Weather Derivative



Originally posted on irisphant:

The first weather derivative deal was in July 1996 when Aquila Energy structured a dual-commodity hedge for Consolidated Edison Co. 1 (Environmental Finance – Weather Risk ) Weather derivatives slowly began trading over-the-counter in 1997. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange introduced the first exchange-traded weather futures contracts and corresponding options, in 1999. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange  was founded in 1898 as the Chicago Butter and Egg Board, an agricultural commodities exchange. A major early pioneer in weather derivatives was Enron Corporation, through its EnronOnline unit.

The CME currently lists weather derivative contracts for 25 cities in the United States, eleven in Europe, six in Canada, three in Australia and three in Japan. Most of these financial instruments track cooling degree days or heating degree days, but other products track snowfall and rainfall in at ten separate U.S. locations. The CME Hurricane Index, an innovation developed by the reinsurance industry provides…

View original 317 more words

Public Perceptions of Geoengineering (Opinion Article)



Originally posted on Geoengineering Our Climate?:

Cairns (2015) – Public Perceptions of Geoengineering – Click for download

Screen Shot 2015-01-26 at 17.15.26Given that geoengineering technologies remain for the most part hypothetical ideas, geoengineering research has been described as being at an ‘upstream’ moment.[1] This implies that, in contrast to more mature technologies which may already have become ‘locked-in’ or resistant to change[2], the ultimate forms – if any – that these technologies might take in the future is still amenable to being shaped by the concerns and values of society. Thus there is a fair degree of consensus that eliciting public perceptions about geoengineering approaches is important[3], and that it should happen while research in this area is at an early stage.[4] However, eliciting, understanding and representing what this group called ‘the public’ might think or feel about geoengineering is not necessarily straightforward.

Firstly, there are a variety of (stated and implicit) rationales for…

View original 2,093 more words

Ionospheric Heaters and Destroying the Van Allen Belts

Hacking the Van Allen Belts

Could we save satellites and astronauts by wiping out the Van Allen belts?

By Charles Q. Choi Posted 26 Feb 2014 | 15:00 GMT

Electric Light Orchestrated? Alas, even if we took control of the Van Allen belts, it probably wouldn’t result in more auroras.

The radiation belts around Earth are loaded with dangerous protons and electrons that can damage spacecraft. Now researchers are launching experiments to see if they can clear away the high-energy particles that pose the hazard by blasting them with radio waves.

When humans began exploring space, the first major find was the Van Allen radiation belts, doughnut-shaped zones of magnetically trapped, highly energetic charged particles. The Van Allen belts consist mainly of two rings: The inner belt starts roughly 1000 kilometers above Earth’s surface and extends up to 9600 km, while the outer belt stretches from about 13 500 to 58 000 km above Earth. The location and shapes of the belts can vary, and they can even merge completely.

High-energy protons are found within the area of the inner belt, whose size remains generally stable over the course of years to decades. The outer belt, on the other hand, is home to high-energy electrons and can vary dramatically in size and shape over the course of hours or days.

The huge amounts of radiation in the Van Allen belts can pose major risks for the host of satellites that pass through or orbit within these swaths of space. There are ways to make spacecraft more resistant against this radiation. For instance, spikes on their surfaces known as electron emitters can radiate away excess lower-energy electrons that might otherwise accumulate and cause a spark. In addition, shielding can help keep high-energy protons and electrons from penetrating nonconducting materials and building up inside them, which could lead to a damaging discharge.

However, decades of models and observations suggest a more dramatic solution: using carefully tuned electromagnetic waves to drive these particles out of space and into Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists first explored the idea of dispersing electrons in the outer belt, and they are now targeting protons in the inner belt.

It’s really mind-boggling to think there could be human control over such huge volumes of space,” says Jacob Bortnik, a space physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “On Earth we control nature all the time, like building dams, but the prospect of doing it in space is fascinating—it seems a bit like science fiction.”

One radiation-clearing strategy involves using very large radio transmitters on the ground to beam very low frequency (VLF) waves upward. These can in principle interact with and scatter charges in the radiation belt and drive them into the upper atmosphere.

The result would be a little bit like auroras, although you wouldn’t see them,” Bortnik says.

Fig. 1. Observation geometry and image data from two low-light imaging systems capturing 557.7-nm emissions from a bull’s-eye-shaped artificial ionospheric plasma over the HAARP facility. A reconstruction based on the image data shows the central spot and the ring to form two distinct artificial layers separated in altitude by ∼15 km, which matches closely the multiple layers seen in ionosonde echoes (lower right).

The problem with that approach is getting VLF waves through the ionosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that sits about 80 to 640 km above Earth. “That layer is very conductive, so it’s hard to get signals through it efficiently,” Bortnik says.

Another strategy would station satellites that emit VLF waves in the radiation belts. “The problem is that you’d need quite a lot of energy,” Bortnik says, and large antennas that would be challenging to fit onto spacecraft.

Still, Bortnik points out, the U.S. Air Force’s Demonstration and Science Experiments (DSX) satellite, set for launch in 2016, will carry an instrument to monitor the effects that VLF waves broadcast in space might have on these dangerous electrons. “Those experiments can show how well VLF waves actually do, and maybe change what we think we know about what is needed to clear away electrons,” Bortnik says.

Satellite Threat Due to High Altitude Nuclear Detonation - Eisenhower Institute - Papadopoulos-Presentation 280369

Satellite Threat Due to High Altitude Nuclear Detonation – Eisenhower Institute – Papadopoulos-Presentation 280369

Initial efforts to clear the Van Allen belts targeted electrons because they tend to get trapped there as the result of high-altitude nuclear explosions. In 1962, a U.S. high-altitude nuclear weapons test named Starfish Prime generated a highly energetic artificial electron belt that disabled the first commercial communications satellite, TelStar 1, so researchers sought ways to protect spacecraft from nuclear weapons used in space.

However, it’s the protons in the inner belt that scientists have recently explored. Getting rid of them would potentially open up valuable new orbits for satellites and make travel safer for astronauts, says Maria de Soria-Santacruz Pich, whose Ph.D. work at MIT was on manipulating the Van Allen belts. It might also be impossible.

“Protons are heavy, about 2000 times heavier than electrons, so if you imagine a proton bashing into a piece of silicon, it can do a whole lot more damage than an electron,” Bortnik says. “Clearing them out would be good.”


