Managing the Human Domain: An Analysis of Geoengineering and Its Adverse Effects on Earth’s Ecosystems
(A Research Paper from June 2016)
Back in 2016, I enrolled in Oregon State University’s B.S. in Horticulture program with the broader goal of attaining food freedom and economic independence. I wanted to practice permaculture and get back to the land, in other words.
Part of that journey required taking a class called Applied Ecology of Managed Ecosystems (HORT 318), and this article was my submission for the final paper of the class worth 25% of the grade. Rather than play it safe and talk about pet topics in academia like biodiversity and sustainability, I did what I often do. I investigated one of the most controversial “conspiracy theory” ideas that directly apply to this whole topic of Managed Ecosystems. I couldn’t help myself. Not only was the research necessary for me to see firsthand so I could enhance my understanding of what geoengineering and chemtrails are all about, but I wanted to see whether or not some of the claims out there were actually true or mere superstition. And, if the conspiracy theorists were right, maybe identifying the chemical composition of chemtrails and these sorts of things could then be used to understand how to combat their harmful effects with detoxes and dieting routines of sorts. As you will see, the chemicals used are indeed environmental poisons that should be eliminated. While my article does not take the time to address specific health protocols or dietary considerations in relation to geoengineering, the information presented here will certainly help as a point of reference for further research. That’s why I am now passing it along to you.
With that said, I welcome you to this investigation, but also keep in mind that this paper was from June 2016. We have learned a lot since then.
Also, in keeping with the main theme of this Substack, have this particular verse of prophecy in mind as you go through this information:
The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth.” - Revelation 11:18
Don’t stress. All things will be made right soon enough.
(Note: I passed the class, and my professor gave me an A on this assignment. My gamble paid off.)
Introduction
Human management on a macroscopic scale influences the most important aspects of a well-functioning modern society, from the activities of the business sector to the complex interworking of a supercomputer database. The pace and efficiency by which data can be collected, decisions can be made, and large scale efforts can be realized has been made possible by various technological advancements. Perhaps the only true threats to the stability and ease of modern civilization are those events to which great uncertainty is inexorably linked. Earth’s natural weather disasters due to global warming / climate change are one such thing academics are now pointing to. In recent decades, there has been a consensus in scientific literature asserting that there is warming in globe. There has also been an unprecedented increase in catastrophic and severe weather disasters. One solution that has been presented to increase the stability, prosperity, and longevity of modern society in light of climate change ideas is the manipulation of one of the largest forces of nature—the weather. One such approach is geoengineering, in which Earth’s climate systems are artificially manipulated in order to reduce global warming. The two major approaches include (1) carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and sequestration and (2) solar radiation management (SRM) (OGP, 2016). The focus of this discussion is to inform the scientific community and technically inclined general public of SRM, stratospheric sulfate aerosols geoengineering (SAG-SRM), and other related aerosol techniques that have been presented in literature but not CDR techniques and other non-aerosol approaches. In a general sense, the idea of SRM is to reflect sunlight away from the Earth in order to achieve global cooling. SRM could theoretically be executed in a number of different ways, such as (1) increasing planetary alebedo (reflectiveness), either by making human structures more reflective or by placing large mirrors in desert areas; (2) cloud albedo enhancement by making clouds more white; (3) launching many mirrors into space to deflect solar radiation away from the earth; and (4) releasing tons of aerosol chemical particles into the stratosphere in order to scatter sunlight back into space (Shepherd et al., 2009). This review will further explore what is arguably the most effective geoengineering approach—aerosolic SRM geoengineering. The history, modern perspectives, approaches, and the risks that this type of geoengineering poses to the whole of Earth’s ecosystems will be discussed.
The perceived need for geoengineering
The overarching principle of any aerosolic approach is to use specifically engineered nano-colloidal aerosol particle suspensions in the atmosphere in order to reflect sunlight back into space and achieve net cooling of the planet. Therefore, geoengineering is a direct response to the idea of climate change and warming of the globe. Modern geoengineering approaches have been described in detail in several publications where mathematical models are often used to simulate the effects, challenges, and shortcomings of such long-term interventions (Cao et al., 2016; Ricke et al., 2012; Moreno-Cruz 2011; and Matthews et al., 2007). One major idea behind the stratospheric aerosol approach is that it could be possible to artificially mimic the same effects of a volcanic eruption by using aircraft in which large amounts of sulfur (or other particles like aluminum) that reflect sunlight back into space can be launched into the air (Shepherd et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2010). In other words, SRM and its more particular SAG-SRM variant are techniques that are presented to potentially mitigate climate change. It is important to note here in this context that SRM is a more broad approach while SAG-SRM is focused on the use of sulfate aerosols. There are in fact other engineered particles that have properties making them even more effective than sulfates in reflecting sunlight (Keith, 2010; Weisenstein, 2015). In a 2010 AAAS Conference, geoengineer David Keith mentions that alumina aerosols are in fact superior to sulfate because these particles have four times the volumetric rate and a coagulation rate that is 16 times less, meaning that they are more desirable for SRM (Murphy et al., 2012). SRM methods have been studied via multiple cost-benefit analyses but one in particular has shown SRM to be both affordable and able to implemented relatively cheaply from an aerospace viewpoint. It has been estimated in (McClellan et al., 2012) that such a geoengineering endeavor would be comparable to the yearly operations of a small airline with an overall economic impact equivalent to $200 to $2000 billion USD or 0.5-2.5% of global GDP in the year 2030.
