Showing posts with label Global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global warming. Show all posts

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Protestation on natural gas drilling by Green Party in Australia and Investments in natural gas

Australia has the world's worst per capita polluter and it has committed to reducing pollution by five percent from 2000 levels by 2020, succeeding the universal efforts to reduce the production of gases blamed for global warming.Greens party in Australia is admonishing the plans of the natural gas mining companies, for natural gas drilling. In suburban areas of St. Peters, near Sydney will embark on the drilling operations at the earliest and the government of Australia requested the people not to worry about this project and the people should encourage it since it produces power for the future. Steve Whan, the minister of Industry for the New South Wales region told that, the plenty of natural gas reserves in a particular area could deplete the carbon footprint of the particular area. Many are worried about the damages caused to the environment since Sydney depends mainly on the coal-fired electricity. Our site is the best source for global natural gas updates, natural resource locations, natural resources news international natural gas updates.


The Macquarie Bank and the Freeport LNG are planning to export 50 percent of the plant production and the remaining will be imported to ConocoPhillips and the Dow Chemical. The Freeport LNG natural gas plant was sanctioned this year is the second plan, promoted to export natural gas in the United StatesFreeport LNG, developer of the liquefied natural gas terminals conflated with Macquarie Bank, aimed to construct a natural gas power plant in Texas. The Texas power plant is installed mainly to export the natural gas produced in the United States to other countries and to achieve a high record. The spokes person of the Macquarie Bank articulated that, the power plant will be completed by 2015 and it will supply more than 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. The maintenance of the power plant will be taken care by the Freeport LNG and the cost for development will be rendered by the Macquarie Bank.


The Petronet LNG Board will provide an extra investment in energy around Rs 450crore and the final agreement on this expansion will be done after discussing with the Board of Directors of the company. S. Sundareshan, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Secretary articulated that, the company is discussing with several providers of liquefied natural gas, across the world and the Kochi Terminal will be accredited by 2012. The Chief Executive Officer and the Managing Director of the Petronet LNG A.K. Balyan declared that, the company is coordinating for a two-day General Assembly gathering of the International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers in Kochi. The PSU oil companies are increasing their production to meet the requirements of the State as there is a 10 per cent and five percent  increase in the consumption of petrol and diesel respectively.The International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers is formed to encourage the energy investments, sharing of ideas and experience of various liquefied natural gas companies across the world. The Kochi Terminal is to be expanded from 2.5 million tons to 5 million tons; this was recently sanctioned by the Petronet LNG Board.

(ArticlesBase SC #3720343)

Friday, January 14, 2011

A Carbon-neutral Pile of Manure

Ordinarily, I might take environmental problems seriously, but lately, I can’t. Because the only people imploring me to are advertisers.

Every marketer, it seems, wants to prove how “green” they are. As usual, our industry just follows the herd. And because of the eco-awakening, we’re now lecturing consumers that they need to be “green,” too.

How? By buying more stuff.

In Georgia, for example, the state is promoting environmental awareness via an “Energy Star” tax-free weekend. People are getting a sales tax break when they buy new energy-efficient refrigerators, dryers, etc. In other words, we have to consume more in order to consume less, throwing away perfectly good appliances in the process.

Is consumption always the best answer to the our problems? Is advertising the best voice of reason?

I’m not old, comparatively speaking, but at a certain point I recognize when I’ve lived through a particular cycle in the pop culture. And environmental awareness, yes, I’ve lived through this before. In the late 80’s, Earth Day got hip again. We banned CFC’s from hair spray and Styrofoam boxes from McDonald’s because of a hole in the ozone layer. We started recycling newspapers and plastic, thinking we were saving the planet. That lasted a couple of years, then the Ford Explorer came out. Concern about CFC’s gave way to a feeding frenzy for SUV’s.

Ironically, all this greenwashing is a result of how wildly successful advertising and marketing is. Ad agencies came into their own in post-WWII America, where our industry routinely sold a dream of suburbia: shiny chrome-infused cars, vinyl siding, shag carpeting and frost-free refrigerators.

Comfortably ensconced in our air-conditioned lifestyle, our massive consumption has put a undue strain on the world’s resources. But now, other countries who have fed our largesse (think China, India, etc) want a piece of our energy-thirsty lifestyle for their own. And that’s compounding the problem.

So now global warming and fate of the planet is on our front burner, and as consumers we’ll do almost anything to show we care. In lieu of a real change in the way we live, our clients are more than willing to hire us to sell the solution. And what's really perverse is that brands are charging a premium for the privilege of feeling good about helping the environment. Brands like Method cleaning products or beauty products from The Body Shop cost significantly more than other brands, and organic produce commands a higher price than conventionally grown. Frankly, many families whose budgets are stretched to the breaking point can’t afford to buy green when price is their primary motivating factor. Which is a shame—even if families want to make a difference, they can’t afford to and we make them feel worse for that shortcoming.

