Google+ Followers

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Skeptics Winning Americans are less worried about climate change than almost anyone else

The climate scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have released a sweeping new report on global climate change, and the implications are pretty scary. My colleague Brad Plumer looks at the report in detail, but the big takeaway seems to be we're on a path toward temperatures, and thus sea levels, rising.
The report is a reminder that the world's leading greenhouse gas emitters, the United States and China, are doing little to combat it. Which is, in turn, a reminder that people in both countries can sometimes view climate change reports such as this one with greater skepticism than do people in other countries.
It's worth putting that skepticism into context. Just how seriously do Americans and other nationalities take the threat of climate change? Pew actually sought to answer that question earlier this year, with a big study on attitudes around the world toward various global threats. Here's a chart showing attitudes toward climate change in a few dozen countries. Americans are some of the least likely in the world to call climate change a "major threat," and are ranked 33rd out of 39:

According to Pew, 40 percent of Americans call climate change a "major threat." The people most concerned about climate change are the Greeks, 87 percent of whom call it a major threat; so do 85 percent of South Koreans, 76 percent of Brazilians and 74 percent of Lebanese. The average, among the surveyed countries, is 54 percent.When Pew ran the survey, they asked people in 39 countries about eight different threats. People in almost every country ranked climate change as the biggest threat of those eight. In the United States, people rank it sixth – ahead of only "Pakistani political instability" and the United States itself.
Americans divide closely along partisan lines on the issue. According to Pew, only 22 percent of self-identified Republicans call climate change a major threat, but the number among self-identified Democrats is 55 percent, just above the survey's global average. In comparative terms, Democrats are about as likely fear climate change as do Canadians and Germans; Republicans' views are more akin to Egyptians or Israelis.
Americans are near the bottom of the list when it comes to concern about climate change, but not at the bottom by any means. Chinese and Czech poll respondents both take climate change a little less seriously than Americans. Israelis appear significantly less worried. But the real outliers are Egyptians and Pakistanis, only 16 and 15 percent of whom, respectively, say they consider it a major threat. It's possible that this may reflect a sometimes-conspiratorial distrust of government in these countries, but that's just speculation. Sadly, both countries are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels, which would increase the danger of flooding from the Nile and Indus Rivers.
Americans are most worried about North Korea's nuclear program, according to the survey; 59 percent call it a major threat.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Models of misinformation -- climate reports melt under scrutiny

A last-ditch effort to refute climate “skeptics”—people unconvinced that we need to spend trillions to reshape our economies to halt or slow  “climate change”-- has failed.
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a study by 13 prestigious atmospheric scientists that supposedly provides “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
The NAS researchers pointedly echo the famous declaration by the United Nation-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that the “balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” With this new study, the authors claim to clinch the case. The IPCC, we’re supposed to believe, has been right all along.
With the IPCC now issuing the first segment of its latest mammoth study on the same topic, readers should take the NAS pronouncement with a large grain of salt—and the IPCC report too. This is an attempt to change the subject and ignore the elephant in the room: the crisis in “consensus” climate science arising from the growing mismatch between model-predicted warming and observed warming.
Less warming means smaller climate impacts, and less ostensible need for radical changes in the way we live to deal with them.
The urgent issue in climate science today is not whether man-made global warming is real but whether the climate models that scientists use to predict it are realistic enough to assess future climate change and inform public policy. And scientists themselves are pointing this out.
The real, observable evidence increasingly shows that the models, which are no more than computer simulations based on the data and assumptions that scientists currently think are relevant, are way out of line with the changes that scientists are able to measure. And the gap is widening.
Consider some recent science on these matters.
John Christy, a distinguished climate scientist and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found that all 73 computer model runs performed by the IPCC as of June 1, 2013 overshoot the observed warming of the tropical atmosphere during the previous 34 years.
And despite the fact that global carbon dioxide emissions are increasing more rapidly than most models assumed (due largely to industrial growth in India and China), the temperatures recorded by the NASA-supported Remote Sensing Systems shows no warming in the earth’s middle atmosphere, or troposphere, over the past 16-plus years.
German climatologist Hans von Storch has found that IPCC climate models project warming trends as low as actual recorded observations only 2% of the time.
The monthly journal Nature Climate Change reports that over 20 years (1993-2012), the warming trend computed from 117 climate model simulations (0.3°C per decade) is more than twice the observed trend (0.14°C/decade).  Over the most recent 15 years (1998-2012), the computer-simulated trend (0.21°C/decade) is more than four times the observed trend (0.05°C/decade)—a trend that is pretty close to a flat line.
These are huge inconsistencies, and they matter because less warming means smaller climate impacts, and less ostensible need for radical changes in the way we live to deal with them.
The NAS researchers briefly note the discrepancy between warming projections and observations but then ignore its implications. 
Rather than confront the failure of increasingly overstretched climate models, the NAS study emphasizes the agreement between satellite observations and the model-projected combination of warming in the troposphere and cooling in the atmospheric layer above it, the lower stratosphere. 
It’s the match between the computer-projected “fingerprint” and the observed “thermal structure” that supposedly demonstrates a “discernible human influence” on global climate.
But there’s less to this finding than meets the eye, because according to the study, the “human influence” cooling the lower stratosphere is predominantly the presence of man-made ozone depleting substances, not greenhouse gases. 
In fact, a study cited by the NAS researchers, found that the “influence of greenhouse gases” on stratospheric temperatures “is not yet clearly identifiable.” Contrary to appearances, they have not really found the smoking gun of man-made global warming.
Marlo Lewis write for the Competitive Enterprise Institute: 