High-Voltage Orbiting Long Tether (HiVOLT): A System for Remediation of the Van Allen Radiation Belts

High-Voltage Orbiting Long Tether (HiVOLT):
A System for Remediation of the Van Allen Radiation Belts

Pich and her colleagues discovered that a type of VLF electromagnetic wave known as an electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) wave could potentially disperse protons in the inner belt. Pich says this strategy poses no hazard to Earth—the swarm of protons would be virtually unnoticed in the atmosphere.


Dr. Jacob Bortnik

Dr. Jacob Bortnik, UCLA “consultant to QuakeFinder, based in Palo Alto, CA. QuakeFinder uses a chain of search-coil magnetometers to look for possible magnetic precursors to large earthquakes, as well as DEMETER satellite data.”

Pich and her colleagues recently refined the computational strategy needed to figure out what frequencies space-based antennas should use and how much power is needed. However, Pich also found that to disperse all the protons from the region, you’d need a million 15-meter antennas operating for a few years, “which is indeed not feasible in the near future,” she says.

Nonetheless, Pich noted, her calculations assume that the waves these antennas generate do not bounce back and forth inside the inner belt. If they do, that could greatly improve their effectiveness, potentially making the strategy possible. A satellite mission would decide the matter one way or another, but there’s a lot of engineering work needed to even propose such a mission, she says.

It remains uncertain as to whether removing these radiation belts might have unintended consequences.

“At present we don’t think there is any downside to not having them, but as with all things geophysical, it is hard to know all the complex interconnections between the various systems and estimate the full effect of removing the radiation belts completely,” Bortnik says.

That’s the most any of us can really say at the moment.”

This article originally appeared in print as “Can We Hack the Van Allen Belts?.”
Mirrored from:

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The military has been trying to destroy or control our ionosphere, magnetosphere, and Van Allen Belts for over fifty years and now it is getting crazy.  I find it highly ironic that Dr. Bortnik shoots electromagnetic missiles around our planet AND predicts earthquakes due to heated skies….. RRRREALLY!?!  I see what you did there, chicken before the egg my butt.  Read more about “radiation belt remediation” and the whole story here on our HAARP and the Sky Heaters page]

HAARP and the Sky Heaters

Hate Chemtrails? ACT NOW! Earthjustice sues EPA!

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Call the EPA, submit comments even though they are closed, and hold their feet to the fire! Make sure they talk about the chemtrails. ]

As Aircraft Emissions Skyrocket, EPA Looks Into Regulation For First Time

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency took a step towards adding aircraft emissions to the list of regulated pollution sources. In a statement the EPA said it will study the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, the first step in the regulatory process, and release its findings by next April.  If the agency finds airline emissions to be a risk to public health or the environment, it will begin the process of crafting rules. The rules would make airplanes subject to carbon emissions guidelines in a process similar to the one currently underway for vehicles and power plants.

Chemtrails are toxic and full of secret chemicals, nuff said:

Stadis 450 Barium Salt [MSDS trade secret][MSDS full]


SPEC-Aid 8Q462 turbine fuel stabilizer and detergent additive [MSDS]


More info here:


Joe Dougherty
Office of Air and Radiation,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
Telephone number: (202) 564–1659; Fax number: (202) 564–1543; E-mail address:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Put this in the subject line of your email:

RE: Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318-0117

Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act

17,899 comments so far on, make sure you’re heard!

Pushing EPA to regulate aviation greenhouse gas emissions

Posted on August 8, 2014 by Rick Piltz
Photo: International Civil Aviation Organization

On August 5, two environmental groups sent notice of intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for failure to comply with a court order that would lead toward regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. aviation. EPA has long delayed taking any steps to apply its Endangerment Finding to aircraft emissions. The groups first petitioned EPA to take action in 2007, the same year our report on the federal NextGen aviation planning program charged that the Bush administration was making a deliberate effort to disconnect aviation planning from the global warming problem. It seems that, as far as taking meaningful action is concerned, the Obama administration has continued to kick this can down the road.

Greenwire reported on August 5 (by subscription):

The Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth, which is represented by Earthjustice, filed a motion of intent to sue today to push EPA to promulgate rules for the aviation sector, citing a March 2012 order by a federal court directing the agency to consider whether aviation emissions contribute to climate change and should be regulated. The agency said at the time that it would take it 22 months to make that determination, and the groups note that it has exceeded that. …

The green groups argue that EPA should promulgate a rule for aviation emissions because they constitute 11 percent of the transportation sector’s carbon and are growing, and because it has already found that heat-trapping emissions are a danger to public health and well-being. [that’s right, contrails]

Full text of the letter is here. The letter includes this:

Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act … requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases from aircraft engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. … If EPA determines that these emissions do contribute to such endangerment, it must propose and adopt standards to limit those emissions. … This mandatory duty was brought to EPA’s attention in 2007, when Earthjustice, on behalf of Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, Oceana, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, petitioned EPA to take this action. In July of 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed the mandate, holding that EPA’s duty to make an endangerment finding is compulsory. … Because, more than six and a half years after it received petitions to do so, EPA has still not made the mandatory endangerment finding or promulgated regulations to address greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft under section 231, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth intend to file suit for unreasonable delay. …

[In June 2012,] EPA acknowledged its obligation to conduct an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases from aircraft engines … Two years later, EPA has not yet taken even the preliminary step of issuing a draft endangerment finding for aircraft emissions (or of reaffirming that another endangerment finding for greenhouse gases is unnecessary, as EPA has repeatedly done in connection with regulating greenhouse gases from other sources2). …

By 2008, aviation was viewed as the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, increasing at a rate of nearly 5 percent per year.6 The International Civil Aviation Organization expects the trend to continue, projecting 4.9% annual growth in air passenger traffic7 and 5.2% annual growth in air freight traffic from 2010,8 more than doubling global air traffic by 2030.9 …

Because of the significant role that aircraft play in global climate change, and in light of the exponential growth projected in air travel, the United States must lead the way in regulating global warming pollutants from these sources. …

Based on this unreasonable and unjustifiable delay, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth intend to file suit against EPA 180 days from the date of this notice.

