-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
SRM/GEOENGINEERING
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
it's black...it absorbs.
now maybe some of harborsides "clear" extract would help reflectivity.
but kidding aside, who doesn't think surreptitiously spraying anything without consent is correct?
even if whoever is spraying is spraying to 'save the planet' there should be some consensus from the affected populations.
the posted treaty confines the governments but has absolutely no requirement that corporations/citizens must abide. also, if whoever is spraying does it while claiming benign/beneficial intentions it would be difficult to prosecute.
this is criminal conduct on a level heretofore unseen.
now maybe some of harborsides "clear" extract would help reflectivity.
but kidding aside, who doesn't think surreptitiously spraying anything without consent is correct?
even if whoever is spraying is spraying to 'save the planet' there should be some consensus from the affected populations.
the posted treaty confines the governments but has absolutely no requirement that corporations/citizens must abide. also, if whoever is spraying does it while claiming benign/beneficial intentions it would be difficult to prosecute.
this is criminal conduct on a level heretofore unseen.
I don't know how aluminium reacts to being heated to high temperatures but those filters don't stop lead particles from entering our atmosphere... It doesn't have to be Al2O3 before it's actually oxidized. Al(OH)3 or something would have completely different properties. Exhaust fumes contain tons of chemicals and heavy metals, especially diesel if it were just CO2 you wouldn't have that nasty smog over dense cities. If there were filters that filter that stuff out they wouldn't have a long life expectancy.
Personally I don't think the goal is to reduce climate change(is anyone really that stupid to think this would work?) rather than make the population sick, it's just a better excuse for when people do finally start to see through the "conspiracy theory" doctrine. The whole economy revolves around getting people sick - besides warmongering- (ridiculous amounts of unhealthy fat and sugar in processed foods, chemicals, more chemicals, radiation, bogus meds) and then letting them pay their last penny for some more wacko "health"care which will be the final nail to their coffin. That whole geoengineeringwatch does a good job at diverting the attention to climate engineering though. Lol'd at that idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOVdE_3anU
This only means that they made a big scare out of it, we now all pay(as countries) for the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, so it's yet another way of taxation and thus financial enslavement for the masses. It also turned it into a political thing, meaning a lot of banter, waste of money and getting nowhere in the end. People are totally desensitized and the stage where people give an honest fuck is long gone. The debate of hoax or not is pushing people further apart. In the meanwhile the ice caps will be gone by 2030 and life as we know it will end. Sure we'll live but in general a lot poorer, hungrier and distressed.
We need to kill all these bloodsucking politicians and their sponsors(the financial elite) before it's the end of us all is really how you should perceive it.
U.S. Navy CARE Experiment - Aluminum Oxide
26 12009 U.S. Navy NRL Rocket Experiment CARE II Planned - No Date Given - Using Aluminum Oxide Press Releases November 9, 2009.pdf
26 1 2003 U.S. Navy NASA Study Finds Space Shuttle Exhaust Creates Night-Shining Clouds June 3, 2003 Press Release.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Science Program Information + NASA
26 1 2010 DOE ASP Atmospheric Science Program Website April 18, 2010 http___www.asp.bnl.pdf
26 2010 NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies Aerosols April 16, 2010 Particles - Health Sources http___www.giss.nasa.pdf
26A 2003 ARM Aerosol Intensive Observational Period IOP ASP - ACP May 2003.pdf
26A 2006 ASP Program DOE http___www.asp.bnl May 30, 2006.pdf
26A 2007 DOE ASP ARM 2007 Upcoming Field Campaigns.pdf
26A 2007 DOE Atmospheric Science Program 2007 http___www.asp.bnl.pdf
26A 2010 U.S. DOE Atmospheric Science Program February 15, 2010 http___www.asp.bnl.pdf
Biometrics
26B 2004 Atmospheric Science + Biometeorology GCEP 2004 Abstracts.pdf
California Programs - Experiments
26C 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement December 19, 2005.pdf
26C 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program December 19, 2005 - CA.pdf
26C 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Facility December 12, 2005 CA Information.pdf
26C 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Facility DEC 19, 2005 EurekAlert AAAS.pdf
26C 2006 ASP California March 31, 2006 Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment NASA INTEX-B Spring.pdf
26C 2007 ASP California Spring 2006 INTEX-B_vE_800w.pdf
Biologicals
26D 2008 DOE Office of Biological & Environmental Research 2008.pdf
26D 2008 DOE Office of Biological Science Systems Division & Environmental Research 2008.pdf
26D 2009 DOE Research February 25, 2009 Ferrell_asp_meeting.pdf
Atmospheric Experiments - Geoengineering
26EZ 2008 Unilateral Geoengineering Briefing Workshop Council on Foreign Relations April 15, 2008 .pdf
26E 1958 High Altitude Nuclear Explosions HANE Detonation of Nuclear Weapons in Outer Space 1958 Wikipedia.pdf
26E 1958 List of Artificial Radiation Belts Created by High Altitude Nuclear Explosions 1958-1962 Wikipedia.pdf
26E 1962 Atmospheric Nuclear Test STARFISH Photographs July 9, 1962.pdf
26E 1964 Photographic Instrumentation for Triangulation Studies of Liminous Clouds Upper Atmosphere 1964 Abstract Sodium-Cesium.pdf
26E 1966 NASA Upper-Chemical Release Program Information June 1, 1966.pdf
26E 1966 Studies Supporting an Upper Atmosphere Chemical Release Program Final Report June 1966 TMA Diborane Etc.pdf
26E 1966 Studies Supporting an Upper Atmospheric Chemical Release Program June 1966 Final Report.pdf
26E 1970 Barium DTIC Abstract U.S. Air Force October 26, 1970 Barium Used in Upper Atmospheric Chemical Release Experiments.pdf
26E 1970 U.S. Navy Project SESAMISEED Artificial Cesium Plasma Clouds May 21, 1970 Abstract.pdf
26E 1974 Radio-Radar+Optical Obsrvations of Cesium Release in Upper Atmosphere February 4, 1974.pdf
26E 1990 Alaska Science Forum 1990 University of Alaska Fireworks.pdf
26E 1991 U.S. Patent 5003186 Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming March 26, 1991 Aluminum or Thorium Oxide.pdf
26E 1991 U.S. Patent 5003186 Weslbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming March 26, 1991 Aluminum or Thorium Oxide A.pdf
26E 1993 Finite Element Simulation FES Studies of Chemical Modification of Ionospshsere 1993.pdf
26E 1993 Finite Element Simulation FES Technique Studies Chemical Modification Ionosphere 1993.pdf
26E 1994 Ionosphere U.S. Experiments 1994 Abstract Barium.pdf
26E 2004 Atmospheric Action Studies 2004 Names - Items for Future Research.pdf
26E 2004 Atmospheric Aerosol Shield Search 2004 Search - Items for Future Research.pdf
26E 2004 Pentagon Atmospheric Dispersion April 19, 2004 Experiment Sulfur Hexafluoride SF6.pdf
26E 2006 New CERN1 CLOUD Experiment to Investigate Effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Clouds+Climate OCT 4, 2006 SDNews.pd.pdf
26E 2007 ENN News August 25, 2007 Noctilucent Polar Ice Clouds Change Climate.pdf
26E 2007 NASA Night Clouds Trimethylaluminum 2007 - Rockets-Cannisters.pdf
26E 2007 Russia Tests Superstrength Vacuum Bomb September 12, 2007 Video Reuters News.pdf
26E 2009 STPSat-1 successfully Completes Extended Mission to Study Ionosphere December 3, 2009.pdf
26E 2010 DARPA Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle Mission Lost After Nine Minutes April 29, 2010 News .pdf
26E 2010 High Explosive Test on Hold at the Nevada Test Site Named Devine Strake RNEP VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26E 2010 Neal Boyd Brown - Alaska Upper Atmospheric Releases-Supervisor at Poker Flat Rocket Facility Resume April 24, 2010.pdf
Glossary
26G 2000 Atmospheric Chemistry Glossary 2000.pdf
26G 2000 Atmospheric Chemistry Glossary Revision 2000.pdf
26G 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Within Federal Community Workshop-Weather June 6-8, 2000.pdf.pdf
26G 2008 Lightning Atmospheric Conductivity 2008 Huygens.pdf
26G 2008 Space and Warfare Lexicon 2008.pdf
26G 2008 Space & Electronic Warfare Glossary S 2008.pdf
26G 2008 Space & Electronic Warfare Lexicon Glossary T 2008.pdf
26G 2010 NASA Langley Science directorate Atmospheric Chemistry Glossary April 24, 2010.pdf
History
26H 1958 Atomic Bomb Hits Florence South Carolina March 11, 1958 VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2007 Fifty Years Later-The Price Still Being Paid for Atom Bomb Tests May 15, 2007 Mail Online News.pdf
26H 2008 Atmospheric Sciences Pubications 2008 Historical.pdf
26H 2010 Atomic Bomb History VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Atomic Smoke Trails Around Atomic Bomb Atmospheric Tests VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 History Leading to the Creation of the Atomic Bomb VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 How Atomic Bomb Tests Were Conducted Including Upper Atmospheric Tests VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile History After WWII VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Limited Test Ban Treaty 1963 Prohibits Nuclear Weapons Test Explosions-Atmosphere, Outer Space+Underwater April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Lookout Mountain Studios Hollywood CA 1947-1969 U.S. Air Force Nuclear Testing Movies VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Missile Defense Timeline Early History VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and American Nuclear Testing Timeline VCE.com April 27, 2010 .pdf
26H 2010 The Atmoic Cannon Detonated May 25, 1953 Nevada Test Site VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 The Bombing of Hiroshima+Nagasaki JAPAN World War II VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 The Cold War 50 Years VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Trinity-Birth of the Atomic Age July 16, 1945 VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 TSAR BOMBA Russian King of Nuclear Bombs Detonated October 23, 1961 VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy - Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM)
26I 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Facility DEC 19, 2005 Moves to Niger.pdf
26J 2000 NASA NIAC June 6, 2000 Final Presentation Environmentally-Neutal Aircraft Tyll.pdf
26J 2002 NASA NIAC Environmentally Neutral Aircraft Using Low Temperature Plasmas Final Report 2002 Tyll.pdf
26J 2006 Abstract August 15, 2006 HAPS High Altitude Platform Station Wireless Communications http___www.springerlink.pdf
26J 2006 ASP INTEX-NA Mission Description+Science Objectives Planes DC-8+12 Other Aircraft 2004-2006.pdf
26J 2006 ASP March 30, 2006 Research Aircraft Facility RAF.pdf
26J 2006 Atmospheric Science Global Change Division Aircraft Facility 2006.pdf
26J 2008 March 6, 2008 Spy Plane Nasa Vulture Unmanned Aircraft to Stay Aloft for 5 Years next-energy-news3.6b.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy - General Information
26K 2008 USA Today December 2008 Scientist Find Hole in Earth's Magnetic Field-Solar Flares.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Chronic Berryllium Disease-Health Impacts October 29, 2009 Website.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Climate Change October 29, 2009 Website Information.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Grants + Contracts Website 2009.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Press Releases 2009 Summaries - Secretary Chu.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Year 2009 Projects + Programs.pdf
U.S. Patents - Weather Modification + Other Atmospheric Experiments
Space Security - Satellites
26M 1971 U.S. Patent 3564253 System Method Irradiation of Planet Surface Areas FEB 16, 1971 for Heating-Weather Control-Illumination.pdf
26M 1987 U.S. Patent 4686605 Eastlund August 11, 1987 Methods for Altering a Region of Earth Atmosphere etc.pdf
26M 1994 U.S. Patent 5360162 NOV 1, 1994 Barium Lead Copper Perchlorate Fuels Weather Modification Methods+Composition.pdf
26M 1998 U.S. Patent 5762298 June 9, 1998 Satellites Modify Solar Radiation Weather.pdf
26M 1999 U.S. Patent 5984239 November 16, 1999 Weather Modification by Artificial Satellites.pdf
26M 2006 SSI Active Military Satellites 2006.pdf
26M 2006 SSI Space Security Report 2006.pdf
26M 2007 Space Security Survey 2007 SSI Report Overview.pdf
26M 2008 Space Debris-Radio Frequencies SSI 2008 Executive Summary .pdf
26M 2008 Space Security.org 2008 Capabilities.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security 2007 SpaceSecurity.org.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security CDI 2008 Defense Budget August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security CDI Center for Defense Information August 11, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security CDI DVD Books Reports Monographs 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Fact Sheet SSI August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index 2008 About SSI.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index August 16, 2008 Research Partnerships.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index Contacts August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index Fact Sheet August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index SSI Publications August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Laws 2008 CDI.pdf
26M 2008 SSI Directory of Space Actors August 16, 2008 Organizations and Activities.pdf
26M 2008 SSI Institute of Air & Space Law August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2010 SSI Partners April 19, 2010 Space Security Index Institute of Air+Space Law Website.pdf
NASA
26N 1968 NASA Chemical Releases Leading to Upper Atmospheric Chemi-ion Formation January 1, 1968.pdf
26N 1999 NASA NIAC SHIELD A Comprehensive Earth Protection System May 28, 1999.pdf
26N 2000 NASA NIACThe Space Elevator Financed Study 2000.pdf
26N 2001 Effectiveness of Adaptive Observatons in Improving Numberical Weather Forecasting DEC 18, 2001 by Bacon.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC 2002 Investigation-Laser Trapped Mirrors in Space Phase I-Final Report McCormack.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC 2002 Meeting Laser Trapped Mirrors in Space Phase I Report McCormack Power Point Presentation.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC Electromagnetic Flight Final Report Miller 2002.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC Global Environmental MEMS Sensors GEMS Observing System 2002 Final Report Part 1 Manobianco.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC January 7, 2002 Controlling the Global Weather.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC October 2002 Electromagnetic Formation Flight Final Report Miller.pdf
26N 2004 NASA NIAC Controlling Global Weather Final Report March 31, 2004 Hoffman.pdf
26N 2004 NASA NIAC URSA October 19, 2004 Global Envornmental MEMS Sensors GEMS Manobianco.pdf
26N 2005 NASA NIAC Electromagnetic Formation Flight EMFF 2005 Sedwick.pdf
26N 2005 NASA NIAC Electromagnetic Formation Flight Final Report August 2005 Sedwick.pdf
26N 2005 NASA NIAC ENSCO Phase II Final Report MEMS GEMS Manobianco August 31, 2005.pdf
26N 2005 NASA NIAC Redesigning Living Organisms to Survive on Mars October 2005 Boss.pdf