But even if the NAS study did finally find the model-projected greenhouse “fingerprint” in the atmospheric data, it would not refute those who have long argued that the models are alarmist and project too much warming.
After all, few prominent skeptics of the sky-is-falling school of global warming actually deny that man-made climate change is real.
What they doubt is that climate change is a “planetary emergency” brought on by rapidly rising projected temperatures, that reducing carbon dioxide emissions would detectably benefit public health and welfare, and that mankind has nothing to fear from carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy mandates, and other forms of centralized energy planning.
Those radical forms of social engineering, it turns out, are the real short-term threat of climate change. And the science-policy community that is pushing them is substituting heated rhetoric for real data that doesn’t support their agenda.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

NOAA admits: Global warming ‘really wasn’t a factor’ in Colorado floods Harry Reid debunk!




The Christian Science Monitor reports:
The answer, of course, is impossible to know for sure. But according to a panel of climate scientists from Colorado, the storm likely had little to do with climate change and more to do with an unusual confluence of atmospheric events.
It’s possible that some shifts due to climate change, such as increased water vapor in the air, may have exacerbated the effects of the storm slightly. But a storm in September 1938 was very similar in its footprint, its timing, and the type of rainfall (which was not the brief, intense thunderstorms typical here).
“Having seen the September 1938 analog should somewhat humble us, and remind us that nature has a way of delivering without human intervention in the climate system,” says Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. “Climate change is operating, there’s no question about that, and water vapor has gone up,” but in this instance, climate change “really wasn’t a factor.”
Most striking about the recent storm was the sheer amounts of rain that fell in some areas. It set a new one-day record for rainfall in Boulder, 9.08 inches, that is almost double the previous record of 4.8 inches, set in 1919. The town, which averages just over 20 inches of rainfall in a year, has received 17.59 inches so far in September.
The storm was caused by a confluence of several unusual factors. A low-pressure system along the Utah-Nevada border helped pull a heavy plume of tropical moisture up from Mexico, a high-pressure system to the east pushed up even more moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, and a stalled front generated lift. All those factors set up a “blocking pattern” that helped keep the storm hovering over the same period for a long time.
Those events combining are highly unusual, said Klaus Wolter, a NOAA climate researcher who spoke at a panel discussion hosted by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado and NOAA.
Climate change, he said, “could be a factor, but our models aren’t good enough to decide.”
Scientists agree that events like the Colorado storm “are playing out in an arena that is warmer and more moist,” says Jeff Lukas, a CIRES researcher.
But they debate the degree to which severe thunderstorms are exacerbated by human-caused global warming, though one new study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences asserts that there is a definite link, and that there will likely be increased risk of such severe storms going forward if global warming continues.
“These events break records in ways that would not happen without climate change,” says Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in an e-mail. “Climate change pushes 1 in 100 year events to be 1 in 1,000 year [events]. The damage is nonlinear: greatly amplified.”
That makes for a huge change in risk assessments, which “assume an unchanging climate, so what was a 500-year event is now a 30-year event,” he says.
Most scientists agree that the underlying climate conditions are shifting. Mr. Hoerling of the Earth System Research Laboratory helped edit a recent study that examined 19 analyses of 12 extreme global weather events in 2012; about half determined that human-caused climate change played a significant role.
“Every extreme weather event, like the five days of rain that produced the floods in Colorado, is occurring in a new changed climate base state,” says Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at NCAR, in an e-mail. “The air is warmer, and warmer air holds more moisture… The convergence of conditions that produced the extreme rainfall in Colorado was something that occurred naturally, but the severity of the event likely had at least some contribution from these changes in the background state of the climate system.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0925/Were-Colorado-floods-result-of-global-warming-Probably-not.-video