We first got interested in the U.S. government’s evasiveness on the problem of aviation and global warming in 2007, when an inside source called our attention to how the Bush administration was suppressing consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in connection with NextGen, a long-term, multiagency planning effort initiated that year and aimed at enabling the tripling of U.S. aviation traffic. The Bush administration tasked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with implementing this Next Generation Air Transportation System. The FAA failed to consider climate change in any of its NextGen planning processes.

A report by Climate Science Watch released in July 2007 first publicized this failure by the FAA. The report concluded that the NextGen planning process involved a “deliberate effort to disconnect aviation planning from the global warming problem.” It highlighted the administration’s inattention to quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft in strategic planning for the development of the industry, and cautioned that continuing this omission could contribute to harmful effects on the environment and on the future of U.S. aviation. We called for aviation emissions to be addressed in U.S. climate change policy and regulation, and argued that federal aviation planning should focus on systematically reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to position U.S aviation to meet future  requirements. (Full text of the report: NextGen Air Transportation System Progress Reports Ignore Climate Change).

Five months later, in December 2007, a coalition of environmental groups including Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a formal petition calling on EPA to exercise its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from domestic and foreign aircraft departing or landing at American airports. We called this action a significant step forward in advancing the issue of aviation and climate change, which had already been neglected for too long in the debate on climate policy. (Our report was cited as a source in the section of the petition on “Improved Aviation Operations and Procedures Can Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significantly.”)

EPA subsequently dragged its feet on responding to the petition. On July 5, 2011, a federal court ruled that EPA is required to make an Endangerment Finding for aircraft, i.e., that the agency must formally determine whether GHG emissions from aviation endanger public health and welfare. The agency did not act on this requirement, so the environmental groups took the agency back to court in March 2012.

Although the EPA determined that emissions from motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare, the EPA asserted that it would need to do a new Endangerment Finding specifically for aircraft, which would be time-consuming. They claimed the agency would have to start from scratch, make all the scientific findings all over again, respond to comments, and it would take them a couple of years. In the appeal, Earthjustice attorney Sarah Burt likened this process to re-proving the existence of the atom over and over again, while the knowledge is already at your disposal. Burt told us, “In the power plants rule EPA says, ‘if we have to do a CO2 Endangerment Finding for power plants we can just rely directly on the one we already did for Section 202 sources.’ This statement directly contradicted what EPA said in our case.”

The EPA argued that the agency has other regulatory priorities that take precedence over addressing aircraft emissions, and that the agency is focusing on the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including motor vehicles and power plants. Thus, under both Bush and Obama, EPA has delayed for the past seven years on dealing with regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases from aviation — a delay that has now gotten to the point of violating its statutory responsibility under a court order.

In fact, the Obama administration doesn’t want to regulate emissions from U.S. aviation. Greenwire noted on August 5:

The Obama administration frequently has been at odds with its environmental allies over how to curb aviation emissions linked to climate change. The administration has opposed the European Union’s bid to unilaterally limit emissions from flights that pass through Europe under its Emissions Trading System, while greens support it. Instead, the administration has pushed for an international market-based measure under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The international body last year did agree to craft such a mechanism by 2016 that would take force by 2020.

But advocates note that national action has spurred or strengthened international programs in the past, and CBD and FOE are urging EPA to promulgate rules in the meantime. They say they are skeptical that the ICAO process will yield meaningful reductions given the amount of influence that industry has over the body.

Reuters reported on July 25:

The newly appointed U.S. representative to the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is optimistic that member states will agree to measures that will curb airplanes’ carbon emissions. …

[U.S. ICAO rep Michael] Lawson said that the efforts to regulate airline emissions globally were a part of the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan.

We note that the very last sentence of the Climate Action Plan, on p. 21, concludes with this single clause:

; and at the International Civil Aviation Organization, we have ambitious aspirational emissions and energy efficiency targets and are working towards agreement to develop a comprehensive global approach.

Well, “working towards agreement to develop a comprehensive global approach” doesn’t sound like something that is likely to produce substantial emissions reductions any time soon, does it? Sounds like another diplomatic process almost guaranteed to tie things up for a number of years without anyone having to implement serious commitments.

It must be noted that, clearly, EPA is constantly under political siege by anti-regulatory interests, and has to battle for every step forward the agency is able to take. They have been one of the bright lights in an administration that can’t point to very many of those. Still, the environmentalist litigation is in the public interest.

Sure, it would be politically inconvenient for the White House political controllers to ease up on the brake pedal and let EPA do its job on this one. But it’s evident from years of experience that, in order to get it to do the right thing, this White House needs continual pressure from the progressive side. If they think they deserve to be regarded as strong on climate policy, they need to stop copping out on the aviation sector.

Earlier posts:

Climate Science Watch report: Federal NextGen aviation planning is ignoring global warming (July 18, 2007)

States and enviro groups petition EPA to regulate aviation greenhouse emissions (December 5, 2007)

Aviation and climate change: flying blind (November 13, 2012)


Cloud Seeding: Gambling With Your Weather


Told you so Ken.

Cloud-seeding and Geoengineering SRM are experiments where men gamble with the sky, leading to stronger subsequent storms, and are unverifiable due to our poor understanding of our atmosphere. Cloud-seeding may produce a little more rain, but are we robbing Peter to pay Paul?  Ground-based cloud seeding has been in use for over 30 years and every bit of that was experimental.  Artificially snow-packed Rocky Mountains lead to floods, nobody is the wiser.  We need clarity and disclosure of the full scope of weather modification programs worldwide before we can begin to blame Climate Change for Crazy Weather!

For further information on cloud-seeding see:


We May Never Know How Well Cloud Seeding Works


There’s an old saying in the West, “Whiskey’s for drinking and water’s for fighting over.” Without water, pillars of the region’s economy, such as agriculture, suburban development and snow- and river-related tourism would disappear. So it’s no wonder that at least 10 Western states and one Canadian province have instigated cloud seeding projects to bolster their water reserves.

Seeding involves injecting particles, typically silver iodide, into the clouds to provide a scaffold for the formation of ice crystals, which then fall as snow or rain. Bernard Vonnegut (brother to Kurt) pioneered current techniques in the the 1940s. The U.S. military used cloud seeding during the Vietnam War in hopes of creating monsoonal rain over the Ho Chi Minh trail. China seeded clouds during the 2008 Beijing Olympics so any rain would come before, and not during, opening ceremonies.


