Correction: Chemtrails, an “Exotic Weapon” is Not Geoengineering for Global Warming

0
1723
David keith mug-f
David Keith

Will Geoengineers like David Keith spray sulfuric acid high in the stratosphere to prevent chemtrails from melting the ice-caps?

.
 Addendum: 12/24/2013: added several paragraphs at the beginning for clarification

by Harold Saive

Regardless your opinion of geoengineer, David Keith, his concept of SRM (Solar Radiation Management) or SAG (Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering) involves far fewer resources and would be deployed much differently than what millions of observers have been calling “chemtrails” since the mid 1990’s.

As artificial clouds in the troposphere, chemtrails do more to warm the climate as an “exotic weapon” as defined in HR-2977.  Chemtrails are not to be confused with geoengineering as defined by the Royal Society to mitigate global warming with SRM or SAG in the stratosphere.
The term “Geoengineering” has been defined by the Royal Society as: “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.” – The Royal Society 2009
Chemtrails is defined in HR-2977 (PDF) as an “exotic weapon” – NOT a method to “counteract anthropogenic climate change”.
The conclusion that persistent contrails actually aggravate global warming/climate change is supported by UN/IPCC scientists:
“IPCC SPECIAL REPORT ON AVIATION AND GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE” (PDF), page 17:

“Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”.

In stark contrast to what millions of observers witness as daily chemtrails spraying by hundreds of jet aircraft, David Keith’s comments on the Dec 9, 2013 Colbert Nation spoke to a limited geoengineering operation achievable by a few high performance jet aircraft delivering a total payload of only 20,000 tons of sulfurc acid (H2SO4) into the stratosphere. Keith’s proposal reveals that the scale of the covert chemtrails operation is orders of magnitude more intense in required resources, CO2 polluting aircraft, and payloads of pollution deployed into the atmosphere.

chemtrails-in-the-troposphere-SAG
Chemtrails are not SAG or SRM

Keith suggests 20,000 tons of H2SO4 be released by jet aircraft into the stratosphere at 70,000 ft. By comparison, in excess of 200,000+ tons of chemtrails are routinely sprayed between 30 to 40,000 feet in the troposphere every day with the effect of warming the climate – an outcome that could be considered as either primary or “necessary” to the mission of weather modification. (Keith interview on Colbert Nation )

The media and government agencies admit that future emergency proposals for “geoengineering” the stratosphere to mitigate global warming are under consideration. Listen to Obama’s White House science advisor John Holdron.

A more critical look reveals chemtrails is an exotic weapons program with the effect of warming, not cooling, the climate. This conclusion is actually supported by UN/IPCC scientists:

“IPCC SPECIAL REPORT ON AVIATION AND GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE” (PDF), page 17:

“Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”.

The future could see two opposing aerosol operations: (1) Covert chemtrails that warms the climate and (2) Sulphuric acid as geoengineering to offset warming due to chemtrails.

Through years of confusion in agreeing on the definition of chemtrails vs. geoengineering, activists have incorrectly equated chemtrails with what is planned for future emergency geoengneering as SRM or SAG.

There is no research to establish effective solar radiation management when ionizing salts and metals are injected into the troposphere below 40,000 feet. Furthermore, chemtrails examined by telescopic lens are revealed in a variety of different colors from silver to a dirty brown.

Note: Of special interest in this video is (1) no normal gap between the engine and visible contrail (2) In jet #5 in sequence note the accidental release of aerosols from a compartment in the belly of the aircraft. (3) Some emissions are dingy in color and appear in the exhaust along with normal water vapor emissions that are much “brighter” in hue.

[youtube U5yOKnVhRCM]

Therefore, it’s far more likely that the presence of aluminum in chemtrails is evidence of an exotic weapons program rather than an ingredient to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space.

So the burning question remains:

Why do government agencies deny chemtrails while fully acknowledging the existence of future solar geoengineering programs?

Part of the answer goes back to the history of the National Weather Modification program organized by NASA in 1966.

Weather modification eventually came under the department of defense where top secret clearances of involved federal agencies became a virtual “gag order” on public disclosure due to the usual excuse of “national security”. Chemtrails and advanced electromagnetic sources are integrated to form a a global weather modification network hidden from public view . The ionospheric heater like the one at HAARP is only one example of a electromagnetic sources that integrate into a multi-layered weather modification network that has advanced to create weather and climate change on demand.