The ultimate load of environmentally-fueled nonsense, however, is coming via good ol’ corporate brand-polishing TV spots for companies who have spotty histories. It’s hard for me to believe that global monoliths like Chevron, BP, Dow and GE are going to lead the environmental awareness revolution, despite their multi-million ad campaigns dedicated to concepts like “ecohumanology” or whatever they’re calling it this week. But agencies, many of them good ones, are perfectly content to shovel this compost on the public.

It’s hard not to view all this greenwashing with a jaundiced eye. But maybe there’s a solution.

I’d love it if the advertising business was more environmentally-friendly. And I know just where to start. I’m sick of clients that demand rounds and rounds of pointless changes to their work---changes that require more printouts, more mockups, more electricity for the computers, and more gasoline to drive to and from client meetings. How about we cut out all the layers of client approvals and the mass quantities of comp materials needed for those presentations?

Of course, I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Because the ad industry never takes its own advice. We’ll save the real action for someone else. We’re into empty gestures. Which is why I’m thinking about purchasing a carbon offset for the electricity I’ve used writing this column. Maybe I’ll go plant a tree. But since there’s a total watering ban where I live due to a record-breaking drought, it’ll likely die.
Hey, it’s the groupthought that counts, right?   (ArticlesBase SC #576275)

Monday, February 15, 2010

An Introduction to Biofuels

Agriculture - methane, ethanol and biodiesel Introduction

In this chapter we shall discuss the importance of recent developments in agriculture upon the world's energy resources and the impact on the world population and environment. We shall focus mainly on  agriculture producing fuel as this is currently controversial. We will briefly discus the historic link between agriculture and petroleum then we will explore aspects of methane, biodiesel and ethanol production before a brief summary on the strategic importance of a strong agricultural sector.

Link between Agriculture and Petroleum

Since the 1940's agriculture has dramatically increased its productivity. This is due in part to the use of petrochemical derived pesticides and fertilizers and increased mechanization. The vast majority of energy used to produce food in addition to sunlight comes from fossil fuel sources. Because of modern agriculture's heavy reliance on petrochemicals there are signs that decreases in oil supply will inflict damage on the world's modern agricultural system and cause long term food shortages. Oil shortages mean that organic agriculture and sustainable farming are now of more importance than ever. However, the current controversy  is due to the fact that farmers have increasingly been raising crops such as corn for non-food use in an effort to help mitigate peak oil. This is turn has contributed to a 60% rise in wheat prices recently and may cause serious social unrest. Increased interest in food commodities from the world's financial markets has also increased the cost of food worldwide.

Let us look at several main areas of agricultural fuel production. First  methane production.

Methane

Methane is the principal component of natural gas. The relative abundance of methane and its clean burning process makes it a very attractive fuel. Methane is usually now transported in its natural gas form by pipeline or LNG carriers. Methane is very important for electrical generation when burned as a fuel in a gas turbine or steam boiler and compared to other hydrocarbon fuels burning methane produces less carbon dioxide for each unit of heat released. Methane in the form of compressed natural gas can also be used in vehicles and NASA is looking to methane's potential as rocket fuel as it is abundant in many parts of the solar system ! In addition methane has industrial uses, especially in industrial chemical processes and may be transported as refrigerated LNG.

The link between agriculture and methane occurs because apart from gas fields an alternative method of obtaining methane is via biogas generated by the fermentation of organic matter, including manure, wastewater sludge, municipal solid waste or any other biodegradable feedstock under anaerobic conditions. As an aside methane hydrates, which are basically icelike combinations of methane and water on the sea floor  are also a potential future source of methane. Back to agriculture ! Cattle belch methane accounts for 16% of the world's annual methane emissions and the livestock sector in general is responsible for 37% of all human influenced methane production. In fact lets take a look at some of the statistics on anthropogenic methane. This accounts in total for approximately 55% of all methane emissions. Of this 18% is due to our energy use, 7% due to landfills, 19% due to livestock, 4% waste treatment, and 7% biomass burning. We can this see the links between agriculture and methane production but of course so far very little of this is harnessed for fuel.

Ethanol

The fermentation of sugar into ethanol is one of the earliest organic reactions known to humanity. Ethanol is also produced from by-products of petroleum refining but here we are concerned at the links between agriculture and fuel production. The largest single use of ethanol is as a motor fuel and fuel additive. The largest national fuel ethanol industries exist in Brazil. Thanks to advances in engine design today almost half of Brazilian cars are able to use 100% ethanol as fuel via ethanol only engines and flex-fuel engines.. In the US flex-fuel engines can run on 0% to 85% ethanol since higher ethanol blends are not allowed. Brazil produces ethanol from domestically grown sugar cane which has a greater concentration of sucrose than corn but is also easier to extract.

