Archiv der Kategorie: Chemtrails

Chemtrails

Veröffentlicht am von

Die Zerstörung des Himmels durch chemische Wolkenerzeugung

Bis 2025 wol­len die USA die Herr­schaft über die glo­ba­len Wet­ter­ver­hält­nis­se errin­gen und das Erd­kli­ma mit­tels Ver­sprü­hung che­mi­scher Sub­stan­zen in der Atmo­sphä­re manipulieren.

Dies geht aus einer offi­zi­el­len Stu­die hervor.

Zurück­ge­hend auf das Wels­bach Patent von 1991 begann die USA Mit­te der 90er Jah­re mit wol­ken­er­zeu­gen­den Sprüh­ak­tio­nen durch Flug­zeu­ge. Die­se wur­den Ende der 90er in den USA und spä­ter in NATO und NATO-asso­zi­ier­ten Län­dern flä­chen­de­ckend durch­ge­führt. Wei­ter­le­sen →

E.U. Parlamentarier Meijer stellte 2007 Chemtrail-Anfrage

Veröffentlicht am von

“CHEMTRAILS” AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

By W. Hall
Aigi­na, Greece
August 30, 2007.

Sub­mis­si­on in the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment of writ­ten ques­ti­ons on “chem­trails” by Dutch Socia­list depu­ty Erik Mei­jer will be seen as a posi­ti­ve deve­lo­p­ment by some acti­vists. Are we wit­nessing the begin­nings of a new pha­se in the years-long saga of this aero­sol-spray­ing acti­vi­ty, and of the stig­ma­ti­zed oppo­si­ti­on to it?. (See the pre­sent writer’s: “Cli­ma­te Chan­ge Jekylls and Hydes”). Meijer’s writ­ten ques­ti­ons, under the hea­ding “Air­craft con­den­sa­ti­on trails which no lon­ger only con­tain water but cau­se per­sis­tent mil­ky veils, pos­si­bly due to the pre­sence of bari­um and alu­mi­ni­um”, are not the first such sub­mis­si­on to have been tab­led in a Euro­pean legis­la­tu­re: in 2005 the Demo­cra­tic Left depu­ties Italo San­di and Pie­ro Ruz­zan­te rai­sed simi­lar ques­ti­ons in the Ita­li­an Par­lia­ment. More recent­ly their poli­ti­cal asso­cia­tes Asi­mi­na Xiro­ti­ri and Fotis Kou­ve­lis did the same in Greece. But faced with the ste­reo­ty­ped and unin­for­ma­ti­ve respon­ses such ques­ti­ons recei­ve from offi­ci­al spo­kesper­sons, the reac­tion of par­lia­men­ta­ri­ans is to beco­me dis­cou­ra­ged — or at any rate inac­ti­ve and inac­ces­si­ble — per­haps not per­cei­ving what they should do next and for that reason reluc­tant to have too much cont­act with citi­zens still pres­sing them for action and/or ans­wers, whom they are obli­ged to con­front “with emp­ty hands”. Wei­ter­le­sen →

Chemtrail Patente Inklusive Barium Zusammensetzungen

Veröffentlicht am von

DGLR Luft­fahrt-Forum

Für alle Chem­trail Zweif­ler — alle US-Patente

Geschrie­ben von: Realist
Datum: 4. April 2004, 21:45h

Chem­trail Paten­te — die Rea­li­tät für alle Zweifler

A method and appa­ra­tus for alte­ring at least one sel­ec­ted regi­on which nor­mal­ly exists abo­ve the earth’s sur­face. The regi­on is exci­ted by elec­tron cyclo­tron reso­nan­ce hea­ting to ther­eby increase its char­ged par­tic­le den­si­ty. In one embo­di­ment, cir­cu­lar­ly pola­ri­zed elec­tro­ma­gne­tic radia­ti­on is trans­mit­ted upward in a direc­tion sub­stan­ti­al­ly par­al­lel to and along a field line which extends through the regi­on of plas­ma to be alte­red. The radia­ti­on is trans­mit­ted at a fre­quen­cy which exci­tes elec­tron cyclo­tron reso­nan­ce to heat and acce­le­ra­te the char­ged par­tic­les. This increase in ener­gy can cau­se ioniza­ti­on of neu­tral par­tic­les which are then absor­bed as part of the regi­on ther­eby incre­asing the char­ged par­tic­le den­si­ty of the regi­on. Wei­ter­le­sen →

CFR Geo Engineering Vorstellung

Veröffentlicht am von

CFR- Bottom line

It is pro­ba­b­ly safe to assu­me that the direct mone­ta­ry cost of geo­en­gi­ne­ring would be at

least 100 times less than the cost of a full pro­gram of GHG abatement…

…and per­haps much che­a­per than that

Becau­se it is rela­tively cheap, a nati­on that had not done much aba­te­ment, but star­ted cli­ma­te impacts, might be tempt­ed to uni­la­te­ral­ly enga­ge in albe­do-modi­fy­ing geo­en­gi­nee­ring.