26N 2006 NASA NIAC Redesigning Living Organisms to Survive on Mars Presentation October 18, 2006 Boss.pdf
26N 2007 NASA NIAC March 7, 2007 Fellows Meeting on Solar Shields.pdf
26N 2007 NASA NIAC Newsroom Press Releases 2007.pdf
26N 2007 NASA NIAC Solar Shield in Space to Counter Global Warming by Angel University of Arizona 2007.pdf
26N 2007 NASA NIAS BAE Institute Crafts Magical Photonic Laser Thruster Feburary 24, 2007.pdf
26N 2007 NIAC 9th Annual 2006 Report + Finaly Report on August 31, 2007 NASA.pdf
26N 2007 NIAC Study by David Akin Space Systems Laboratory Univeristy of Maryland Phase I 2007.pdf
26N 2007 USRA NIAC NASA Established 1998-Closed 2007 NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts http___www.niac.usra.pdf
26N 2008 Space Debris-Radio Frequencies SSI 2008 Executive Summary .pdf
26N 2009 NASA NIAC Swarm Array of Picosats for Microwave RF Earth Sensing+ April 29, 2009 Bekey.pdf
26N 2010 NASA CRRES Search April 24, 2010 Studies Supporting Upper Atmospheric Release Programs Part I-II.pdf
26N 2010 NASA Ionization Search March 1, 2010 Page 1 - Atmospheric Ionization.pdf
26N 2010 NASA Ionization Search March 1, 2010 Page 2 - Atmospheric Ionization.pdf
26N 2010 NASA Missions+Projects Sciences and Exploration Directorate 600 Listings April 24, 2010.pdf
26N 2010 NASA NIAC NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts All Funded Studies Listing April 18, 2010 Website.pdf
26N 2010 NASA Search April 24, 2010 Studies Supporting Upper Atmospheric Release Programs Part I-II.pdf
26N 33 NASA Chemcial Releases in the Upper Atmosphsere Project Firefly Summary Report.pdf
26N NASA Chemcial Releases in the Upper Atmosphsere Project Firefly Summary Report Harvard.pdf
26N NASA NIAC Mini-Magnetosphseric Plasma Propulsion M2P2 Winglee Power Point Presentation.pdf
26N NASA Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite UARS U.S. Global Change Research Program.pdf
Atmospheric Experiments & Programs
26P 1958 Hardtack-Teak Exoatmosphseric Nuclear Test-Operatuion Hardtack I August 1, 1958 Wikipedia.pdf
26P 1962Starfish Prime High Altitude Nuclear U.S. Test Conducted on July 9, 1962 Wikipedia.pdf
26P 1970 September 1, 1970 Abstract Ionospheric Relesase of Chemicals-Upper Atmoshere-Lists Chemicals Used.pdf
26P 1976 Los Alamos U.S. High Altitude Tests October 1976 Environmental Impacts.pdf
26P 1977 DOD Upper Atmoshere Research Bibliography of Contaminant Release Experiments Part 3 1977.log
26P 1981 U.S. A?ir Force Upper Atmosphere chemcial Release and Smoke Triangulation Experiment 1978-1981.pdf
26P 1982 Low-Temperature Atmospheric Oxidation of Mixtures of Titanium+Carbon Black or Boron SEPT 23, 1982.pdf
26P 2000 Cadre Paper 6 U.S. Air Force April 2000 U.S. Nuclear ASAT Space Program-Chun.log
26P 2002 ASP White Paper December 2002 INTEX-NA NASA Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment.pdf
26P 2004 ASP VTMX March 26, 2003 Funding Accepted FY 2004.pdf
26P 2004 ASP VTMX Plan 2004 USING SF6 TRACER TO QUANTIFY VERTICAL MIXING WITHIN THE STABLE BOUNDARY LAYER.pdf
26P 2004 Pentagon Atmospheric Dispersion April 19, 2004 Experiment Sulfur Hexafluoride SF6.pdf
26P 2004 Pentagon Tests Atmospheric Dispersion April 19, 2004 nr20040419-0624 Press Release.pdf
26P 2006 ASP 2004-2006 Chemicals NASA INTEX-NA Introduction.pdf
26P 2006 ASP 2006 NOAA http___cloud1.arc.nasa INTEX-NA.pdf
26P 2006 ASP Atmospheric Chemical Science Division PNL 2006.pdf
26P 2006 ASP DOE 2006 Chemistry Physics of Oxides.pdf
26P 2006 ASP INTEX-B Phase B White Paper NASA 2006 Documents.pdf
26P 2006 ASP INTEX-NA NASA 2004-2006 Chemicals Introduction.pdf
26P 2006 ASP March 30, 2006 Chemicals PNL Search Result 214 - Page 1.pdf
26P 2006 ASP March 30, 2006 Field Campaigns DOE_field.pdf
26P 2006 ASP March 30, 2006 Instrumentation Measurement Capabilities DOE.pdf
26P 2006 ASP PNL Barium Search March 30, 2006.pdf
26P 2006 ASP VTMX Funding 2000-2007 PERFLUOROCARBON TRACER STUDIES FOR VISUALIZATIONVERIFICATION.pdf
26P 2006 ASP VTMX VERTICAL TRANSPORT AND MIXING IN COMPLEX-TERRAIN AIRSHEDS March 29, 2006 PNL.pdf
Photographs
26Q 2008 Atmospheric Optices July 31, 2008 Many Questions.pdf
U.S. Research & U.S. Patents
26R 1987 U.S. Patent 4,686,605 Method-Apparatus Altering Region Earth Atmosphere, Ionosphere, Magnetosphere Eastlund AUG 11, 1987.pdf
26R 1994 U.S. Patent 5,286,979 February 15, 1994 Process for Absorbing Ultraviolet Radiation Using Dispersed Melanin.pdf
26R 2007 Atmospheric Sciences Stull Publications Weather November 1, 2007.pdf
26R 2008 Atmospheric Science Program ASP Publications 2008.pdf
TAP Tropospheric Aerosol Programs - Space Weather
26T 2001 Tropospheric Aerosol Program TAP Document Program Plan March 2001.pdf
26T 2002 Space Weather UCAR Press Release September 16, 2002 Goes into High Gear.pdf
26T 2003 Space Weather Support for Communications - Ionosphere January 10, 2003.pdf
26T 2007 Space Weather 2007.pdf
Universities
26U 1976 Alaska Science Forum Barium March 3, 1976.pdf
26U 1981 Alaska Science Forum March 13, 1981 Man-Made Aurora Experiments.pdf
26U 1990 Alaska Science Forum 1990 University of Alaska Fireworks.pdf
26U 2003 Auroras 2003 Man-Made or Natural northern-lights-alaska.pdf
26U 2005 Clemson University 2005 Atmospheric Physics Experiments.pdf
26U 2007 Atmospheric Science Dept Colorado State 2007.pdf
26U 2007 CSU Atmospheric Chemistry 2007 Department Colorado See Tree Picture.pdf
26U 2008 Atmospheric Optics Site Index July 2008 Questions.pdf
26U 2009 HAARP Artificial Ionosphere Created Nature Magazine October 2, 2009 Questions.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy VTMX & HAARP High Altitude Auroral Research Program
26V 2006 DOE 2006 VTMX Aerosol Participants.pdf
26V 2006 DOE 2006 VTMX Plan Salt Lake City, Utah.pdf
26V 2010 HAARP Military Scientists Study Ionosphere February 26, 2010 Navy + Air Force.pdf
Weapons Systems & Chaff (Aluminum Coated Fiberglass) - Weaponization of Space
26W 1968 Chaff HARP Quebec Tri-methyl-Aluminum Trails Abstract 1968.pdf
26W 1979 British Ministry of Defense Turned Parts of England Giant Germ Warfare Test Lab Between 1940-1979 April 21, 2002 Guardian.pdf
26W 1988 Chaff Cloud Deployed in Orbit Around Earth Abstract December 1988 Study.pdf
26W 1997 Chaff U.S. Navy 1997.pdf
26W 1997 Chaff U.S. Navy June 10, 1997.pdf
26W 1998 Chaff U.S. GAO SEPT 1998 Environmental Protection-DOD Management Issues Related to Chaff.pdf
26W 1999 Chaff Abstract 1999 Pentagon Reports DOD Many Questions.pdf
26W 1999 Chaff Abstract August 31, 1999 Pentagon Reports DOD Many Questions.pdf
26W 1999 Chaff Inhalation Toxicty of Glass Fibers Abstract Review 1999.pdf
26W 2000 Chaff Aluminum Coated Fiberglass M-130 General Purpose Dispenser February 10, 2000 DOD.pdf
26W 2000 Chaff Chesapeake Bay Experiments 25 Years of Exposure Abstract June 2000.pdf
26W 2001 Chaff NAVY AERIAL CHAFF IMPACT REPORT October 2001.pdf
26W 2001 Chaff NAVY CHAFF IMPACTS REPORT 2001.pdf
26W 2001 U.S. Patent 6271877 Direct Broadcast Imaging Satellite Earth Monitoring August 7, 2001.pdf
26W 2001 U.S. Patent 6331870 Direct Broadcast Imagin Satellite December 18, 2001.pdf
26W 2002 Space Weapons fro Earth Wars May 15, 2002 Space.com.pdf
26W 2003 Chaff Dispenser FAS 2003 M-130 Aircraft Dispenser.pdf
26W 2003 Space Based Weapons Bibliography Maxwell AFB August 2003 Compilation.pdf
26W 2003 U.S. Patent 6504570 Direct Broadcast Imaging Satellite System Monitoring Earth Jan 7, 2003.pdf
26W 2005 Chaff Aluminum Coated Fiberglass M-130 General Purpose Dispenser 2005 DOD.pdf
26W 2006 Space Based Weapons-Taking War Into Space S.F. Chronicle March 12, 2006 Arquilla.pdf
26W 2006 Space Wars Rods From God Dr. John Arquilla S.F. Chronicle March 12, 2006.pdf
26W 2007 Chaff U.S. Navy November 13, 2007 Picture - Description.pdf
26W 2007 Navy Graphite Carbon By Products 2007 MSDS UCAR.pdf
26W 2007 Russia Tests Super-Strength Vacuum Bomb September 12, 2007 Reuters News.pdf
26W 2008 Chaff U.S. Navy 2008.pdf
26W 2008 Chaff U.S. Navy 2008 Live Fire Exercises.pdf
26W 2008 Chaff U.S. Navy Fact File 2008.pdf
26W 2008 Chaff U.S. Patent 7400287 SMART Chaff July 15, 2008 Radiation Source.pdf
26W 2008 Navy Graphite Flakes GRAFGUARD MSDS 2008 Highly Toxic.pdf
26W CHAFF Military Chaff Releases Unknown Photographer+Year.pdf
Abstracts - Atmospheric Experiments - Other Related Information
26X 1932 Ionization of Air by y-Rays 1932 Abstract APS.pdf
26X 1962 DTIC December 12, 1962 Transmission of Information-Artificially Ionized Atmosphere.pdf
26X 1970 Refractive Index of Optical Materials in the Infrared Region Abstract JAN 1970 Aluminum-Aluminum Oxide-Magnesium Oxide.pdf
26X 1971Cloud Modification Abstract November 15, 1971 External Heat Sources.pdf
26X 1971 Battelle Northwest-Washington Negatively Charged Particles Abstract Wehner January 1, 1971.pdf
26X 1971 Cloud Modification Nuclei Warm Fog Abstract January 1971 U.S. Army.pdf
26X 1972 Cloud Dissipaton Artificial Abstract May 28, 1972 Wright-Patterson AFB.pdf
26X 1978 U.S. Patent Metal Vapor Generator May 30, 1978 4,092, 263 Upper Atmosphere Usage.pdf
26X 1979 Cloud Abstract December 31, 1979 Fuel-Air Explosive Simulation.pdf
26X 1980 Clouds Blue-Green Kauai Cloud Experiments Abstract July 31, 1980 U.S. Navy.pdf
26X 1982 Cloud DOD Executive Summary December 22, 1982 Abstract Storming Media Pentagon Reports AFB.pdf
26X 1984 U.S. Patent 5360162 NOV 1, 1994 Barium Lead Copper Perchlorate Fuels Weather Modification Methods+Composition.pdf
26X 1987 Clouds Jet Releases Vapor Clouds Abstract December 21,1987 United States Air Force.pdf
26X 1989 Cloud-Free Lines of Sight Abstract September 30, 1989.pdf
26X 1996 U.S. Navy Zinc Gallium Boron Phosphide Zinc Zulfide Abstract May 1996.pdf
26X 1998 Clouds Abstract HSI AF Research Lab January 1998.pdf
26X 1999 U.S.A.F. Chemical Processes in the Space Environment Abstract Supersonic Jets Atmospheric Ions-Metal Vapors July 29, 1999.pdf
26X 2000 Molecular Dynamics of Upper Atmospheric Chemical Reactions August 31, 2000 Abstract Lasers U.S. Air Force.pdf
26X 2003 Ionization of the Atmosphere 1994-2003 Abstract.pdf
26X 2004 Atmospheric Science Program 2004 abstracts.pdf
26X 2004 Ionizing Radiation Fact Sheet EPA 2004.pdf
26X 2005 January 11, 2005 Artificial Atmospheric Ionization-Window for Weather Modification Paper_88063.pdf
26X 2007 19 DTIC July 30, 2007 Search 1 Military Weather Modification Results 15,665.pdf
26X 2007 19 DTIC July 30, 2007 Search Military Weather Modification Page 3.pdf
26X 2008 Clouds Gas Aerosol Reactions Abstract Search December 28, 2008 Results 9.pdf
26X 2008 Clouds, Vapor Abstract Search December 28, 2008 Results 23.pdf
26X 2008 Cloud Formation Abstract Seach December 22, 2008 Pentagon Reports-Storming Media-Results 44.pdf
26X 2008 Cloud Modification Abstract Search December 22, 2008 - Pentagon Reports-Storming Media Results 22.pdf
26X 2008 Cloud Modification Abstract Search December 28, 2008 Results 22.pdf
26X 2008 Cloud Production Abstract Search December 28, 2008 Results 16.pdf
26X 2010 Artificial Atmospheric Ionization-Potential Windwo for Weather Modification 2005 Abstract 88063[1].pdf
26X 2010 Lasers Could Trigger Downpours on Demand May 4, 2010 Physicists Already Tested This Method.pdf
26X 2010 U.S. Air Force Aircraft Ionizing Doses+Dose Rates from Radioactive Clouds+Fallout Abstract April 1976.pdf
26X 2010 U.S. Patent 4999637 Creation of Artificial Ionization Clouds Above the Earth March 12, 1991.pdf
26X 2010 Weather Modification Artificial Ionization 2008 Note Graphic.pdf
26X 2010 Weather Modification Artificial Ionization Methods March 27, 2005 India Daily News.pdf
26X 2010 Weather Modification Artificial Ionization Methods-Solar Radiation March 27, 2005 India Daily News.pdf
Atmospheric Dispersions
26YN 2000 Atmopsheric Dispsersion Modeling Proceedings June 8, 2010 NOAA OFCM Document.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Disperions Validation-Verification-Approval Models June 2000 Session IV.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Appendix B Attendees June 6-8, 2000 Very Interesting.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Capabilities June 2000 Session II Presenation.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling DOE Lawrence National Laboratory June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling June 2000 EPA Lockheed Martin.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling June 2000 U.S. Forest Service-Smoke Wildfires.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling June 6-8, 2000 Presentations.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling NOAA EPA June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Session I Presentation.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Models June 2000 Session V Summary-Action Plan-Next Steps.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Models NOAA May 30, 2000 Hicks.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion U.S. Army Cionco June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion US. Department of Defense Prediction Assessment Capability June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Workshop June 6-8, 2000 Draft Workshop Agenda.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispsersion Modeling Ermack Lawrence Livermore Laboratory DOE June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispsersion Modeling Presentation June 6, 2000 by Martin DOD.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispsersion Modeling Space+Missile Programs by Parks U.S. Air Force June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersions Department of Energy-Atmospheric Science June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersion Meeting NOAA Modeling June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 NOAA Alaska June 6-8, 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling NWS.pdf
26YN 2000 NRC Requirements for Atmospheric Modeling June 6, 2000 by Mitchell.pdf
26YN 2000 Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiscale Atmospheric Disperions Modeling-Federal Community June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Technical Barriers to Upper Atmospheric Disperions Modeling Session III Presentation June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Workshop on Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersion June 6-8, 2000 Special Projects.pdf
26Y 2006 Atmospheric Science Program DOE 2006 http___www.asp.bnl.pdf
No Comment
26Z 1993 Open Skies Glossary Treaty Terms 1993.pdf
26Z 2001 Space Preservation Act of 2001 Full Text.pdf
26Z 2001 Space Preservation Act of 2001 Status.pdf
26Z 2002 Space Preservation Act 2002 Kucinich HR 3616.pdf
26Z 2002 Space Preservation Act of 2002 - Full Text.pdf
26Z 2005 Science+Space April 26, 2005 CNN Cassini Spacecraft Flyby-Upper Atmosphere Study.pdf
26Z 2008 Letter to Atmospheric Scientists July 18, 2007 by Karr.pdf
26Z 2009 Storming Media Home Page - Abstract Report Search Engine Pentagon 2009.pdf
26Z 2010 Nuclear 911 DVD Since 1950 There were 32 Nuclear Weapons Accidents-Broken Arrows VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26Z 2010 Nuclear Pioneers Event 2000 National Atomic Museum Alburquerque NM Minutes to Midnight VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26Z 2010 Nukes in Space 1999 DVD The Rainbow Bombs VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26Z 2010 U.S. Navy Operation_Argus Nuclear Weapons+Missile Secret Tests August-SEPT 1958 South Atlantic Wikipedia April 27, 2010.pdf
26Z 2010 Wikipedia Advanced Research and Global Obsrvation Satellite ARGOS April 24, 2010 General Information.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the DTIC Section of the ADC Website. ADC historical research on many topics can be found at this location in abstract form. The information is public and all of the entire reports may be purchased from DTIC by going to their website.