Figure 1. A generator blasts silver iodide into clouds over the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. Source: Arlen Huggins

Yet there’s still more speculation than definitive evidence that cloud seeding works. Early experiments produced a few spectacular results that catapulted expectations beyond what the science had shown, says Daniel Breed, a meteorologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. “There was all this excitement extrapolated into very optimistic claims about how effective it would be,” he says. Measuring the effects of cloud seeding has proven difficult because there’s so much natural variability in precipitation. “You’re looking for a small signal in a very large range,” Breed says.

In 2003, a National Academies panel examined the evidence on cloud seeding, concluding that there was still “no convincing scientific proof” that it works, and calling for a rigorous evaluation of cloud seeding’s results. The panel’s recommendations served as a basis for the Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Program (WWMPP), a rigorously designed, randomized trial to quantify the effectiveness of cloud seeding in the state. Earlier this month, researchers went before the Wyoming Water Development Commission to present findings from the $13 million study.

After nearly a decade of work, scientists concluded that cloud seeding could boost precipitation by 5 to 15 percent. The evidence came from an experiment in which two adjacent mountain ranges in southern Wyoming — the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre — were randomly selected for seeding when conditions were amenable. Given the close proximity of the two ranges, they’re often hit by the same storms, so the unseeded range could serve as a control when the other was seeded. Researchers measured the results with snow gauges located in the target areas, as well as in areas outside the seeded zone for comparison. In addition, they analyzed snow samples to find out if the silver iodide was present in snow and whether it was accumulating in the environment in significant levels. (The answer to the latter question was no.) The researchers also used high-resolution Weather Research and Forecasting modeling to simulate seeding operations.

Analysis showed that cloud seeding produced a 3 percent increase in precipitation with a 28 percent probability that this result happened by chance. Most scientists and statisticians wouldn’t accept that level of uncertainty, says Breed, who was part of the NCAR team that analyzed the results, but for water managers in drought-prone areas, it’s a different story. “If you say, I’m 70 percent confident that this will have an impact, well, a lot of them will think that’s not too bad.”

Despite the careful planning that went into the study’s design, researchers ran into some practical problems once it was under way, says Terry Deshler, an atmospheric scientist from the University of Wyoming who worked on the project. It turned out that winds sometimes caused cross-contamination so that seeding may have reached the unseeded mountains that were meant to act as a control. If researchers eliminated cases with probable cross-contamination from their analysis, the increase in precipitation associated with cloud seeding rose to between 4 and 9 percent.

Similarly, wind and other issues sometimes prevented the full operation of the generators launching the seeding materials into the clouds. The study protocol called for eight generators to run for four hours during each seeding event, resulting in 32 so-called generator hours. If instances where seeding consisted of fewer than 27 generator hours were eliminated, the rise in precipitation grew as high as 17 percent. When the researchers presented their results to the Wyoming Commission, they estimated that cloud seeding boosted precipitation by five to 15 percent.

But is it legitimate to make these kinds of post-hoc adjustments, or are the researchers just parsing the data until it produces the result they’re looking for? I put that question to Richard Smith, a statistician at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Smith commended the Wyoming project researchers for carefully disclosing the ways in which they departed from their original protocol. “Have they proved their point? I’m inclined to say probably yes,” he says, with the caveat that the more dramatic numbers come from changes to the protocol that were made after the study was under way, an approach generally frowned upon in science.

It’s important to put the numbers in context, says Deshler, the University of Wyoming scientist. When he and a graduate student looked at climate data on these mountain ranges over the past eight years, they found that only about 30 percent of the precipitation that fell came from storms that had the right temperatures and wind directions to be seeded. If you assume that you can get a five to 15 percent bump in precipitation out of those storms, you’re now looking at a total increase of precipitation of only about 1.5 to 4.5 percent, he says. “Water managers need to be realistic about what the real benefit is. You can’t take that 15 percent and say that’s 15 percent more snow over the winter.”


Given those cautions, do these numbers make a difference in the real world? In some cases, yes, says Deshler. “If you can get a 10 or 15 percent impact on every storm you seed, and 30 percent of the snowpack comes from those storms, then yeah — those numbers are competitive.” In times of scarcity, water prices rise, so even tiny gains could be cost-effective.

The graph below, taken from Wyoming’s Water Development Commission report, shows the cost of cloud seeding versus the 2015 water rates in the North Platte River Basin. Solid lines depict the high and low end cost for seeding itself, and the dotted lines include the cost of evaluating the program’s effectiveness. These numbers show that for cloud seeding to reach cost-effectiveness in this area of Wyoming, it needs to raise precipitation rates by more than 10 percent (if the cost of measuring the effects is included).


The Wyoming results mirror those of the Snowy Precipitation Enhancement Research Project, a similar study conducted in the Snowy Mountains of southeastern Australia in the winters of 2005 to 2009, which found a seven to 14 percent rise in precipitation with cloud seeding.

The main challenge standing in the way of verifiable cloud seeding programs is the cost of measuring results, says Michael Manton, a researcher at Monash University in Victoria Australia who was involved in the Australian study. “The natural variability of precipitation is so high that a 10 to 20 percent increase can easily be masked,” he says. Given the costs, we may never know precisely how well cloud seeding works. Studies like the Wyoming one require lots of time and money, so there’s not a lot of interest in replicating it, Deshler says. “People just want more water.


 California cloud seeding reference for teh lulz:

Governor Schwarzenegger, Terminating Drought!  See the timeline.

Optimizing Cloud Seeding for Water and Energy in California

Optimizing Cloud Seeding for Water and Energy in California. [1]

The Death of Google Earth and Climate Viewer 3D

Over the past three years, I have mapped polluted communities, top secret military installations, and other health and privacy related locations using the Google Earth application for Windows.

The best thing about maptivism with Google Earth was the ability to save your map as a Keyhole Markup Language (KML) file, then share it on the web or embed it on a website using Google Earth’s web browser plug-in.  I had to teach myself to make a website using HTML 5 then learn the Google Earth API to be able to create Climate Viewer 3D, and now it is all coming to an end.

Google Chrome and Firefox are now killing Google Earth based websites:

the Earth API is built on a technology called the NPAPI plug-in framework, and recently, for security reasons, both Chrome and Firefox have announced they’re removing support for this framework. These security reasons, combined with dwindling cross-platform support (particularly on mobile devices), had made building applications that leverage the Earth API untenable for developers.