In addition the bagasse generated by the process is not wasted but is used in power plants to produce electricity. In contrast in the USA the fuel ethanol industry is based on corn. According to the Renewable Fuels Association in October 2007 there are 131 grain ethanol bio-refineries in the USA with another 72 under construction. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel be used in 2006 and this increases thereafter. However there is a controversy arising concerning this as it is disputed whether ethanol as an automotive fuel made from corn results in a net energy gain or loss. The case is clear in sugar cane ethanol as this produces 8 joules for each joule used to produce it. Sugar cane is therefore a far, far better source of ethanol for fuel. Recent research shows that other crops such as switchgrass are also ore efficient than corn. It is likely that cellulosic crops will displace corn as a main fuel crop in the future. There are in fact many controversial side effects of using corn to produce ethanol. According to one estimate a person could be fed for an entire year on the corn used to fill an ethanol fueled SUV. In fact the use of corm almost certainly increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates fuel prices.

Many environmentalists and livestock farmers are against the use of corn for ethanol production and the work also attracts controversial subsidies. In 2007 the UN's expert on the right to food called for a 5 year moratorium on biofuel production from food crops to prevent a catastrophe for the poor as food prices escalate. The effects of increasing food prices due to the ripple effect of a rise in corm prices have been felt worldwide. A February 2007 Associated Press article stated "The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes". However, it is not all doom and gloom because as we said earlier the case for ethanol from sugar cane has been made so agriculture has a huge contribution to make to fuel production in an efficient manner in fact if we move away from corn.

Biodiesel

 This refers to the non-petroleum based diesel fuel made by transesterification of vegetable oils or animal fats, which can be used alone or blended in unmodified diesel engine vehicles. Biodiesel use and production is increasing rapidly and fueling stations are making biodiesel available across Europe and increasingly in Canada and the USA.  At the moment biodiesel is relatively expensive to purchase but the economies of scale of production and agricultural subsidies versus the rising costs of petroleum may make biodiesel more attractive. Biodiesel production continues to grow rapidly with an average annual growth rate from 2002 to 2006 of over 40% according to Renewables 2007 Global Status Report. For 2006 total world biodiesel production was 5-6 million tonnes with 4.9 million tonnes processed in Europe - mainly in Germany.  It can be seen that agriculture has an enormous role to play in the creation of alternative fuels. A variety of oils can be used to produce biodiesel.

Virgin oil feedstocks such as rapeseed and soybean oils can be used. Soybean is a major feedstock in the US for example. Other feedstocks can include field penny-cress, Jatropha, mustard, flax, sunflower, palm oil, and hemp. Waste vegetable oil (WVO) can also be used as feedstocks. Farms also produce animal fats including tallow, lard and yellow grease. Chicken fats and by-products of the production of Omega 3 fatty acids from fish oil can be used. Another form of farming can also contribute, namely algaculture. Algae which can be grown using waste materials such as sewage can also be used as feedstock.

 However, it should be noted that currently worldwide production of vegetable oil and animal fat is not yet sufficient to replace liquid fossil fuel use. Also there would be objections to the vast amount of farming expansion needed to produce sufficient quantities - especially from relative low yield feedstocks like soybean. Lets take a quick look at the various yields because feedstock yield efficiency per acre affects the feasibility of ramping up agriculture required to power a significant percentage of world vehicles.

Here are some examples of yields quoted in US gallons of biodiesel per acre. Algae 1800 gpa or more, Palm oil 508 gpa, Coconut 230 gpa, Rapeseed 102gpa, Soy 59 gpa, Peanut 90 gpa, Sunflower 82 gpa. The case is being made strongly for algae fuel as according to the DOE algae yield 30 times more energy per acre than land crops such as soybeans. Algae production has another great advantage in that it does use up existing farmland. The Jatropha plant is also cited as being relatively high yield with about 200 gpa. This is grown in the Philippines, Mali and India, is drought resistant and can share space with other crops such as coffee. Overall the efficiency and economic arguments continue. Does it make sense to convert more farmland into feedstocks for  biodiesel production ?

Additional factors need to be taken into consideration such as the fuel equivalent of energy required for processing, the yield of fuel from raw oil, the return on cultivating food, and effects on food prices and the relative cost of biodiesel versus petrodiesel.