Defense Technical Information Center - Information
19A 2009 DTIC Defense Technical Information Center May 31, 2009.pdf
19A 2010 DTIC Home Page April 18, 2010 Research Information DOD http___www.dtic.pdf
19A 2010 DTIC The Defense Technical Information Center Website March 23, 2010 http___www.dtic.pdf
19A 2010 DTIC Website March 23, 2010 Informatino+Reseasrch http___www.dtic.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense
19B 1987 U.S. Department of Defense Distribution Statements on Technical Documents Directive March 18, 1987.pdf
CRRES - Atmospheric Testing Program
19C 1969 DTIC CRRES Atmospheric Testing Using TMA Barium Lithium Diborane U.S. Air Force 1969.pdf
19C 1992 DTIC CRRES History 1981 through March 19, 1992 SPACERAD.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 1 Results 135.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 2.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 3.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 4.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 5.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 6.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 6 - Results 135.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 7.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 8.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 9.pdf
Glossary of Terms - Definitions - Acronyms - Abbreviations - Other Information
19G 2005 DTIC Defense Acquisition University Press 12th Edition July 2005 Glossary+Definition of Terms.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Acronyms.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Acronyms and Abbreviations May 2009.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Appendix G Glossary of Terms and Definitions-Operation Planning 2009.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Department of Defense May 31, 2009 Acronyms.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Listing of NIST Glossary + Abbreviations + Acronyms May 31, 2009.pdf
19G 2010 DTIC Acronyms March 23, 2010 Website-Research Information.pdf
19G 2010 DTIC A-Z Listing March 23, 2010 Website Terms Definitions Aronyms.pdf
Ionization
19I 1962 DTIC U.S. Army Abstract Dec. 12, 1962 Electromagnetic Communications-Artificially Ionized Atmosphere.pdf
19K 2007 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Abstract Search July 30, 2007 Page 1 Results 125.pdf
19K 2007 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Abstract Search July 30, 2007 Page 2.pdf
19K 2007 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Abstract Search July 30, 2007 Page 3.pdf
19K 2007 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Abstract Search July 30, 2007 Page 4.pdf
19K 2010 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Search March 23, 2010 Page 1 Results 119.pdf
Persistent Jet Contrails
19Q 2007 Search DTIC July 30, 2007 Persistent Jet Contrails Search Page 1 - Results 17.pdf
19Q 2007 Search DTIC July 30, 2007 Persistent Jet Contrails Search Page 2 - Results 17.pdf
SPACERAD - NASA + U.S. Air Force Programs
19S 1992 DTIC 1981-1992 History-Space Radiation Effects SPACERAD Program for the Joint USAF NASA CRRES.pdf
19T 1969 DTIC Search U.S. AF. Atmospheric Tests barium-Diborane-Trimethylaluminum-Lithium April 26, 1969.pdf
U.S. Upper Atmospheric Releases - Historical + Current
19U 1961 Abstract DTIC Upper Atmospheric Releases Studies IV January 1961 Geophysics Corporation of America.pdf
19U 1964 Abstract DTIC November 15, 1964 Chemical Releases in the Upper Atmosphere-Luminary Trail+Point Releases.pdf
19U 1964 Abstract DTIC Upper Atmosphere Chemcial Release July 5, 1964 Aerospace Corporation California.pdf
19U 1969 Abstract DTIC Flight Tests of Chemical Release Payloads for Upper Atmospheric Research DEC 1969.pdf
19U 1969 Abstract DTIC January 1, 1969 Upper Atmosphere Artificial Luminous Clouds Formed by Chemical Releases.pdf
19U 1977 Abstract DTIC Upper Atmosphere Chemical Release Smoke Triangulation 1974-1977 Georgia Tech.pdf
19U 1981 Abstract DTIC Upper Atmosphere chemical Release Smoke Trail Trianuglation 1978-1981 Georgia Tech.pdf
19U 2010 Search DTIC Abstract+Citation Search April 17, 2010 Upper Atmosphere Chemical Releases Results 516 Page 1.pdf
19U 2010 Search DTIC April 18, 2010 Search Jet Trails Atmospheric Releases Results 303 Page 1.pdf
19U 2010 Search DTIC Search April 18, 2010 Jet Trails Atmospheric Chemical Releases Page 1 - Results 257.pdf
Obscuration Abstract Searches
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 1.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 2.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 3.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 4.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 30, 2007 Page 1.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 10.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 11.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 12.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 13.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 14.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 3.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 4.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 5.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 6.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 7.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 8.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 9.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Results 152 Page 2.pdf
Library
19X 2009 DTIC May 31, 2009 Government Library Indiana University Resources.pdf
http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/content/atmospheric-testing-space-programs
26 12009 U.S. Navy NRL Rocket Experiment CARE II Planned - No Date Given - Using Aluminum Oxide Press Releases November 9, 2009.pdf
26 1 2003 U.S. Navy NASA Study Finds Space Shuttle Exhaust Creates Night-Shining Clouds June 3, 2003 Press Release.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Science Program Information + NASA
26 1 2010 DOE ASP Atmospheric Science Program Website April 18, 2010 http___www.asp.bnl.pdf
26 2010 NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies Aerosols April 16, 2010 Particles - Health Sources http___www.giss.nasa.pdf
26A 2003 ARM Aerosol Intensive Observational Period IOP ASP - ACP May 2003.pdf
26A 2006 ASP Program DOE http___www.asp.bnl May 30, 2006.pdf
26A 2007 DOE ASP ARM 2007 Upcoming Field Campaigns.pdf
26A 2007 DOE Atmospheric Science Program 2007 http___www.asp.bnl.pdf
26A 2010 U.S. DOE Atmospheric Science Program February 15, 2010 http___www.asp.bnl.pdf
Biometrics
26B 2004 Atmospheric Science + Biometeorology GCEP 2004 Abstracts.pdf
California Programs - Experiments
26C 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement December 19, 2005.pdf
26C 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program December 19, 2005 - CA.pdf
26C 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Facility December 12, 2005 CA Information.pdf
26C 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Facility DEC 19, 2005 EurekAlert AAAS.pdf
26C 2006 ASP California March 31, 2006 Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment NASA INTEX-B Spring.pdf
26C 2007 ASP California Spring 2006 INTEX-B_vE_800w.pdf
Biologicals
26D 2008 DOE Office of Biological & Environmental Research 2008.pdf
26D 2008 DOE Office of Biological Science Systems Division & Environmental Research 2008.pdf
26D 2009 DOE Research February 25, 2009 Ferrell_asp_meeting.pdf
Atmospheric Experiments - Geoengineering
26EZ 2008 Unilateral Geoengineering Briefing Workshop Council on Foreign Relations April 15, 2008 .pdf
26E 1958 High Altitude Nuclear Explosions HANE Detonation of Nuclear Weapons in Outer Space 1958 Wikipedia.pdf
26E 1958 List of Artificial Radiation Belts Created by High Altitude Nuclear Explosions 1958-1962 Wikipedia.pdf
26E 1962 Atmospheric Nuclear Test STARFISH Photographs July 9, 1962.pdf
26E 1964 Photographic Instrumentation for Triangulation Studies of Liminous Clouds Upper Atmosphere 1964 Abstract Sodium-Cesium.pdf
26E 1966 NASA Upper-Chemical Release Program Information June 1, 1966.pdf
26E 1966 Studies Supporting an Upper Atmosphere Chemical Release Program Final Report June 1966 TMA Diborane Etc.pdf
26E 1966 Studies Supporting an Upper Atmospheric Chemical Release Program June 1966 Final Report.pdf
26E 1970 Barium DTIC Abstract U.S. Air Force October 26, 1970 Barium Used in Upper Atmospheric Chemical Release Experiments.pdf
26E 1970 U.S. Navy Project SESAMISEED Artificial Cesium Plasma Clouds May 21, 1970 Abstract.pdf
26E 1974 Radio-Radar+Optical Obsrvations of Cesium Release in Upper Atmosphere February 4, 1974.pdf
26E 1990 Alaska Science Forum 1990 University of Alaska Fireworks.pdf
26E 1991 U.S. Patent 5003186 Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming March 26, 1991 Aluminum or Thorium Oxide.pdf
26E 1991 U.S. Patent 5003186 Weslbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming March 26, 1991 Aluminum or Thorium Oxide A.pdf
26E 1993 Finite Element Simulation FES Studies of Chemical Modification of Ionospshsere 1993.pdf
26E 1993 Finite Element Simulation FES Technique Studies Chemical Modification Ionosphere 1993.pdf
26E 1994 Ionosphere U.S. Experiments 1994 Abstract Barium.pdf
26E 2004 Atmospheric Action Studies 2004 Names - Items for Future Research.pdf
26E 2004 Atmospheric Aerosol Shield Search 2004 Search - Items for Future Research.pdf
26E 2004 Pentagon Atmospheric Dispersion April 19, 2004 Experiment Sulfur Hexafluoride SF6.pdf
26E 2006 New CERN1 CLOUD Experiment to Investigate Effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Clouds+Climate OCT 4, 2006 SDNews.pd.pdf
26E 2007 ENN News August 25, 2007 Noctilucent Polar Ice Clouds Change Climate.pdf
26E 2007 NASA Night Clouds Trimethylaluminum 2007 - Rockets-Cannisters.pdf
26E 2007 Russia Tests Superstrength Vacuum Bomb September 12, 2007 Video Reuters News.pdf
26E 2009 STPSat-1 successfully Completes Extended Mission to Study Ionosphere December 3, 2009.pdf
26E 2010 DARPA Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle Mission Lost After Nine Minutes April 29, 2010 News .pdf
26E 2010 High Explosive Test on Hold at the Nevada Test Site Named Devine Strake RNEP VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26E 2010 Neal Boyd Brown - Alaska Upper Atmospheric Releases-Supervisor at Poker Flat Rocket Facility Resume April 24, 2010.pdf
Glossary
26G 2000 Atmospheric Chemistry Glossary 2000.pdf
26G 2000 Atmospheric Chemistry Glossary Revision 2000.pdf
26G 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Within Federal Community Workshop-Weather June 6-8, 2000.pdf.pdf
26G 2008 Lightning Atmospheric Conductivity 2008 Huygens.pdf
26G 2008 Space and Warfare Lexicon 2008.pdf
26G 2008 Space & Electronic Warfare Glossary S 2008.pdf
26G 2008 Space & Electronic Warfare Lexicon Glossary T 2008.pdf
26G 2010 NASA Langley Science directorate Atmospheric Chemistry Glossary April 24, 2010.pdf
History
26H 1958 Atomic Bomb Hits Florence South Carolina March 11, 1958 VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2007 Fifty Years Later-The Price Still Being Paid for Atom Bomb Tests May 15, 2007 Mail Online News.pdf
26H 2008 Atmospheric Sciences Pubications 2008 Historical.pdf
26H 2010 Atomic Bomb History VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Atomic Smoke Trails Around Atomic Bomb Atmospheric Tests VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 History Leading to the Creation of the Atomic Bomb VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 How Atomic Bomb Tests Were Conducted Including Upper Atmospheric Tests VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile History After WWII VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Limited Test Ban Treaty 1963 Prohibits Nuclear Weapons Test Explosions-Atmosphere, Outer Space+Underwater April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Lookout Mountain Studios Hollywood CA 1947-1969 U.S. Air Force Nuclear Testing Movies VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Missile Defense Timeline Early History VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and American Nuclear Testing Timeline VCE.com April 27, 2010 .pdf
26H 2010 The Atmoic Cannon Detonated May 25, 1953 Nevada Test Site VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 The Bombing of Hiroshima+Nagasaki JAPAN World War II VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 The Cold War 50 Years VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 Trinity-Birth of the Atomic Age July 16, 1945 VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26H 2010 TSAR BOMBA Russian King of Nuclear Bombs Detonated October 23, 1961 VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy - Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM)
26I 2005 DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Facility DEC 19, 2005 Moves to Niger.pdf
26J 2000 NASA NIAC June 6, 2000 Final Presentation Environmentally-Neutal Aircraft Tyll.pdf
26J 2002 NASA NIAC Environmentally Neutral Aircraft Using Low Temperature Plasmas Final Report 2002 Tyll.pdf
26J 2006 Abstract August 15, 2006 HAPS High Altitude Platform Station Wireless Communications http___www.springerlink.pdf
26J 2006 ASP INTEX-NA Mission Description+Science Objectives Planes DC-8+12 Other Aircraft 2004-2006.pdf
26J 2006 ASP March 30, 2006 Research Aircraft Facility RAF.pdf
26J 2006 Atmospheric Science Global Change Division Aircraft Facility 2006.pdf
26J 2008 March 6, 2008 Spy Plane Nasa Vulture Unmanned Aircraft to Stay Aloft for 5 Years next-energy-news3.6b.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy - General Information
26K 2008 USA Today December 2008 Scientist Find Hole in Earth's Magnetic Field-Solar Flares.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Chronic Berryllium Disease-Health Impacts October 29, 2009 Website.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Climate Change October 29, 2009 Website Information.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Grants + Contracts Website 2009.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Press Releases 2009 Summaries - Secretary Chu.pdf
26K 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Year 2009 Projects + Programs.pdf
U.S. Patents - Weather Modification + Other Atmospheric Experiments
Space Security - Satellites
26M 1971 U.S. Patent 3564253 System Method Irradiation of Planet Surface Areas FEB 16, 1971 for Heating-Weather Control-Illumination.pdf
26M 1987 U.S. Patent 4686605 Eastlund August 11, 1987 Methods for Altering a Region of Earth Atmosphere etc.pdf
26M 1994 U.S. Patent 5360162 NOV 1, 1994 Barium Lead Copper Perchlorate Fuels Weather Modification Methods+Composition.pdf
26M 1998 U.S. Patent 5762298 June 9, 1998 Satellites Modify Solar Radiation Weather.pdf
26M 1999 U.S. Patent 5984239 November 16, 1999 Weather Modification by Artificial Satellites.pdf
26M 2006 SSI Active Military Satellites 2006.pdf
26M 2006 SSI Space Security Report 2006.pdf
26M 2007 Space Security Survey 2007 SSI Report Overview.pdf
26M 2008 Space Debris-Radio Frequencies SSI 2008 Executive Summary .pdf
26M 2008 Space Security.org 2008 Capabilities.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security 2007 SpaceSecurity.org.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security CDI 2008 Defense Budget August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security CDI Center for Defense Information August 11, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security CDI DVD Books Reports Monographs 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Fact Sheet SSI August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index 2008 About SSI.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index August 16, 2008 Research Partnerships.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index Contacts August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index Fact Sheet August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Index SSI Publications August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2008 Space Security Laws 2008 CDI.pdf
