My first concern is transparency. It is a sobering fact that weather modification is intrinsically related to climate modification. The two go hand in
hand, you can't have one without the other. Furthermore, climate modification has far reaching implications that can have disastrous consequences
that may not be readily foreseen. Without having transparency of weather modification programs there is no way to determine the role that weather
modification programs may be playing with the global climate changes our planet is experiencing.
My second concern is oversight. The fact that it is the US Dept. of Treasury that is in control of weather modification suggests the potential for
abuse for economic reasons. The risk of abuse of weather control for financial gains is too great without complete oversight by an impartial entity
that has no economic ties...especially with such things as stock futures hanging in the balance. Also included with this is the need for greater
oversight over the health and environmental issues that are related to weather modification.
My third concern is accountability. Weather modification can have serious consequences that can cause loss of life or damage to personal property.
Laws are obeyed because people have a responsibility for their actions. Who is to be held accountable for murder as a consequence of weather
modification if it were to be the cause of an F5 tornado that destroys a town and kills hundreds...or causes a drought that kills millions? If anyone
else were to be responsible for the destruction of a town they would be labeled a "terrorist" and would be held accountable. What remediation is
available for the loss of property, life, liberty (blue skies or rain as the CREATOR so deemed), and the pursuit of happiness (when chemtrails are
destroying your livelihood by causing drought or flood or damaging winds)? Part of a major issue here is that without transparency there can be no
such accountability for weather modification programs.
Lastly, climate and weather are directly related to the environment which is inarguably part of national security. Therefore as part of national
security, anything released into the environment should be under the absolute jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency so that they can
perform their duties as expected. The fact that numerous claims exist from many people claiming of a strong correlation between the observed aerial
spraying of atmospheric chemicals and illnesses that they have experienced tells me there isn't enough environmental oversight of the release of
chemicals by aerial spraying. I'm one of those. I have personally observed a strong correlation between intense atmospheric aerial spraying and
respiratory problems that I have experienced. Furthermore, I completely blame chemtrail spraying to have once been the cause for sending my child to
the hospital because he couldn't breath. In fact who is to say that atmospheric releases of chemicals, due to weather modification programs, aren't
directly responsible for the general decline of bird species, or bats, or bees, or acid rain? To dismiss these claims out of hand is both
irresponsible and dangerous to national security. A greater mechanism needs to exist to address and resolve these health and environmental issues that
are being caused by the atmospheric aerial spraying due to weather modification programs.
Now here's my debunkers' argument before hand.
Some things cought my interest...
"(4) Weather modification programs may have long-range and unexpected effects on existing climatic patterns which are not confined by national
...Like the African sub-saharan drought in the 80's or the argentine drought now.
"(3) to develop practical methods and devices for weather modification;"
...where were y'all when the SE got sprayed all to hell for years and there was no rain.
"(4) to make weather modification research findings available to interested parties;"
Yes! I'm interested in chemtrails.
"to integrate the results of existing experience and studies in weather modification activities into model codes and agreements for regulation of
domestic and international weather modification activities."
"Many current and ongoing weather modification programs (50+ listed by NOAA each year-note the ones listed in this bill), are already changing the
climate in many regions of the United States. Since most Americans have not been made aware of these programs it is easy to blame severe climate
disturbances on "global warming theories" or climate change. These events are causing an overwhelming urge to "mitigate" current weather problems
with increased weather modification experimentation, instead of examining local micro-climate changes that are caused by current and ongoing programs.
It would be easier to stop these experimental programs than to add new programs without a clear understanding of current and future synergistic
"NASA noted in an October 2005 newsletter that increasingly persistent contrails forming man-made clouds and haze are "…trapping warmth in the
atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…" NASA goes on to note that: "…Any increase in global cloud cover will contribute to long-term
changes in Earth's climate."
"1) Weather modification may promote rain in one area to the detriment of another; 2) These legal and liability issues pertaining to weather
modification (now mitigation), and the potential adverse consequences on life, property, and water resource availability resulting from weather
modification activities, must be considered fully before the U.S. government could take responsibility for this new research program: 3) Given Global
weather patterns, whether one country "owns" its weather so as to assert intra-border control with extra-border consequences, must be considered
under present international conventions…""
There is established within the Treasury of the United States the Weather Modification Research and Development Fund...
BTW my surveillance guy that drives by the house has a big "T" for Treasury government tag...just so y'all know.