The potential for climate improvement through mathematical model analysis has been simulated, distribution methods have been shown to be affordable, and the necessary chemical particles can be readily engineered and developed, thus supporting geoengineering as a realistic method in which climate change effects could be reduced or even reversed. The effects of climate change have been discussed in many publications, and there is a general consensus among governmental and academic realms of thought that human intervention is now necessary either in the form of reducing carbon footprint or also through enacting mitigation strategies. One idea that has been presented clearly from an economic standpoint in (Nordhaus, 2013) is that policies should be in place to prevent the irreversible damages of passing the climate change tipping point even where scientific uncertainty exists. In fact, research outfits such as the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) are calling upon geoengineering as absolutely necessary to solve their problems (AMEG, 2012). John Holdren—a senior advisor to Barrack Obama serving in key functions such as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)—had also made it abundantly clear early into the Obama presidency that geoengineering is not only a valid option, but it is also to be strongly considered as the climate situation becomes more desperate (Jha, 2009). Exactly how desperate is the situation? From environmentalist Al Gore to other academic researchers, discussions have been based around models that have been used to show how current concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are at an all time high, sea level rise (SLR) is expected to increase, and hurricane intensity is expected to increase. These are just a few of the problems that have been associated with climate change. In light of these concepts, there have been increasing international meetings on the subject of climate change, the most recent and urgent of which was the 2015 Paris Climate Conference in which talks highlighted reducing carbon footprint and investing in renewable energies. Therefore, geoengineering is becoming more of a normal topic at the table of mitigation.
A brief history: the birth of weather modification ideas and practices
Although some modern climate engineers are taking credit for being the innovators behind planetary weather modification, the aforementioned geoengineering ideas were not recently discovered but have in fact been part of an ongoing discussion that commenced many years ago. SRM is said by Mercer et al. (2011) to have emerged in scientific literature as far back as 1960s, but similar ideas were certainly introduced many years before that point. As a brief study of history will reveal, there have been military and commercial interests in controlling the weather since the late 1800s. However, before delving into the history of weather modification, it is fundamental to understand how exactly clouds are formed and how artificial aerosols can be infused into this formation in hopes of achieving said goals.
Normal clouds require the following two fundamental properties to form: small particles and the correct moisture regime. By definition, aerosols are colloidal suspensions of particles in a gaseous environment. Clouds do not really form in especially clean air—they require particulate matter called cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), which act as a surface for water vapor to adhere to. The CCN could be dirt, soot, pollution or a number of other particles. To ensure that the nucleation process is effective, size of these nuclei must be extremely small.
Figure 1: The role of nucleation in cloud droplet formation. This process is identical for ice crystal formation, which occurs at lower temperatures (Center for Aerosol Impacts on Climate and the Environment, 2014).
The size of these nuclei is the on order of 10-6 meters, or μ, and are typically around one μ (NOAA, 2013). To put this particularly small size into perspective, the width of a cotton fiber is about 10 μ. What geoengineering seeks to accomplish is mimicry of the natural nucleation process but on the surfaces of engineered chemical particles that are dispersed in the atmosphere. This process is called cloud seeding. Once dispersed in the air, the chemical nuclei will collect to form an aerosol bank (or collection of aerosols), and thereby create an artificial cloud (Carnicom 2005). The other essential component for normal cloud formation is a minimal level of humidity. Many sources such as NOAA (2013) cite 100% relative humidity (RH) as ideal for cloud formation, for this is the point at which water vapor readily condenses onto CCN. It has been documented, however, that the presence of nuclei in the atmosphere may make the 100% RH requirement unnecessary, and a minimum RH can be around 70% (Carnicom 2000).