Uni­la­te­ral Geoengineering

A few basic ide­as about the sci­ence to start our discussions

2008 May 05

M. Gran­ger Morgan

Department of

Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
tel: 412−268−2672
e‑mail: granger.morgan@andrew.

Four examp­les of how the earth’s albe­do might be increased:

Wei­ter­le­sen →

(ENMOD-KONVENTION-1977- Anhang 2- Auszug)

Veröffentlicht am von

Fol­gen­de Bei­spie­le illus­trie­ren die Mög­lich­kei­ten, wel­che durch die Benut­zung von Umwelt­ma­ni­pu­la­ti­ons-Tech­ni­ken ver­ur­sacht wer­den kön­nen: Erdbeben,Tsunamis, die Unter­bre­chung der öko­lo­gi­schen Balan­ce einer Regi­on, Ände­rung der Wet­ter­mus­ter (Wol­ken, Nie­der­schlags­men­ge, Zyklo­ne und Tor­na­dos), Ände­run­gen in Kli­ma-Mus­tern und in Mee­res­strö­mun­gen, Ände­run­gen des Zustan­des der Ozon­schicht und der Ionosphäre.

UNDERSTANDINGS REGARDING THE CONVENTION   (ENMOD-KON­VEN­TI­ON-1977-Aus­zug)

Wei­ter­le­sen →

Spiegel-Online Textauszug über Schwefel-Versprühungen

Veröffentlicht am von

Tank­flug­zeug KC-10 Exten­der: Die Idee: Eine Mil­li­on Ton­nen Schwe­fel­was­ser­stoff müs­sen nach Robocks Kli­ma­mo­dell pro Jahr in die Stra­to­sphä­re gepus­tet wer­den, um die Erd­er­wär­mung deut­lich abzu­schwä­chen. Mit Kampf­jets der US Air Force könn­te das sei­ner Mei­nung nach gelingen.

Spie­gel-Online 2008

IPCC Climate Change Report 2001 (Bewertung von Partikelausbringungen)

Veröffentlicht am von

Opti­ons to Enhan­ce, Main­tain, and Mana­ge Bio­lo­gi­cal Car­bon Reser­voirs and Geo-engi­nee­ring                                                                                                         S.   333

This might invol­ve pro­vi­ding nitro­gen or phos­pho­rus in lar­ge quan­ti­ties, but the quan­ti­ties to be sup­pli­ed would be much smal­ler if growth were limi­t­ed by a micro­nu­tri­ent. In par­ti­cu­lar, the­re is evi­dence that in lar­ge are­as of the Sou­thern Oce­an pro­duc­ti­vi­ty is limi­t­ed by avai­la­bi­li­ty of the micro­nu­tri­ent iron. Mar­tin (1990, 1991) sug­gested that the oce­an could be sti­mu­la­ted to take up addi­tio­nal CO2 from the atmo­sphe­re by pro­vi­ding addi­tio­nal iron, and that 300,000 ton­nes of iron could result in the rem­oval of 0.8GtC from the atmo­sphe­re.  Other ana­ly­ses have sug­gested that the effect may be more limi­t­ed.  Peng and Broe­cker (1991) exami­ned the dyna­mic aspects of this pro­po­sal and con­cluded that, even if the iron hypo­the­sis was com­ple­te­ly cor­rect, the dyna­mic issues of mixing the excess car­bon into the deep oce­an would limit the magni­tu­de of the impact on the atmo­sphe­re. Joos et al. (1991) repor­ted on a simi­lar model expe­ri­ment and found the oce­an dyna­mics to be less important, the time path of anthro­po­ge­nic CO2 emis­si­ons to be very important, and the maxi­mum poten­ti­al effect of iron fer­ti­liza­ti­on to be some­what grea­ter than repor­ted by Peng and Broe­cker (1991).

Wei­ter­le­sen →

1 2 3 4 5 6