Therefore, after careful consideration, we have decided to retire the Google Earth API. Per our deprecation policy, the API will be supported until one year from today and will be turned off on December 12, 2015.

If that were true, then why has Google already blocked the GE plugin in Chrome 64 bit on Macs?

NPAPI is based on an old Netscape-era plug-in framework that makes installing plug-ins in web browsers easy. Google is stating that mobile browsers do not support plug-ins and security concerns have rendered the whole thing obsolete.  Climate Viewer 3D’s Google Earth plug-in isn’t alone, several widely used plug-ins are dying along with it:

Starting in January 2014, Chrome will block webpage-instantiated NPAPI plug-ins by default on the Stable channel. To avoid disruption to users, we will temporarily whitelist the most popular NPAPI plug-ins that are not already blocked for security reasons. These are:

  1. Silverlight (launched by 15% of Chrome users last month)
  2. Unity (9.1%)
  3. Google Earth (9.1%)
  4. Java (8.9%) *
  5. Google Talk (8.7%)
  6. Facebook Video (6.0%)

* Already blocked by default for security reasons

Browser Wars

Did you know Netflix runs on Silverlight?  They thought they had eight years to prepare for this change, they were wrong:

But since Microsoft announced the end of life of Silverlight 5 in 2021, we need to find a replacement some time within the next 8 years.  We’d like to share some progress we’ve made towards our goal of moving to HTML5 video. source: HTML5 Video at Netflix April 15, 2013

So what in the hell is going on?  Keep reading that article and you will see your answer:

We’ve been working with Google to implement support for the HTML5 Premium Video Extensions in the Chrome browser, and we’ve just started using this technology on the Samsung ARM-Based Chromebook. Our player on this Chromebook device uses the Media Source Extensions and Encrypted Media Extensions to adaptively stream protected content.  WebCrypto hasn’t been implemented in Chrome yet, so we’re using a Netflix-developed PPAPI (Pepper Plugin API) plugin which provides these cryptographic operations for now.

PPAPI is turning out to be quite controversial, here is a short history:

On August 12, 2009, a page on Google Code introduced a new project, Pepper, with the associated Pepper Plugin API (PPAPI), “a set of modifications to NPAPI to make plugins more portable and more secure”

Google’s replacement for NPAPI would be a good thing, except Firefox said “No soup for you!”

Mozilla is not interested in or working on Pepper at this time.” May 2011

Then Adobe jumped on the Google bandwagon:

In February 2012, Adobe Systems announced that future GNU/Linux versions of Flash Player would only be provided via PPAPI, although the previous release, Flash Player 11.2, with NPAPI support, would receive security updates for five years.

In the end, these browser wars are going to be real interesting to watch.  Now that we know that we are not alone in this struggle, we are searching for a replacement as Google clearly left us all hanging:

Google Earth has a proud legacy, which continues with the new Google Earth for Android, powered by a brand new renderer. 3D is in our blood, and while we can’t announce anything just now, we look forward to sharing more exciting product news in the future.  source: Announcing deprecation of the Google Earth API

Replacing Climate Viewer 3D

Since Google has not announced a replacement for the GE Plugin, the majority of Google Earth based websites are converting to the open-source Cesium 3D globe.  Cesium is based on WebGL meaning no plugin necessary, all you need is an HTML5 browser and a 3D video card in your device.  This new Cesium powered app will exponentially expand our ability to see real-time data and connect the dots in innovative ways.  Turns out Raytheon has made a demo called Vega that does everything we are hoping to bring to the open-source community for free, here’s what our new app should look like:

I first discovered Cesium back in June of 2012 and have been closely following their progress.

Getting our Google Earth KML files into Cesium has been a long process that is now nearing completion!

Climate Viewer 3D will die, and from its ashes will rise a mighty phoenix: The Climate Editor.

In the following video you will see our crowd-sourced reporting app then you will see an image slider showing how we have already got those reports into our new system based on Node.jsElasticsearch, Leaflet (for 2D) and Cesium (for 3D).

The Climate Editor

[the future of Climate Viewer 3D]

Preview images of our work in progress, showing KML data in Leaflet.

P2P Geographic Situational Awareness System

On GitHub:  JOIN THE TEAM! Use this form.

Real-time decentralized global propagation, notification, and analysis tools for the most comprehensive, cross-domain, uncensored environmental dataset ever assembled – ClimateViewer (used in ClimateViewer 3D and ClimateViewer Mobile).

Discover how natural and artificial phenomena, from past to present, underground to outer space… might affect the quality and length of our futures.



  • Finished* ..
  • Somewhat Ready
    • KML Import
      • basics including Point geometry
    • minify description HTML content
      • HTML tokenization prevents indexing of HTML tags
    • P2P Protocol* Publishing a query and getting a response
      • Transfer layers and geodata (pull: receiver initiates)
    • Web Server* Static files
      • Geo queries* Circle (top left to bottom right of client’s web map’s = diameter of search, centered at center)
      • Layer (metadata) queries
  • TODO* Application runtime options* Enable web server* bind: host, port * Enable embedded ES* ES configuration * Enable local/remote ES’s* list of ES addresses (host:port) * Enable peer node* bind: host, port * list of seed peer addresses (host:port)
    • KML Import* remaining geometry types* Line, Multiline, Polygon, … * Overlay
      • verify that network links are correctly traversed
      • styles and their resources available on static web server *
    • Web server* Bound box query: more accurate for map display than circle (especially when the less square a box is)
    • Installer script + documentation
    • Seed Peerlist on Github
    • Layer metadata* Semantic URI’s – Apache GeoTK ISO’s and NASA SWEET
      • tags
    • SensorML* ..
    • More KML/GeoRSS/etc.. layers*
    • NLP and Numeric Analysis of Measurements
    • Document indexing (via Apache Tika plugin to ES)


  • Somewhat Ready
    • Leaflet map
    • dynamic HTTP GET AJAX update, triggering redraw of the layers
    • Simple top-level layer legend of visibile item types with item count
  • TODO* Websockets as preferred client/server communication protocol* Streaming client pull for view and interest (focus) updates * Streaming server push for alerts and notifications
    • Layer tree* variable opacity
      • activation of request for non-visualized (but possibly available) data types
      • All metadata shown or clickable popup that shows, ex: URL and attribution source
    • Icons and styling
    • Item creation / editing (available in leaflet plugin)
    • Representation of server equipment by its geolocation (geoip)
    • Additional tilesets (available in leaflet plugin)
    • Leaflet* Remaining GeoJSON types
      • Overlay rendering
      • Normalize Lat/Lon (it goes out of bounds if continue around earth)
    • Cesium* ..