Arctic Ocean Predicted To Be Ice Free By 2013 — Oops!





Al Gore's 2007 prediction that all arctic ice would be gone by 2014 now proven to be alarming fear mongering



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042074_al_gore_global_warming_predictions.html#ixzz2g1L0UoyL


Arctic Ocean Predicted To Be Ice Free By 2013 — Oops!



Junk Science: Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was in mid-September 1990. Al Gore, call your office.

A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be "ice-free by 2013" that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off . .. by 920,000 square miles. But then Democrats have never been good at math — or climate science.

In his Dec. 10, 2007, "Earth has a fever" speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions as the seas rose to swallow up places like the island of Manhattan.

The inconvenient truth is that planet Earth now has the equivalent of 330,000 Manhattans of Arctic ice, Steve Goddard notes in the blog Real Science. Even before the annual autumn re-freeze was scheduled to begin, he says, NASA satellite images showed an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretched from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores. No polar bears were seen drowning.

As the Daily Mail reports, "A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year — an increase of 60%." The much-touted Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific froze up and has remained blocked by pack ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

This is a far cry from those iconic pictures, taken at a low point one particularly balmy Arctic summer, of polar bears clinging to slivers of pack ice lest they drown. The bears, who can swim up to 200 miles, and whose numbers are increasing, are doing fine, much better than a U.S. economy under assault by a needless war on fossil fuels, particularly coal, all in a futile effort to head off nonexistent climate change.

This summer was supposed to bring an ice-free Arctic with not so much as an ice cube for Santa to land on. Oh, and the Himalayan glaciers were supposed to disappear, according to computer models that have so far been unable to forecast either the past or the weather for the weekend barbecue.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092413-672356-arctic-ice-cap-grows-60-percent.htm#ixzz2g1M2Qy23
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Reuters: Skeptics have turned Al Gore, IPCC chief Pachauri into has-beens



Compared to the heady days in 2007 when U.S. climate campaigner Al Gore and the U.N.’s panel of climate scientists shared the Nobel Peace Prize, the risks of global warming may be greater but the stars preaching the message have faded…
Both Gore, the IPCC and Pachauri, now 73, won a series of international awards for their work in 2007. Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar and standing applause at U.N. negotiating sessions when it was shown…
“We need new voices,” said Jennifer Morgan, of the World Resources Institute think tank in Washington. “Hopefully the IPCC will inspire leadership, from the Mom to the business leader, to the mayor to the head of state”…
But Gore has also been worn down by criticisms, especially by U.S. Republicans who say his climate campaigns are alarmist and question the science behind them…
Compared to the heady days in 2007 when U.S. climate campaigner Al Gore and the U.N.’s panel of climate scientists shared the Nobel Peace Prize, the risks of global warming may be greater but the stars preaching the message have faded…
Both Gore, the IPCC and Pachauri, now 73, won a series of international awards for their work in 2007. Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar and standing applause at U.N. negotiating sessions when it was shown…
“We need new voices,” said Jennifer Morgan, of the World Resources Institute think tank in Washington. “Hopefully the IPCC will inspire leadership, from the Mom to the business leader, to the mayor to the head of state”…
But Gore has also been worn down by criticisms, especially by U.S. Republicans who say his climate campaigns are alarmist and question the science behind them…

IPCC Reviewer: “But to be honest, there’s not a clear consensus among the scientific community”