Keith’s suggests that 20,000 tons of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) would be required to geoengineer the stratosphere to protect against global warming.

Let’s use the hypothetical example of an aircraft capable of climbing to 70,000 feet in the stratosphere to release a 10 ton payload. With a one year timetable for completion, the initial seeding would require 2,000 sorties (trips) to deliver 20,000 tons of H2SO4 to the stratosphere within 12 months. This would require only six (6) aircraft deployments per day compared to the hundreds of similarly sized aircraft involved in deployment of chemtrails – the “exotic weapon” that UN/IPCC scientists agree is warming the climate.

The scale of Keith’s proposal to deploy 20,000 tons serves to demonstrate that the covert chemtrails operation is many times larger and uses hundreds of full-size jets capable of releasing 10 ton payloads at 37,000 feet in the troposphere every hour of every day since the mid, 1990’s.

This closer look at the metrics reveals chemtrails are neither SRM or SAG and challenges the definition of chemtrails as equivalent to geoengineering to allegedly cool the planet. Again, the case is further made when the UN/IPCC workgroup agrees with Cliff Carnicom’s conclusion that persistent contrails and resultant artificial cirrus clouds tend to warm the climate.

Finally, who would be so gullible as to presume Keith’s SAG plan to spray sulfuric acid would replace chemtrails – a covert operation that never pretended to be a benevolent program to mitigate global warming?

The future could see two opposing aerosol operations: (1) Covert chemtrails that warms the climate and (2) Sulphuric acid as SAG/SRM to offset warming due to chemtrails.

Discussion:

The IPCC and geoengineers, Ken Caldeira and David Keith could feel somewhat justified in denying chemtrails because they know it’s not competing as an operation intended to mitigate global warming. Basically, they are saying that Chemtrails – the covert exotic weapons program – is none of their business due to national security issues.

It makes little difference to geoengineers if the climate is warming due to CO2 or chemtrails – It will add to Keith’s business interests to offer SRM no matter the collective cause for warming.

We might suspect that the UN/IPCC was hoping to run out the clock in order to allow passag of hard-core climate change legislation by ignoring how chemtrails warm the climate as long as it helps to make the case for policy makers.

But in view of the skyrocketing public awareness of warming by chemtrails and destructive weather modification schemes, the IPCC is more and more regarded as a consensus of climate liars.

To complicate matters more, new research says reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet’s surface by geoengineering may not undo climate change after all. Two German researchers used a simple energy balance analysis to explain how the Earth’s water cycle responds differently to heating by sunlight than it does to warming due to a stronger atmospheric greenhouse effect. Further, they show that this difference implies that reflecting sunlight to reduce temperatures may have unwanted effects on the Earth’s rainfall patterns. The results are now published in Earth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU). (source)

Chemtrails are not Geoengineering as  SRM (Solar Radiation Management) or SAG (Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering)

  • Chemtrails is an “exotic weapon” as defined in HR-2977 and a widely used term to describe unusual persistent jet emissions.
  • To say that chemtrails is “geoengineering” to mitigate global warming is misleading since it implies that chemtrails is the same as SRM or SAG.
  • To substitute Geoengineering, SAG and SRM for chemtrails as an attempt to achieve political correctness results in promoting misleading public information.
  • Chemtrails was first published by the US Departmment of Defense as the title to a chemistry manual for future US Air Force Pilots.
  • Chemtrails, the manual, is available online in PDF format
  • Chemtrails is defined in the Oxford dictionary
  • Chemtrails is a term originated by the prime suspects in the DoD.
  • Chemtrails are far more than what geoengineering implies.
  • Chemtrails contain ionizing salts and other chemicals that alter the electric characteristics of the atmosphere in ways that do not act as SRM/SAG to reflect sunlight back into space.
  • Chemtrails are sprayed in the troposphere between 30 to 40,000 feet, not in the stratosphere above 60,000 feet, where the term SAG is appropriate.
  • Chemtrails is a geophysical weapon capable of interaction with an array of powerful electromagnetic sources.
  • Chemtrails is used by observers around the planet to best describe what is polluting and endangering their atmosphere every hour of every day.

Chemtrails Famly Deese


EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy