Global Warming Model

A Global Warming Model
Clifford E Carnicom
Santa Fe, NM
Apr 13 2007

global warming model


From a Special Report on April  1, 2007 from CBS 60 Minutes, entitled, The Age of Warming:

“Over the past 50 years, this region, the Antarctica peninsula, the northwestern part and the islands around it
has been going up in temperature about one degree every decade and that makes the region the fastest warming place on earth.
…And it’s not unique. More than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are retreating….”


A study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming. It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet, and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed. This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations, i.e., that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit, but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public. Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question; the facts, however, speak of an opposite end result.  The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere, and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere.  Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4. The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics.  To cool the planet, the intentionally dispersed aerosols would have to be in the upper regions of the atmosphere or in space; readers interested in that conclusion may wish to read more closely the proposals of Edward Teller that are often cited in the claims of supposed mitigation.   It will be found that any claims of aerosols cooling the planet will usually require those materials to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the boundaries of space; aerosols in the lower atmosphere will usually be shown to be heating the planet.  These facts must be considered by any of those individuals that continue to promulgate claims of anonymous and beneficial mitigation in conjunction with the aerosol operations.

The current model examines the effects of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere, and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem.  The results are not encouraging.  The results indicate that these particulates, even at rather modest concentration levels, can contribute in a real and significant way to the heating of the lower atmosphere.  The magnitude appears to be quite on par with any of the more popularly discussed contributions, such as carbon dioxide increase and greenhouse gases.  It is recommended that the public be willing to consider some of the more direct, visible and palpable alterations to our planet and atmosphere within the pursuit of the global warming issue,  namely the aerosol operations as they have been imposed upon the public without informed consent for more than 8 years now.

The graph above shows the expected interactions from 3 variables that relate to the global warming issue; these are: aerosol concentration, time and rise in temperature.  On one axis, relatively modest concentrations of barium particulates in the atmosphere are shown.  The magnitudes shown are not at all unreasonable with respect to the numerous analyses that have been made by this researcher in the past, e.g., visibility studies available on this site. As a point of reference, the EPA air quality standard for particulates of less than 2.5 microns in size has been recently lowered5 to 35 ugms (micrograms) per m3 (cubic meter).  It will be seen from the graph, for example,  that even a 10% level of this standard (i.e., 3.5-ugms / m3) can produce a noticeable heating of the lower atmosphere.  As has been stated previously, the candor and accountability of the EPA  is sorely lacking over the past decade, and this agency has failed miserably in its duty to the public to maintain environmental safeguards.  It can no longer be assured or assumed that minimal air quality standards are being honored in any way, and the integrity of the EPA to serve the public interest can no longer be upheld.  It is quite possible, and unfortunately somewhat expected, that enforceable and accountable air quality standards have been sacrificed some time ago with the advent of the aerosol operations.

A second axis on the graph is that of time in years. A point of zero time would be one that assumes no such artificial and increased concentration of barium particulates exists in the lower atmosphere.  The graph is marked in intervals of 5 year periods, from 0 to 50 years.  The time period of 50 years has been chosen only to demonstrate that the effects of these particulates upon heating is of serious and immediate concern; within a matter of decades the effects are pronounced and have measurable global impact.  The variables of aerosol concentration and time can now be considered mutually with the above graph and model.  Presumably, humans have a vested interest in protecting the welfare of the planet beyond the immediate future of a few decades, and the problem would be only more pronounced if a century of time had been presented versus a fifty year period.

The third axis is that of temperature rise presented in degrees of centigrade.  This is the variable that should solicit the greatest concern.  To give an example of usage, a concentration of 5ugms / m3 over an interval as short as 20 years would lead to heating of the lower atmosphere on the order of  0.6 degrees centigrade.  This corresponds to approximately 1 degree of Fahrenheit.  This is found by finding the intersection of 5ugms along the concentration axis with 20 years of elapsed time on the second axis.  This point is then projected horizontally upon the temperature increase axis, where it will be found to intersect at approximately 0.6 degrees.  This is a very real and measurable result in terms of global impact.  Nobel Prize Winner Paul Crutzen, in Atmosphere, Climate and Change6 writes in 1997 that even conservative estimates of global planetary surface temperature change are on the order of  1 to 3 degrees centigrade over a 50 year interval.  This temperature change will produce sea level changes on the order of 10 to 30 centimeters. It is stated, furthermore, that “much of Earth’s population would find it inordinately difficult to adjust to such changes”.

Readers may now notice that the recent CBS special report referred to above demonstrates that the rate of  heating in Antarctica is already approximately 1.5 times greater than the predictions from the 1997 era.

It can be seen from this model that the results of artificial aerosol introduction into the lower atmosphere can be of a magnitude quite on par with the extraordinary impacts projected by even modest and conservative global warming models upon humans in the near future.   As the model presented herein is intended to be reasonably conservative, the impact of the aerosol operations could be much greater than these results show.  It is advised that the citizens consider the viability and merit of this model in the examination of the global warming issue, and that they openly take aggressive action to halt the intentional aerosol operations.

This paper is late in its offering, as my availability for continued research at this level is limited.  I am nevertheless hopeful that the information can be evaluated and assimilated into the many rationales and arguments that have developed over the last decade to cease the intentional alteration of the atmosphere of our planet.

Clifford E Carnicom
April 13, 2007

Additional Notes :  The model can easily be extended to other elements of concern, however, a focus on barium has taken place due to the unique physical properties of that element along with the evidence for its existence at unexpected levels in the atmosphere.The mathematics and physics of the model is presented in a separate paper.

References:

1. CE Carnicom, Drought Inducement, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/drought-inducement/, April 2002
2. Carnicom, Global Warming and Aerosols, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/global-warming-aerosols/, Jan 2004
3. Carnicom, Global Warming and Aerosols, Further Discussion, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/global-warming-aerosols-ii/, Feb 2004
4. Wikipedia, Global Warming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
5. EPA,  EPA Strengthens U.S. Air Quality Standards,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a8f952395381d3968525701c005e65b5/92771013f7dda087852571f00067873d!opendocument
6. Crutzen, Paul, Atmosphere, Climate and Change, (Scientific American Library, 1997), p141.

CONDUCTIVITY: The Air, The Water, and The Land

CONDUCTIVITY:
The Air, The Water, and The Land
Clifford E Carnicom
April 15, 2005

A  rainfall laboratory test recently received from a rural location in the Midwestern United States has refocused attention on the electrolytic, ionic and conductive properties of environmental samples in connection with the aerosol operations.  These “interesting characteristics” of solids in our atmosphere have a more direct and down to earth impact as their nature is better understood.  This is nothing less than the changing of the air, the water and the soil of this planet.  All life is eventually to be affected as it continues.

A laboratory report has been received that documents unusually high levels of calcium and potassium within a rain sample.1   Previous work has demonstrated unexpected levels of barium and magnesium.   The continuous presence of easily ionizable salts at higher concentrations within atmospheric samples has many ramifications upon the environment.  A brief introduction to the severe health impact of this category of particulates has also been made on this site. Current work is now dedicated to the impact that these materials are having upon not only upon the atmosphere, but upon the water and soil as well.  All inhabitants of this planet will eventually confront, voluntarily or not, the consequences of the actions that are being allowed to degrade the viability and habitability of our home.

The burden of testing for the problems underway does not fall upon any private citizen, as the resources are not available to support it.  Nevertheless, testing and analysis does continue in whatever way is  possible.  Accountability must eventually fall to those public servants and agencies entrusted with protection of the general welfare and environment.  It should not be assumed that there is infinite time available to ponder the strategies of improvement and the solutions for remedy.  We shall all bear the final price for any condonement of what has been allowed to pass.

Now, for the more immediate particulars:

A series of conductivity tests have been conducted with recent heavy snowfall samples collected in New Mexico and Arizona. Conductivity is a means to measure the ionic concentration within a solution. These tests have been performed with the use of a calibrated conductivity meter in conjunction with calibrated seawater solutions. A series of electrolysis tests have also been completed with these same samples and calibrated solutions.

These tests demonstrate conclusively the presence of reactive metal hydroxides (salts) in concentrations sufficient to induce visible electrolysis in all recent snowfall samples encountered2.  

Precipitates result if reactive electrodes are used; air filtration tests have produced these same results in even more dramatic fashion from the solids that have been collected.  Highly significant electrolytic reactions occur in the case when the solid materials from the atmosphere are concentrated and then placed into solution.  Rainfall is expected to be one of the purest forms of water available, especially in the rural and high mountain sites that have been visited.  Rainfall from such “clean” environments is not expected to support electrolysis is any significant fashion3, and conductivity is expected to be on the order of 4-10uS4. Current conductivity readings are in the range of approximately 15 to 25uS. These values may not appear to be extraordinarily large, however any increase in salt content, especially with the use of remote samples, will need to be considered with respect to the cumulative effect upon the land.  These results do indicate an increase in conductivity on the order of 2-3 times, and the effects of increased salinity on plant life will merit further discussion.

Beyond the indicated increase in conductivity levels of sampled precipitation, there are two additional important results from the current study. The first is the ability to make an analytic estimate of the concentration of ionic salts within the regional atmosphere.  The results do appear to be potentially significant from an air quality perspective and with respect to the enforcement (or lack thereof) of existing standards.   The second is the introduction of the principle of “ohmic heating”, which in this case allows for increased conductivity of the atmosphere as a result of an introduced current.

First, with respect to estimated concentrations of ionic salt forms in the atmosphere, the principle is as follows.  The methods demonstrate that our focus is upon reactive metal hydroxide forms (barium hydroxide, for example).  Conductivity is proportional to ionic concentration.  Although a conductivity meter is especially useful over a wide range of concentrations, special care is required when dealing with the weak saline forms of precipitation as they now exist.  It has been found that current flow as measured by a sensitive ammeter (µamps) appears to be useful in assessing the conductivity of the weak saline solution.  The results have been confirmed and duplicated with the use of the calibrated conductivity meter. The use of on ohm meter to measure resistance is found from both experience and from the literature to not be reliable without much caution, due to complications of heating and/or polarization.  Weak saline solutions appear to have their own interesting characteristics with respect to introduced currents, and this topic will come to the forefront when ohmic heating is discussed.