26M 2008 SSI Directory of Space Actors August 16, 2008 Organizations and Activities.pdf
26M 2008 SSI Institute of Air & Space Law August 16, 2008.pdf
26M 2010 SSI Partners April 19, 2010 Space Security Index Institute of Air+Space Law Website.pdf
NASA
26N 1968 NASA Chemical Releases Leading to Upper Atmospheric Chemi-ion Formation January 1, 1968.pdf
26N 1999 NASA NIAC SHIELD A Comprehensive Earth Protection System May 28, 1999.pdf
26N 2000 NASA NIACThe Space Elevator Financed Study 2000.pdf
26N 2001 Effectiveness of Adaptive Observatons in Improving Numberical Weather Forecasting DEC 18, 2001 by Bacon.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC 2002 Investigation-Laser Trapped Mirrors in Space Phase I-Final Report McCormack.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC 2002 Meeting Laser Trapped Mirrors in Space Phase I Report McCormack Power Point Presentation.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC Electromagnetic Flight Final Report Miller 2002.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC Global Environmental MEMS Sensors GEMS Observing System 2002 Final Report Part 1 Manobianco.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC January 7, 2002 Controlling the Global Weather.pdf
26N 2002 NASA NIAC October 2002 Electromagnetic Formation Flight Final Report Miller.pdf
26N 2004 NASA NIAC Controlling Global Weather Final Report March 31, 2004 Hoffman.pdf
26N 2004 NASA NIAC URSA October 19, 2004 Global Envornmental MEMS Sensors GEMS Manobianco.pdf
26N 2005 NASA NIAC Electromagnetic Formation Flight EMFF 2005 Sedwick.pdf
26N 2005 NASA NIAC Electromagnetic Formation Flight Final Report August 2005 Sedwick.pdf
26N 2005 NASA NIAC ENSCO Phase II Final Report MEMS GEMS Manobianco August 31, 2005.pdf
26N 2005 NASA NIAC Redesigning Living Organisms to Survive on Mars October 2005 Boss.pdf
26N 2006 NASA NIAC Redesigning Living Organisms to Survive on Mars Presentation October 18, 2006 Boss.pdf
26N 2007 NASA NIAC March 7, 2007 Fellows Meeting on Solar Shields.pdf
26N 2007 NASA NIAC Newsroom Press Releases 2007.pdf
26N 2007 NASA NIAC Solar Shield in Space to Counter Global Warming by Angel University of Arizona 2007.pdf
26N 2007 NASA NIAS BAE Institute Crafts Magical Photonic Laser Thruster Feburary 24, 2007.pdf
26N 2007 NIAC 9th Annual 2006 Report + Finaly Report on August 31, 2007 NASA.pdf
26N 2007 NIAC Study by David Akin Space Systems Laboratory Univeristy of Maryland Phase I 2007.pdf
26N 2007 USRA NIAC NASA Established 1998-Closed 2007 NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts http___www.niac.usra.pdf
26N 2008 Space Debris-Radio Frequencies SSI 2008 Executive Summary .pdf
26N 2009 NASA NIAC Swarm Array of Picosats for Microwave RF Earth Sensing+ April 29, 2009 Bekey.pdf
26N 2010 NASA CRRES Search April 24, 2010 Studies Supporting Upper Atmospheric Release Programs Part I-II.pdf
26N 2010 NASA Ionization Search March 1, 2010 Page 1 - Atmospheric Ionization.pdf
26N 2010 NASA Ionization Search March 1, 2010 Page 2 - Atmospheric Ionization.pdf
26N 2010 NASA Missions+Projects Sciences and Exploration Directorate 600 Listings April 24, 2010.pdf
26N 2010 NASA NIAC NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts All Funded Studies Listing April 18, 2010 Website.pdf
26N 2010 NASA Search April 24, 2010 Studies Supporting Upper Atmospheric Release Programs Part I-II.pdf
26N 33 NASA Chemcial Releases in the Upper Atmosphsere Project Firefly Summary Report.pdf
26N NASA Chemcial Releases in the Upper Atmosphsere Project Firefly Summary Report Harvard.pdf
26N NASA NIAC Mini-Magnetosphseric Plasma Propulsion M2P2 Winglee Power Point Presentation.pdf
26N NASA Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite UARS U.S. Global Change Research Program.pdf
Atmospheric Experiments & Programs
26P 1958 Hardtack-Teak Exoatmosphseric Nuclear Test-Operatuion Hardtack I August 1, 1958 Wikipedia.pdf
26P 1962Starfish Prime High Altitude Nuclear U.S. Test Conducted on July 9, 1962 Wikipedia.pdf
26P 1970 September 1, 1970 Abstract Ionospheric Relesase of Chemicals-Upper Atmoshere-Lists Chemicals Used.pdf
26P 1976 Los Alamos U.S. High Altitude Tests October 1976 Environmental Impacts.pdf
26P 1977 DOD Upper Atmoshere Research Bibliography of Contaminant Release Experiments Part 3 1977.log
26P 1981 U.S. A?ir Force Upper Atmosphere chemcial Release and Smoke Triangulation Experiment 1978-1981.pdf
26P 1982 Low-Temperature Atmospheric Oxidation of Mixtures of Titanium+Carbon Black or Boron SEPT 23, 1982.pdf
26P 2000 Cadre Paper 6 U.S. Air Force April 2000 U.S. Nuclear ASAT Space Program-Chun.log
26P 2002 ASP White Paper December 2002 INTEX-NA NASA Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment.pdf
26P 2004 ASP VTMX March 26, 2003 Funding Accepted FY 2004.pdf
26P 2004 ASP VTMX Plan 2004 USING SF6 TRACER TO QUANTIFY VERTICAL MIXING WITHIN THE STABLE BOUNDARY LAYER.pdf
26P 2004 Pentagon Atmospheric Dispersion April 19, 2004 Experiment Sulfur Hexafluoride SF6.pdf
26P 2004 Pentagon Tests Atmospheric Dispersion April 19, 2004 nr20040419-0624 Press Release.pdf
26P 2006 ASP 2004-2006 Chemicals NASA INTEX-NA Introduction.pdf
26P 2006 ASP 2006 NOAA http___cloud1.arc.nasa INTEX-NA.pdf
26P 2006 ASP Atmospheric Chemical Science Division PNL 2006.pdf
26P 2006 ASP DOE 2006 Chemistry Physics of Oxides.pdf
26P 2006 ASP INTEX-B Phase B White Paper NASA 2006 Documents.pdf
26P 2006 ASP INTEX-NA NASA 2004-2006 Chemicals Introduction.pdf
26P 2006 ASP March 30, 2006 Chemicals PNL Search Result 214 - Page 1.pdf
26P 2006 ASP March 30, 2006 Field Campaigns DOE_field.pdf
26P 2006 ASP March 30, 2006 Instrumentation Measurement Capabilities DOE.pdf
26P 2006 ASP PNL Barium Search March 30, 2006.pdf
26P 2006 ASP VTMX Funding 2000-2007 PERFLUOROCARBON TRACER STUDIES FOR VISUALIZATIONVERIFICATION.pdf
26P 2006 ASP VTMX VERTICAL TRANSPORT AND MIXING IN COMPLEX-TERRAIN AIRSHEDS March 29, 2006 PNL.pdf
Photographs
26Q 2008 Atmospheric Optices July 31, 2008 Many Questions.pdf
U.S. Research & U.S. Patents
26R 1987 U.S. Patent 4,686,605 Method-Apparatus Altering Region Earth Atmosphere, Ionosphere, Magnetosphere Eastlund AUG 11, 1987.pdf
26R 1994 U.S. Patent 5,286,979 February 15, 1994 Process for Absorbing Ultraviolet Radiation Using Dispersed Melanin.pdf
26R 2007 Atmospheric Sciences Stull Publications Weather November 1, 2007.pdf
26R 2008 Atmospheric Science Program ASP Publications 2008.pdf
TAP Tropospheric Aerosol Programs - Space Weather
26T 2001 Tropospheric Aerosol Program TAP Document Program Plan March 2001.pdf
26T 2002 Space Weather UCAR Press Release September 16, 2002 Goes into High Gear.pdf
26T 2003 Space Weather Support for Communications - Ionosphere January 10, 2003.pdf
26T 2007 Space Weather 2007.pdf
Universities
26U 1976 Alaska Science Forum Barium March 3, 1976.pdf
26U 1981 Alaska Science Forum March 13, 1981 Man-Made Aurora Experiments.pdf
26U 1990 Alaska Science Forum 1990 University of Alaska Fireworks.pdf
26U 2003 Auroras 2003 Man-Made or Natural northern-lights-alaska.pdf
26U 2005 Clemson University 2005 Atmospheric Physics Experiments.pdf
26U 2007 Atmospheric Science Dept Colorado State 2007.pdf
26U 2007 CSU Atmospheric Chemistry 2007 Department Colorado See Tree Picture.pdf
26U 2008 Atmospheric Optics Site Index July 2008 Questions.pdf
26U 2009 HAARP Artificial Ionosphere Created Nature Magazine October 2, 2009 Questions.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy VTMX & HAARP High Altitude Auroral Research Program
26V 2006 DOE 2006 VTMX Aerosol Participants.pdf
26V 2006 DOE 2006 VTMX Plan Salt Lake City, Utah.pdf
26V 2010 HAARP Military Scientists Study Ionosphere February 26, 2010 Navy + Air Force.pdf
Weapons Systems & Chaff (Aluminum Coated Fiberglass) - Weaponization of Space
26W 1968 Chaff HARP Quebec Tri-methyl-Aluminum Trails Abstract 1968.pdf
26W 1979 British Ministry of Defense Turned Parts of England Giant Germ Warfare Test Lab Between 1940-1979 April 21, 2002 Guardian.pdf
26W 1988 Chaff Cloud Deployed in Orbit Around Earth Abstract December 1988 Study.pdf
26W 1997 Chaff U.S. Navy 1997.pdf
26W 1997 Chaff U.S. Navy June 10, 1997.pdf
26W 1998 Chaff U.S. GAO SEPT 1998 Environmental Protection-DOD Management Issues Related to Chaff.pdf
26W 1999 Chaff Abstract 1999 Pentagon Reports DOD Many Questions.pdf
26W 1999 Chaff Abstract August 31, 1999 Pentagon Reports DOD Many Questions.pdf
26W 1999 Chaff Inhalation Toxicty of Glass Fibers Abstract Review 1999.pdf
26W 2000 Chaff Aluminum Coated Fiberglass M-130 General Purpose Dispenser February 10, 2000 DOD.pdf
26W 2000 Chaff Chesapeake Bay Experiments 25 Years of Exposure Abstract June 2000.pdf
26W 2001 Chaff NAVY AERIAL CHAFF IMPACT REPORT October 2001.pdf
26W 2001 Chaff NAVY CHAFF IMPACTS REPORT 2001.pdf
26W 2001 U.S. Patent 6271877 Direct Broadcast Imaging Satellite Earth Monitoring August 7, 2001.pdf
26W 2001 U.S. Patent 6331870 Direct Broadcast Imagin Satellite December 18, 2001.pdf
26W 2002 Space Weapons fro Earth Wars May 15, 2002 Space.com.pdf
26W 2003 Chaff Dispenser FAS 2003 M-130 Aircraft Dispenser.pdf
26W 2003 Space Based Weapons Bibliography Maxwell AFB August 2003 Compilation.pdf
26W 2003 U.S. Patent 6504570 Direct Broadcast Imaging Satellite System Monitoring Earth Jan 7, 2003.pdf
26W 2005 Chaff Aluminum Coated Fiberglass M-130 General Purpose Dispenser 2005 DOD.pdf
26W 2006 Space Based Weapons-Taking War Into Space S.F. Chronicle March 12, 2006 Arquilla.pdf
26W 2006 Space Wars Rods From God Dr. John Arquilla S.F. Chronicle March 12, 2006.pdf
26W 2007 Chaff U.S. Navy November 13, 2007 Picture - Description.pdf
26W 2007 Navy Graphite Carbon By Products 2007 MSDS UCAR.pdf
26W 2007 Russia Tests Super-Strength Vacuum Bomb September 12, 2007 Reuters News.pdf
26W 2008 Chaff U.S. Navy 2008.pdf
26W 2008 Chaff U.S. Navy 2008 Live Fire Exercises.pdf
26W 2008 Chaff U.S. Navy Fact File 2008.pdf
26W 2008 Chaff U.S. Patent 7400287 SMART Chaff July 15, 2008 Radiation Source.pdf
26W 2008 Navy Graphite Flakes GRAFGUARD MSDS 2008 Highly Toxic.pdf
26W CHAFF Military Chaff Releases Unknown Photographer+Year.pdf
Abstracts - Atmospheric Experiments - Other Related Information
26X 1932 Ionization of Air by y-Rays 1932 Abstract APS.pdf
26X 1962 DTIC December 12, 1962 Transmission of Information-Artificially Ionized Atmosphere.pdf
26X 1970 Refractive Index of Optical Materials in the Infrared Region Abstract JAN 1970 Aluminum-Aluminum Oxide-Magnesium Oxide.pdf
26X 1971Cloud Modification Abstract November 15, 1971 External Heat Sources.pdf
26X 1971 Battelle Northwest-Washington Negatively Charged Particles Abstract Wehner January 1, 1971.pdf
26X 1971 Cloud Modification Nuclei Warm Fog Abstract January 1971 U.S. Army.pdf
26X 1972 Cloud Dissipaton Artificial Abstract May 28, 1972 Wright-Patterson AFB.pdf
26X 1978 U.S. Patent Metal Vapor Generator May 30, 1978 4,092, 263 Upper Atmosphere Usage.pdf
26X 1979 Cloud Abstract December 31, 1979 Fuel-Air Explosive Simulation.pdf
26X 1980 Clouds Blue-Green Kauai Cloud Experiments Abstract July 31, 1980 U.S. Navy.pdf
26X 1982 Cloud DOD Executive Summary December 22, 1982 Abstract Storming Media Pentagon Reports AFB.pdf
26X 1984 U.S. Patent 5360162 NOV 1, 1994 Barium Lead Copper Perchlorate Fuels Weather Modification Methods+Composition.pdf
26X 1987 Clouds Jet Releases Vapor Clouds Abstract December 21,1987 United States Air Force.pdf
26X 1989 Cloud-Free Lines of Sight Abstract September 30, 1989.pdf
26X 1996 U.S. Navy Zinc Gallium Boron Phosphide Zinc Zulfide Abstract May 1996.pdf
26X 1998 Clouds Abstract HSI AF Research Lab January 1998.pdf
26X 1999 U.S.A.F. Chemical Processes in the Space Environment Abstract Supersonic Jets Atmospheric Ions-Metal Vapors July 29, 1999.pdf
26X 2000 Molecular Dynamics of Upper Atmospheric Chemical Reactions August 31, 2000 Abstract Lasers U.S. Air Force.pdf
26X 2003 Ionization of the Atmosphere 1994-2003 Abstract.pdf
26X 2004 Atmospheric Science Program 2004 abstracts.pdf
26X 2004 Ionizing Radiation Fact Sheet EPA 2004.pdf
26X 2005 January 11, 2005 Artificial Atmospheric Ionization-Window for Weather Modification Paper_88063.pdf
26X 2007 19 DTIC July 30, 2007 Search 1 Military Weather Modification Results 15,665.pdf
26X 2007 19 DTIC July 30, 2007 Search Military Weather Modification Page 3.pdf
26X 2008 Clouds Gas Aerosol Reactions Abstract Search December 28, 2008 Results 9.pdf
26X 2008 Clouds, Vapor Abstract Search December 28, 2008 Results 23.pdf
26X 2008 Cloud Formation Abstract Seach December 22, 2008 Pentagon Reports-Storming Media-Results 44.pdf
26X 2008 Cloud Modification Abstract Search December 22, 2008 - Pentagon Reports-Storming Media Results 22.pdf
26X 2008 Cloud Modification Abstract Search December 28, 2008 Results 22.pdf
26X 2008 Cloud Production Abstract Search December 28, 2008 Results 16.pdf
26X 2010 Artificial Atmospheric Ionization-Potential Windwo for Weather Modification 2005 Abstract 88063[1].pdf
26X 2010 Lasers Could Trigger Downpours on Demand May 4, 2010 Physicists Already Tested This Method.pdf
26X 2010 U.S. Air Force Aircraft Ionizing Doses+Dose Rates from Radioactive Clouds+Fallout Abstract April 1976.pdf
26X 2010 U.S. Patent 4999637 Creation of Artificial Ionization Clouds Above the Earth March 12, 1991.pdf
26X 2010 Weather Modification Artificial Ionization 2008 Note Graphic.pdf
26X 2010 Weather Modification Artificial Ionization Methods March 27, 2005 India Daily News.pdf
26X 2010 Weather Modification Artificial Ionization Methods-Solar Radiation March 27, 2005 India Daily News.pdf
Atmospheric Dispersions
26YN 2000 Atmopsheric Dispsersion Modeling Proceedings June 8, 2010 NOAA OFCM Document.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Disperions Validation-Verification-Approval Models June 2000 Session IV.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Appendix B Attendees June 6-8, 2000 Very Interesting.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Capabilities June 2000 Session II Presenation.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling DOE Lawrence National Laboratory June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling June 2000 EPA Lockheed Martin.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling June 2000 U.S. Forest Service-Smoke Wildfires.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling June 6-8, 2000 Presentations.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling NOAA EPA June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling Session I Presentation.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Models June 2000 Session V Summary-Action Plan-Next Steps.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Models NOAA May 30, 2000 Hicks.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion U.S. Army Cionco June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion US. Department of Defense Prediction Assessment Capability June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Workshop June 6-8, 2000 Draft Workshop Agenda.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispsersion Modeling Ermack Lawrence Livermore Laboratory DOE June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispsersion Modeling Presentation June 6, 2000 by Martin DOD.pdf
26YN 2000 Atmospheric Dispsersion Modeling Space+Missile Programs by Parks U.S. Air Force June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersions Department of Energy-Atmospheric Science June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersion Meeting NOAA Modeling June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 NOAA Alaska June 6-8, 2000 Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling NWS.pdf
26YN 2000 NRC Requirements for Atmospheric Modeling June 6, 2000 by Mitchell.pdf
