atmospheric moisture, hygroscopic materials might necessarily be stored in sealed containers. When added to foods or other materials for the express purpose of maintaining moisture content, such substances are known as humectants. Materials and compounds exhibit different hygroscopic properties, and this difference can lead to detrimental effects, such as stress concentration in composite materials. The amount a particular material or compound is affected by ambient moisture may be considered its coefficient of hygroscopic expansion (CHE) (also referred to as CME, coefficient of moisture expansion) or coefficient of hygroscopic contraction (CHC)—the difference between the two terms being a difference in sign convention and a difference in point of view as to whether the difference in moisture leads to contraction or expansion. A common example where difference in this hygroscopic property can be seen is in a paperback book cover. Often, in a relatively moist environment, the book cover will curl away from the rest of the book. The unlaminated side of the cover absorbs more moisture than the laminated side and increases in area, causing a stress that curls the cover toward the laminated side. This is similar to the function of a bi-metallic strip. Inexpensive gauge-type hygrometers frequently seen domestically make use of this principle. The similar-sounding but unrelated word hydroscopic is sometimes used in error for hygroscopic. A hydroscope is an optical device used for making observations deep under water.

Deliquescence of Calcium Chloride

vimeo.com...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
FIELD EXPERIMENTS

geo.arc.nasa.gov...

ARCTAS

=Arctic RESEARCH of the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites.

In Spring and Summer 2008 NASA will conduct a campaign called Arctic Research of the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites (ARCTAS). The spring deployment will target arctic haze, anthropogenic pollution in general, stratosphere-troposphere exchange, and sunrise photochemistry. The summer deployment will target boreal forest fires, stratosphere-troposphere exchange, and summertime photochemistry. ARCTAS will be part of the international IPY/POLARCAT arctic field program for atmospheric composition.

So it's measuring the amount of "stuff" in the atmosphere.

So your very first one has nothing to do with chemtrails.

Is there any reason I should bother reading the rest - I have limited time on this earth and if there's any actual evidence for contrails I'd really rather just cut straight to he chase....

INTEX-B / MILAGRO
In March 2006 several coordinated experiments studied gaseous and aerosol pollutants originating primarily in Mexico City. The March phase of INTEX-B (the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment) was closely coordinated with MILAGRO (Megacity Initiative: Local and Global Research Observations). Our airborne sunphotometer, AATS-14, flew on the J31 aircraft based in Veracruz, Mexico, measuring aerosols and water vapor in outflow from Mexico City and biomass burning regions of Mexico and Central America.

So another programme measuring and not spraying.....

ALIVE
ALIVE
Set for September 2005, ALIVE (Aerosol LIdar Validation Experiment) IOP will conduct further validation studies of the Raman and a Micro Pulse Lidars at the DOE ARM's Souther Great Plains Site in Oklahoma. The AATS-14 will fly onboard SkyResearch's J31 aircraft along with the NASA RSP instrument.

Why post a notice that it is going to happen in the future for 2005, when the results are available???

The major goal of the experiment was to collect airborne remote sensing data on atmospheric aerosols for validation studies of the SGP Raman lidar and micropulse lidars. The airborne data were collected by the NASA Ames Airborne Tracking 14-Channel Sunphotometer (AATS-14) flown aboard a Jetstream-31 research aircraft from Sky Research.

So yet another experiment collecting information on aerosols and not actually having anything to do with any spraying.


That's 3 for nought so far....not going to bother with any more.

Is this the "PROOF" you said you were going to gather?

Just more of your ridiculous link & article spam that shows you don't bother trying to understand what it is you have found??

It's true isn't' it - what (I think) Weedwacker says - all you do is google for "aerosols" and "aircraft" and then post the results without taking any time whatsoever to read the conclusions or summaries or methodology.

Sigh.....

Thanks for an alternative term for CTs.
I'll be using geoengineering from now on.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
US House hearings stratospheric aerosol program

It is very naughty of you to lie about the title of the US house's hearings like that Matty.

