A Glimpse of the NOAA's Weather Modification Activities Records, and AWG

As some of you know, laws in Canada and in USA requests that any weather modification activities must be reported to the respective governments, archived and made publicly "available", except of course federal activities.

COMMERCE/NOAA–8
System name:
Individuals Engaged in Weather Modification Activities, COMMERCE/NOAA–8.

System location:
Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 6010 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Md. 20852.

Categories of individuals covered by the system:
Individuals and associations involved in weather modification operations.

Categories of records in the system:
Individual's name and address; type of weather modification activity; location and duration of project; and equipment used.

Authority for maintenance of the system:
Pub. L. 92–205; 15 CFR part 908.

Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
See routine use paragraphs in the Prefatory Statement. Also information is made available to anyone who so requests to comply with Pub. L. 92–205.

Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Storage:
Electronic data base.

Retrievability:
Filed sequentially by name.

Safeguards:
Records are located on an electronic data base with full public access upon request to comply with Pub. L. 92–205.

Retention and disposal:
Records are maintained indefinitely.

System manager(s) and address:
Office of the Director, Office of Weather Modification, see above address.

Notification procedure:
Information may be obtained from: Director, Office of Administration, NOAA, Room 6863, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Washington, DC 20230. Requester should provide name, address, date(s) of project etc., pursuant to the inquiry provisions of the Department's rules which appear in 15 CFR part 4b.

Source: www.ofr.gov...(S(13jhfdaba1t5njqwtir215ms))/Privacy/2011/commerce.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#noaa8

After a bit of digging I was able to find the NOAA's records from 1972 - 1973:

Archive of Weather Modification in 1972 - 1973

WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY REPORTS - NOVEMBER 1, 1972, TO DECEMBER 31, 1973

Mason T. Charak and Mary T. PiGiullan
ABSTRACT



All nonfederal ly sponsored weather modification activities
in the United States and its territories must, by law,
be reported to the Secretary of Commerce. Recent agree-
ments with applicable Federal agencies also provide for
reports of their weather modification activities. The
same law also requires that summaries of the reported
activities be published periodically. This summary, there-
fore, is an analysis of 67 activity reports submitted to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which
administers the weather modification reporting program on
behalf of the Secretary. Reports received from November 1,
1972, to December 31, 1973, have been reviewed and grouped
into categories covering project purpose, location,
sponsors, operators, modification equipment, techniques,
seeding agents, and related factors.



INTRODUCTION

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has administered,
on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, a weather modification reporting
program authorized by Public Law 92-205. This law, a copy of which is given
in appendix A, requires the reporting of all nonfederal ly sponsored weather
modification activities in the United States and its territories.

This report is quite old, but one point is nevertheless quite striking: in these two years alone, 67 weather modification activities have been carried out on US territories, and submitted to the NOAA.

Fast forward 39 years. You'd think that weather modification activities would have ceased so to avoid interfering with climate models.

I dug up the 2011 report:

Archive of Weather Modification, 2011

For those who cannot view pdf files, here is an image of the file:



(You might want to zoom in. )

In short, starting from january 2011, 32 weather modification activities have been carried out by various agencies, and the goal of the majority of these modifications have been to increase snowfall. So, what what were the effects of these modification activities? Well, it so happened that early in January, USA have seen massive amounts of snowfall. This correlates with the start of the snowfall-encouraging weather modification activities, as can be seen in the NOAA document.

A snowfall which was then blamed on... Global warming.

Monster snowstorms still spell global warming
By Michio Kaku, Special to CNN

The weather seems to be going berserk, with more snow dumped on our beleaguered Northeastern cities in a month than in a year, paralyzing business and our lives. Records are being broken even as we speak.
Common sense says that it's the freezing cold that is behind the freaky weather. But physics says otherwise (...) realize that global warming can heat the oceans and generate more moisture, which in turn can drive larger storms (...)

www.cnn.com...

Hm. What if local, freak weather which are blamed on AWG were actually caused by local weather modification activities? Or worst - what if the effects of some weather modification activities were used so to generate artificial evidences in favour of AWG?

Just saying...

a reply to: swanne

s some of you know, laws in Canada and in USA requests that any weather modification activities must be reported to the respective governments, archived and made publicly "available", except of course federal activities.

Cloud seeding...nothing new just put on paper.

Hm. What if local, freak weather which are blamed on AWG were actually caused by local weather modification activities? Or worst - what if the effects of some weather modification activities were used so to generate artificial evidences in favour of AWG?

Or it's just someone trying to make the connection because they found a paper that has been out there since 2011...

Just saying.

Weather modification is used for a variety of reasons, but I highly doubt it is used for the AWG agenda.

Weather modification is done on a local scale it wouldn't affect the Earth on a global scale.

Or it's just someone trying to make the connection because they found a paper that has been out there since 2011...

Well, this is typical of me. Noticing correlations. I just hope I am wrong.

I know this thread will not be a popular one. But I don't do it for the stars or flags - I do it because I want to explore the actual variables behind the issue.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

Weather modification is done on a local scale it wouldn't affect the Earth on a global scale.

Indeed, but then, you don't need to do it on a global scale - to influence the opinion of, say, americans, then you'd only need to weather-mod the territories where most american people live.