26YN 2000 Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiscale Atmospheric Disperions Modeling-Federal Community June 6-8, 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Technical Barriers to Upper Atmospheric Disperions Modeling Session III Presentation June 2000.pdf
26YN 2000 Workshop on Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersion June 6-8, 2000 Special Projects.pdf
26Y 2006 Atmospheric Science Program DOE 2006 http___www.asp.bnl.pdf
No Comment
26Z 1993 Open Skies Glossary Treaty Terms 1993.pdf
26Z 2001 Space Preservation Act of 2001 Full Text.pdf
26Z 2001 Space Preservation Act of 2001 Status.pdf
26Z 2002 Space Preservation Act 2002 Kucinich HR 3616.pdf
26Z 2002 Space Preservation Act of 2002 - Full Text.pdf
26Z 2005 Science+Space April 26, 2005 CNN Cassini Spacecraft Flyby-Upper Atmosphere Study.pdf
26Z 2008 Letter to Atmospheric Scientists July 18, 2007 by Karr.pdf
26Z 2009 Storming Media Home Page - Abstract Report Search Engine Pentagon 2009.pdf
26Z 2010 Nuclear 911 DVD Since 1950 There were 32 Nuclear Weapons Accidents-Broken Arrows VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26Z 2010 Nuclear Pioneers Event 2000 National Atomic Museum Alburquerque NM Minutes to Midnight VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26Z 2010 Nukes in Space 1999 DVD The Rainbow Bombs VCE.com April 27, 2010.pdf
26Z 2010 U.S. Navy Operation_Argus Nuclear Weapons+Missile Secret Tests August-SEPT 1958 South Atlantic Wikipedia April 27, 2010.pdf
26Z 2010 Wikipedia Advanced Research and Global Obsrvation Satellite ARGOS April 24, 2010 General Information.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the DTIC Section of the ADC Website. ADC historical research on many topics can be found at this location in abstract form. The information is public and all of the entire reports may be purchased from DTIC by going to their website.
Defense Technical Information Center - Information
19A 2009 DTIC Defense Technical Information Center May 31, 2009.pdf
19A 2010 DTIC Home Page April 18, 2010 Research Information DOD http___www.dtic.pdf
19A 2010 DTIC The Defense Technical Information Center Website March 23, 2010 http___www.dtic.pdf
19A 2010 DTIC Website March 23, 2010 Informatino+Reseasrch http___www.dtic.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense
19B 1987 U.S. Department of Defense Distribution Statements on Technical Documents Directive March 18, 1987.pdf
CRRES - Atmospheric Testing Program
19C 1969 DTIC CRRES Atmospheric Testing Using TMA Barium Lithium Diborane U.S. Air Force 1969.pdf
19C 1992 DTIC CRRES History 1981 through March 19, 1992 SPACERAD.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 1 Results 135.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 2.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 3.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 4.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 5.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 6.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 6 - Results 135.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 7.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 8.pdf
19C 2007 DTIC Search July 30, 2007 CRRES Abstract Search Page 9.pdf
Glossary of Terms - Definitions - Acronyms - Abbreviations - Other Information
19G 2005 DTIC Defense Acquisition University Press 12th Edition July 2005 Glossary+Definition of Terms.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Acronyms.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Acronyms and Abbreviations May 2009.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Appendix G Glossary of Terms and Definitions-Operation Planning 2009.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Department of Defense May 31, 2009 Acronyms.pdf
19G 2009 DTIC Listing of NIST Glossary + Abbreviations + Acronyms May 31, 2009.pdf
19G 2010 DTIC Acronyms March 23, 2010 Website-Research Information.pdf
19G 2010 DTIC A-Z Listing March 23, 2010 Website Terms Definitions Aronyms.pdf
Ionization
19I 1962 DTIC U.S. Army Abstract Dec. 12, 1962 Electromagnetic Communications-Artificially Ionized Atmosphere.pdf
19K 2007 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Abstract Search July 30, 2007 Page 1 Results 125.pdf
19K 2007 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Abstract Search July 30, 2007 Page 2.pdf
19K 2007 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Abstract Search July 30, 2007 Page 3.pdf
19K 2007 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Abstract Search July 30, 2007 Page 4.pdf
19K 2010 Search DTIC Jet Contrails Search March 23, 2010 Page 1 Results 119.pdf
Persistent Jet Contrails
19Q 2007 Search DTIC July 30, 2007 Persistent Jet Contrails Search Page 1 - Results 17.pdf
19Q 2007 Search DTIC July 30, 2007 Persistent Jet Contrails Search Page 2 - Results 17.pdf
SPACERAD - NASA + U.S. Air Force Programs
19S 1992 DTIC 1981-1992 History-Space Radiation Effects SPACERAD Program for the Joint USAF NASA CRRES.pdf
19T 1969 DTIC Search U.S. AF. Atmospheric Tests barium-Diborane-Trimethylaluminum-Lithium April 26, 1969.pdf
U.S. Upper Atmospheric Releases - Historical + Current
19U 1961 Abstract DTIC Upper Atmospheric Releases Studies IV January 1961 Geophysics Corporation of America.pdf
19U 1964 Abstract DTIC November 15, 1964 Chemical Releases in the Upper Atmosphere-Luminary Trail+Point Releases.pdf
19U 1964 Abstract DTIC Upper Atmosphere Chemcial Release July 5, 1964 Aerospace Corporation California.pdf
19U 1969 Abstract DTIC Flight Tests of Chemical Release Payloads for Upper Atmospheric Research DEC 1969.pdf
19U 1969 Abstract DTIC January 1, 1969 Upper Atmosphere Artificial Luminous Clouds Formed by Chemical Releases.pdf
19U 1977 Abstract DTIC Upper Atmosphere Chemical Release Smoke Triangulation 1974-1977 Georgia Tech.pdf
19U 1981 Abstract DTIC Upper Atmosphere chemical Release Smoke Trail Trianuglation 1978-1981 Georgia Tech.pdf
19U 2010 Search DTIC Abstract+Citation Search April 17, 2010 Upper Atmosphere Chemical Releases Results 516 Page 1.pdf
19U 2010 Search DTIC April 18, 2010 Search Jet Trails Atmospheric Releases Results 303 Page 1.pdf
19U 2010 Search DTIC Search April 18, 2010 Jet Trails Atmospheric Chemical Releases Page 1 - Results 257.pdf
Obscuration Abstract Searches
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 1.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 2.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 3.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 4.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 30, 2007 Page 1.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 10.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 11.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 12.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 13.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 14.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 3.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 4.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 5.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 6.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 7.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 8.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Page 9.pdf
19W 2009 Search DTIC Obscuration Jets Abstract Search May 31, 2009 Results 152 Page 2.pdf
Library
19X 2009 DTIC May 31, 2009 Government Library Indiana University Resources.pdf
http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/content/atmospheric-testing-space-programs
That's an impressive looking list until you start clicking the links.
Take out the patents and proposals and there is very little left.
This is typical of the misinformation Rosalind Peterson and the ACD put out.
http://illuminutti.com/tag/rosalind-peterson/
Take out the patents and proposals and there is very little left.
This is typical of the misinformation Rosalind Peterson and the ACD put out.
http://illuminutti.com/tag/rosalind-peterson/
Here's is an interesting clip from the Colbert Report, a climate scientist basically says you need to spray more pollution in order to reverse global warming.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/lv0hd2/david-keith
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/lv0hd2/david-keith
global warming is bullshit invented by the Club of Rome in 70's to bring in carbon taxes - and kill us off
I am very much awake.
Global warming is a real problem , CO2 and HFC emissions , deforestation , waste heat and global overpopulation are driving it.
Taxation is the only way to effect any change in the trend.
Would rather believe a consensus of real scientists than the conspiracy sites that have a hatred of government and imaginary Jewish groups as their main agenda.
If GW is bullshit then we will have moved to a renewable based economy and still see the benefits , if its true we might just have saved the planet.
Waiting 20 years to do anything is a poor option.
Chemtrails are a distraction , and readily disproved.
Global warming is a real problem , CO2 and HFC emissions , deforestation , waste heat and global overpopulation are driving it.
Taxation is the only way to effect any change in the trend.
Would rather believe a consensus of real scientists than the conspiracy sites that have a hatred of government and imaginary Jewish groups as their main agenda.
If GW is bullshit then we will have moved to a renewable based economy and still see the benefits , if its true we might just have saved the planet.
Waiting 20 years to do anything is a poor option.
Chemtrails are a distraction , and readily disproved.
proceed to do so...
Register Number: EE-630-EECA
Title: Effects of Aerosols and Clouds on Climate Change Forcing
Principal Investigator: McGraw, Robert
Institution: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Institution Address: Upton, NY 11973-5000
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2014 $0 k
FY 2013 $4625 k KP1701
FY 2012 $4698 k KP1701
FY 2011 $4663 k KP1701
FY 2010 $2288 k KP1701000
DOE Program Manager: Ashley Williamson
BER Division: Climate and Environmental Sciences
Research Area: Atmospheric System Research
Abstract Submit Date: 09/30/2013
Project Term: 10/01/2009 - 09/30/2014
Abstract: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) research focuses on determining the effects of aerosols and clouds on climate change forcing and on accurately and efficiently including these effects in models. Aerosol direct and indirect contributions to global-average forcing offset contributions from greenhouse gases and dominate uncertainty of anthropogenic influences on climate. This uncertainty translates to an inability to reliably predict the amount of incremental atmospheric CO2 that would result in a given increase in global mean temperature and, more generally, the climate response to potential perturbations from changes in future energy needs. BNL research is organized according to four principal activities: (1) field observations and interpretation; (2) radar/lidar/satellite observations and analysis; (3) theory and parameterization; and, (4) climate sensitivity studies. Emphasis is placed on describing aerosol and cloud microphysical properties and their interactions (aerosol direct and indirect effects) and on the chemical/physical/meteorological processes that govern their evolution and impact on the Earth’s energy balance. Aerosol research focuses on process-level understanding in concert with laboratory and field measurements that follow the life cycle of aerosols, their radiative impact, and their effects on cloud properties. Comprehensive cloud studies integrating theory, modeling, and multiple observations from in situ (e.g., aircraft), remote sensing (radar), and coordinated analysis of long-term measurements collected at Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) sites are conducted to investigate the microphysical, radiative, and dynamical properties of clouds and precipitation. These are strongly integrated activities all of which contribute to process-level understanding and provide the science foundation to meet Department of Energy (DOE) objectives by improving overall understanding of how aerosol-cloud direct and indirect effects affect the Earth's radiant-energy balance and by quantifying the degree to which changes in aerosol and cloud properties offset the positive forcing from greenhouse gases.
http://www.osti.gov/oberabstracts/searchresults.jsp?researcharea=Atmospheric%20System%20Research&projectstatus=active
Title: Effects of Aerosols and Clouds on Climate Change Forcing
Principal Investigator: McGraw, Robert
Institution: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Institution Address: Upton, NY 11973-5000
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2014 $0 k
FY 2013 $4625 k KP1701
FY 2012 $4698 k KP1701
FY 2011 $4663 k KP1701
FY 2010 $2288 k KP1701000
DOE Program Manager: Ashley Williamson
BER Division: Climate and Environmental Sciences
Research Area: Atmospheric System Research
Abstract Submit Date: 09/30/2013
Project Term: 10/01/2009 - 09/30/2014
Abstract: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) research focuses on determining the effects of aerosols and clouds on climate change forcing and on accurately and efficiently including these effects in models. Aerosol direct and indirect contributions to global-average forcing offset contributions from greenhouse gases and dominate uncertainty of anthropogenic influences on climate. This uncertainty translates to an inability to reliably predict the amount of incremental atmospheric CO2 that would result in a given increase in global mean temperature and, more generally, the climate response to potential perturbations from changes in future energy needs. BNL research is organized according to four principal activities: (1) field observations and interpretation; (2) radar/lidar/satellite observations and analysis; (3) theory and parameterization; and, (4) climate sensitivity studies. Emphasis is placed on describing aerosol and cloud microphysical properties and their interactions (aerosol direct and indirect effects) and on the chemical/physical/meteorological processes that govern their evolution and impact on the Earth’s energy balance. Aerosol research focuses on process-level understanding in concert with laboratory and field measurements that follow the life cycle of aerosols, their radiative impact, and their effects on cloud properties. Comprehensive cloud studies integrating theory, modeling, and multiple observations from in situ (e.g., aircraft), remote sensing (radar), and coordinated analysis of long-term measurements collected at Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) sites are conducted to investigate the microphysical, radiative, and dynamical properties of clouds and precipitation. These are strongly integrated activities all of which contribute to process-level understanding and provide the science foundation to meet Department of Energy (DOE) objectives by improving overall understanding of how aerosol-cloud direct and indirect effects affect the Earth's radiant-energy balance and by quantifying the degree to which changes in aerosol and cloud properties offset the positive forcing from greenhouse gases.
http://www.osti.gov/oberabstracts/searchresults.jsp?researcharea=Atmospheric%20System%20Research&projectstatus=active
Policy Implications of
Greenhouse Warming
Mitigation, Adaptation,
and the Science Base
Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1992
National Academy Press • 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report is the result of work done by an independent panel appointed by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, which has authorized its release to the public.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee and by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Both consist of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base ( 1992 )
...