"OCR for page R8
. ~ . V111 PREFACE A significant part of the advances projected from applying the current intellectual and technological tools to solving critical
uncertainties in weather modification will produce results well beyond the initial objective and will lead to applications in totally unexpected
areas. For example, the ability to make useful precipitation forecasts, particularly from convective storms, may be a valuable by-product of weather
modification research. The Committee is also acutely conscious of the fact that, particularly in modifying severe weather, researchers may be required
to have, before attempting treatment, a reliable and proven ability to predict what would have taken place had the system not been modified. As a
chaotic system, the atmosphere is inherently predictable only for a limited time, with the time limit shorter for smaller spatial scales. Thus,
predictions must be couched in probabilistic terms that may not satisfy the user community that a reliable prediction has been made. This report is
the latest in a series of assessments of weather modification carried out by the National Academies, which produced reports in 1964, 1966, and 1973,
aimed at guiding weather modification research and policy development. The last National Academies report is nearly three decades old and, despite
more recent assessments by other bodies such as the American Meteorological Society and the World Meteorological Organization, a need was seen for an
evaluation of weather modification research and operations in the United States. In November 2000, the National Academies' Board on Atmospheric
Sciences and Climate (BASCJ organized a program development workshop to assess whether it would be useful to take a fresh look at the scientific
underpinnings of weather modification. A year later, a study committee was convened, and four committee meetings were held over eight months. The
Committee received input from individuals in federal and state agencies, scientists who have or are conducting relevant research, and professionals
active in operational weather programs. The charge to the Committee explicitly excluded consideration of the complex social and legal issues
associated with weather modification. This part of the question is of such importance in any weather modification effort that the Committee did go so
far as to note, but not elaborate upon, the most critical questions in this area. Also in accordance with its charge, the Committee did not address
inadvertent global-scale modification of climate and weather (e.g., global warming). However, the potential local and regional impacts of both
intentional and inadvertent weather modification are considered. The report is addressed primarily to Administration officials and funding agencies
who determine the direction of atmospheric research through budget decisions. The Committee recognizes, however, that weather modification has a wide
audience. The Preface and the Executive Summary are directed at this wider audience, while a greater level of technical detail is contained within the
body of the report. Michael Garstang, Chair Committee on the Status of and Future Directions in U.S. Weather Modification Research and Operations
OCR for page R9
Acknowledgments This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in
accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide
candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets
institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain
confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Richard
Anthes, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Rafael Bras, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stanley A. Changnon, Illinois State Water
Survey William Cotton, Colorado State University John Hallett, Desert Research Institute Daniel Rosenfeld, Hebrew University Joanne Simpson, NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center Gabor Vali, University of Wyoming Francis Zwiers, University of Victoria Although the reviewers listed above have provided
constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the report's conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft
of the report before its release. The review ofthis report was overseen by John A. Dutton, The Pennsylvania State University. Appointed by the
National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination ofthis report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely
with the authoring committee and the institution. ix
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION Motivation, 9 Cloud Physics, 13 First Experiments and First Controversies, 15 An Emerging Industry and
Developing Public Concern, 16 The Pioneering Experiments, 17 The Need for Impartial Assessment of Seeding Results, 18 2 CURRENT STATUS OF WEATHER
MODIFICATION OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH Current Operational Efforts, 23 Current Scientific Efforts, 24 Other Results, 35 Recognition of Key Uncertainties
in Weather Modification, 36 EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WEATHER MODIFICATION Physical Evaluation, 39 Statistical Evaluation, 40 Measurement
Uncertainties, 42 Uncertainties in Defining and Tracking the Target, 42 Uncertainties in Reaching the Target, 43 Assessing the Area Affecte d, 44 4
TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING Measurement and Observing Technologies, 45 Modeling and Data Assimilation, 54 Laboratory Studies,
61 Field Studies, 63 Xl 1 9 23 39 45
OCR for page R12
. . X11 CONCLUS IONS AND RE COMM ENDATIONS Conclusions, 67 Recommendations, 72 REFERENCES APPENDIXES B C D Glaciogenic and Hygroscopic Seeding:
Previous Research and Current Status, 89 Modern Statistical Methods and Weather Modification Research, 107 Glossary, 1 14 Acronyms, 118 E Community
Participation, 1 19 F Committee Member B fog raphies, 1 2 1 CONTENTS 67 75 89 "
Glaciogenic and Hygroscopic Seeding...Yep. Multiple types of chemtrails.
"All of these unregulated, private, government, and public weather modification programs, may also have unintended synergistic effects. Senate Bill
517 does not address these issues but intends to implement more experimental weather modification programs without a national debate or public
Artificial weather modification can impact all of us by reducing water supplies, changing agricultural crop production cycles, reducing crop
production, and water availability. Since most experimental weather modification programs use chemicals released into the atmosphere the public could
be subjected increasingly toxic or unknown substances that could adversely impact agricultural crops and trees."
"They will provide an update on EFFORTS to build up wintertime snowpack..."
"Principal Scientist: Weather modification programs
Research interests include weather modification with special emphasis on precipitation enhancement and cloud processes and aerosol-cloud
Project Scientist III
Hydromet Applications Program (HAP)