A long list of patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office can be referenced to help understand the inception of weather modification ideas and practices that started as early as 1891 with the “Method of Producing Rainfall” patent (Gathmann, 1891; Wigington, 2016). Since this time period was before the advent of the aircraft, the aforementioned patent describes how releasing gases such as carbonic acid from balloons or some sort of projectile launch could achieve the intended weather manipulation. There are several dozen such patents from that point in history onward, and the most relevant will be highlighted here. Before 1950, many remarkable patents were issued such as Process and Apparatus for the Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists (Weiss and Verdier, 1920). Ideas were presented in Weiss and Verdier (1920) that revealed how “opaque artificial mists” could be created in the atmosphere from several different types of anhydrous chlorides. Specific applications are not given aside from the intended goal of producing artificial clouds. Another key patent was entitled the Process of Producing Smoke Clouds from Moving Aircraft (Bradner and Oglesby,1927). This patent is the first mention of a distribution method that has arguably become the contemporary scientific community’s number one choice for geoengineering. Sulfur-containing compounds, such as chlorosulphonic acid and sulfur trioxide, are given special mention. The major selling point here—with no specific application to any particular industry—is that smoke producing liquids can create clouds, which is essentially the same point being re-introduced by many geoengineers now 89 years later. After 1950, a trend seems to develop where a shift to weather modification, rather than potential applications in agriculture and pesticide application, becomes the more clear agenda for the increasing number of weather-related patents. In 1951, a patent was granted entitled “Process for Controlling the Weather” (Brandau and Wis, 1951). The exclusive and stated purpose of this patent was to control weather conditions with the idea of mitigating hailstorms, lightning, typhoons, hurricanes, flooding, and other potentially dangerous weather phenomena. Through the use of aerial dispersion methods, the Brandau and Wis (1951) were able to document numerous and successful experimentations in which manufactured flake ice, manufactured snow, powdered cement, and other substances were used for cloud condensation nuclei in order to prevent rainfall and speed up cloud dispersion. Multiple patents in the 1960s further describe advances in cloud seeding such as “Cloud seeding carbon dioxide bullet” (Musser, 1960), “Generation of ice-nucleating crystal” (1964), “Silver iodide cloud seeding generator” (Lohse, 1964), and “Cloud seeding apparatus” (Merrill, 1967). This trend of innovation in cloud seeding continues throughout the 70s, and there are simply too many weather modification techniques that arose from the 80s to the present to mention all of them. However, another interesting patent includes “Rocket having barium release system to create ion clouds in the upper atmosphere” (Lewis et al., 1974) where a new barium concoction is proposed for many reasons, but one idea includes its use as a jet fuel in which clouds can be formed via combustion in the atmosphere. Thus far, cloud seeding innovation has most recently culminated in a 2013 patent focusing on dispersing charged seed clouds capable of attracting biological targets (Diehl, 2013). It is interesting to notice that the ideas of the 90s were not solely in novel cloud seeding technologies, but there was also an emphasis on measuring, detecting, and analyzing fine particulate matter in the atmosphere. This emphasis also carried over into several new patents in the early 2000s.
There are a few more patents deserving of special attention and that provide further insight into other weather manipulation and control ideas. A patent entitled “Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process” (Pappee et al., 1977) describes in detail some of the viable sulfur-containing compounds that could be combusted and also introduces the use of organic and inorganic nitrates; alkali-metal and ammonium chlorates; and perchlorates. This patent may have been one of the first descriptions of a combustible form of sulfur considered for use in SAG-SRM. Interestingly, one patent, “Weather modification utilizing microencapsulated material” reveals how weather modification testing had been conducted and practiced, but the failure of older materials that were non-encapsulated did not achieve the desired effect of modifying clouds and dispelling fog near airports, harbors, and roadways (Nelson and Silverman, 1972). High importance and attention should be given to the fact that one patent, “Powder contrail generation,” (Werle et al., 1975) describes a formulation with TiO2 and other particles that meet the μ dimensions for nuclei. This patent is often cited as evidence for contemporary chemtrails (which will be discussed shortly). “Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft” (Reising, 1992) describes how commercial aircraft can be modified with an apparatus that is able to release fluids and gases from the aircraft. Lastly, one of the most recent and relevant patents entitled “Geoengineering Method Of Business Using Carbon Counterbalance Credits” (Benaron, 2012) describes how “scattering nanoparticles” and “deploying the stratospheric nanoparticles for reducing solar radiation incident on the Earth” can be implemented for profit motive. The profits earned from geoengineering would unequivocally be funded by taxpayers in the form of carbon credits, whereby a social benefit from climate intervention would be necessarily assumed.
Questioning the integrity of geoengineering
The attention of the discussion must now be focused to a familiar and readily observable phenomenon. There is no debate that jet contrails exist. These contrails are the condensation left behind by airplane exhausts at high altitudes, and they readily dissipate so that they do not linger more than several jet lengths behind the aircraft emitting them. One recent article was recently released where one NOAA researcher concluded through data analysis that once clear skies have now become gradually whitened by airplane contrails (Zielinski, 2015). The true culprit, however, for whitening skies does not lie in contrail formation but chemtrail formation. Chemtrails are the formation of thick, residual white jet trails that, unlike contrails, persist for hours and can collect into aerosol banks to create an even thicker haze in the atmosphere. The reason that they persist in such a fashion is due to their inherent chemical contents and not merely because of ice crystals as the popular narrative suggests.
Figure 2: The difference between normal jet contrails and chemtrails. The photograph on the left was taken on 05/01/2016 while traveling northbound on highway 285 about 10 miles south of Fairplay, CO. Before approaching South Park on a snowy day in the mountains, I noticed a slight break in the clouds where there also just happened to be a perfect example of a normal jet contrail right next to a chemtrail. Notice that the plane on the left hand side is leaving behind a very minute trail that is also dissipating as the plane is traveling toward the mountain ridge; then notice the chemtrail that was left behind by a different plane on the right hand side of the photo. This other plane was not present at the time of the photo, indicating that this chemtrail could have been suspended in the sky for hours, which is the very unusual behavior typically seen with these aerosol chemical suspensions. The satellite image on the top right shows a large-scale aerosol dispersion effort. Chemtrails litter the atmosphere in a circular and abnormal pattern. The image on the bottom right displays some of the other unusual patterns that can arise exclusively from chemtrails (Wigington, 2014).