A series of weak sea saltwater solutions have been carefully prepared for use in calibrating both the conductivity meter and the ammeter.  These solutions are in strengths of 0.56%, 1.51% and 3.01% respectively.  Many tests have also been completed with refined water samples as well as seawater equivalents.  Conductivity is proportional to concentration levels, especially as it has been bracketed with a variety of solutions in the range of expected measurements.  Measurements currently estimate the saline concentration of the precipitation samples at approximately 0.041%.  Salt concentrations in any amount are extremely influential to conductivity.  

Assuming an equivalency in density of the precipitation salts to sea salts, this results in an expected concentration level of approximately 15 milligrams per liter.  For comparison purposes, rainwater in Poker Flats, Alaska is reported as approximately 1mg/liter for all dissolved ions; the contribution from reactive metal compounds is a small fraction of that total.  Highly polluted rain over Los Angeles CA is reported at approximately 4mg/liter, with approximately 1mg/liter composed of the reactive metals.5  Simulated rainfall samples report concentration levels of approximately 4 and 21 mg/liter respectively, presumed to reflect reasonably clean and polluted samples respectively6.  In all cases cited, the contribution from reactive metal ions is quite small relative to the whole, and sulfate, nitrate and chloride ions are the largest contributors to the pollutants.    Testing here indicates the composition of the precipitate pollutants may be biased toward the reactive metal ion concentrations.

The next objective is to translate the measured and estimated concentration level to an equivalent density, or particulate count, within the atmosphere.  This method is based upon saturation levels for moisture within the atmosphere.  Air at a given temperature can only hold so much water.

From the Smithsonian Meteorological Tables, the saturation density is given as:7

saturation density = 216.68 * (ew / (Cv * T) )

where ew is the saturation vapor pressure in millibars, T is temperature in Kelvin, and Cv is the compressibility factor.  Cv is 1.0000 to the level of precision required.

From Saucier8, the saturation vapor pressure in millibars with respect to water is estimated as:

 es = 6.11 * 10(a*t)/(t+b)

where a = 7.5
b = 237.3

and t is degrees Centigrade.

Therefore, the saturation density can be stated as:

density (gms /m3) = [ 216.68 * es / K

and the density in gms / m3 of salt particulate in the air can be estimated as:

gms / m3 = Conductivity Estimate of Solids (in gms per liter) * (RH% / 100) * Saturation Density * 1E-3

and in µgms:

µgms = gms / m3 * 1E6

and as an example, if the solid density is .015 gms / liter and the temperature is 15 deg centigrade and humidity is 50%, the estimate of particulate concentration from the salts is 96µgms / m3.  This concentration will vary directly with altitude (temperature) and humidity levels.

The estimates show that at ground levels and temperatures it is quite possible that the EPA air quality standards for particulate matter are no longer being met.  This determination will also depend on the size of the particles in question, as EPA standards vary according to size (PM2.5 and PM10 respectively).  All analyses indicate that the size of the aerosols under examination are sub-micron, and if so, this makes the problem more acute.  Air quality standards for comparison to various scenarios are available9 to examine the relationship that has been developed. Unfortunately, the failures of United States government agencies now require the independent audit of EPA data and presentation.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is especially culpable in this regard, and the enforcement of existing standards is a serious topic of controversy.

Finally, let us introduce the subject of ohmic heating.  The behavior of electric currents within weak saline solutions has many points of interest.  During the testing for this report, it was observed that the conductivity of weak saline solutions noticeably increased over time when these solutions were subjected to a weak electric current. It appears that the most likely source of this conductivity is a phenomenon known as ohmic heating.  In plasma physics, ohmic heating is the energy imparted to charged particles as they respond to an electric field and make collisions with other particles.  A classic definition would be the heating that results from the flow of current through a medium with electrical resistance.  Please recall the difficulty of using an ohmmeter to measure conductivity in a solution; this difficulty was realized in the trials of this report.

Metals are known to increase their resistance with the introduction of an electric current.  As the metal becomes hotter, resistance increases and conductivity decreases.  Salt water and plasmas are quite interesting in that the opposite effect occurs.  The conductivity of salt water increases when temperature increases.  The same effect occurs within a plasma; an increase in temperature will result in a decrease of the resistance.10, i.e, the conductivity increases.  Introduction of an electric current into the plasma, or salt water for that matter, will increase the temperature and therefore the conductivity will also increase.  This is in opposition to our normal experience with metals and conductors.

In the past, conductivity studies have focused on the ability of the reactive metals to lose ions through the photoionization process.  This remains a highly significant aspect of the aerosol research.