An Assessment of Mitigation Options in the United States
Several premises are central to the design of a well-conceived mitigation policy. First, responses to greenhouse warming should be regarded as investments in the future of the nation and the planet. The actions required will have to be implemented over a long period of time. They must, however, be compared to other claims on the nation's resources.
Page 53
Second, cost-effectiveness is an essential guideline. The changes in energy, industrial practices, land use, agriculture, and forestry that are likely to be needed to limit emissions of greenhouse gases require investments over time. These are likely to be large enough to affect the economy in various ways. The sensible guideline is cost-effectiveness: obtaining the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest cost.
A true cost-effectiveness analysis of reducing greenhouse gas emissions would measure only the costs of interventions taken solely because of greenhouse warming. This is difficult in practice because many of these actions contribute to several social goals, making it hard to distinguish the costs and benefits attributable to greenhouse warming alone. There are two ways such complications might be handled: by adding benefits to reflect contributions to multiple goals or by reducing costs to reflect their allocation among different goals. For example, eliminating CFC emissions would slow both the depletion of the ozone layer and the onset of greenhouse warming. A proper accounting of reducing CFC emissions would either assign additional benefits to reflect those gained in the area of ozone depletion or reduce the cost allocated to greenhouse warming proportionate to the contribution of those actions to other goals. In either case, the cost-effectiveness ratio would be improved if multiple social goals were considered. Similarly, several actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions are mandated by the Clean Air Act. A full cost-effectiveness analysis would account for the fact that society has already decided to bear these costs, so that only additional costs and benefits would be included in the analysis of greenhouse warming. Limits on time and resources precluded complete analysis of these complications in this study, and the results presented here should be considered a first cut that points the way for further analyses.
Third, a mixed strategy is essential. A least-cost approach produces a variety of options. A mixed strategy, however, requires comparison of options in different sectors of the economy.
In comparing various mitigation options, this panel emphasizes three factors. The first factor is the cost-effectiveness of the option. In calculating cost-effectiveness, the panel converted reductions of all greenhouse gases into CO2-equivalent emission reduction in order to be able to compare all options on the same basis.
The second factor is the ease or difficulty of implementation of the option. Although a particular option may be technically possible for relatively wealthy countries, it may be precluded for social, economic, or political reasons. These implementation obstacles are different for each option considered. The panel estimates emission reductions that could be achieved if explicitly defined feasible opportunities were executed. For example, one option calls for reducing energy use in residential lighting by 50 percent through replacement of incandescent lighting (2.5 interior light bulbs and 1 exterior light bulb
Page 54
per residence) with compact fluorescent lights. Another option calls for improving on-road fuel economy to 25 miles per gallon (32.5 mpg in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) terms) in light vehicles by implementing existing technologies that would not require changes in size or attributes of vehicles. Each option is also evaluated in terms of an optimistic "upper-bound" (100 percent achievement) or a pessimistic "lower-bound" (25 percent) level of implementation. A brief description of the mitigation options considered in this study is found in Table 6.1.
The third factor is the interconnectedness of the option to other issues in addition to greenhouse warming, for example, destruction of the ozone layer or biological extinction. These additional factors, however, were considered only in a qualitative manner and are part of the reason that recommendations are not based solely on the cost-effectiveness calculations developed in this study.
Table 6.2 shows selected mitigation options in order of cost-effectiveness. Some options, primarily in energy efficiency and conservation, have substantial potential to mitigate greenhouse warming with net savings or very low net cost. However, they have not been fully adopted because of various implementation obstacles.
Net savings does not mean that no expenditure is required to implement these options. Rather, it indicates that the total discounted cost of the option over the period of analysis is less than its discounted direct benefit, usually reduction in energy consumption, where the discount rate is 6 percent. At higher discount rates the relative cost would rise. These are options that ought to be, and probably will be, implemented, since they are in the interests of those who implement them. The decisions to start, however, can be hastened through better information and incentives.
Table 6.2 also includes some options that are more costly, face substantial obstacles to their implementation, or have other costs or benefits that are difficult to characterize. For example, reduction of CFC consumption is also beneficial in reducing stratospheric ozone depletion, and the combined benefit derived for greenhouse warming and ozone depletion would raise CFC control options in the ranking of preferred actions. Questions about the appropriateness of current technologies and public opposition to nuclear power, however, currently make this option difficult to implement. To the extent that concern about greenhouse warming replaces concern about nuclear energy and "inherently safe" nuclear plants are developed, this option increases its priority ranking.
Table 6.3 presents what the panel calls geoengineering options. The geoengineering options in this preliminary analysis include several ways of reducing temperature increases by screening sunlight (e.g., space mirrors, stratospheric dust, multiple balloons, stratospheric soot, and stimulating cloud condensation nuclei) as well as stimulation of ocean uptake of CO2. Several
Page 55
TABLE 6.1 Brief Descriptions of Mitigation Options Considered in This Study for the United States
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Electricity Efficiency Measures
White Surfaces/Vegetation Reduce air conditioning use and the urban heat island effect by 25% through planting vegetation and painting roofs white at 50% of U.S. residences.
Residential Lighting Reduce lighting energy consumption by 50% in all U.S. residences through replacement of incandescent lighting (2.5 inside and 1 outside light bulb per residence) with compact fluorescents.
Residential Water Heating Improve efficiency by 40 to 70% through efficient tanks, increased insulation, low-flow devices, and alternative water heating systems.
Commercial Water Heating Improve efficiency by 40 to 60% through residential measures mentioned above, heat pumps, and heat recovery systems.
Commercial Lighting Reduce lighting energy consumption by 30 to 60% by replacing 100% of commercial light fixtures with compact fluorescent lighting, reflectors, occupancy sensors, and daylighting.
Commercial Cooking Use additional insulation, seals, improved heating elements, reflective pans, and other measures to increase efficiency 20 to 30%.
Commercial Cooling Use improved heat pumps, chillers, window treatments, and other measures to reduce commercial cooling energy use by 30 to 70%.
Commercial Refrigeration Improve efficiency 20 to 40% through improved compressors, air barriers and food case enclosures, and other measures.
Residential Appliances Improve efficiency of refrigeration and dishwashers by 10 to 30% through implementation of new appliance standards for refrigeration, and use of no-heat drying cycles in dishwashers.
Residential Space Heating Reduce energy consumption by 40 to 60% through improved and increased insulation, window glazing, and weather stripping along with increased use of heat pumps and solar heating.
Commercial and Industrial Space Heating Reduce energy consumption by 20 to 30% using measures similar to that for the residential sector.
Commercial Ventilation Improve efficiency 30 to 50% through improved distribution systems, energy-efficient motors, and various other measures.
(Table 6.1 continues on page 56)
Page 56
(Table 6.1 continued from page 55)
Oil and Gas Efficiency Reduce residential and commercial building fossil fuel energy use by 50% through improved efficiency measures similar to the ones listed under electricity efficiency.
Fuel Switching Improve overall efficiency by 60 to 70% through switching 10% of building electricity use from electric resistance heat to natural gas heating.
INDUSTRIAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Co-generation Replace existing industrial energy systems with an additional 25,000 MW of co-generation plants to produce heat and power simultaneously.
Electricity Efficiency Improve electricity efficiency up to 30% through use of more efficient motors, electrical drive systems, lighting, and industrial process modifications.
Fuel Efficiency Reduce fuel consumption up to 30% by improving energy management, waste heat recovery, boiler modifications, and other industrial process enhancements.
Fuel Switching Switch 0.6 quadsa of current coal consumption in industrial plants to natural gas or oil.
New Process Technology Increase recycling and reduce energy consumption primarily in the primary metals, pulp and paper, chemicals, and petroleum refining industries through new, less energy intensive process innovations.
TRANSPORTATION ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Vehicle Efficiency
Light Vehicles Use technology to improve on-road fuel economy to 25 mpg (32.5 mpg in CAFEb terms) with no changes in the existing fleet.
Improve on-road fuel economy to 36 mpg (46.8 mpg CAFE) with measures that require changes in the existing fleet such as downsizing.
Heavy Trucks Use measures similar to that for light vehicles to improve heavy truck efficiency up to 14 mpg (18.2 mpg CAFE).
Aircraft Implement improved fanjet and other technologies to improve fuel efficiency by 20% to 130 to 140 seat-miles per gallon.
(Table 6.1 continued on page 57)
Page 57
(Table 6.1 continued from page 56)
Alternative Fuels
Methanol from Biomass Replace all existing gasoline vehicles with those that use methanol produced from biomass.
Hydrogen from Nonfossil Fuels Replace gasoline with hydrogen created from electricity generated from nonfossil fuel sources.
Electricity from Nonfossil Fuels Use electricity from nonfossil fuel sources such as nuclear and solar energy directly in transportation vehicles.
Transportation Demand Management Reduce solo commuting by eliminating 25 per cent of the employer-provided parking spaces and placing a tax on the remaining spaces to reduce solo commuting by an additional 15 percent.
ELECTRICITY AND FUEL SUPPLY
Heat Rate Improvements Improve heat rates (efficiency) of existing plants by up to 4% through improved plant operation and maintenance.
Advanced Coal Improve overall thermal efficiency of coal plants by 10% through use of integrated gasification combined cycle, pressurized fluidizedbed, and advanced pulverized coal combustion systems.
Natural Gas Replace all existing fossil-fuel-fired plants with gas turbine combined cycle systems to both improve thermal efficiency of current natural gas combustion systems and replace fossil fuels such as coal and oil that generate more CO2 than natural gas.
Nuclear Replace all existing fossil-fuel-fired plants with nuclear power plants such as advanced light-water reactors.
Hydroelectric Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with remaining hydroelectric generation capability of 2 quads.
Geothermal Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with remaining geothermal generation potential of 3.5 quads.
Biomass Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with biomass generation potential of 2.4 quads.
Solar Photovoltaics Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with solar photovoltaics generation potential of 2.5 quads.
Solar Thermal Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with solar thermal generation potential of 2.6 quads.
(Table 6.1 continued on page 58)
Page 58
(Table 6.1 continued on page 57)
Wind Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with wind generation potential of 5.3 quads.
CO2 Disposal Collect and dispose of all CO2 generated by fossil-fuel-fired plants into the deep ocean or depleted gas and oil fields.
NONENERGY EMISSION REDUCTION
Halocarbons
Not-in-kind Modify or replace existing equipment to use non-CFC materials as cleaning and blowing agents, aerosols, and refrigerants.
Conservation Upgrade equipment and retrain personnel to improve conservation and recycling of CFC materials.
HCFC/HFC-Aerosols, etc. Substitute cleaning and blowing agents and aerosols with fluorocarbon substitutes.
HFC-Chillers Retrofit or replace existing chillers to use fluorocarbon substitutes.
HFC-Auto Air Conditioning Replace existing automobile air conditioners with equipment that utilizes fluorocarbon substitutes.
HFC-Appliance Replace all domestic refrigerators with those using fluorocarbon substitutes.
HCFC-Other Refrigeration Replace commercial refrigeration equipment such as that used in supermarkets and transportation with that using fluorocarbon substitutes.
HCFC/HFC-Appliance Insulation Replace domestic refrigerator insulation with fluorocarbon substitutes.
Agriculture (domestic)
Paddy Rice Eliminate all paddy rice production.
Ruminant Animals Reduce ruminant animal production by 25%.
Nitrogenous Fertilizers Reduce nitrogenous fertilizer use by 5%.
Landfill Gas Collection Reduce landfill gas generation by 60 to 65% by collecting and burning in a flare or energy recovery system.
GEOENGINEERING
Reforestation Reforest 28.7 Mha of economically or environmentally marginal crop and pasture lands and nonfederal forest lands to sequester 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
(Table 6.1 continued on page 59)
Page 59
(Table 6.1 continued on page 58)
Sunlight Screening
Space Mirrors Place 50,000 100-km2 mirrors in the earth's orbit to reflect incoming sunlight.
Stratospheric Dustc Use guns or balloons to maintain a dust cloud in the stratosphere to increase the sunlight reflection.
Stratospheric Bubbles Place billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons in the stratosphere to provide a reflective screen.
Low Stratospheric Dustc Use aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight.
Low Stratospheric Sootc Decrease efficiency of burning in engines of aircraft flying in the low stratosphere to maintain a thin cloud of soot to intercept sunlight.
Cloud Stimulationc Burn sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight.
Ocean Biomass Stimulation Place iron in the oceans to stimulate generation of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton.
Atmospheric CFC Removal Use lasers to break up CFCs in the atmosphere.
a1 quad = 1 quadrillion Btu = 1015 Btu.
bCorporate average fuel economy.
cThese options cause or alter chemical reactions in the atmosphere and should not be implemented without careful assessment of their direct and indirect consequences.
options, including space mirrors and removal of CFCs from the atmosphere, are not included among those recommended for further investigation in Chapter 9.
Geoengineering options appear technically feasible in terms of cooling effects and costs on the basis of currently available preliminary information. But considerably more study and research will be necessary to evaluate their potential side effects, including the chemical reactions that particles introduced into the atmosphere might cause or alter. The data presented in Table 6.3 were developed during the course of the study and represent iniial estimates. These or other options may, with additional investigation, research, and development, provide the ability to change atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or the radiative forcing of the planet.
Geoengineering options have the potential to affect greenhouse warming on a substantial scale. However, precisely because they might do so, and because the climate system and its chemistry are poorly understood, these options must
Page 60
be considered extremely carefully. We need to know more about them because measures of this kind may be crucial if greenhouse warming occurs, especially if climate sensitivity turns out to be at the high end of the range considered in this study. Efforts by societies to restrain their greenhouse gas emissions might be politically infeasible on a global scale, or might fail. In this eventuality, other options may be incapable of countering the effects, and geoengineering strategies might be needed. Some of these options are relatively inexpensive to implement, but all have large unknowns concerning possible environmental side-effects. They should not be implemented without careful assessment of their direct and indirect consequences.
TABLE 6.2 Comparison of Selected Mitigation Options in the United States
Mitigation Option Net Implementation Costa Potential Emissionb Reduction
(t CO2 equivalent per year)
Building energy efficiency Net benefit 900 millionc
Vehicle efficiency (not fleet change) Net benefit 300 million
Industrial energy management Net benefit to low cost 500 million
Transportation system management Net benefit to low cost 50 million
Power plant heat rate improvements Net benefit to low cost 50 million
Landfill gas collection Low cost 200 million
Halocarbon-CFC usage reduction Low cost 1400 million
Agriculture Low cost 200 million
Reforestation Low to moderate costd 200 million
Electricity supply Low to moderate costd 1000 millione
NOTE: Here and throughout this report, tons are metric.
aNet benefit = cost less than or equal to zero
Low cost = cost between $1 and $9 per ton of CO2 equivalent
Moderate cost = cost between $10 and $99 per ton of CO2 equivalent
High cost = cost of $100 or more per ton of CO2 equivalent
bThis ''maximum feasible" potential emission reduction assumes 100 percent implementation of each option in reasonable applications and is an optimistic "upper bound" on emission reductions.
cThis depends on the actual implementation level and is controversial. This represents a middle value of possible rates.
dSome portions do fall in low cost, but it is not possible to determine the amount of reductions obtainable at that cost.
eThe potential emission reduction for electricity supply options is actually 1700 Mt CO2 equivalent per year, but 1000 Mt is shown here to remove the double-counting effect (see p. 62 for an explanation of double-counting).
Page 61
TABLE 6.3 Cost-Effectiveness Ordering of Geoengineering Mitigation Options
Mitigation Option Net Implementation Cost Potential Emission Mitigation (t CO2 equivalent per year)
Low stratospheric soot Low 8 billion to 25 billion
Low stratospheric dust, aircraft delivery Low 8 billion to 80 billion
Stratospheric dust (guns or balloon lift) Low 4 trillion or amount desired
Cloud stimulated by provision of cloud condensation nuclei Low 4 trillion or amount desired
Stimulation of ocean biomass with iron Low to moderate 7 billion or amount desired
Stratospheric bubbles (multiple balloons) Low to moderate 4 trillion or amount desired
Space mirrors Low to moderate 4 trillion or amount desired
Atmospheric CFC removal Unknown Unknown
NOTE: The feasibility and possible side-effects of these geoengineering options are poorly understood. Their possible effects on the climate system and its chemistry need considerably more study and research. They should not be implemented without careful assessment of their direct and indirect consequences.
Cost-effectiveness estimates are categorized as either savings (for less than 0), low (0 to $9/t CO2 equivalent), moderate ($10 to $99/t CO2 equivalent), or high (>$100/t CO2 equivalent). Potential emission savings (which in some cases include not only the annual emissions, but also changes in atmospheric concentrations already in the atmosphere—stock) for the geoengineering options are also shown. These options do not reduce the flow of emissions into the atmosphere but rather alter the amount of warming resulting from those emissions. Mitigation options are placed in order of cost-effectiveness.
The CO2-equivalent reductions are determined by calculating the equivalent reduction in radiative forcing.
Here and throughout this report, tons are metric.
Comparing Options
Table 6.2 shows estimates of net cost and emission reductions for several options. It must be emphasized that the table presents the Mitigation Panel's estimates of the technical potential for each option. For example, the calculation of cost-effectiveness of high-efficiency light bulbs (one of the building efficiency options) does not consider whether the supply of light bulbs could meet the demand with current production capacities. It does not consider the trade-off between expenditures on light bulbs and on health
Page 62
care, education, or basic shelter for low-income families. Nor does it consider aesthetic issues about different sources of illumination.
Care must be taken in developing such a table because there is some "double-counting" among potential mitigation options. For example, implementation of both the nuclear and the natural gas energy options assumes replacement of the same coal-fired power plants. Thus, simply summing up the emission reductions of all options to give total reduction in emissions would overstate the actual potential. The options presented in Table 6.2 have been selected to eliminate double-counting.
Finally, although there is evidence that efficiency programs can pay, there is no field evidence showing success with programs on the massive scale suggested here. There may be very good reasons why options exhibiting net benefit on the table are not fully implemented today.
Figure 6.3 illustrates the results of different rates of implementation of those options. The many uncertainties in the calculations of both costs and emission reductions have been collapsed into two lines. The line labeled "25% Implementation/High Cost" assumes incomplete implementation of each option (25 percent implementation of feasible opportunities) and the high end of the range of cost estimates for that option (high cost). This line shows a lower bound of what is reasonable to achieve. The line labeled
FIGURE 6.3 Comparison of mitigation options. Total potential reduction of CO2-equivalent
emissions is compared to the cost in dollars per ton of CO2 reduction. Options are ranked from
left to right in CO2 emissions according to cost. Some options show the possibility of reductions
of CO2 emissions at a net savings. See text for explanation.
Page 63
FIGURE 6.4 Comparison of mitigation options using technological costing and energy modeling calculations.
"100% Implementation/Low Cost" assumes complete implementation of each option (100 percent implementation) combined with the low range of cost estimates for that option (low cost). This line indicates the upper bound that could be achieved with all options shown. A complete analysis would calculate appropriate implementation rates for each option. That is beyond the scope of this study. It should be realistic to achieve emission reduction and cost results somewhere between the two lines in Figure 6.3.
As pointed out earlier in this chapter, technological costing and energy modeling sometimes yield different results. For this reason, both are presented in Figure 6.4. The "100% Implementation/Low Cost" and "25% Implementation/High Cost" curves are repeated from Figure 6.3, and the range typical of energy modeling is shown. As can be seen from Figure 6.4, the United States should be able to achieve substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at low cost, or perhaps even a small net savings.
Implementing Mitigation Options
An array of policy instruments of two different types are available: regulation and incentives. Regulatory instruments mandate action and include controls on consumption (bans, quotas, required product attributes), production (quotas on products or substances), and factors in design or production (efficiency, durability, processes). Incentive instruments are designed to
Page 64
influence decisions by individuals and organizations and include taxes and subsidies on production factors (carbon tax, fuel tax) and on products and other outputs (emission taxes, product taxes), financial inducements (tax credits, subsidies), and transferable emission rights (tradable emission reductions, tradable credits).
Interventions at all levels could effectively reduce greenhouse warming. For example, individuals could reduce energy consumption, recycle goods, and reduce consumption of deleterious materials. Local governments could control emissions from buildings, transport fleets, waste processing plants, and landfill dumps. State governments could restructure electric utility pricing structures and stimulate a variety of efficiency incentives. National governments could pursue action in most of the policy areas of relevance. International organizations could coordinate programs in various parts of the world, manage transfers of resources and technologies, and facilitate exchange of monitoring and other relevant data.
The choice of policy instrument depends on the objective to be served. Although this analysis of mitigation options does not include all possibilities, the panel is hopeful that it does identify the most promising options. This analysis provides the beginnings of a structure and, a process for identifying those strategies that could appropriately mitigate the prospect of greenhouse warming.
Conclusions
There is a potential to inexpensively reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In particular, the maximum feasible potential reduction for the options labeled "net benefit" and "low cost" in Table 6.2 totals about 3.6 billion tons (3.6 Gt) of CO2-equivalent emissions per year. (Here, as elsewhere in the report, tons are metric.) This is a little more than one-third of the total 1990 greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and represents an optimistic upper bound on what could be achieved using these options.
A lower bound can be estimated from Figure 6.4. Arbitrarily using a cutoff of between $10 and $20 per ton of CO2-equivalent emission reduction would produce a level of about 1 Gt of CO2-equivalent emissions per year, or a little more than 10 percent of current greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
This analysis suggests that the United States could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between 10 and 40 percent of the 1990 level at very low cost. Some reductions may even be at a net savings if the proper policies are implemented.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=52
Greenhouse Warming
Mitigation, Adaptation,
and the Science Base
Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1992
National Academy Press • 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report is the result of work done by an independent panel appointed by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, which has authorized its release to the public.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee and by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Both consist of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base ( 1992 )
...
An Assessment of Mitigation Options in the United States
Several premises are central to the design of a well-conceived mitigation policy. First, responses to greenhouse warming should be regarded as investments in the future of the nation and the planet. The actions required will have to be implemented over a long period of time. They must, however, be compared to other claims on the nation's resources.
Page 53
Second, cost-effectiveness is an essential guideline. The changes in energy, industrial practices, land use, agriculture, and forestry that are likely to be needed to limit emissions of greenhouse gases require investments over time. These are likely to be large enough to affect the economy in various ways. The sensible guideline is cost-effectiveness: obtaining the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest cost.
A true cost-effectiveness analysis of reducing greenhouse gas emissions would measure only the costs of interventions taken solely because of greenhouse warming. This is difficult in practice because many of these actions contribute to several social goals, making it hard to distinguish the costs and benefits attributable to greenhouse warming alone. There are two ways such complications might be handled: by adding benefits to reflect contributions to multiple goals or by reducing costs to reflect their allocation among different goals. For example, eliminating CFC emissions would slow both the depletion of the ozone layer and the onset of greenhouse warming. A proper accounting of reducing CFC emissions would either assign additional benefits to reflect those gained in the area of ozone depletion or reduce the cost allocated to greenhouse warming proportionate to the contribution of those actions to other goals. In either case, the cost-effectiveness ratio would be improved if multiple social goals were considered. Similarly, several actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions are mandated by the Clean Air Act. A full cost-effectiveness analysis would account for the fact that society has already decided to bear these costs, so that only additional costs and benefits would be included in the analysis of greenhouse warming. Limits on time and resources precluded complete analysis of these complications in this study, and the results presented here should be considered a first cut that points the way for further analyses.
Third, a mixed strategy is essential. A least-cost approach produces a variety of options. A mixed strategy, however, requires comparison of options in different sectors of the economy.
In comparing various mitigation options, this panel emphasizes three factors. The first factor is the cost-effectiveness of the option. In calculating cost-effectiveness, the panel converted reductions of all greenhouse gases into CO2-equivalent emission reduction in order to be able to compare all options on the same basis.
The second factor is the ease or difficulty of implementation of the option. Although a particular option may be technically possible for relatively wealthy countries, it may be precluded for social, economic, or political reasons. These implementation obstacles are different for each option considered. The panel estimates emission reductions that could be achieved if explicitly defined feasible opportunities were executed. For example, one option calls for reducing energy use in residential lighting by 50 percent through replacement of incandescent lighting (2.5 interior light bulbs and 1 exterior light bulb
Page 54
per residence) with compact fluorescent lights. Another option calls for improving on-road fuel economy to 25 miles per gallon (32.5 mpg in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) terms) in light vehicles by implementing existing technologies that would not require changes in size or attributes of vehicles. Each option is also evaluated in terms of an optimistic "upper-bound" (100 percent achievement) or a pessimistic "lower-bound" (25 percent) level of implementation. A brief description of the mitigation options considered in this study is found in Table 6.1.
The third factor is the interconnectedness of the option to other issues in addition to greenhouse warming, for example, destruction of the ozone layer or biological extinction. These additional factors, however, were considered only in a qualitative manner and are part of the reason that recommendations are not based solely on the cost-effectiveness calculations developed in this study.
Table 6.2 shows selected mitigation options in order of cost-effectiveness. Some options, primarily in energy efficiency and conservation, have substantial potential to mitigate greenhouse warming with net savings or very low net cost. However, they have not been fully adopted because of various implementation obstacles.
Net savings does not mean that no expenditure is required to implement these options. Rather, it indicates that the total discounted cost of the option over the period of analysis is less than its discounted direct benefit, usually reduction in energy consumption, where the discount rate is 6 percent. At higher discount rates the relative cost would rise. These are options that ought to be, and probably will be, implemented, since they are in the interests of those who implement them. The decisions to start, however, can be hastened through better information and incentives.
Table 6.2 also includes some options that are more costly, face substantial obstacles to their implementation, or have other costs or benefits that are difficult to characterize. For example, reduction of CFC consumption is also beneficial in reducing stratospheric ozone depletion, and the combined benefit derived for greenhouse warming and ozone depletion would raise CFC control options in the ranking of preferred actions. Questions about the appropriateness of current technologies and public opposition to nuclear power, however, currently make this option difficult to implement. To the extent that concern about greenhouse warming replaces concern about nuclear energy and "inherently safe" nuclear plants are developed, this option increases its priority ranking.
Table 6.3 presents what the panel calls geoengineering options. The geoengineering options in this preliminary analysis include several ways of reducing temperature increases by screening sunlight (e.g., space mirrors, stratospheric dust, multiple balloons, stratospheric soot, and stimulating cloud condensation nuclei) as well as stimulation of ocean uptake of CO2. Several
Page 55
TABLE 6.1 Brief Descriptions of Mitigation Options Considered in This Study for the United States
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Electricity Efficiency Measures
White Surfaces/Vegetation Reduce air conditioning use and the urban heat island effect by 25% through planting vegetation and painting roofs white at 50% of U.S. residences.
Residential Lighting Reduce lighting energy consumption by 50% in all U.S. residences through replacement of incandescent lighting (2.5 inside and 1 outside light bulb per residence) with compact fluorescents.
Residential Water Heating Improve efficiency by 40 to 70% through efficient tanks, increased insulation, low-flow devices, and alternative water heating systems.
Commercial Water Heating Improve efficiency by 40 to 60% through residential measures mentioned above, heat pumps, and heat recovery systems.
Commercial Lighting Reduce lighting energy consumption by 30 to 60% by replacing 100% of commercial light fixtures with compact fluorescent lighting, reflectors, occupancy sensors, and daylighting.
Commercial Cooking Use additional insulation, seals, improved heating elements, reflective pans, and other measures to increase efficiency 20 to 30%.
Commercial Cooling Use improved heat pumps, chillers, window treatments, and other measures to reduce commercial cooling energy use by 30 to 70%.
Commercial Refrigeration Improve efficiency 20 to 40% through improved compressors, air barriers and food case enclosures, and other measures.
Residential Appliances Improve efficiency of refrigeration and dishwashers by 10 to 30% through implementation of new appliance standards for refrigeration, and use of no-heat drying cycles in dishwashers.
Residential Space Heating Reduce energy consumption by 40 to 60% through improved and increased insulation, window glazing, and weather stripping along with increased use of heat pumps and solar heating.
Commercial and Industrial Space Heating Reduce energy consumption by 20 to 30% using measures similar to that for the residential sector.
Commercial Ventilation Improve efficiency 30 to 50% through improved distribution systems, energy-efficient motors, and various other measures.
(Table 6.1 continues on page 56)
Page 56
(Table 6.1 continued from page 55)
Oil and Gas Efficiency Reduce residential and commercial building fossil fuel energy use by 50% through improved efficiency measures similar to the ones listed under electricity efficiency.