Help us make The Climate Editor a reality

Imagine the Ferguson riots on The Climate Editor:

  • Draw a circle on the map around Ferguson
  • Under search options, click:
    • Tweets from Twitter (with image previews)
    • Flickr photos (geolocated, live)
    • YouTube videos (by tag, date, geotag)
    • User tags (maps, posts by The Climate Editor community)
    • any other source you can image
  • Hit search, watch the live data appear as:
    • Map Markers with details on a Leaflet based 2D map or Cesium based 3D map
    • Feed: linear “Twitter style,” masonry “Pinterest style,” or GeoRSS
    • Graphs or Charts: using D3
  • Comment on, like, rate, and share any piece of data, marker, feed item, or graph point.
  • Create your own or combine different data sets and save them to “My Layers” then share your collections:
    • privately to your friends
    • publicly on our server
    • Or globally across all servers running The Climate Editor’s Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network.

If you are a programmer, please join our team by filling out this form and help us make this public resource a reality.  Everyone else, please share this page, like us somewhere, and donate to help us get a good server to run this amazing new project!

Global Survival System mockup, Netention + Climate Viewer 3DCesium One Api Three Views

The Chemical Trail Contrail-versy

[SPECIAL NOTE: While I find it possible that chemtrails may be part of some nefarious scheme, I have yet to see any concrete evidence I could present in a court of law that would prove that case.  I have researched chemtrails, contrails, cloud seeding, ionospheric heaters, and every other type of weather modification for over three years, and all the evidence points towards the chemtrail problem being caused by an industry hell-bent of flying as cheaply as possible, damn the environmental and health repercussions. If there are actually some shady government or corporate thugs who intentionally added chemicals to the fuel or were spraying them from specially designed equipment, we would likely not find out for another fifty years, as was the case with the Manhatten-Rochester Coalition public experiments using radioactive dust sprayed from US. Army Chemical Corps pumps and planes.  Therefore, I will act on what I know to be true:

  • These planes are full of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals
  • These chemicals are burned and sprayed out of the back of planes
  • Those exhaust plumes filled with chemicals are making clouds
  • People hate plane-made clouds, but do not seem to care about the toxic soup causing it
  • The chemtrail community refuses to discuss aviation biofuels.

Understand that I believe there is a possibility that a conspiracy to cloud the skies could be true, I just haven’t seen any proof of ‘intentional spraying’ yet…

Until the day I do, I will act on what I know by pressuring responsible parties. My suggestion to you is stop the poisonous clouds, poisonous debate online, and don’t shoot the messenger.  These are JUST THE FACTS. ]

Municipal Waste Jet Fuel?

Municipal Waste Jet Fuel?

2014 is at an end and as I look back over the last year of looking up, I feel we are finally making some progress. I began talking about the chemical trail problem over two years ago and my sole focus has been “What in the World are the Spraying?” Today, though I know more about the particulars of aviation fuels and additives, I am left with more questions than answers.  Between the toxic substances in aviation fuel, acid rain, global warming concerns, and public outrage, the question I most want answered is: How do we introduce some clarity and accountability in the world of aviation pollution?

It is now clear to me that many jet fuel additives contain trade secret substances and carcinogenic chemicals.  It as also clear that the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for these fuels and additives almost always state the same thing:

Stadis 450 Barium Salt [MSDS trade secret][MSDS full]


“R-11 Highly flammable. R-36 Irritating to eyes. R-67 Vapours may cause drowsiness and dizziness. R-51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. R-65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed. R-66 Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or cracking. R-22 Harmful if swallowed. R-40 Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect. R-50/53 Very toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. Not classified. R-36/38 Irritating to eyes and skin. R-38 Irritating to skin. R-48/20 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation. R-63 Possible risk of harm to the unborn child.”

Octel’s Stadis 450, originally made by DuPont, has been in use since 1962.  Used in both military and commercial airliners, this chemical reduces the possibility of static discharge initiated explosions. So what’s the problem?  Mixing chemical additives and jet fuel is a complicated process that is subject to human error and educated guesses:

It is a well-known phenomenon for conductivity to decrease as fuel moves through the supply chain and this can require re-doping between the refinery and the airport fuelling operation. The DEF STAN 91-91 and ASTM D 1655 specifications acknowledge this by applying a 3 mg/L limit for Stadis 450 on initial doping and a cumulative limit of 5 mg/L. The DEF STAN 91-91 specification also recognizes that, because of losses in the distribution system, the refinery may not be the best place to inject Stadis 450.  source: Joint Inspection Group, 2009

Another fine example is the High Temperature Thermal Stability (HiTTS) additive SPEC-AID 8Q462, and wouldn’t you know, deja-vu all over again.  This new chemical came during NATO’s Single Fuel Concept switch from JP4 to JP8 between 1988 and 1996.

SPEC-Aid 8Q462 turbine fuel stabilizer and detergent additive

In the late 1980s, as part of the U.S. Air Force Fuel Thermal Stability ImprovemenProject, an exhaustive search of more than 325 candidates was made to find an additive that could increase the thermal stability of jet fuel by as much as 100°F (38°C). SPEC-Aid 8Q462 is the only additive to meet the project’s goals; it has now been in use in the U.S. Air Force and other foreign air forces for more than 20 years. source: GE Power & Water Brochure

In 1989, the Propulsion Directorate began evaluating jet fuel additives to reduce coking and maintenance costs in aircraft engines and fuel systems. In 1994, the directorate selected an additive, designated SPECxAID 8Q462, to test on F-16s with Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 engines. The resultant additized fuel, designated JP-8+100, raises the fuel’s thermal stability up to 100°F hotter without increasing its propensity to form coke. The two-year test program using JP-8+100 resulted in a significant reduction in coke-related maintenance. To date, thousands of Air Force aircraft, as well as numerous aircraft of allied nations, successfully use JP-8+100. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently approved the use of the Betz Dearborn SPEC×AID 8Q462 fuel additive and its commercial equivalents for all Pratt & Whitney commercial aircraft turbine engines. The FAA’s approval of the additive for use in commercial engines is a huge step towards wide use in the commercial aviation industry.  source: US Air Force Research Lab, 2001: Propulsion Research Could Revolutionize Jet Fuel