The importance of this study is that a second factor has now been introduced into the conductivity equation, and that is the introduction of electric current itself into the plasma state. This research, through direct observation and analysis,  has inadvertently turned attention once again to the HAARP facility, where ohmic heating is stated within the Eastlund patent to be a direct contributor to atmospheric conductivity increase.  All evidence indicates that this plasma is saline based, which further propagates the hypothesis of increased conductivity in the atmosphere with the introduction of electric current, in addition to that provided by photoionization.

A future presentation will examine the changes in the conductivity of our soil, in addition to that of our air and water.

1. CE Carnicom, Calcium and Potassium, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/calcium-and-potassium/, March 2005.
2. Andrew Hunt, A-Z Chemistry, (McGraw Hill, 2003), 125.
3. Dr. Rana Munns, The Impact of Salinity Stress, http://www.plantstress.com/Articles/salinity_i/salinity_i.htm.
4. Steven Lower, Ion Bunk, http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html.
5. Hobbs, Peter, Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p137.
6. Water Standards, Simulated Rainwater, http://www.hps.net/simrain.html
7. Smithsonian Meteorological Tables, Table 108, (Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984), 381.
8. Walter J. Saucier, Principles of Meterological Analysis, (Dover, 1989), 9.
9. National Ambient Air Quality Standards, http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/monitoring/air/monops/naaqs.html
10. S. Eliezer and Y. Eliezer, The Fourth State of Matter, An Introduction to Plasma Science, (Institute of Physics Publishing 2001), 124-125.

CALCIUM AND POTASSIUM

CALCIUM AND POTASSIUM
Mar 15 2005

A laboratory analysis of a rainwater sample from a rural location in the midwestern U.S. has been received.  This lab report reveals extremely high levels of potassium and calcium within the sample. Comparative studies have been done and they show that the calcium concentration is a minimum of 5 times greater, and that the potassium level is a minimum of 15 times greater than that which has been reported1 in the polluted skies of Los Angeles, California.

It may be supposed that higher levels of such minerals in our atmosphere pose no immediate threat or concern; an examination of the physical processes likely to take place, however, shows exactly the opposite to be the case.  A search of the literature commonly reveals that an excess of positive ions in the atmosphere is detrimental to human health. 2,3,4,5

Examination of the aerosol issue has, almost from the beginning, focused on the important properties of the metallic elements of Groups I and II of the periodic table.  The attention has arisen because of the ease by which such elements are ionized.  This ionization will take place in the majority of cases quite readily with the energy available from ultra-violet light and, in some cases, from visible light alone.  It will be found6 that calcium and potassium, with a special emphasis upon potassium, are easily ionized with the energy available from either visible or ultra-violet sunlight.

A partial list of the effects of ion disturbances upon human health include, as a minimum, the following:

1. Impairment of the body’s ability to absorb oxygen, leading to headaches, asthma attacks, reduced circulation in the brain and emotional irritability.

2. The development of allergies.  Ionized air is associated with the following conditions : allergic bronchitis, allergic sinusitis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic respiratory tract allergies.  It may also be recalled7 that “chronic lower respiratory disease” now ranks as the third leading cause of death in this country, and that it continues to climb in this ranking.

3. High levels of serotonin in the bloodstream, triggered by excessive numbers of positive ions in the environment.

4. A reduction in the body’s ability to filter airborne contaminants from lung tissue.

Direct research from this site alone now documents unexpected levels of calcium, magnesium, potassium and barium.  A common thread between all of these elements is the ease of ionization that characterizes Group I and Group II elements of the periodic table.  Magnesium  oxide is also of value as a dispersal agent8 in aerosol operations. The existence of barium levels is of special concern because of the high toxicity of water soluble forms. Candidates for further and future testing,  include strontium, aluminum and titanium. The acquisition of an ion counter will be a valuable instrument to further this research; if anyone is in a position to provide or loan this device please feel free to contact me.

The importance of ionization with respect to the electromagnetic aspects of the aerosol operations has been extensively discussed and documented on this site.

The laboratory report received establishes an even deeper basis for further atmospheric and rainwater testing.  More importantly, the burden and obligation of governmental and public agencies to meet citizen demand for reestablishing the health of our atmosphere and planet remain as strong as ever.  The chronic failure of adequate response by these same public agencies requires that this accountability be accompanied by independent, non-vested verification.  It is hoped that the citizens will continue to exert this pressure for the public welfare.

References:
1.  Hobbs, Peter, Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p137.
2. Ionized Air, http://www.kroger.com/hn/Therapy/Ionized_Air.htm
3. The Effects of Air Quality on the Serotonin Irritation Syndrome, http://www.berriman-usa.com/iaqsis.htm
4. Air Ion Effects on Human Performance, http://www.static-sol.com/library/articles/air%20ion%20effects.htm
5. Static Voltage and Environmental Ion Depletion, http://www.zenion.com/static.html
6. Carnicom, Ionization Apparent, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/ionization-apparent/
7. Carnicom, Leading Cause of Death, https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/a-leading-cause-of-death/
8. Fuchs, N.A., The Mechanics of Aerosols, Dover, 1989, p.375

GLOBAL WARMING & AEROSOLS (II)

GLOBAL WARMING & AEROSOLS
Clifford E Carnicom
Feb 23 2004

FURTHER DISCUSSION

The fundamental equations that address the heating of the atmosphere with the introduction of foreign materials are the following:

cv = sum [mfi * cvi]

which is the specific heat of a mixture (gravimetric analysis)2

where

mfi is the mass fraction of the ith component, and cvi is the specific heat of the ith component in units of joules / (kg * oK)

and cv is the specific heat of the mixture in units of joules / (kg * oK) and oK is degrees Kelvin.

and the heat transfer as given by the first law of thermodynamics3

Q = m * cv * del T

where Q represents the change in energy in joules, m is the total mass of the mixture, and del T is the change in degrees of the mass in degrees Kelvin.