The picture has become even more clear with documents released by the US government such as the HR 2977 The Space & Preservation Act of 2001 where chemtrails are listed as an “exotic weapon system” in which damage to space or natural ecosystems is an intended consequence (H.R. 2997, 2001). In other words, mainline media platforms and academia insist that geoengineering is simply in the preliminary discussion phase, but ample evidence in patents, government documents, and field observations are emerging that show geoengineering practices have been implemented to a level of large scale experimentation for a number of years now.
One of the most significant blows to the secrecy of aerosol operations was manifested when Kristen Meghan, an Industrial Hygienist who worked for the US Air Force for nine years, blew the whistle. Upon routinely conducting her job, she encountered extremely massive quantities of aluminum, barium, and strontium in the form of oxides/sulfates within the Air Force Hazardous Materials Management computer system; and after seeking to simply comply with OSHA and EPA regulations, she was threatened to be under mental evaluation for asking questions regarding the unusual chemicals (Meghan, 2014). Meghan is not alone. There are a number of prominent professional figures, celebrities, and concerned citizens whose combined numbers are estimated to be in the tens of millions. From legendary Chuck Norris to the popular reality star Kylie Jenner, many people are now questioning observable geoengineering clouds and are becoming conscious to the possibility of ongoing and undemocratic large-scale experimentation (McAdoo, 2015; Salazar, 2016). In Griffin et al. (2010) and Murphy et al. (2012) many well-spoken intellectuals share concerns of aerosol operations including Dane Wigington (a solar expert), Dr. Lenny Thyme, PhD. (Inorganic Chemistry), Tammy L. Born D.O., Karen Johnson (former Arizona State Senator), Edward Griffin (renown author of Creature from Jekyll Island), and Desiree Rover (Medical Research Journalist) to name a few.
Carnicom (2005) does an excellent job of pointing out how the cases of concerned citizens in regards to unusual environmental activity have been dismissed by the EPA on multiple occasions. For instance, in June of 2001, one and a half years after the original submission of an unusual fiberous physical material, the EPA finally acknowledged its receipt. This acknowledgment followed a freedom of information inquiry on the topic submitted by a citizen. However, the EPA refused to identify this sample stating that it “was not the policy of this off EPA to test, or otherwise analyze any unsolicited samples of material or matter” (Carnicom, 2001). Because of this refusal to identify and respond to inquiries on many occasions, people have had to conduct private experimentation on soil, rainwater, snow, and other samples. For instance, after Meghan had reportedly found the high quantities of abnormal chemicals in the USAF database, she proceeded to collect soil and other samples that tested high with those same chemicals found in the database (Meghan, 2014).
The chemical nanoparticles of geoengineering
Based on previous discussions, patents, the independent findings of credentialed professionals, and proposals from contemporary geoengineers themselves, the chemical species that are currently being designed and tested for cloud seeding and weather modification purposes include aluminum oxide, barium oxide, strontium oxide, sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, silver iodide, and titanium oxide. There are certainly more, but this discussion will be limited to the most commonly discussed and encountered nanoparticles, with aluminum being the number one metal on the list. Based on the properties associated with the NFPA, SDS, ICSC, and MSDS descriptions of each of the geoengineering chemicals, it can be concluded that the cumulative dispersion of such nano-colloidal particles into the atmosphere via aircraft in order to combat climate change could be ironically counterproductive due to the health risks that the chemicals themselves pose to human life as well as the environment.
Table 1: Some of the suspected geoengineering chemicals with accompanying general overview of NFPA, SDS, ICSC, and/or MSDS descriptions.
Adverse ecological effects
In light of the aforementioned list of chemicals, it is important to now look at some of the data that has been collected and analyzed by several key scientists. Francis Mangels, a USDA Biologist for 35 years, has noted that aluminum levels of pure snow samples taken from Mount Shasta, CA have revealed concentrations of 61,100 ppb (government intervention is required by law at 1,000 ppb for aluminum); 83 and 383 ppb were also found for barium and strontium, respectively (Griffin et al., 2010). Mangels also references the official Soil Survey of Siskiyou County California Central Part handbook, in which he notes that around the year 2005, the pH of the Deetz soil around his home was around 5.5 or 5.6, which fell in the expected range of 4.5 and 6.0; but just a few years later, the same soil was tested at pH 6.8. The increasing alkalinity of the soil was linked to geoengineering due to no other possible external influence that could account for the exponential increase. Such an exponential shift in the number of hydrogen ions towards a more alkaline environment could have devastating effects, such as the loss of biodiversity and loss of normal plant growth. Wignington came to similar conclusions regarding the completely isolated pond on his 2,000 acre property. This particular pond has a fish-safe liner with zero artificial materials present, and the well that feeds the pond was tested several times with no detectable aluminum; however, after a year and a half of noticeable chemtrails overhead, a film appeared on the surface of his freshwater pond that tested positive for aluminum at 375,000 ppb (Griffin et al., 2010). Many other similar observations have been made.