Fuel Switching Improve overall efficiency by 60 to 70% through switching 10% of building electricity use from electric resistance heat to natural gas heating.
INDUSTRIAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Co-generation Replace existing industrial energy systems with an additional 25,000 MW of co-generation plants to produce heat and power simultaneously.
Electricity Efficiency Improve electricity efficiency up to 30% through use of more efficient motors, electrical drive systems, lighting, and industrial process modifications.
Fuel Efficiency Reduce fuel consumption up to 30% by improving energy management, waste heat recovery, boiler modifications, and other industrial process enhancements.
Fuel Switching Switch 0.6 quadsa of current coal consumption in industrial plants to natural gas or oil.
New Process Technology Increase recycling and reduce energy consumption primarily in the primary metals, pulp and paper, chemicals, and petroleum refining industries through new, less energy intensive process innovations.
TRANSPORTATION ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Vehicle Efficiency
Light Vehicles Use technology to improve on-road fuel economy to 25 mpg (32.5 mpg in CAFEb terms) with no changes in the existing fleet.
Improve on-road fuel economy to 36 mpg (46.8 mpg CAFE) with measures that require changes in the existing fleet such as downsizing.
Heavy Trucks Use measures similar to that for light vehicles to improve heavy truck efficiency up to 14 mpg (18.2 mpg CAFE).
Aircraft Implement improved fanjet and other technologies to improve fuel efficiency by 20% to 130 to 140 seat-miles per gallon.
(Table 6.1 continued on page 57)
Page 57
(Table 6.1 continued from page 56)
Alternative Fuels
Methanol from Biomass Replace all existing gasoline vehicles with those that use methanol produced from biomass.
Hydrogen from Nonfossil Fuels Replace gasoline with hydrogen created from electricity generated from nonfossil fuel sources.
Electricity from Nonfossil Fuels Use electricity from nonfossil fuel sources such as nuclear and solar energy directly in transportation vehicles.
Transportation Demand Management Reduce solo commuting by eliminating 25 per cent of the employer-provided parking spaces and placing a tax on the remaining spaces to reduce solo commuting by an additional 15 percent.
ELECTRICITY AND FUEL SUPPLY
Heat Rate Improvements Improve heat rates (efficiency) of existing plants by up to 4% through improved plant operation and maintenance.
Advanced Coal Improve overall thermal efficiency of coal plants by 10% through use of integrated gasification combined cycle, pressurized fluidizedbed, and advanced pulverized coal combustion systems.
Natural Gas Replace all existing fossil-fuel-fired plants with gas turbine combined cycle systems to both improve thermal efficiency of current natural gas combustion systems and replace fossil fuels such as coal and oil that generate more CO2 than natural gas.
Nuclear Replace all existing fossil-fuel-fired plants with nuclear power plants such as advanced light-water reactors.
Hydroelectric Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with remaining hydroelectric generation capability of 2 quads.
Geothermal Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with remaining geothermal generation potential of 3.5 quads.
Biomass Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with biomass generation potential of 2.4 quads.
Solar Photovoltaics Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with solar photovoltaics generation potential of 2.5 quads.
Solar Thermal Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with solar thermal generation potential of 2.6 quads.
(Table 6.1 continued on page 58)
Page 58
(Table 6.1 continued on page 57)
Wind Replace fossil-fuel-fired plants with wind generation potential of 5.3 quads.
CO2 Disposal Collect and dispose of all CO2 generated by fossil-fuel-fired plants into the deep ocean or depleted gas and oil fields.
NONENERGY EMISSION REDUCTION
Halocarbons
Not-in-kind Modify or replace existing equipment to use non-CFC materials as cleaning and blowing agents, aerosols, and refrigerants.
Conservation Upgrade equipment and retrain personnel to improve conservation and recycling of CFC materials.
HCFC/HFC-Aerosols, etc. Substitute cleaning and blowing agents and aerosols with fluorocarbon substitutes.
HFC-Chillers Retrofit or replace existing chillers to use fluorocarbon substitutes.
HFC-Auto Air Conditioning Replace existing automobile air conditioners with equipment that utilizes fluorocarbon substitutes.
HFC-Appliance Replace all domestic refrigerators with those using fluorocarbon substitutes.
HCFC-Other Refrigeration Replace commercial refrigeration equipment such as that used in supermarkets and transportation with that using fluorocarbon substitutes.
HCFC/HFC-Appliance Insulation Replace domestic refrigerator insulation with fluorocarbon substitutes.
Agriculture (domestic)
Paddy Rice Eliminate all paddy rice production.
Ruminant Animals Reduce ruminant animal production by 25%.
Nitrogenous Fertilizers Reduce nitrogenous fertilizer use by 5%.
Landfill Gas Collection Reduce landfill gas generation by 60 to 65% by collecting and burning in a flare or energy recovery system.
GEOENGINEERING
Reforestation Reforest 28.7 Mha of economically or environmentally marginal crop and pasture lands and nonfederal forest lands to sequester 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
(Table 6.1 continued on page 59)
Page 59
(Table 6.1 continued on page 58)
Sunlight Screening
Space Mirrors Place 50,000 100-km2 mirrors in the earth's orbit to reflect incoming sunlight.
Stratospheric Dustc Use guns or balloons to maintain a dust cloud in the stratosphere to increase the sunlight reflection.
Stratospheric Bubbles Place billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons in the stratosphere to provide a reflective screen.
Low Stratospheric Dustc Use aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight.
Low Stratospheric Sootc Decrease efficiency of burning in engines of aircraft flying in the low stratosphere to maintain a thin cloud of soot to intercept sunlight.
Cloud Stimulationc Burn sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight.
Ocean Biomass Stimulation Place iron in the oceans to stimulate generation of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton.
Atmospheric CFC Removal Use lasers to break up CFCs in the atmosphere.
a1 quad = 1 quadrillion Btu = 1015 Btu.
bCorporate average fuel economy.
cThese options cause or alter chemical reactions in the atmosphere and should not be implemented without careful assessment of their direct and indirect consequences.
options, including space mirrors and removal of CFCs from the atmosphere, are not included among those recommended for further investigation in Chapter 9.
Geoengineering options appear technically feasible in terms of cooling effects and costs on the basis of currently available preliminary information. But considerably more study and research will be necessary to evaluate their potential side effects, including the chemical reactions that particles introduced into the atmosphere might cause or alter. The data presented in Table 6.3 were developed during the course of the study and represent iniial estimates. These or other options may, with additional investigation, research, and development, provide the ability to change atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or the radiative forcing of the planet.
Geoengineering options have the potential to affect greenhouse warming on a substantial scale. However, precisely because they might do so, and because the climate system and its chemistry are poorly understood, these options must
Page 60
be considered extremely carefully. We need to know more about them because measures of this kind may be crucial if greenhouse warming occurs, especially if climate sensitivity turns out to be at the high end of the range considered in this study. Efforts by societies to restrain their greenhouse gas emissions might be politically infeasible on a global scale, or might fail. In this eventuality, other options may be incapable of countering the effects, and geoengineering strategies might be needed. Some of these options are relatively inexpensive to implement, but all have large unknowns concerning possible environmental side-effects. They should not be implemented without careful assessment of their direct and indirect consequences.
TABLE 6.2 Comparison of Selected Mitigation Options in the United States
Mitigation Option Net Implementation Costa Potential Emissionb Reduction
(t CO2 equivalent per year)
Building energy efficiency Net benefit 900 millionc
Vehicle efficiency (not fleet change) Net benefit 300 million
Industrial energy management Net benefit to low cost 500 million
Transportation system management Net benefit to low cost 50 million
Power plant heat rate improvements Net benefit to low cost 50 million
Landfill gas collection Low cost 200 million
Halocarbon-CFC usage reduction Low cost 1400 million
Agriculture Low cost 200 million
Reforestation Low to moderate costd 200 million
Electricity supply Low to moderate costd 1000 millione
NOTE: Here and throughout this report, tons are metric.
aNet benefit = cost less than or equal to zero
Low cost = cost between $1 and $9 per ton of CO2 equivalent
Moderate cost = cost between $10 and $99 per ton of CO2 equivalent
High cost = cost of $100 or more per ton of CO2 equivalent
bThis ''maximum feasible" potential emission reduction assumes 100 percent implementation of each option in reasonable applications and is an optimistic "upper bound" on emission reductions.
cThis depends on the actual implementation level and is controversial. This represents a middle value of possible rates.
dSome portions do fall in low cost, but it is not possible to determine the amount of reductions obtainable at that cost.
eThe potential emission reduction for electricity supply options is actually 1700 Mt CO2 equivalent per year, but 1000 Mt is shown here to remove the double-counting effect (see p. 62 for an explanation of double-counting).
Page 61
TABLE 6.3 Cost-Effectiveness Ordering of Geoengineering Mitigation Options
Mitigation Option Net Implementation Cost Potential Emission Mitigation (t CO2 equivalent per year)
Low stratospheric soot Low 8 billion to 25 billion
Low stratospheric dust, aircraft delivery Low 8 billion to 80 billion
Stratospheric dust (guns or balloon lift) Low 4 trillion or amount desired
Cloud stimulated by provision of cloud condensation nuclei Low 4 trillion or amount desired
Stimulation of ocean biomass with iron Low to moderate 7 billion or amount desired
Stratospheric bubbles (multiple balloons) Low to moderate 4 trillion or amount desired
Space mirrors Low to moderate 4 trillion or amount desired
Atmospheric CFC removal Unknown Unknown
NOTE: The feasibility and possible side-effects of these geoengineering options are poorly understood. Their possible effects on the climate system and its chemistry need considerably more study and research. They should not be implemented without careful assessment of their direct and indirect consequences.
Cost-effectiveness estimates are categorized as either savings (for less than 0), low (0 to $9/t CO2 equivalent), moderate ($10 to $99/t CO2 equivalent), or high (>$100/t CO2 equivalent). Potential emission savings (which in some cases include not only the annual emissions, but also changes in atmospheric concentrations already in the atmosphere—stock) for the geoengineering options are also shown. These options do not reduce the flow of emissions into the atmosphere but rather alter the amount of warming resulting from those emissions. Mitigation options are placed in order of cost-effectiveness.
The CO2-equivalent reductions are determined by calculating the equivalent reduction in radiative forcing.
Here and throughout this report, tons are metric.
Comparing Options
Table 6.2 shows estimates of net cost and emission reductions for several options. It must be emphasized that the table presents the Mitigation Panel's estimates of the technical potential for each option. For example, the calculation of cost-effectiveness of high-efficiency light bulbs (one of the building efficiency options) does not consider whether the supply of light bulbs could meet the demand with current production capacities. It does not consider the trade-off between expenditures on light bulbs and on health
Page 62
care, education, or basic shelter for low-income families. Nor does it consider aesthetic issues about different sources of illumination.
Care must be taken in developing such a table because there is some "double-counting" among potential mitigation options. For example, implementation of both the nuclear and the natural gas energy options assumes replacement of the same coal-fired power plants. Thus, simply summing up the emission reductions of all options to give total reduction in emissions would overstate the actual potential. The options presented in Table 6.2 have been selected to eliminate double-counting.
Finally, although there is evidence that efficiency programs can pay, there is no field evidence showing success with programs on the massive scale suggested here. There may be very good reasons why options exhibiting net benefit on the table are not fully implemented today.
Figure 6.3 illustrates the results of different rates of implementation of those options. The many uncertainties in the calculations of both costs and emission reductions have been collapsed into two lines. The line labeled "25% Implementation/High Cost" assumes incomplete implementation of each option (25 percent implementation of feasible opportunities) and the high end of the range of cost estimates for that option (high cost). This line shows a lower bound of what is reasonable to achieve. The line labeled
FIGURE 6.3 Comparison of mitigation options. Total potential reduction of CO2-equivalent
emissions is compared to the cost in dollars per ton of CO2 reduction. Options are ranked from
left to right in CO2 emissions according to cost. Some options show the possibility of reductions
of CO2 emissions at a net savings. See text for explanation.
Page 63
FIGURE 6.4 Comparison of mitigation options using technological costing and energy modeling calculations.
"100% Implementation/Low Cost" assumes complete implementation of each option (100 percent implementation) combined with the low range of cost estimates for that option (low cost). This line indicates the upper bound that could be achieved with all options shown. A complete analysis would calculate appropriate implementation rates for each option. That is beyond the scope of this study. It should be realistic to achieve emission reduction and cost results somewhere between the two lines in Figure 6.3.
As pointed out earlier in this chapter, technological costing and energy modeling sometimes yield different results. For this reason, both are presented in Figure 6.4. The "100% Implementation/Low Cost" and "25% Implementation/High Cost" curves are repeated from Figure 6.3, and the range typical of energy modeling is shown. As can be seen from Figure 6.4, the United States should be able to achieve substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at low cost, or perhaps even a small net savings.
Implementing Mitigation Options
An array of policy instruments of two different types are available: regulation and incentives. Regulatory instruments mandate action and include controls on consumption (bans, quotas, required product attributes), production (quotas on products or substances), and factors in design or production (efficiency, durability, processes). Incentive instruments are designed to
Page 64
influence decisions by individuals and organizations and include taxes and subsidies on production factors (carbon tax, fuel tax) and on products and other outputs (emission taxes, product taxes), financial inducements (tax credits, subsidies), and transferable emission rights (tradable emission reductions, tradable credits).
Interventions at all levels could effectively reduce greenhouse warming. For example, individuals could reduce energy consumption, recycle goods, and reduce consumption of deleterious materials. Local governments could control emissions from buildings, transport fleets, waste processing plants, and landfill dumps. State governments could restructure electric utility pricing structures and stimulate a variety of efficiency incentives. National governments could pursue action in most of the policy areas of relevance. International organizations could coordinate programs in various parts of the world, manage transfers of resources and technologies, and facilitate exchange of monitoring and other relevant data.
The choice of policy instrument depends on the objective to be served. Although this analysis of mitigation options does not include all possibilities, the panel is hopeful that it does identify the most promising options. This analysis provides the beginnings of a structure and, a process for identifying those strategies that could appropriately mitigate the prospect of greenhouse warming.
Conclusions
There is a potential to inexpensively reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In particular, the maximum feasible potential reduction for the options labeled "net benefit" and "low cost" in Table 6.2 totals about 3.6 billion tons (3.6 Gt) of CO2-equivalent emissions per year. (Here, as elsewhere in the report, tons are metric.) This is a little more than one-third of the total 1990 greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and represents an optimistic upper bound on what could be achieved using these options.
A lower bound can be estimated from Figure 6.4. Arbitrarily using a cutoff of between $10 and $20 per ton of CO2-equivalent emission reduction would produce a level of about 1 Gt of CO2-equivalent emissions per year, or a little more than 10 percent of current greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
This analysis suggests that the United States could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between 10 and 40 percent of the 1990 level at very low cost. Some reductions may even be at a net savings if the proper policies are implemented.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=52
If you are working backwards towards a desired conclusion, and have a very loose definition of what counts as evidence , you can build a case for literally any theory, no matter how implausible or insane.
This is chemer logic . . .
[/IMG]
Not to mention they would all be poisoning their own families and loved ones.
http://contrailscience.com/
This is chemer logic . . .
Not to mention they would all be poisoning their own families and loved ones.
http://contrailscience.com/
nvm
Latest posts
-
-
-
Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter over “Rust” death
- Latest: Brother Nature
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter over “Rust” death
- Latest: Brother Nature
-