Let us assume the atmosphere as a shell around the earth of variable height, the volume of which is given by:

vair = ( 4 / 3) * pi * [ ( R + upper )3 – ( R + lower)3 ]

where vair is the volume of the atmospheric shell in cubic meters, R is the mean radius of the earth in meters, upper is the upper limit of the atmospheric shell under consideration in meters (above sea level), and lower is the lower limit of the atmospheric shell in meters (above sea level).

Based upon an exponential regression of atmospheric density data in kilograms4, a suitable model for the mass of a column of air 1 meter square in dimension can be developed in the following form:

mair = 1.474 * exp -1.424E-4 * h dh

integrated with respect to the upper and lower limits of the atmospheric shell, and mair is the mass of the atmospheric shell in kilograms, and h is in meters.

The mass of the aerosol in kilograms within an atmospheric column of air 1 meter square in dimension is expressed as:

ma = da * (upper – lower)

where the density of a particular aerosol in units of kilograms is designated as da.

As the density of the aerosol and the atmosphere will be considered to be uniform throughout the shell considered, the mass fractions of the atmosphere and the aerosol contribution, respectively, are:

mfair = mair / (mair + ma)

and

mfa = ma / (mair + ma)

Therefore:

cv = ( mfa * cva ) + (mfair * cvair)

where cva and cvair are the constant volume specific heats of the aerosol and air, respectively.

since Q = m * cv * del T

and since we are interested in the change in Q that results from a change in the specific heat of the mixture, we have:

dQ = matotal* del T * dcv

where dQ represents the change in energy in joules that results from a change of temperature in the atmospheric shell in degrees Kelvin and a change in the specific heat of the atmosphere from the introduction of an aerosol component within this mixture. The total mass of the atmospheric shell is given by matotal.

where matotal = mair * vair

and dcv = cv – cvair

It will be found that all introduced materials with a specific heat of less than 1003 joules / (kg * oK) (the specific heat of air) will lead to a decrease in the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of the mass of the atmospheric shell by 1 degree Kelvin.  Since the energy from the sun can be considered as a relative constant for the problem of concern, this solar energy will result in an increase in the temperature of the atmospheric shell.  The specific heat of barium, for example is approximately 190 joules / (kg * oK).5 This particular element will have highly significant thermodynamic impacts upon the lower atmosphere; the effect of the vast majority of metals and most chemical elements is significant as well.

1. Clifford E Carnicom, Drought Inducement, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/drought-inducement/), 04/07/02
2. Merle C. Potter, Thermodynamics for Engineers, (McGraw Hill, 1993), 251.
3. Potter, 251.
4. David R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, (CRC Press, 2001), 14-19 to 14-22. 
5. Carnicom, 04/07/02.

GLOBAL WARMING & AEROSOLS

GLOBAL WARMING & AEROSOLS
Clifford E Carnicom
Jan 23 2004

It can be demonstrated that the introduction of essentially any metallic or metallic salt aerosol into the lower atmosphere will have the effect of heating up that lower atmosphere. The impact is both significant and measurable. Those that seek and express concern on the so called global warming problem might wish to begin their search with an inquiry into the thermodynamics of artificially introduced metallic aerosols into the lower atmosphere. The direct injection of massive amounts of particulate matter by aircraft into the atmosphere for more than five years establishes the foundation for this inquiry. An examination of the specific heat characteristics of an altered atmosphere will provide the path for the realistic conclusions that can be made.

Any claim that the aerosol operations represent a mitigating influence on the global warming problem appears to be a complete facade that is in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of physics and thermodynamics. The lack of candor and honesty by government, media and environmental protection agencies in response to public inquiry is further evidence of the fictitious fronts that have been proposed. It is past time to recognize that one of the primary effects of the dense aerosols that now permanently mar the lifeblood of this planet is the heating up of the very atmosphere that we breathe.

The early stage of the current argument for global heating and the aggravation of drought conditions was proposed approximately two years ago1. The benefit of the current study is that an estimate of the magnitude of the heat influence upon the atmosphere can now be made. Those that continue to claim that a benevolent, but necessarily secret, enterprise to protect the planet with a blanket of purportedly heat reflective aerosols in the lower atmosphere exists will need to provide the primary evidence of that claim. That claim will need to be justified with solid physical principles and observation. Hypothetical research models that are under discussion and rationalization, such as the Teller proposal, are more appropriate to the outer reaches of the planet and space. These proposals do not explain the deposition of massive amounts of hygroscopic aerosols into the lower atmosphere.