The adverse ecological effects of geoengineering are colossal and numerous. Geoengineering proponents have already documented the fact that some of the side effects of weather modification include depletion of the ozone (even further) and the exacerbation of drought conditions (Moore et al., 2015). One article discussing geoengineering notes that if implemented, “rain and snow patterns would likely shift … consigning hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet in Africa and Asia to recurring drought” (Verango, 2011). It is beyond mere coincidence then to note that Thailand, Somalia, the Middle East, India, Uganda, California, Honduras, and many other regions of the world are currently experiencing unprecedented droughts (Fox, 2016; Migiro, 2016; Powell, 2016; Biswas, 2016; Ocungi, 2016; Schultz, 2016; Wigington, 2016). The ecological ramifications are even more deeply profound. One article was recently released linking aluminum toxicity to the declining bee populations, noting that extremely high levels of aluminum were found in pupae; and aluminum is acting as a neurotoxin that is damaging normal neurological activity in the pollinators (Exley, 2015). This aluminum toxicity is not affecting just the bees, however. Russell L. Baylock, M.D. recently expressed his concerns regarding aluminum nanoparticles in chemtrails and said that “a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum” (Sarich, 2013). Like Baylock, Dr. Edward Group has linked exhaustion, aching, mental fogginess, lethargy, extreme flu-like symptoms, and pnuemonia to chemtrails (Group, 2009; McAdoo, 2016). The toxicological effects of aluminum oxide and other forms of aluminum have been further studied in Krewski et al. (2007). Furthermore, massive and abnormal fish die-offs, tree die-offs (including the famous redwoods of California), and ecosystem distruptions are now being confirmed, with the all of the pieces of the puzzle fitting together to support geoengineering as the perpetrator (Klinger, 2010; Rogers, 2015; Wigington, 2016; and Kaufman, 2010). Unfortunately, one extremely powerful article recently emerging from Jackson State University was retracted from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health for three rather subjective reasons. One was that the language of the paper was considered to be “not sufficiently scientifically objective for a research article”; but when looking closer, it can be seen that perhaps the subject matter regarding “…evidence of coal-fly-ash toxic chemical geoengineering in the troposphere” was the real root of the problem (Herndon et al., 2015). However, speculation is still acceptable in academia, and two researchers were able assess the potential effects of SRM on human health (Effiong and Neitzel, 2016). They concluded that SRM is very dangerous to public health because the large-scale effects of barium and other chemical nanoparticles are mostly unknown, and healthy exposure levels have not yet been determined.
Concluding remarks
A brief overview of the ongoing discussion of geoengineering has been presented from a historical, modern, and ecological perspective. Some of the truths presented in this paper hope to add to the discussion and bring insight to the climate problems humanity is facing. As could be inferred from the discussion, climate change has always been the boogeyman to which academia runs to in explaining strange environmental phenomenon. While climate change has its models, data, and well-documented scientific literature, the ideas presented are meant to challenge the narrative that all modern, industrial human activity is responsible for climate change. It is strongly convincing that geoengineering methods are exponentially intensifying the relatively little damage that industrialized human activity has caused since the industrial revolution. Herndon (2015) also makes this same point of challenging the mainline narrative in a Current Science article where he presents a brief but accurate history of anthropogenic global warming ideas while offering more insight regarding clandestine geoengineering operations. In light of the current limitations to free speech seen in the media, academia, and military, it is of utmost importance to overcome this barrier with peer-reviewed research of on-going aerosol operations. Holding secret governmental and crony capitalist initiatives accountable is of utmost importance as well, since there seems to be a strong link between aerosol operations and profiteering as mentioned in the (Benaron, 2012) patent. A free and open discussion must be established with regards to the current use of lethal chemicals in the atmosphere, and undemocratic aerosol operations must be thoroughly investigated. As Ron Paul brilliantly stated in his farewell address, “Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong” (Hawes, 2012). And so we must act accordingly.
Bibliography
Acros Organics (March 16, 2007) “Material Safety Data Sheet - Aluminum Oxide, 99%” https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/95871.htm [accessed May 24, 2016].
Airgas (July 2, 2015) “Safety Data Sheet – Hydrogen Sulfide.” https://www.airgas.com/msds/001029.pdf [accessed May 24, 2016].
Airgas (May 20, 2015) “Safety Data Sheet - Sulfur Dioxide.” https://www.airgas.com/msds/001047.pdf [accessed May 24, 2016].
AMEG (2012) “Planetary catastrophe is inevitable without geoengineering to cool the Arctic.” An assessment by AMEG. http://ameg.me/index.php/component/content/article/2-ameg/47-planetary-catastrophe
[accessed May 24, 2016].
Benaron DA (October 5, 2012) “Geoengineering Method Of Business Using Carbon Counterbalance Credits.” United States, patent no. 20,120,117,003.
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US73564228&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=NationalBiblio [accessed May 25, 2016].