SPEC-Aid 8Q462 turbine fuel stabilizer and detergent additive [MSDS]


SPEC-Aid 8Q462 contains two Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (Section 313) chemicals, and has been in use for over 20 years.  The introduction of this additive had another side-effect, Stadis 450 had to reformulated:

“The materials were obtained from the following sources; HITTS additive BETZ SPEC AID 8Q405(A), had been supplied previously by Wright Patterson AFB, additives 96POSF3256(B), 98POSF3558(C), 99POSF3598(D) and 99POSF3724#144071(E) were supplied by Pratt and Whitney, and these, for ease of reference, will be labelled A, B, C, D and E as indicated, antioxidant Ionol K-65 by British Petroleum, Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether(FSII), N,N-disalicylidene-l,2-propylenediamine (MDA) by Pfaltz & Bauer Inc. and Phenol-loose crystals (99+% A.C.S. Reagent) by Aldrich.
Octel America supplied the reformulated version of the antistatic additive Stadis 450, designated here as r-StadisTwo main fuels were used – these were, dodecane which was supplied by BDH Chemicals/Merk and purified by percolation through a mixed oxide filled column [7], and an additive-free Merox base fuel (fuel F-2) [contains Cobalt??] which was supplied by BP Oil Technology Centre. A small number of preliminary experiments used a second additive-free Merox (fuel F-l).

4.8 Estimate of Ion Concentrations: To our knowledge there are no reported estimates in the literature. … We accept that the above discussion includes several fairly major assumptions. However, its main purpose is to serve as a stimulus to further thinking about the basic science of these systems of which we still know very little.  source: Electrical Conductivity of “JP-8 + 100″ Additives in Hydrocarbons and Fuel,

… but the aviation industry uses it anyway and tests it on you, over your head, everyday …  along with all of these jet fuel additives:

The interaction between additives and the new aviation biofuels, like FAME contamination (Fatty Acid Methyl Ester) further complicate the search for an answer to “What in the World are they Spraying?”

Leading up to the introduction of biodiesel, the JIG aviation fuel suppliers recognised a potential risk of carryover of FAME from biodiesel into jet fuel because FAME is a surface-active material and can adhere to metal surfaces. Multi-product pipelines were identified as a potential source of FAME carryover and a large pipeline trial  was conducted in France on the Trapil pipeline. 
Lessons learnt from this trial and guidance to pipeline operators, were included in Joint Inspection Group (“JIG”) Bulletin 15. A subsequent FAME related jet fuel product quality incident at Kingsbury Terminal in the UK, that impacted the supply to Birmingham Airport, highlighted that besides the potential for carryover from metal surfaces, bulk contamination even at very low levels could also be a potential source of FAME and lessons and recommendations from that incident were included in JIG Bulletin 16.  source: JIG Bulletin No. 26

The answer is simple: some of it is secret and most of it is not safe or properly tested for health, bioaccumulation, or environmental concerns.

It is, however, tested for performance and dollars per gallon.

The aviation industry’s solution is to find some blend of biofuel-based fuel that has low sulfur and no persistent contrails.  Considering the monumental effort that went into converting most NATO planes from JP-4 to JP-8, which is a high sulfur kerosene-based fuel and caused many maintenance issues, it comes as no surprise to me at least that the military is now abandoning JP-8 for commercial Jet A fuel.

The US military is jettisoning its jet propellant in favor of civilian-grade jet fuel.

With testing of civilian-grade jet A with additives nearly complete, 36 military bases in the US have converted away from the military-grade JP-8. The remaining more than 230 locations are slated to convert in 2014.

“For the conversion in the continental United States, the demonstration phase of the conversion is essentially completed,” said Susan Lowe, a spokeswoman for the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, the fuel-buying arm of the Department of Defense. “Virtually all DOD aviation and ground equipment has been tested and (is) ready for the use of commercial specification jet A fuel with additives.

The two main exceptions to the conversion are jet A-1, a civilian grade nearly identical to JP-8 that is commonly used by the military outside of the US, and JP-5, which is mainly used on aircraft carriers. Jet A-1 has the same flash point as jet A but a lower freezing point:  jet A freezes at minus 40 degrees Celsius and A-1 freezes at minus 47 degrees Celsius. The requirement of an antistatic additive for A-1 is another major difference, while JP-8 further requires corrosion inhibitor and icing inhibitor additives.

The DoD began the initiative in 2009 with demonstrations at four Air Force locations. One market source said the additives put into the jet A bought by the military during the early testing period made it almost identical to JP-8 at first, and that few  suppliers could meet the requirements. But he said the military was realizing it does not need the superior freeze point, or that it may even get the spec thrown in for free later.

The DOD bought 73.32 million barrels at a cost of $12.21 billion for jet fuel globally in 2013, a purchase similar to that of Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, the world’s largest commercial airlines before the newly merged American Airlines was created.

But market sources say the addition of military demand to the civilian market will not drive prices up, because producers that usually make JP-8 for the DOD can simply make more jet A–also known as 54 grade–to offset the new demand. JP-8 producers will lose premium pricing for the special handling involved, but the jet A supply chain will gain more flexibility.

See, it’s all about the dollars Climate Viewers.

Flash forward to today and we see the IPCC has their eyes fixated on a very public problem: contrails.

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.” source: Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails

The aviation/military/oil industry wants to fly as cheaply as possible while disregarding climate and health impacts.  The problem is that almost everyone speaking out about contrails call them chemtrails and hate them for various (possibly illegitimate) reasons, which seems all-to-convenient.  While the airline industry is busy field-testing all sorts of blends of genetically-modified (GMO) biofuels overhead in an attempt to alleviate their future carbon taxes and get rid of their contrail problem, NASA has been flying research planes behind biofuel-burning jet airliners to try to figure out exactly what is making all these persistent contrails.