The recent media attention to the dramatic and accelerating climatic changes will hopefully be extended to the fundamental principles that are expressed within this report.

The mathematics, physical principles and thermodynamics of this argument will be made available on a separate entry.

FURTHER DISCUSSION:

1. Clifford E Carnicom, Drought Inducement, (https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/drought-inducement/), 04/07/02

THE THEFT OF SUNLIGHT

THE THEFT OF SUNLIGHT
Clifford E Carnicom
Oct 25 2003

Measurements have recently been taken with a calibrated photometer to measure the reduction in intensity of sunlight that occurs as a direct result of heavy aerosol operations1. These measurements show a rapid reduction in the transmission of sunlight from a value of 97% on a “clear day” to the lower level of approximately 80% during the early stages of heavy aerosol operations. These measurements have been taken to coincide with the photographs below that show the aircraft aerosol trails systematically increasing the extent of the aerosol bank.

Rather than reducing the temperature of the earth and lower atmosphere, the aerosol operations commonly have the opposite effect of increasing temperature and aggravating, if not inducing drought conditions. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the specific heats of the elements involved as well as the hygroscopic properties of the aerosols. Physical and chemical analysis of the aerosol dynamics will lead to the expected observations of increased temperature, decreased moisture and an increase in winds. The absorption and displacement of this solar energy into environmental, military, biological and electromagnetic operations represents a theft of the natural and divine rights of the inhabitants of this planet. These are only preliminary effects upon the local and regional environments; longer term and more serious impacts upon the biosphere have been, are now and will become evident.

THE THEFT OF SUNLIGHT
“Working the Aerosol Bank”
Santa Fe NM Oct 22 2003 0930


THE THEFT OF SUNLIGHT
“Working the Aerosol Bank II”
Santa Fe NM Oct 22 2003 0930
(lens flares also visible in this photograph)

THE THEFT OF SUNLIGHT
The Descent of the Aerosol Banks to Ground Level
A View from Santa Fe Towards Albuquerque on a “Clear” Day
Expected visibility in clear desert skies is approximately 90-120 miles
However, the Ortiz Mountains (closest range) visible in photograph
are only approximately 15 miles distant from the observer.

1. Forest M. Mims III, Sun and Sky Monitoring Station and Manual, Radio Shack, 2003

THE WAISTLINE OF ROTATION

THE WAISTLINE OF ROTATION
Clifford E Carnicom
Sep 14 2003

A decrease in the rotational rate of the earth is expected to increase the equatorial radius of the earth.  This postulate can be demonstrated by two different methods.  The first of these examines the kinetic energy and inertial momentum of the earth as it relates to differentials, and the second will examine the problem from the viewpoint of conservation of angular momentum.  It can be shown that the results expected are similar in each case, where a change of one second per year in the rotational rate of the earth leads to an expected increase in the earth’s radius of approximately 4 to 8 inches.  Greater changes in the rotational rate (current observations support a change of 12 seconds per year) result in correspondingly greater changes in the equatorial radius of the earth.

In conjunction with anomalous variations in time that are currently being reported, there is the recollection of a popular science article published by CNN on August 7, 2002 entitled, Earth’s Waistline Could Be Expanding.  This account summarizes an article published in Science magazine in that same week, where the following excerpts from the CNN article are provided as follows:

“The Earth’s gravity field has bulged more in the middle in the past four years and scientists suspect that the same is true for the planet itself.”

“The researchers say neither rising global sea levels nor faster glacial ice melting could produce such a sharp change in the gravity field measurements. Something else is moving mass from the high latitudes to the low latitudes nearer the Equator, causing a suspected bigger bulge around the middle”.

“While understanding the precise shape of our planet and its gravity field may seem like esoteric endeavors, the data could have a profound impact on everything from weather forecasting to agriculture to making sure there is enough fresh water to support life.”

It will be of further interest to examine the magnitude of this change within contemporary ellipsoid models that incorporate this latest data, and as it is reported in the Science journal. It is also of interest that the earth change recorded is noted primarily within the last four to five years; readers may also wish to be aware of the anomalous time measurements over this same period as recorded in the earlier articles, Time, Time To Start Watching Time and Time, Energy and Earth Changes.

The question of rotational rate change as it corresponds to earth shape changes is to be equally considered, as there now is observational data available to support the existence of both.  In addition to these considerations, a discussion has been provided on the expected tremendous kinetic energy changes (and expected geophysical changes that result) associated with small changes in the earth’s rotational rate, i.e., time.

Additional fields that are under further examination include the magnetic field of the earth, either natural or affected artificially, the gravity field and the atmospheric pressure of the earth.  The current work assumes a homogeneous sphere as a first approximation to the problem.

The remainder of this article is mathematical in nature, and will be provided below to those with a further interest.

 


Let us examine the differential method first.