Biswas S (March 27, 2016) “Is India facing its worst-ever water crisis?” BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35888535 [accessed May 24, 2016].
Bradner DB and Oglesby NE (March 1, 1927) “Process of producing smoke clouds from moving aircraft.” United States, patent no. 1,619,183. http://www.google.com/patents/US1619183?dq=1619183&ei=TW9LUP-OGIGC8QTAl4G4BQ [accessed May 25, 2016].
Brandau HM and Wis W (April 24, 1951) “Process for controlling weather.” United States, patent no. 2,550,324. http://www.google.com/patents/US2550324?dq=2550324&ei=pm5LUNKKEJHi9gTxjoDoBg [accessed May 25, 2016].
Cao L, Duan L, Bala G, and Caldeira K (2016) Simulated long-term climate response to idealized solar geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2209–2217, doi:10.1002/2016GL068079.
Carnicom CE (March 29, 2005) Aerosol Crimes. First Edition 2005 - Copyright Free, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQuqAtVNnwY [accessed May 24, 2016].
Carnicom CE (July 5, 2001) “EPA Refuses to Identify Sample, Returns Sample 18 Month Delay.” Carnicom Institute. Wallace, ID. http://carnicominstitute.org/wp/epa-refuses-to-identify-returns-sample-18-month-delay/ [accessed May 24, 2016].
Carnicom CE (July 20, 2000) “Contradictions.” Carnicom Institute. Wallace, ID.
http://carnicominstitute.org/wp/contradictions/ [accessed May 24, 2016].
Center for Aerosol Impacts on Climate and the Environment (2014) “Learning with CLEAR: Aerosol Impacts on Climate – Cloud Nucleation.” http://caice.ucsd.edu/index.php/education/clear/learning-with-clear/cloud-nucleation/ [accessed May 24, 2016].
Department of the Airforce (September 23, 2013) “Hazardous Materials Management.”
http://www.aerospacetestingalliance.com/media/cms_page_media/68/E06%20Hazardous%20Materials%20Management_1.pdf [Accessed April 10, 2016].
Diehl SR (February 12, 2013) “Charged seed cloud as a method for increasing particle collisions and for scavenging airborne biological agents and other contaminants.” United States, patent no. 8,373,962 B2. https://www.google.com/patents/US8373962?dq=Charged+seed+cloud+as+a+method+for+increasing+particle+collisions+and+for+scavenging+airborne+biological+agents+and+other+contaminants&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYzPWk6I3NAhVk_IMKHdrmAqEQ6AEIMjAD [accessed May 25, 2016].
Effiong U and Neitzel RL (2016) Assessing the direct occupational and public health impacts of solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosols. Environmental Health (2016) 15:7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717532/ [accessed May 24, 2016].
Exley C, Rotheray E, and Goulson D (2015) Bumblebee Pupae Contain High Levels of Aluminium. PLOS ONE; 10 (6): e0127665 DOI: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127665
[accessed May 24, 2016].
Fox E (March 30, 2016) “Thailand hit by its worst drought in decades.” Aljazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/thailand-hit-worst-drought-decades-160330102123735.html [accessed May 24, 2016]
Gathmann L (November 10, 1891) “Method of Producing Rain-fall.” United States, patent no. 462,795. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0462795.pdf [accessed May 25, 2016].
Griffin GE, Murphy MJ, and Whittenberger P (October 2010). What in the World Are They Spraying? Produced by G. Edward Griffin, Michael Murphy and Paul Wittenberger. Truth Media Productions, DVD format.
Group E (May 25, 2009) “Are Chemtrails Making Us Sick?” Global Healing Center. http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/chemtrails/ [accessed June 4, 2016].
Hawes M (November 14, 2012) Transcript of Farewell Address. Campaign for Liberty, National Blog. http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/transcript-of-farewell-address/ [accessed June 3, 2016].
Herndon JM (August 5, 2015) Evidence of coal-fly-ash toxic chemical geoengineering in the troposphere: Consequences for public health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9375–9390. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/9/10941/htm [accessed May 24, 2016].
Herndon JM (June 25, 2015) Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India. Current Science, Vol. 108, No 12. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/12/2173.pdf [accessed May 24, 2016].
IPCS (March 8, 2002) “Titanium Dioxide – ICSC: 0338” http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0338.htm [accessed May 24, 2016].
HR 2977 (October 2, 2001) The Space & Preservation Act of 2001. 107th Congress, 1st Session. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr2977ih/pdf/BILLS-107hr2977ih.pdf [accessed May 24, 2016].
Jha A (April 8, 2009) “Obama climate adviser open to geo-engineering to tackle global warming.” The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-john-holdren [Accessed May 24, 2016].
Kaufman R (February 15, 2010) Giant Redwoods May Dry Out; Warming to Blame? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100215-redwoods-california-global-warming/ National Geographic News. [accessed May 24, 2016].
Keith DW (2010) Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for
geoengineering. Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science 107, 16428–31.
Klinger L (January 21, 2010) “Ancient redwoods in decline.” Sudden Oak Life, Big Sur, CA. http://www.suddenoaklife.org/ [accessed May 27, 2016].