A note on energy security

 In reality one of the main drivers for adoption of biodiesel, ethanol and agriculture based methane production is energy security. This means that the country's dependence on oil should be reduced and substituted with locally available sources such as coal, gas or other renewable resources. In effect this means that there are significant benefits for a country quite apart from reduction of greenhouse gasses. It is clear that initiatives in agriculture to produce methane, biodiesel and ethanol do reduce our dependence on oil , even if the total energy balance is controversial in some cases. The diversification of energy sources is a vital security factor and the development of a strong agricultural sector to meet this demand is therefore of long term and short term strategic interest. However, this must be balanced with initiatives in food production especially in the developing world to offset the effects of conversion of arable land to biofuel feedstock production.

 Dr Simon Harding

www.thinkoil.net
www.chronosconsulting.com
(ArticlesBase SC #1565287)

Friday, January 15, 2010

OBAMA CONSIDERS CHEMTRAILS

President Obama is full of surprises. But even expectant reporters were taken aback when White House science adviser John Holdren used his first interview on April 18, 2009 to announce, “Global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.”

With the first feedback effects from methane releases starting to kick in and our space colony’s atmospheric CO2 levels surging toward the “Do Not Exceed” redline of 440 parts per million, Holdren declared that the Obama administration is considering “last resort” technologies to chill the global greenhouse village – aka the worldwide ‘hood.

Is the Obama administration about to “out” chemtrails?

Referring to “radical” technologies that include spreading a sunlight-reflecting artificial cloud cover, Holdren declared, “It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”

Invoking the image of a souped-up sedan careening toward an abyss in a fog of mass marketing exhortations for more speed, the White House science adviser suggested that reasonable passengers would stop arguing if there really was a cliff, how close and how big the drop long enough to urge applying some brakes – while chanting “Our lifestyle is sacred!” and keeping the carbon accelerator jammed to the floorboards.

Instead of the deep, urgent reductions in carbon emissions urged by frightened scientists, drowning polar bears, still homeless Katrina survivors, and drought-stricken farmers everywhere, the White House decision to embrace climate geoengineering “represents the ultimate moral bankruptcy of institutions and a failure of democracy,” charged Dr. Andrew Glikson.

http://www.willthomasonline.net/willthomasonline/Obama_Considers_Chemtrails.html

WHAT’S NEW?

In 1965, a report urging President Johnson to head off atmospheric warming instead of the Viet Cong did not even mention cutting emissions. Urging a silver bullet instead of biting the climate change bullet, the National Academy of Science went on to issue studies in 1977, 1982 and 1990 championing space mirrors and atmospheric sunscreens. In 1979, physicist Freeman Dyson leveraged his considerable scientific creds to propose deliberate, large-scale introduction of fine particles into the upper atmosphere to offset global warming. [Technology, Entertainment, Design conference New York City Sept/07; Wall Street Journal Oct 17/97]

In 1992, the National Academy of Science’s $80 992-page report on “mitigating” greenhouse warming included a “Geoengineering” chapter that discussed “Screening Out Some Sunlight”. Computer simulations showed that an increase in albedo of just half a percent would be “sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling.” This would “involve changing the quantity or character of cloud cover.”

Such a grandiose fantasy would also greatly increase the scientists’ libido.

Since only a fraction of incoming solar radiation reaches the Earth's surface, this chemical sunscreen “would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere,” the NAS said. It might even “destroy stratospheric ozone.”

Why? 

Because spraying megatons of fine particles into the stratosphere clumps chlorine compounds into giant ice clouds. When struck by sunlight, these chemical clouds refract prismatic fragments like rainbows. And become highly corrosive to ozone.

Ken Caldeira was the climate expert who ran the computer simulations at the Lawrence Livermore atom bomb labs. He too warned that the stratospheric spraying of sunlight-reflecting chemicals could “destroy the ozone layer” – as well as posing human health risks.


CHEAP THRILLS

Nevertheless, the NAS enthused, “Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented.”

Each “dust distribution mission” would require a 500-mile flight lasting about an hour and a half at a delivery cost of just $500 per ton of sunlight-reflecting chemicals. [Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming chapter 28]


OWNING THE WEATHER 

In 1996, the United States Air Force released its own feasibility study. Produced by seven high-ranking officers, “Owning The Weather In 2025” described this “high-risk, high-reward endeavor” in terms of “splitting of the atom” – before going on to describe how “Weather Force Specialists” could lay down “aerial obscuration” materials behind tanker aircraft.


SKY SHIELDS

The following year, Dr. Edward Teller urged an International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies to consider deploying an aerial “sky shield” costing $1 billion a year. The Father of the Atom Bomb said his cheap and easy plan would allow everyone to keep polluting as usual.