The kinetic energy of the rotating earth can be approximated as1:

KEr (approx) = ( 1 / 5) * m * R2 * w2

where KEr represents the kinetic energy of the rotating earth in Joules, m represents the mass of the earth in kilograms, R is the radius of as assumed spherical earth in meters, and w is the rotational rate of the earth in radians per second.

Let us solve this form for R:

R2 = ( 5 * KEr ) / ( m * w2 )

or

R = ( ( 5 * KEr ) / ( m * w2 ) )1/2

therefore:

dR / dw = ( 1 / 2) * ( ( 5 * KEr ) / ( m * w2 )-1/2 * (-2) * ( ( 5 * KEr ) / m ) * w-3

or in differential form:

dR = ( ( -5 * KEr ) / ( m * w3 ) )  * ( ( 5 * KEr ) / ( m * w2) )-1/2 * dw

and substituting the values previously established2, where

The mass of the earth is approximately 5.98E24 kg.

The mean radius of the earth is approximately 6371km.

The rotational rate of the earth, w (approx) = 7.272E-5 rad / sec.

KEr (approx) = 2.567E29 Joules.

and dw in this case will the rotational rate change corresponding to a time change (decrease) of one second in one year:

dw = -( 1 / 365) * ( 1 / 86400 ) * 7.272E-5 rad /sec.

or

dw = -2.306E-12 rad / sec.

this results in:

dR = -5.581E17 * (1.57E-7) * -2.306E-12 rad /sec.

leads to

dR = .202 meters

or

dR = 8 inches (approximate) increase corresponding to a one second time differential within one year.

Increases in time differentials beyond one second per year will lead to corresponding increases in the earth radius. Note: current observations indicate a time differential of approximately 12 seconds per year.

For the second method of estimating the increase in the radius of the earth that corresponds to a decrease in the rotational rate, let us use the principle of conservation of angular momentum.  The reader is referred to problem number 341 of Fogiel3 for the necessary background in the formulation of this approach.

In our case, we are led to:

wf= wo / ( 1 –  ( dx% / 100 ) )2

where wf is equal to the decreased angular velocity, wo is the original angular velocity, and dx% is the change in the radius of the earth in terms of per cent.

or

dx% / 100 = 1 – (wo / wf)1/2

And if we again let dw correspond to a change of one second in one year, we have

wf = wo – dw

where wo = 7.272E-5 rad / sec.

and

wf = 7.272E-5 rad/sec – 2.306E-12 rad /sec.

then

wf = 7.27199769E-5 rad / sec.

then

dx% / 100 = 1.59E-8

and the change in the radius of the earth will be:

dR = R * (dx% / 100) = 6371E3 meters * 1.59E-8 = .101 meters = 4 inches (approximate).

We are therefore led to a similar result as with the differential approach, with an estimated range of 4 to 8 inches increase in the equatorial radius per second per year. Any corrections will be made to this paper as is appropriate in the future.

Clifford E Carnicom
Authored at Jemez Falls, NM
Sep 14 2003 

 

References:

1. Clifford E Carnicom, Time, Energy and Earth Changes, Time, Energy and Earth Changes, 2003.
2. Carnicom, 2003.
3. Dr. M. Fogiel, Problem Solvers Physics, (Research and Education Association, 2000), 344.

TIME

TIME
Clifford E Carnicom
Jul 23 2003
Edited Jul 24 2003

TIME
Y Axis is the Difference in Time Between TA1 and UTC
TA1 is based upon atomic time. UTC is based upon the rotational speed of the earth.
X Axis is the Julian Day Number. Data begins on May 15 1976 and ends on Jul 23 2003
Source of Data : U.S. Naval Observatory

Research has been underway for several months to investigate a hypothesis that has been been forwarded to me for evaluation. The source of these propositions will remain unidentified at this time. The hypothesis purports the onset of major geophysical changes and life extinction cycles in the foreseeable and upcoming decades. The impact upon the earth and life from such events is extraordinary and beyond the realm of consideration for many people. There is also a claim of a connection between the aerosol operations and the anticipated geophysical events, and this has formed the basis for the research that is being presented herein. Additional hypotheses are under investigation, (e.g., biological and pharmaceutical) but they will not be be discussed at this point. No judgement on the veracity of these claims is being made, however, certain leads of investigation are being followed to see if they hold up to scrutiny and logic.

ONE such claim being made is that there exists a connection between the anticipated geophysical changes, the rotational rate of the earth and the aerosol operations. It has been stated that there is an attempt to use the aerosols to increase the rotational speed of the earth. This increase is viewed as an offsetting mechanism to the geophysical events which it is claimed will occur. At first response, it might appear that such a claim defies the realms of physical possibility, however, honest research does not allow such a presumption without an adequate investigation. It is also to be understood that no claim of benevolence to the general human population accompanies this description of geophysical manipulation.