Krewski D, et al. (2007) Human Health Risk Assessment For Aluminum,
Aluminum Oxide, And Aluminum Hydroxide. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/ [accessed June 5, 2016].
Lewis B, Murphy W, Paine T, Smith E, and Stokes C (June 4, 1974) “Rocket having barium release system to create ion clouds in the upper atmosphere.” United States, patent no. 3,813,875. http://www.google.com/patents/US3813875?dq=3813875&ei=9WdLUIqDBpSK9ASzr4H4Dg [accessed May 25, 2016].
Lohse OF (March 24, 1964) “Silver iodide cloud seeding generator.” United States, patent no. 3,126,155. http://www.google.com/patents/US3126155?dq=3126155&ei=MW1LUKOYKIbM9gS3kIGIBw [accessed May 25, 2016].
MacMynowski DG, Shin HJ, Caldeira K, and Keith DW (2011) Can we test geoengineering? Energy and Environmental Science, 4: 5044-5052. doi:10.1039/C1EE01256H.
Matthews D and Caldeira K (April 25, 2007) Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. http://pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700419104. [Accessed April 11, 2016].
McAdoo LA (May 26, 2015) “Chemtrail Wakeup: Kylie Jenner and Her 10 Million Twitter Followers - Reality star tweets viral photo questioning geoengineering.” http://www.infowars.com/chemtrail-wakeup-kylie-jenner-and-her-10-million-twitter-followers/ [accessed May 23, 2016].
McAdoo LA (April 7, 2016) “Is the Chemtrail Flu Real? - Mysterious illness spreading across America may be linked to chemtrails.” Infowars Nightly News. http://www.infowars.com/is-the-chemtrail-flu-real/ [accessed June 4, 2016].
McClellan J, Keith DW, Apt J (2012) Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems. Environmental Research Letters; 7 (3): 034019 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034019
Meghan K (January 18th, 2014) “Geoengineering Whistleblower, Ex-Military Kristen Meghan” [video]. [Hauppauge, NY]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA [Accessed April 8, 2016].
Mercer AM, Keith DW, and Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of Solar Radiation Management. Environmental Research Letters, 6: 044006 (9pp). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006.
Merrill DD (April 11, 1967) “Cloud seeding apparatus.” United States, patent no. 3,313,487. http://www.google.com/patents/US3313487?dq=3313487&ei=mGxLUNyjJ4iK9QT334GoBg [accessed May 25, 2016].
Merryweather JP (March 31, 1964) “Generation of ice-nucleating crystal.” United States, patent no. 3,127,107. http://www.google.com/patents/US3127107?dq=3127107&ei=Hm1LUN69PIf28wSozYDoCQ [accessed May 25, 2016].
Migiro K (March 31, 2016) “Thousands may die from drought in Somalia unless donors give more: U.N.” Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/us-africa-drought-somalia-idUSKCN0WX1XV [accessed May 24, 2016].
Moore JC, Grinsted A, Guo X, Yu X, Jevrejeva S, Rinke A, Cui X, et al. (November 10, 2015) Atlantic Hurricane Surge Response to Geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 45: 13794–99. doi:10.1073/pnas.1510530112. [accessed May 24, 2016].
Moreno-Cruz J, Ricke K, and Keith DW (2011) A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Climatic Change, 110: 649-668. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0103-z.
Murphy MJ and Kolsky B (2012) WHY in the World Are They Spraying? Directed & Produced by Michael J Murphy, Co-Produced & Edited by Barry Kolsky. DVD format.
Musser CW (December 13, 1960) “Cloud seeding carbon dioxide bullet.” United States, patent no. 2,963,975. http://www.google.com/patents/US2963975?dq=2963975&ei=R21LULSTKYTY8gTL6YDgCA [accessed May 25, 2016].
Nelson LD and Silverman BA (May 2, 1972) “Weather modification utilizing microencapsulated material.” United States, patent no. 3,659,785. http://www.google.com/patents/US3659785?dq=3659785&ei=tmhLUIP2DY6c8QS_7YD4CA [accessed May 25, 2016].
NFPA 704. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704#Blue [accessed May 24, 2016].
NOAA (2013) “All About Clouds – How Clouds Form.” http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/clouds/cloudwise/learn.html [accessed May 24, 2016].
Nordhaus WD. The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.
Ocungi J (March 29, 2016) “Uganda: Gulu Water Crisis Worsens as Dam Dries Up.” All Africa. http://allafrica.com/stories/201603290561.html [accessed May 24, 2016].
OGP (2016) “What is Geoengineering?” Oxford Geoengineering Programme. http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/what-is-geoengineering/what-is-geoengineering/ [accessed June 5, 2016].
Papee HM, Montefinale AC, Petriconi GL, and Zawidzky TW (February 22, 1977) “Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process.” United States, patent no. RE 29,142. https://www.google.com/patents/USRE29142?dq=USRE29142&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnmoWf6Y3NAhXh1IMKHTCADlgQ6AEIHzAA [accessed May 25, 2016].