CBC reports:
Climate change researchers and activists say the debate is over on the science of global warming but deniers of the evidence think a 15-year pause in temperature rise is reason enough to keep questioning conclusions.
On Friday, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change will release its summary for policy makers of the physical science basis study. This study is the first part of the IPCC’s fifth Assessment Report.
And the contributors admit there isn’t much of a change from their last one, which they released in 2007, beyond the fact that they are even more certain about their science.
“It further affirms: a), that we have seen a changing climate, b), that a lot of that is because of us [humans] and, c), if we don’t do something about it we’re going to be in serious trouble,” explained John Stone, one of the authors of the IPCC’s fourth report in 2007 that won the group the Nobel Peace Prize. He peer reviewed the IPCC’s latest report…
Stone is disappointed with the way the IPCC is explaining the so-called “temperature hiatus.” That is the 15-year period between 1998 and the present where the temperature of land and air have flatlined.
Stone offered a number of possible explanations:
– Oceans are taking more of the heat that was absorbed by the atmosphere and land prior to 1998.
– There is still natural variability in temperatures and that natural variability is currently masking the human effects on the climate. That is to say, if there wasn’t so much human-made carbon dioxide in the air, it would be a lot colder.
– The Sun radiates energy in cycles. We are currently at a low energy ebb in that cycle.
“But to be honest, there’s not a clear consensus among the scientific community,” said Stone.
http://junkscience.com/2013/09/26/ipcc-reviewer-but-to-be-honest-theres-not-a-clear-consensus-among-the-scientific-community/

Skeptics scare IPCC sh*tless — Frantic last minute negotiations in Stockholm ahead of report release

The Guardian reports:
Fraught negotiations over a landmark review of the world’s knowledge of climate change were making slow progress on Thursday with just hours to go before early Friday’s deadline .
The negotiations are likely to go on through the night, as countries and scientists wrangle over how to assess the global threat from greenhouse gas emissions.
At stake are projections – such as those of future temperature increases, sea level rises and the frequency of extreme weather – that will inform and guide government policies around the world for years to come.
But people involved with the talks told the Guardian that progress had been patchy and slow as delegates debate the precise wording of the 50-plus page summary.

IPCC to have ‘low confidence’ in more hurricanes, longer droughts by 2050

The Financial Times reports:
In keeping with the cautious language used in these IPCC assessments, only four of which have ever been done in the panel’s 25-year history, the table says there is “low confidence” that there will be more tropical cyclones or longer droughts between now and 2050.

IPCC to blame warming stop on" volcanoes, solar cycle" — has ‘low confidence’ in attribution

The Financial Times reports:
The final draft of the summary for policy makers (which is still officially confidential) has a stab at explaining why this has happened, but it is not exactly an easy read – especially for a document that is supposed to be a simple and accessible explanation of climate change. It says:
“The observed reduction in warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in radiative forcing (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing this reduced warming trend.”
Other parts of the summary are clearer, and its overwhelming message is that even though temperature rises may have stalled, there is plenty of other evidence of climate change: warming oceans, rising sea levels, melting Arctic sea ice and the diminishing Greenland ice sheet.

New excuse for stop in warming — ‘black holes’ in the ocean: "mathematically" the same as the warped regions of space-time around cosmic singularities.

New Scientist reports:
Earth has its own black holes. Swirling masses of water in the ocean are mathematically the same as the warped regions of space-time around cosmic singularities. The finding is more than a mere curiosity: these eddies could be helping to slow climate change.
Oceanic maelstroms can trap and carry billions of tonnes of water over long distances, along with debris and marine life. But because the oceans are constantly churning, it was difficult to pick these cyclones out of the chaos. To know how much water they transport and what their impact on climate could be, we needed a way to locate their edges.
To find them, George Haller of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and Francisco Beron-Vera at the University of Miami, Florida, created a mathematical model that revealed the similarities between the eddies’ conveyor belt-like edges and a particular region around a black hole. In this so-called photon sphere, light is trapped in loops that spin around the black hole forever.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Warmists say they won’t disbelieve models unless ‘pause’ lasts another 20 years!

AFP reports:
Over the past 50 years, the mean global temperature rise was 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, slowing to an average 0.05 C (0.09 F) per decade over the past 15 years.
Half of the slowdown could be attributed to volcanic eruptions, whose particles reflect sunlight, and a bigger-than expected drop in heat from the Sun’s changing activity cycle, said a summary of the report.
The other half is attributed to a “cooling contribution from internal variability”.
Laurent Terray with the French computer modelling agency Cerfacs said the term is used to explain a shift in the way heat is distributed between land, sea and air.
Still unclear is what causes the variation or determines its duration.
“We know that this kind of episode, of a decadal length or thereabouts, can occur once or twice a century,” said Terray.
“If it (the present one) continues for two more decades, we may start to think that the computer models are underestimating internal variability.”