 “Understanding more about contrail formation is important because they are considered an essential variable in discussions about climate change. While it is known that contrails are ice particles that form when water vapor from jet exhaust condenses and freezes on some source of nuclei, there are a number of different models to suggest what the source of the nuclei might be, Anderson said.
The source could be soot from the jet engine exhaust, so the use of alternate fuels might reduce contrail formation. The source could be from the sulfur that is present in jet fuels, so a low-sulfur or non-sulfur fuel might make a difference. And still other models suggest that just the presence of normal background aerosols in the atmosphere is enough to trigger contrails.
It could be any or all of those things. Some people say there’s so much water vapor in the exhaust of an aircraft that any particles at all will seed the formation of ice,” Anderson said.
To help test at least one of those possibilities, for ACCESS II the DC-8 will fly with both a low sulfur and high sulfur grade of JP-8 jet fuel.” source: 
NASA to study the effects on emissions and contrail formation of burning alternative jet fuels

If you call the FAA and say the word “chemtrail” your response will be silence, laughter, or the canned response, “those are contrails and they are completely normal.”

When I spoke to the head of the FAA Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative, Dr. Rangasayi Halthore, I asked him about the FAA’s “public relations” problem.  I asked him “when someone calls the FAA complaining about chemtrails, why are the callers dismissed or talked down to?  Why not brag about your ACCRI program, and the ACCESS flights, and all the other things you’re trying to do to get rid of contrails or at least reduce them?”

I told the good doctor that “The true sign of intelligence is to be able to meet a person on their level and be understood” then made the the point that their needs to be less quibbling over verbiage and more honesty and clarity.  In the end he agreed that “maybe we could do a little better.”

Why does any of this matter?

Toxic substances are being sprayed from the back of jet planes all over the world, leaving chemical trails that turn into persistent contrails (chemtrails, aviation pollution clouds, whatever you want to call them).

The main focus of the aviation industry seems to be hide the contrails fast, before people figure out how dirty their exhaust pipes really are.

Will you still care about the crazy chemicals and GMO biofuels when the contrails are gone?

What will we give up to clear the sky of contrails?

As Aircraft Emissions Skyrocket, EPA Looks Into Regulation For First Time

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency took a step towards adding aircraft emissions to the list of regulated pollution sources. In a statement the EPA said it will study the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, the first step in the regulatory process, and release its findings by next April.  If the agency finds airline emissions to be a risk to public health or the environment, it will begin the process of crafting rules. The rules would make airplanes subject to carbon emissions guidelines in a process similar to the one currently underway for vehicles and power plants.


Contrails, Geoengineering, and the Single Fuel Concept

The Dirty Secret of Chemtrails and Geoengineering

Chemtrails, Trade Secrets, and Cloud Seeding

Operation Clarity: The End of Chemtrails

I know what you sprayed last summer | Operation Clarity 

Aviation Climate Change Concerns at the FAA | Operation Clarity

It was a conspiracy! Military experiments on unsuspecting public

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.”

RED ALERT! Geoengineering SRM Just Got Real, US & UK lead new push

Sulfuric Acid from Aviation and Ship Tracks may be higher today than Geoengineering SRM would require in 2020


The Double-Sided Sensitivity of Clouds to Air Pollution & Intentional Seeding (CARBON BLACK)

Is the indirect forcing by aircraft soot (CARBON BLACK) positive or negative?

A bit of a bombshell from the AGU IGBR: Black carbon (CARBON BLACK) is a larger cause of climate change than previously assessed

NASA to study the effects on emissions and contrail formation of burning alternative jet fuels

Jet Flies Hot on the Heels of Biofuel-Burning Aircraft (Photo)

Earth Warmed by Trails of Clouds that Jets Leave Behind

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming

ACCESS II Alternative Jet Fuel Flight Tests Begin

Image: Contrails carry clues to more eco-friendly flights

NASA Researchers Sniff Out Alternate Fuel Future

US Defense Department switching to civilian-grade jet fuel (2014)


Air Transport Action Group’s Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Biofuels

US Department of Agriculture Farm To Fly 2.0 program!

Farm to Fly 2.0: Energy Department Joins Initiative to Bring Biofuels to the Skies


Overview & Discussion: Aviation Biofuels & Farm-to-Fly 2.0 (F2F2) TAC Meeting. August 14, 2013

Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting

Jet Biofuel Enlisted For Contrail Control

The space agency recently began doing flights over the Southern California desert in which a DC-8 “flying laboratory” is testing the contrail consequences of using standard JP-8 jet fuel versus a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and a biofuel made from camelina plants.

Chicken fat fuel emissions look cleaner, greener

Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels

INCITE Researchers Explore How Aircraft Contrails Can Impact Climate

(ACCESS) Alternative-Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise EmiSSions flight schedule

The Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)

Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy, and Noise (CLEEN) Program

Alternative Aviation Fuels Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER)

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)

Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI)

Project REACT4C “Reducing Emissions from Aviation by Changing Trajectories for the benefit of Climate” –

Centre for Aviation Transport and the Environment (Omega)

Formation flying civilian airliners?  Flying planes like birds to save on the gas bill, no joke.

Climate compatible Air Transport System (CATS)

Climate Optimized Routing of Flights

Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA)

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)

Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Dashboard

Future Aircraft Traffic Management Concepts Evaluation Tool (FACET)

FAA Aviation Environmental Tool Suite

Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)

Environmental Design Space (EDS)

Aviation environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT)

also see: Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) • System for Assessing Aviations Global Emissions (SAGE) • Model for Assessing Global Exposure to the Noise of Transport Aircraft (MAGENTA)


On The Climate response to Cirrus Cloud Seeding (2015)


Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy 1974 (CARBON BLACK)

Effects of Cloud Seeding (with Dry Ice)


An obvious hole in a stratus deck due to cloud seeding with aircraft, using dry ice as a seeding agent. This is an example of cold cloud seeding, where supercooled cloud droplets are converted into ice crystals, which then precipitate out of the cloud deck. (USAF photo; boxed caption in the lower right reads “Effects of seeding Altostratus Clouds over Green Bay, Labrador: 45 minutes after seeding with dry ice”. Photo and boxed caption obtained from Sewell, W.R.D., et. al., 1973: Modifying the Weather; Western Geographical Series, Vol. 9, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada).

Stratocumulus Decks – labs for inadvertent & planned cloud seeding (contrails, ship tracks)

Simulation results of unintentional aircraft-induced cloud clearing

Inadvertent Cloud Seeding – Hole Punch and Canal Clouds

Aircraft-induced Hole Punch and Canal clouds – Inadvertent Cloud Seeding

Observations of a glaciating hole-punch cloud

Ice-Supersaturated Regions (ISSR)


Look up, it ain’t what you think it is.

~ Jim “The Lorax” Lee