Pierce JR, Weisenstein DK, Heckendorn P, Peter T, and Keith DW (2010) Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft. Geophysical Research Letters, 37: L18805. doi:10.1029/2010GL043975.
Plasmaterials, Inc. “Material Safety Data Sheet – SrO.” http://www.plasmaterials.com/msds/SrO.pdf [accessed May 24, 2016].
Powell J (March 10, 2016) “Climate Change Contributes to Worst Middle East Drought in 900 Years.” Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization. http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-contributes-to-worst-middle-east-drought-in-900-years/5518687 [accessed May 24, 2016].
Rasch PJ, et al. (2008) An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulfate aerosols. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 366, 4007–4037.
Reising LA (April 14, 1992) “Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft.” United States, patent no. 5,104,069. https://www.google.com/patents/US5104069?dq=5104069&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmwemB6I3NAhXC6YMKHcb0CRUQ6AEIHTAA [accessed May 25, 2016].
Ricke KL, Rowlands D, Ingram WJ, Keith DW, and Morgan MG (2012) Effectiveness of stratospheric solar radiation management as a function of climate sensitivity. Nature Climate Change, 2: 92-96. doi:10.1038/nclimate1328.
Rogers B (July 30, 2015) “Massive Global Tree Die-Off Linked to Geoengineering.” Waking Times. http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/07/30/massive-tree-die-off-linked-to-geoengineering/ [accessed May 27, 2016].
Salazar A (April 25, 2016) “Chuck Norris Takes on ‘Chemtrails’ - Martial arts legend accuses ‘sky criminals’ of waging secret war on public.” http://www.infowars.com/chuck-norris-takes-on-chemtrails/ [accessed May 23, 2016].
Sarich C (October 27, 2013) “Neurologist Warns of Exploding Neurodegenerative Disease Due to Chemtrail Toxins.” http://naturalsociety.com/neurologist-warns-exploding-cognitive-disorders-chemtrail-toxins/ [accessed June 4, 2016].
Schultz K (April 2, 2016) “California’s drought: Get used to it, scientists say.” SF Gate. http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-s-drought-Get-used-to-it-7223819.php [accessed May 24, 2016].
Sciencelab.com, Inc. (May 21, 2013) “Material Safety Data Sheet - Barium Oxide” http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9923002 [accessed May 24, 2016].
Sciencelab.com, Inc. (May 21, 2013) “Material Safety Data Sheet – Sulfuric Acid.” http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9925146 [accessed May 24, 2016].
Shepherd J, Caldeira K, Haigh J, Keith D, Launder B, Mace G, MacKerron G, Pyle J, Rayner S, Redgwell C, Cox P, and Watson A (2009) Geoengineering the climate - Science, governance and uncertainty. Rs Policy Document. Vol. 10/09, The Royal Society. London UK.
Sigma-Aldrich (October 30, 2012) “Safety Data Sheet – Silver Iodide.” http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/MSDS/MSDS/DisplayMSDSPage.do?country=PL&language=EN-generic&productNumber=204404&brand=ALDRICH&PageToGoToURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sigmaaldrich.com%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Faldrich%2F204404%3Flang%3Dpl [accessed May 24, 2016].
Verango D (February 25, 2011) “Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?” USA Today http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-25-geoengineering25_CV_N.htm [accessed May 24, 2016].
Weisenstein, DK, Keith, DW, and Dykema, JA (2015) Solar geoengineering using solid aerosol in the stratosphere. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11835-11859, doi:10.5194/acp-15-11835-2015.
Weiss P and Verdier J (April 27, 1920) “Process and apparatus for the production of intense artificial clouds, fogs, or mists.” United States, patent no. 1,338,343. http://www.google.com/patents/US1338343?dq=1338343&ei=Xm9LUJCRCImQ9QS1-4GADg [accessed May 25, 2016].
Werle DK, Kasparas R, and Katz S (August 12, 1975) “Powder Contrail Generation.” United States, patent no. 3,899,144. http://www.google.com/patents/US3899144#backward-citations [accessed May 25, 2016].
Wigington D (2016) “Extensive List of Patents.” Geoengineering Watch. Bella Vista, CA. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/links-to-geoengineering-patents/ [accessed May 24, 2016].
Wigington D (May 25, 2016) “Betrayal, The Climate Engineering Cover-Up By The Media, The US Military, And Academia.” Geoengineering Watch. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/category/geoengineering/atmospheric-spraying/ [accessed May 25, 2016].
Wigington D (May 11, 2016) “Dead Fish, Dying Planet, And Dangerous Denial.” Geoengineering Watch. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/category/methane/ [accessed May 24, 2016].
Wigington D (June 1, 2014) “Chemtrail Poisoning.” Geoengineering Watch. Bella Vista, CA. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/chemtrail-poisoning/ [accessed May 24, 2016].
Zielinkski S (December 16, 2015) “Airplane contrails may be creating accidental geoengineering.” The Smithsonian; http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/airplane-contrails-may-be-creating-accidental-geoengineering-180957561/?no-ist also seen on https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/59257 [accessed May 24, 2016].