It is actually called:"Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges"

It covered all sorts of geo-engineering - including air capture and mineral sequestration, biological and land-based geoengineering alters carbon uptake, sunlight absorption, and other biophysical factors that affect climate together, and cutting carbon emissions, as well as Solar Radiation Management.

And the Solar Radiation Management section is both stratospheric sulfate aerosols, and marine cloud whitening!

Did you bother to actually listen to or read any of testimony??

How about this bit:

I estimate the total (2009) budget for all geoengineering research within the US is probably $1M/year or less. Perhaps half of that is from private foundations.

-Dr. Philip Rasch's testimony

A million dollars per year to spray all those chemtrails Matty?? really???

Originally posted by Flighty
Thanks for an alternative term for CTs.
I'll be using geoengineering from now on.

Do you realise that geoengineering includes all the following:

* Creating stratospheric sulfur aerosols
* Ocean foams
* Cool roof—using pale-coloured roofing and paving materials
* Cloud reflectivity enhancement – using fine sea water spray to whiten clouds and increase cloud reflectivity.
* Space sunshade—obstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors or other structures
* Cloud seeding of cirrus clouds, possibly using airliners.
* Ocean nourishment including Iron fertilisation of the oceans
* Creating biochar (anaerobic charcoal) and burying it to create terra preta
* Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage
* Carbon air capture to remove carbon dioxide from ambient air

and some other stuff such as efforts to protect arctic ice, and heat transport within the oceans?

(from en.wikipedia.org...)

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thanks for the list of things that geoengineering covers.
That doesn't discount CTs being included though.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yeah, you know those numbers are wrong because Mat gave you the official numbers from the white house which showed the actual amounts being spent are in the billions.

If you look at the papers in that link there are some incredible information and again show you know this. You ask us to repeat stuff ad nauseum and try to derail. I will answer some of your above questions strait from papers from this symposium on geonegineering:

You
 asked 
me
 to 
focus
on 
Solar 
Radiation 
Management, 
with
 particular 
attention 
to 
stratospheric
 sulfate
aerosols, 
and 
marine
 cloud 
whitening.

Ah, again their favorites....


The
 geoengineering 
idea
 is 
to 
inject
 a 
“source” 
for 
aerosols 
into 
the
 same
 region 
of 
the
 atmosphere 
that
volcanoes 
tend 
to 
inject
 the 
gas. I
 use 
the 
word
 “source” 
to 
refer 
to
 either 
a
 
gas 
like
 sulfur
 dioxide
 
or 
to 
inject 
sulfuric 
acid
 directly... 
scientists 
have
 occasionally 
considered
using
 other
kinds 
of 
particles
 to
 do
 geoengineering.


Sulfur dioxide So2 forms sulfuric acid H2So4 when dumped into the atmosphere per the Canadian study. Mat's post explains how So2 and H2So4 would make clouds. He lays out the info for anyone with a brain to figure it out. You continue to deny the validity of his posts and try to point people in the wrong direction. Why would someone spend all those hours to try to purposefully misdirect? Seems like he's tired of bickering and just laying out the evidence.

Sulfuric acid is not only hygroscopic in high concentrated form, its solutions are hygroscopic down to concentrations of 10 Vol-% or below.

• How prevalent are the smaller crystals in cirrus clouds, and how important are these for extinction, radiative forcing, and radiative heating?

• How are cirrus microphysical properties (particle size distribution, ice crystal habit, extinction, ice water content) related to the dynamical forcing driving cloud formation?

• How are cirrus microphysical properties related to aerosol loading and composition, including the abundance of heterogeneous ice nuclei?

post

Before
 jumping
 in 
further, 
I 
want 
to 
get 
past 
a 
few 
“buzzwords” 
immediately. 
From 
here
 on 
I
 will 
often 
replace
the 
term
 “Solar 
Radiation 
Management” 
with
 the 
word
 “geoengineering”. 
And 
I 
will 
often
 loosely 
refer 
to 
the
“changes
 in 
the 
amount
 of 
energy
 entering 
or 
leaving 
some
 part 
of 
the 
planet 
because 
of 
some
 climate 
factor”
 as
a
 “forcing”.
 So
... 
there 
is
 another forcing associated 
with 
Solar 
Radiation 
Management.