Ocean-ate-my-warming notion supported by warmists — but not necessarily the data

Deutsche Welle reports:
The output of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to surge, forcing up global temperatures. Sea levels are also rising, said Mojib Latif of the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel. “This reprieve only refers to the ocean’s surface temperature. We can’t conclude that climate change has come to a halt.”
Mojib Latif predicted a temporary hiatus in global warming
Latif is a calm, self-controlled man, but he is easily angered by having to explain again and again why climate change isn’t just a scam. Back in 2008, Latif shocked many of his colleagues by saying the rise of temperature could indeed stagnate. Oceans covering two thirds of the earth’s surface are able to absorb heat and store it – especially in deep sea levels below 800 meters (875 yards).
This theory is supported by many other scientists, but there is limited data available about the deepest regions of the sea. That’s why Latif continues to stress how important research is in order to learn more about deep sea areas. “We know about the surface of the moon, but we know very little about the deep sea,” he told DW.

Coal regains market share in 2013 as natgas prices rise — Obama dream of no coal would put us at the mercy of gas volatility

Natural gas generation lower than last year because of differences in relative fuel prices

graph of coal generation shares, as explained in the article text
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly
Note: The rolling 4-year range for each fuel source represents the maximum and minimum amount of each fuel source that is consumed for electricity generation for the same month during the previous four years.

Total natural gas use for power generation in the United States was down 14% during the first seven months of 2013 compared to the same period in 2012 (see chart), mostly because of higher natural gas prices relative to coal prices. High natural gas-fired generation in 2012 occurred as a result of the lowest spot natural gas prices in a decade—in fact, the two fuels contributed approximately equal shares of total generation in April 2012. Despite lower gas use for generation thus far in 2013, natural gas generation remains consistently higher than levels before 2012, as shown in the graphs below.
Trends in natural gas use for power vary by region because of differences in the availability of generating plants, generating plant age and efficiency, and the relative cost of fuels to operate power plants. While natural gas prices in most parts of North America are fairly uniform, the availability and cost of coal varies more by region. In addition, coal transport costs can reflect a high portion of the overall cost of delivered fuel. In some regions, such as the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic, natural gas use for power is significantly lower in 2013. This larger drop is because natural gas made greater inroads in 2012 compared to regions like Texas where low natural gas prices in 2012 did not displace nearly as much coal-fired generation. Fuel competition is less intense in parts of the country where coal fuels a very small portion of the generation or where the delivered coal price is extremely low, resulting in relatively greater coal consumption.
The analyses below show both national and regional trends in natural gas use for power by comparing generation to average daily temperatures. Isolating the influence of weather on natural gas use for power generation allows other factors, such as the price of natural gas relative to coal discussed above, to be more readily apparent.

Graph of average natural gas consumed vs temperatures in lower 48 states, as described in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Bentek Energy LLC
Note: Lines for each year reflect the best-fit second-order polynomial equation, based on the relationship between temperature and natural gas consumption for power burn. Line for 2009-2011 reflects observations for three-year averages for all 365 calendar days.
Gas use for power generation in the United States has generally risen since 2008. The increasing gas use for power is a structural change that is occurring across a wide range of temperatures and seasons. Several factors underpin this trend, including moderate natural gas prices, increased shale gas production, and additions of natural gas generating capacity.
In 2013, natural gas use for power was down compared with 2012 levels, mainly because of higher natural gas prices. This reduction generally occurred for average daily temperatures between 40 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit, when power demand rose to levels that induced power companies to base the composition of their additional generation to meet this higher demand on relative fuel costs.

IPCC claims climate won’t cool without massive geoengineering — So what is the politically correct temperature?

Geoengineering aims to cool the Earth by methods including spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, or fertilising the oceans with iron to create carbon-capturing algal blooms.

Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (aka Chemtrails) Facts


Scientists and governments refer to, what is commonly known around the world as Chemtrails (not to be confused with normal jet contrails), as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (S.A.G.).  It has been documented, as far back as the late 1980’s, that the United States (U.S.) Government has been conducting covert S.A.G. programs. These covert operations are now being conducted worldwide throughout the U.S. and NATO countries on an on-going daily bases. This program is a global covert operation.
Famed scientist, Edward Teller, who at the time worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California and took part in the development of the Atomic Bomb and was the co-inventor of the Hydrogen Bomb, was the first scientist that came up with the theory that if you sprayed metallic particulates in the upper atmosphere you could cool the earth. A top geoengineering scientist, Ken Caldeira (Stanford University), who worked with Teller at the time, stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting in February 2010, that Teller tried to obtain funding for researching his theory but was unsuccessful.
It’s now apparent that the U.S. government has implemented Teller’s theory by spraying megatons of particulate heavy metals and chemicals like aluminum, titanium, barium, strontium and sulfur hexafluoride into the stratosphere.
Facts and Background Information
Hughes Aircraft Patent #5,003,186 -
In 1991 a U.S. patent was issued to Hughes Aircraft Company; the Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction of Global Warming Patent (#5,003,186). It proposed injecting into the upper atmosphere, a “very fine, white talcum-like” powder of aluminum oxide, barium oxide and other oxides for the stated purpose of reducing Global Warming”.
Space Preservation Act -
“On October 2, 2001, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced the “Space Preservation Act of 2001″ (HR 2977), which called for the elimination of “exotic weaponry” from space. Among the weapons to be banned were weather- modifying weapons such as … chemtrails.” Though it was later amended to remove the word chemtrails, the original bill acknowledging this technology remains on the pages of the Congressional Record.” See: Earth Island Journal: Stolen Skies: The Chemtrail Mystery at:
http://earthislandinstitute.net/journal/index.php/eij/article/stolen_stolen_skiesthe_chemtrail_mystery/
Public Awareness -
Public awareness is growing rapidly about the S.A.G. programs. In February 2010, Geo-engineering scientists from around the world met in San Diego. One of the main topics of discussion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting was, “Can Geo-engineering Save Us From Global Warming?”
As a result of that meeting, geo-engineering scientists are researching creating an “aluminum shield around our planet” dumping yearly 10 to 20 megatons of aluminum oxide into our skies and upper atmosphere.
However, there is now substantial evidence and documentation that the S.A.G. programs have been ongoing for many years by our government and has had a devastating affect on our health and the environment.  Visit:
www.geoengineeringwatch.org