Speaking like someone out of Horton’s Hooverville, Teller was a senior research fellow at the government policy-making Hoover Institute. Known for “forging strong ties between right-wing ideologues, right-wing think tanks and right-wing policy makers,” recent “friends of Hoover” have included Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, GW Bush and Karl Rove. [rightwingwatch.org]

“Global warming is too serious to be left to the politicians,” Teller later told the Wall Street Journal. “Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why not do that?” [Wall Street Journal Oct 17/97; Hoover Digest 1998 No. 1]

In fact, it was already being done.


CHEMTRAILS DISCOVERED

First popularized by this reporter on Coast-To-Coast radio in January 1998, “chemtrails” is now commonly used to describe the brilliant white plumes laid down by U.S. Air Force tanker planes over North America and more than a dozen other allied nations - and viewed with alarm by many people long familiar with normal aircraft condensation trails called “contrails”.

In November, 1999, Defense critic Gordon Earle presented a petition signed by 550 Espanola, Ontario residents to the Canadian Parliament demanding “an end to aerial spraying by commercial or military aircraft, foreign or domestic,” which appeared to be making many people sick. The Department of National Defense eventually replied, “It's not us.”

When the Environment Ministry refused to release its Espanola air sample findings, the chemtrails fallout was independently lab tested and found to contain levels of aluminum five-times higher than Ontario's maximum permissible health safety standards.

These particles matched the 10 micron aluminum oxide called for in a 1994 patent issued to Hughes Aircraft Company. “Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming” called for spreading highly reflective materials in the atmosphere to reflect enough incoming sunlight (about 1%) to slow global warming despite an anticipated doubling in CO2 emissions. High levels of quartz particles were also found. Very high readings of bacteria, molds and fungi hitchhiking on these particles from the upper atmosphere down to the ground were also found. [Chemtrails Confirmed by William Thomas]


TAR SOD 

Issued for peer review on May 15, 2000, Chapter 4 of the IPCC’s WGIII TAR SOD report looked at deliberate, large-scale manipulations of Earth processes. Intended to advise policy makers around the globe, the IPCC report pointed to the plausible “potential” of Ken Caldeira’s computer models and Teller’s sunscreen scenario. Though a few specks of the proposed chemical spray could have severe human health impacts, Teller and his cohorts proposed spreading 10 million tons of these shiny particulates to send about 1% of incoming sunshine back into space.”

Hold it, the IPCC cautioned. Two key problems are “the potential impact on atmospheric chemistry,” loss of sunlight required for all life, a citizenry upset by “the associated whitening of the visual appearance of the sky.”

A few other concerns included: “Unexpected environmental impacts, our lack of complete understanding of the systems involved, and our concerns with the legal and ethical implications.”
[Chemtrails Confirmed]


CHEMTRAILS CONFIRMED

First confirmed by Airport Authority Terry Stewart at the Victoria International Airport on Dec. 8, 2000 as a “joint Canada-U.S. military operation” - and stridently denied by senior officers at Canadian Forces Base, where Stewart later told the Vancouver Courier he had received his information) - these tanker plane missions were verified in March, 2001 by the Air Traffic Control manager for the northeastern seaboard of the United States.

In three taped interviews with veteran radio journalist S.T. Brendt, our “Deep Sky” source said he had been ordered to divert incoming commercial flights away from USAF tankers spraying a reflective substance showing up on ATC radars as a 'haze'.

This FAA disclosure came on March 12, 2001 as squadrons of radar-identified air force tankers saturated skies over the northeastern United States with characteristic Xs, grids and parallel rows of broad, expanding chemical plumes.

After counting more than 30 big jets spreading persistent plumes within 45 minutes over remote rural Maine, ST Brendt called her assistant WMWV news director. Richard Dean and his staff went outside and counted 370 chemical trails over the next six-and-a-half hours. During this time, local Air Traffic Controllers reported only nine commercial jets on their radars. [lifeboatnews.com Apr 3/01; Chemtrails Confirmed by William Thomas 2007]


9/11

For 15 years Dr. David Travis has been looking at the effects of contrails left by aircraft on the climate. Around the twelfth of September, 2001, he recalls, “Later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was. And at first I didn't think about it. Then I realized the sky was unusually clear.”

During the three days the U.S. commercial air fleet was grounded, this atmospheric specialist found temperatures warming more than 1 degree C. One degree in just three days - no one had ever seen such a change happen so fast. “From a climate perspective that is huge,” Travis says.