Additionally, climate is the collection of all the weathers on Earth - so, technically, even though you're influencing only a part of it, you'd still be influencing (albeit to a very limited extent) it.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

no,

Cloud seeding...nothing new just put on paper.

but when it is put on paper and blamed on global warming/ climate change, and propaganda by a paid sellout of a scientist used to push a false narrative, something anit right.

ETA: to be fair i suppose that scientists could overlook the activities, but i think that highly unlikely.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

but when it is put on paper and blamed on global warming/ climate change, and propaganda by a paid sellout of a scientist used to push a false narrative, something anit right.

But when actually researched that paper means diddly...does it not?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What are you trying to say?

That weather modification is "impossible" to achieve with our current technology?

Beijing using rockets to keep 2008 Olympics ceremonies free of rain

Keep in mind that those agencies in USA which are specialized in weather mod are receiving money from somewhere - well, someone. Operations like these can often cost in millions. Which means the efficiency of the weather mod as described in the paper is definitely good enough to convince the investor to keep investing.

a reply to: swanne

Indeed, but then, you don't need to do it on a global scale - to influence the opinion of, say, americans, then you'd only need to weather-mod the territories where most american people live.

Except it has been done in those areas for many years and most know what it does. Which is why it is only a big deal to conspiracy theorists.

Additionally, climate is the collection of all the weathers on Earth - so, technically, even though you're influencing only a part of it, you'd still be influencing (albeit to a very limited extent) it.

The thing is if they make it rain in Idaho that has no bearing on my climate in Georgia...so localized use of weather modification only effects the local climate not a global one.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

quite the contrary, it means that man is modifying the weather, and that a possibility exists that scientists for whatever reason ignore or overlook it. then say that crazy weather is a result of global warming/ climate change. when in fact it could be weather modification.

a reply to: swanne

That weather modification is "impossible" to achieve with our current technology?

Globally yes...locally no.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

Except it has been done in those areas for many years and most know what it does.

Wrong. That's exactly it - most people don't even know about weather modification events. It took me two hours of intensive search just to find the 2011 report, and I still haven't found the 2014 report yet.

So in the end, it is sooo easy for some AWG pushers (wether unintentionally or intentionally) to use weather mod events as artificial evidences for AWG... In fact they may already have in 2011!

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Affecting the local climate somewhere most certainly does affect the global climate, everything is connected. Excess moisture in one region affects every region around it and vice versa. We have rivers and streams and underground reservoirs that move this water from these isolated regions that affects everything around it. The affect of this water then affects the biological ecosystems, which in turn affect everything else.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

question, when was the last time on any global warming/ climate change report or article have you seen a disclaimer that weather modification in certain regions were not considered in the compilation of this report?


hell they are still trying to figure out a way to say that el nino and la nina are not part of global warming/ climate change. when it has been documented and spoke of for a least 200 years, and effecting land masses. they sure as hell aren't going to say man made weather has anything to do with it.

a reply to: swanne

Oh I am sure all of that man made stuff is just weather and not needed to be included into the Climate Models (sarc) But yea why would weather events be blamed on climate change when some are man made and have nothing to do with CO2 ...good post S&F

a reply to: swanne

Wrong. That's exactly it - most people don't even know about weather modification events. It took me two hours of intensive search just to find the 2011 report, and I still haven't found the 2014 report yet.

That's because they know it by it's more common name...cloud seeding.

I guess Texas is bucking that trend...

Section 301.112. Publication of Notice.

The notice of intention required under Section 301.110 must be published at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the operation is to be conducted.

www.tdlr.texas.gov...

Seems it has been discussed in some rather large media publications...

www.usnews.com...

So in the end, it is sooo easy for some AWG pushers (wether unintentionally or intentionally) to use weather mod events as artificial evidences for AWG... In fact they may already have in 2011!

And when those pushers have their claims researched it will be seen they embellished their so called findings.

a reply to: chadderson

Affecting the local climate somewhere most certainly does affect the global climate, everything is connected.

So when it snows in Russia my climate is effected in Georgia how?

When you make it rain in Texas how does that effect the climate in Hawaii?

Excess moisture in one region affects every region around it and vice versa.

Really because when Florida gets an abundance of rain I am not effected in Ga by it, unless of course their rain is in the northern part of the state and I am in the southern part of Ga, but when it rains in Fla. right outside Atlanta doesn't feel the effects of that rain.

We have rivers and streams and underground reservoirs that move this water from these isolated regions that affects everything around it.

Yes locally...not globally it doesn't.

a reply to: swanne

Do you not recall Sen. Inhofe or many members who claim on this very board that snow is evidence of no warming?

Further, your article talking about global warming-linked snowstorms is discussing storms in the Northeast.
Your weather modification record is talking about California, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Texas, and North Dakota.

a reply to: swanne
You are grasping at straws when you try to make the connection between small scale weather modification experiments and AGW, however you made a good discovery and they have come a long way from basic cloud seeding and Project Storm Fury.

Weather modification has nothing to do with the spike of CO2 levels we are observing.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Yes locally...not globally it doesn't.

it gets added to the data that goes global .:>)

a reply to: jrod

And the spike of CO2 levels we are observing has nothing to do with local weather ,in this case man made weather .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I really don't know what your point ofv that reply was.

If anything creating clouds and precipitation will cause a local cooling effect....not exactly on par with the AGW agenda some rant about.