Environmental Testing -

A Lake Shasta sample from Pit River Arm tributary tested at 4,610,000 ugl (ugl=ppb or parts per billion), over 4,610 times the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for aluminum in drinking water for the State of California. A pond in Shasta County, in a “filtered location”, tested “0” for aluminum when filled. After 1 ½ years exposure to the atmosphere, the pond tested at 375,000 ug/L or 375 times the MCL.
In addition, a snow pack sample taken from Mt. Shasta tested at 61,100 ug/L or 61 times the (MCL) for aluminum in drinking water for State of California.
Tree bark from dying trees has recently tested positive with aluminum, barium, strontium and titanium.
Health Affects -
Aluminum and barium are being found in dangerous levels in water and soil samples taken nationwide. Respiratory and neurological illnesses have risen dramatically and asthma is near epidemic levels in children. Numerous studies have connected aluminum exposure to neurological damage (like Alzheimer’s) and a host of other diseases. Other related illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and multiple-chemical sensitivities have steadily risen since the deployment of these on-going programs. The low-dose, long-term, exposure to these toxic chemicals and heavy metals has a devastating affect on our health by destroying our immune system and making people more vulnerable to disease and critical/chronic illnesses. Recent heavy metal testing shows off-the-chart ranges of toxic chemicals and heavy metals like aluminum and barium in young children.
The content of the fallout from these aerosols includes fibers, metal particulates and biological elements which have been detected through environmental testing. These micro-particles enter into our bodies and weaken our immune system, making us more acceptable to chronic illnesses both physically and psychologically. (Visit
www.environmentalvoices.org – “Health Tips” on ways to protect your health. Research Morgelleon’s Disease – Fibers coming from lesions of the skin. www.carnicom.com)
Global Dimming -
According to NASA, the world has seen a 20% loss of sunlight and geoscientists now admit that aerosol spraying forms man-made clouds that spread to create a sky shield. The sky shield reduces sunlight and is called “global dimming”.
Crop Reduction -
Blocking the sun negatively affects our crops and forests by reducing the amount of sunlight needed for photosynthesis. This causes a reduction of crop production. In addition, aluminum, barium, strontium and titanium has been detected in tree bark of weak and dying trees through certified laboratory tests. Our trees and plants are rapidly declining because of this environmental stress which make the trees vulnerable to fungus and pests.
In addition, aluminum is very detrimental to soils, changing PH levels and is lethal to many forms of aquatic life.
Artificial Clouds and Drought -
According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the only way to form artificial clouds in warm dry air is to introduce enough particulates into the atmosphere to attract and accrete all available moisture into visible vapor. If repeated often enough, the resulting rainless haze can lead to drought.
Atmospheric Conductivity –
Atmospheric conductivity and lightning strikes have increased dramatically since the apparent onset of these programs. Metallic particles increase atmospheric conductivity, increasing lightning frequency and intensity.
According to Science Daily, “…injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere would have a drastic impact on Earth’s protective ozone layer … The study… of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), warns that such an approach might delay the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.
Solar Radiation and Climate Change – “
Stratospheric aerosols”, are proposed by Geoscientists, as a way to manage solar radiation and climate change by aerosol spraying sulfates, aluminum, barium and other fine particulates into our upper atmosphere.
Solar Reduction -
The aerosol spraying of metal particulates also reduces solar intake as much as 70% on heavy spray days. This is caused because the man-made clouds and the sky shield blocks the sunlight.
Military To Own The Weather In 2025 -
The U.S. military has openly stated that it is their goal to “OWN THE WEATHER” by 2025.
They are capable of affecting and controlling storms and the earth’s electrical balance. They can manipulate radio frequencies and the electromagnetic spectrum for military and surveillance purposes. They can alter human awareness and behavior.
A research paper presented to Air Force 2025 in April 1996 states in part, “One advantage of using simulated weather to achieve a desired effect is that unlike other approaches, it makes what are otherwise the results of deliberate actions appear to be the consequences of natural weather phenomena. In addition, it is potentially relatively inexpensive to do. According to J. Storrs Hall, a scientist at Rutgers University.” See:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm
H.A.A.R.P Program -
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (H.A.A.R.P), located in Alaska, is a military surveillance operation that generates electromagnetic frequencies. There are other facilities like H.A.A.R.P. throughout the world. Their activity, combined with the spraying of aerosols, may be the primary reason for “climate change/global warming. H.A.A.R.P. is capable of deliberately altering our climate and environment. In addition, it can alter human awareness and behavior.
German Scientists Exposed Weather Manipulation -
German scientists and meteorologists have exposed and are taking legal action against the German government for weather manipulation and counterfeiting satellite and radar imagery to mask the scope of those operations.
S.A.G. programs have been operating without our informed consent.
To learn more, please visit:
www.environmentalvoices.org
www.aboutthesky.com
www.geoengineeringwatch.org
www.arizonaskywatch.com
www.californiaskywatch.com


Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere's chemistry. This stark warning comes from the draft summary of the latest climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Delegates from national governments are discussing the draft this week, prior to its release on Friday morning.
According to one of its lead authors, and the latest draft seen by New Scientist, the report will say: "CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period."
In other words, even if all the world ran on carbon-free energy and deforestation ceased, the only way of lowering temperatures would be todevise a scheme for sucking hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Much of this week's report, the fifth assessment of the IPCC working group on the physical science of climate change, will reaffirm the findings of the previous four assessments, published regularly since 1990.
It will point out that to limit global warming to 2 °C will require cumulative CO2emissions from all human sources since the start of the industrial revolution tobe kept below about a trillion tonnes of carbon. So far, we have emitted about half this. Current emissions are around 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon annually, and rising.
Since the last assessment, published in 2007Speaker, the IPCC has almostdoubled its estimate of the maximum sea-level rise likely in the coming century to about 1 metre. They also conclude that it is now "virtually certain" that sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries, even if warming ceases, due to the delayed effects of thermal expansion of warming oceans and melting ice sheets.
The draft report says the available evidence now suggests that above a certain threshold of warming, the Greenland ice sheet will almost disappear within approximately 1000 years, which will result in 7 metres of global sea-level rise. It estimates that the threshold may lie between 1 °C and 4 °C of warming, but is not confident of this figure.