Could common contrails cool the atmosphere by a full degree? “Here are some examples of what we call outbreaks of contrails,” Dr. Travis later told the BBC. “These are large clusters of contrails. And here's a particularly good one from Southern California. Here's the west coast of the United States. And you can see here this lacing network of contrails covering at least 50%, if not 75% or more of the sky in that area. It doesn't take an expert to realize that if, if you look at the satellite picture and see this kind of contrail coverage that they've got to be having an effect on temperature at the surface.” [BBC Apr 19/09]

Ditto chemtrail “obscuration”.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS CONCERNED OVER CHEMTRAILS

One month after the 9/11 attacks, Deep Sky began phoning Air Traffic Controllers. At Chicago's O'Hare airport, all three major airports in New York, as well as Los Angeles LAX, San Francisco, Atlanta, Cleveland, San Diego, Washington DC's Dulles and Jacksonville, Florida controllers were being ordered to route airliners beneath formations of air force tanker planes spraying chemicals that clouded their screens.

Several smaller but busy airports at Westchester County in New York state and Manchester in New Hampshire confirmed similar experiences. Every controller, without exception, was being told to divert commercial traffic away from these military aircraft, and bring them in lower to avoid “experiments” that could degrade their radars.

Cleveland airport controllers were surprised by the extent of obscuration on their radars.


CHEMTRAIL SCIENTISTS SPEAK OUT

Ohio is the home of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base tasked with developing Tesla, HAARP and related weather modification technology. In December 2001, a Lawrence Livermore scientist on loan to Wright-Pat told Columbus Alive reporter Bob Fitrakis that two different projects were being conducted. One involved spraying microscopic aluminum particles parallel lines, X-patterns and grids to create artificial cloud cover and lessen global warming. Barium chemtrails were being used to direct the military's beam weapon in Alaska called HAARP for 3-D imaging, electronic warfare – and steering the jet stream. [Columbus Alive Dec 6/01]


HR2977

Just two months before, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich had ignited a Congressional firestorm by introducing HR2977. His “Space Preservation Act” called for the peaceful uses of space and a ban on “exotic weapons”. Section 7 specifically sought to prohibit “chemtrails”.

Kucinich later told Columbus Alive that despite official denials, as head of the Armed Services oversight committee he was well acquainted with chemtrail projects. “The truth is there's an entire program in the Department of Defense - 'Vision for 2020' - that's developing these weapons,” Kucinich told Fitrakis. The U.S. Space Command mission statement calls for “full-spectrum dominance of space, land, sea and air.”

According to Kucinich, Section 7 naming chemtrails, HAARP and other planet-threatening weapons was omitted in a substitute bill under pressure from scientists who did not want their own funding cut. [“Air Traffic Controllers Concerned Over Chemtrails” by William Thomas lifeboatnews.com Mar 4/02; Columbus Alive Jan 24/02]


TANKERS OVER EDMONTON

Dave Dickie’s company performs contract landscape work for the City of Edmonton. In November 2002 his crews began finding widespread nutrient deficiency in soils that could cause severe problems for plant life, including trees.

Soils analysis came back with showing extreme Electrical Conductivity readings. A November 18, 2002 lab test of snow falling through chemtrails also confirmed elevated levels of aluminum and barium. Norwest Labs lab report #336566 dated November 14. 2002 found:

? aluminum levels: 0.148 milligrams/litre
? barium levels: 0.006 milligrams/litre

As Dickie confirmed to this reporter, “It is the scientific opinion of the lab that the aluminum content of the sample is high and unusual. Elevated levels of aluminum and barium are not usually found in Alberta precipitation.”

Dickie regularly visits Air Traffic Control at the Edmonton municipal airport to watch the chemplanes making repeated passes over the city. Blessed with good friends at work in the tower, he has watched radar-identified KC-135s “on many occasions.”

On Father’s Day 2002, Dickie and an excited group of 12 year-olds watched two KC-135s tracked by radar as HA (High Altitude) targets flying at 34,000 and 36,000 feet – “one to the south, and one to the north of the city.”

Both USAF tankers had flown south out of Alaska. As Dickie, the kids and the controllers watched, the big jets began making patterns over Edmonton – “circuits” the controllers called it. “Petro 011” and “Petro 012” were working alone in “commanded airspace” from which all other aircraft were excluded.

And they were leaving chemtrails.

“The signature is significant,” one radar operator commented, referring to a trail clearly visible on the scope extending for miles behind the KC-135. In contrast, a JAL flight on the display left no contrail.

Going outside, Dickie and several controllers scanned clear blue skies. They easily located the KC-135 leaving its characteristic white-plume “signature”. Visibility was outstanding. They also clearly identified the JAL airliner at a similar flight level. It left no contrail at all.

“We see these guys up here a lot,” the radar techs told Dickie. “You should have seen it when they had the big summit up in Calgary. It was exciting to watch them.”

Was the U.S. Air Force spraying barium to enhance radio and radar surveillance over that G-8 gathering – or for some other purpose?