IBID geoengineering link.

I'm tired of spoon feeding you, especially when you know the info if you've bothered to read or watch. By this point your purposefully ignorant or choosing to shut your eyes, or have another agenda. I tell you where stuff is you demand I go do your work for you? LOL sorry buddy, I'm not your nursemaid to spoon feed you.

Top Secret is SCI (secret COMPARTMENTALIZED information). You have one company develop software for monitoring aerosols, another for developing models of aerosol spreading, another making studies on how aerosols form clouds another on technology for satellites to detect aerosols... on and on and on... none of them know the big picture of the overall view of injecting aerosol particulates into the stratosphere and then monitoring them. Mat is giving many of the pieces in his poss. Each tiny piece contributes to the whole, but none of them can say anything definitive because they don't know the other pieces. When you look at all the peices together they form a whole picture... just like those 1000 piece puzzles we used to play with as a children. This is how MK ULTRA, another Top Secret government program which STILL has parts that are not released to the public was... only a few knew of the atrocities committed. Most were just working on their little puzzle pieace.

Loved the alice in wonderland, playing dumb, deny everything etc. ad. nauseum techniques in your reply to me, but I have told you I refuse to address these techniques when used, so I'm done with it. That's not honest dialogue. I'm disappointed, you were having one... for a little while.

The geoengineers repeatedly warn we just don't know enough, and are overridden. We don't know enough. How many billions or trillions have been spent on weather modeling by NOAA and other companies on weather modeling yet we cannot perdict the weather accurately beyond a couple days AT ALL... AT ALL!!! AT ALL!!!!!!!

I
don’t 
think 
scientists 
know
 enough
 today
 about
 geoengineering, 
and 
so 
I 
don’t 
think 
we
 are 
ready 
for
“deployment”

Yet the hubrous of these politicians of even considering dumping tons of So2 or H2So4 - both of which form H2So4 aka sulfuric acid... the stuff you're not supposed to get on your hands because it will burn you in chemistry class...

Even if we haven't started we need to stop this insanity. These globalists self admittedly want to reduce the population by 95%. We need to get these insane people out of power. They have money to spin things however they want but the truth being presented time and again is this is there is insufficient evidence that Co2 is linked to global warming, it has been shown our effects are minuscule compared to natural forces, we are on a natural warming cycle that has been going on for tens of thousands of years, and global cooling is much more dangerous to our survival than the current, relatively stable, climatic conditions. Also all the planets are warming so it is more likely do to solar or galactic forces we don't currently understand. Again with our hubris.

We don't even understand what's going on... this is more like a 3 year old sticking his fingers inside a computer... he's going to get hurt. Only that 3 year old is all of us... and it might kill all of us!

I think the question really becomes:

OK, so it's defined, there is evidence that it's occurring, there is evidence if just by the vocal and prolific debunker dissent that it's intended to be secret. What now? What can we do about it? I suppose part of the answer is just trying to open people's eyes to it. The problem with geoengineering is that it is couched as something (secretive or not) that is beneficial to the planet. Even when it is exposed to the mass there is always that argument, "Yes we kept it quiet but it was in your best interest." So, what can we do about it? How can we take this out of the forum and into the world?

Originally posted by coyotepoet
What now? What can we do about it?

Well in terms of changes to cloud cover wrought by aircraft contrails: Stop flying. Stop buying products transported by air. Stop sending anything by airmail.

Simple. Though of course, everyone else woud have to do the same. And I suspect not everyone will like it.

We could also stop burning down forests (technically another form of geoengineering). Best of all, we could all die in which case I guess we'd not have any real impact on the planet whatsoever? Though that seems a bit extreme? Cutting down on our waste of energy would be a big help though.

Not sure what else?