There could be no doubt about what was being left in the tankers’ wake. Showing up on radar as “birdie feet” triangles, the reflective plumes also showed up as “as a concentration of dots” in the radar-visible plume. Focusing on each plane with the click of cursor, “we could see different contrails,” Dickie described. Some were short and quickly vanished from the ‘scopes. Other trails were thick, long and lingering – not contrails at all. [Chemtrails Confirmed]


U.S. PUSHES FOR PLANETARY SUNSCREEN

In 2007, as the IPCC’s latest report was being drafted to guide international negotiators in devising a successor to the Kyoto emissions treaty, the Sydney Morning Herald reported U.S. representatives were pressing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to steer “away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions.”

Instead, Washington sought to legitimize its clandestine chemtrails program by urging inclusion in the “Summary For Policymakers” prefacing each chapter in the IPCC report - “techniques such as reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.”

The IPCC draft report called these ideas “speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects.”

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a 30-year climate consultant to the U.S. government and key IPCC player, insisted the world was “playing Russian roulette” by failing to address Climate Change. [Sydney Morning Herald Jan 29/07]

But the Obama administration realizes that even drastically cutting emissions will not immediately cut accumulated atmospheric CO2 concentrations - which will take another 30 years to decline.

“Assuming CO2 emissions are reduced by even 40% relative to 2000, it would keep rising by a minimum of 1.2 ppm/year, reaching levels near or above 450 ppm by 2050,” Dr. Glikson explains. “And this is without even accounting for the effects of methane, likely reduced CO2 intake by the oceans, and increases in positive feedbacks from the biosphere. At 450 ppm, with lag effects, polar ice sheets undergo advanced melting, with consequent major sea level rise.” [Truthout Apr 18/09]

Chemtrails promise a quick fix.

And an even weaker commitment to cutting emissions now.


WITH ARMED MILITIAS AND SCIENCE WHORES ON OUR SIDE, WHO NEEDS REALITY?

Even our current feeble attempts at maintaining hyper-wasteful lifestyles under the fig-leaf of “recycling” and switching to extremely toxic and electromagnetically polluting “curly” fluorescent bulbs are being quashed by the Oil Mafia’s disinformation campaign. And threats by such luminaries as Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann, who is exhorting her Minnesota constituents to be “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax.”

As she puts it, “The science is on our side on this one.” [Truthout Apr 18/09]

Rigged science funded by corporations heavily invested in carbon emissions may be on the side of Climate Holocaust Deniers. But Ms. Bachmann ought to run her rant by the scientists watching their test rigs disappear into suddenly appearing ice-sheet fissures, oceangoing reporters describing audible methane farts from thawing seafloor gases trapping 20-times more atmospheric heat than carbon dioxide. She could also try selling her “Climate-Change-Is-A-Hoax” hoax to fishers gazing at an empty acidic ocean, and farmers plowing dust in Australia, India and the USA.


WHERE HAVE ALL THE GLACIERS GONE? (Sung to the Peter, Paul and Mary hit)

In the hullabaloo over collapsing banks, did anyone happen to catch the collapse of the Wilkins ice shelf? Its already floating mass won’t add to sea-level rise. But removing a cork the size of Jamaica from the continental glaciers will allow them to flow even faster into the sea. [Truthout Apr 18/09]

While we are busy with other concerns, Antarctica is busy disintegrating. The Wordle Ice Shelf is gone, the northern Larsen Ice Shelf no longer exists, and “uncorked” inland glaciers already discharging 103 billion tons of water and ice into the ocean every year are now sliding into the sea even faster because the 650 to 980 feet-thick floating ice-shelf that normally blocks them is… gone.

Oops!

“We didn't realize it was moving that fast,” says a chagrined Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year's steering committee.

Add the melting Greenland ice sheet, and these ocean runoff numbers double. [theenergycollective.com; China Daily; Xinhua Feb 26/09]

The U.S. Geological Survey and the British Antarctic Survey Climate blame this accelerating fiasco on “Climate Change.” [pubs.usgs.gov/imap/2600/B]


CLIMATE TRIGGER

Better make that “Climate Shift”. Like a slowly squeezed trigger, the vast ocean covering three-quarters of this planet absorbs heat very s-l-o-w-l-y. Then BANG! Temperatures jump 10 degrees in 10 to 30 years. Eventually, sea-levels from all that melting ice slosh over every coastline, carrying saltwater on average 300-feet inland for every foot of rise.

At least this is what ice core samples show happened the last time Earth underwent a major warming event. Unlike a stock market downtick, “Mom” stayed overheated for 222,000 years. Temperatures persisted more than 11F above normal. Sea life in an acidic ocean was devastated.

The Runaway Global Warming that happened 55 million years ago was most likely caused by major volcanic eruptions following abrupt tectonic shifts. This time around, our car emissions already exceed those prehistoric volcanic releases...

Put another way, the last time the 95,200 cubic-kilometer Western Antarctic Ice Sheet melted into the ocean, and trees and bushes flourished in Antarctica, atmospheric CO2 concentration was around 400 ppm. Unless we stop adding more CO2 and nitrogen fertilizer emissions to the atmosphere RIGHT NOW, we’ll be at 400 ppm by 2020. [Reuters Apr 27/07; AP July 12/06]

The usually reserved Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in England calls this, “Catastrophic”.


TILT…

Onboard a planet that is three-quarters covered by water, sea level rise is a very big deal. With most people, agriculture and industries concentrated near a coastline, a three-foot sea-level rise is considered disastrous. The Wilkins meltdown means that sea levels are going to rise at least 20 feet sometime after 2100.

Or maybe sooner. Invest in life-rafts now, because if the rapidly melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets slide into the sea, Mother Ocean will come wading ashore in a slow-motion 200-foot-high tsunami that will not recedes for eons. [Climate, Climate Change 2007; PNAS Vol. 106 No.10]

One other thing: Remove the pivotal weight of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Earth’s rotational axis is expected to shift “rather dramatically” – at least 500 meters. Besides causing everyone caught in the lurch to clutch for handholds, this tilt would tip water from the southern ocean northward. Meanwhile, the bedrock depressed by all that ice will gradually spring back, displacing still more water northward. The result will be sea-levels along the Indian subcontinent and North American seaboard at least 25% higher than current “worst-case” predictions.

No wonder the Obama team is preparing the way for a major “chemtrails” announcement.

But can renewed “aerial obscuration” stop this ongoing meltdown?


CHOKING ON GLOBAL DIMMING

“If we carried on pumping out the particles, it would have terrible impact on human health, I mean particles are involved in all sorts of respiratory diseases,” Dr. Travis continued, referring to everyday air pollution.

He’s not kidding. Calling sub-micron particulate pollution the size of aluminum and barium chemtrail chemicals “an extreme human health hazard,” the EPA warns that when this tiny airborne fallout evades lung filters and enters the blood stream, it can trigger acute respiratory reactions, high blood pressure, and cause heart attacks within two hours of inhalation. Researchers in Taiwan have documented “a significant increase” in the number of stroke victims when PM pollutant levels rise. [Idaho Observer May/04]

Dr. David Travis could have been referring to chemtrails when this contrails scientist said, “If you fiddle with the balance of the planet, the radiative balance of the planet, you affect all sorts of circulation patterns like monsoons, which would have horrible effects on people. So it would be extremely difficult, in fact impossible, to cancel out the greenhouse effect just by carrying on pumping out particles, even if it wasn't for the fact that particles are damaging for human health.”

Don’t bother telling this to the people of the Sahel. When the African monsoons failed in 1984, the resulting Ethiopian famine that stunned obese nations was caused by something called “Global Dimming”.

Dr. Gerald Stanhill coined this term after finding that between the 1950s and the early 1990s, the solar energy reaching Earth's surface dropped 9% in Antarctica, 10% in the USA, by almost 30% in Russia, and by 16% in parts of the British Isles. [BBC Apr 19/09]

It turns out that air polluted by ground level carbon emissions, high-flying jetliners and chemtrails provides ten-times more particles for small water droplets to form. Acting like mirrors, many small droplets reflect much more sunlight back into space than fewer big ones.

This was before the “Jet Age” - and chemtrails - really took off.


UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY

“Delivering enough particles from high-flying aircraft to mitigate warming and further erode Earth’s protective solar radiation shielding would take at least 10 years,” predicted the 1999 NAS report on climate mitigation.

That anniversary passed last year.

Eleven years after chemtrail “laydowns” began in earnest over the United States, the effects of global warming are accelerating. But scientists like Dr. Peter Cox from the Hadley Centre Meteorological Office are convinced that sunlight-reflecting pollutants of all types have offset global warming with counteractive cooling.

So… as increasingly regulated pollution levels fall, and commercial air traffic dwindles from prolonged economic collapse and resurgent oil prices…

“We're gonna be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up, CO2 will be going up and particles will be dropping off and that means we'll get an accelerated warming. We’ll get a double whammy, we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time,” Cox warns.

Is this why many observers have been reporting increased chemtrail activity over many North American locations? Is this why the Obama White House is coming closer to “outing” chemtrails?

What are you doing to reduce carbon emissions at home, at work and in-between right now?

Seismic Energy Dissipation Devices

Seismic Energy Dissipation Devices