There is a well known line by Mr. Carl Sagan, to the effect that, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Such is the case here. In my examination of this hypothesis, it appears to me that the central issue of examination drives toward the issue of TIME. If one were to claim that the rotational speed of the earth can be artificially affected, then a closer examination of time should reveal whether that claim has any merit. This would be the case regardless of the role, or non-role, of the aerosol operations. The rationale for this investigation is that TIME has historically evolved as an expression of that very same rotational rate of the earth. It is only with the more recent introduction of time based upon atomic standards that the issue of time has become murkier. Time is not so steady as many of us might presume, and there are now many different ways by which it can be measured. This discussion will be confined to three of these standards of time: TA1 (Atomic time), UT (based on the rotational rate of the earth) and UTC (UT adjusted periodically to keep pace with atomic time).

Small differences in time must now be considered to examine the questions which are before us. The geophysical effects of such small changes must also be considered in the future; initial research indicates that small changes in time (i.e., rotation rate) may lead to significant geophysical stress forces and their release. It also appears that our state of knowledge of earth rotational rate changes and geophysical correlations is quite inadequate.

There is, first of all, a fairly well established recent history that shows the rotational rate of the earth has been slowing down1,2,3. This rate is stated from numerous sources to be on the order of 0.7 to 0.9 seconds per year, and it seems to have held fairly steady since approximately 1900. In the interest of completeness, a graph4 depicting the history back to 1620 does show a period of increased rotational rate in contradiction to the more recent trend. To make matters additionally confusing, most sources that attribute a geophysical process of tidal actions to the slow down speak on the order of milliseconds per century, as opposed to a fraction of a second per year11. The same sources also do not appear to address the contradictions raised by the graphed data extending back to 1620. So there does appear to be many questions as to magnitude and rotational rate increase and decrease that must remain unanswered at this point.

The more immediate question is to ask whether or not it is conceivable that the aerosol operations are affecting the rotational rate of the earth. If this is the case, one would look for variance in the data beginning approximately 4 1/2 years ago as a potential indicator. The data that we should look at is the difference between atomic time (TA1) and the time based upon the rotational rate of the earth (UT). Although it required some labor to extract the data, this information is available from the United States Naval Observatory. In addition, the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) also becomes an important source of information. The graph of this difference expresses any unusual changes that may be taking place with respect to the rotational rate of the earth.

This graph is presented above for your review, and there are some intriguing findings that are to be mentioned.

1. The most recent leap second added to bring UTC (based upon rotational rate of the earth) in closer accordance with atomic time (TA1) occurred on Dec 31 1998. The lack of leap seconds (at the anticipated rate loss of approximately 0.8 seconds year) since that time is very much out of character with the preceding historical data set spanning more than 25 years. This indicates to us that the earth’s rotational rate must have actually increased in more recent years relative to the historical record. As a point of observation only, the aerosol operations are generally understood to have begun at a global level at the close of 1998 and beginning of 1999.

2. The post 1999 change is in contradiction to the numerous sources that claim a fairly steady rotational rate decrease on the order of 0.7 to 0.9 seconds per year.

3. No explanation can be found at this time by IERS as to the abrupt change in leap second additions (decline of) at the beginning of 1999. There have been no leap seconds added since Dec 31 1998, and this is at variance with the regular history preceding this announcement and as shown on the graph from the US Naval Observatory data. It would appear that a leap second addition is inevitable in the near future, after a lapse of 4 1/2 years.

4. The rate of decline (slope) shown within the graph also shows itself to be unique within the time period covered, from 1976 to 2003. The decline (slope) post 1999 is considerably less than that which has preceded.

5. The “stair -step” behavior of the decline rate since 1999 is a most interesting feature of the data. There are 4 periods (and the beginning of a fifth), fairly regularly spaced, where the rotational rate decline temporarily levels off. This pattern also does not appear within the general data set, and it does indicate the possibility of a disturbing mechanism (artificial or otherwise) to the rotation rate.

TIME
“Stair Step” Pattern Visible in Post 1999 Series
Y Axis is the Difference in Time Between TA1 and UTC
TA1 is based upon atomic time. UTC is based upon the rotational speed of the earth.
X Axis is the Julian Day Number. Data begins on Jan 01 1999 and ends on Jul 23 2003
Source of Data : U.S. Naval Observatory

6. The long term predictions issued by the IERS for the period of 1997 – 2007 indicated that approximately 7 leap seconds were anticipated to be added within the period from 1999 to 2007. However, NO leap seconds have been added (as of this date), i.e., a period of 4 1/2 years have elapsed without any additions. This is out of character with the historical record as well as at odds with the last known predictions of the worldwide time standard service.

7. Curiously, the long term time prediction service of the U.S. Naval Observatory has apparently been discontinued, at least to the public. This is apparently the case with IERS also, as no updates past 1999 for long term predictions have been found. The question is, WHY? Why would a fundamental geophysical service that is important to many human endeavors be eliminated?

8. A statistical test between the means of the daily differences (leap seconds excluded) between the post Jan 01 1999 data and the pre Jan 01 1999 data is significant at the 99.9999+% level12. This test demonstrates that the data after Jan 01 1999 is highly anomalous relative to the previous history. The slope ratio between the two data sets is on the order of 1 to 3, with the post Jan 01 1999 data decreasing at a rate of 1/3 the pre Jan 01 1999 data.
(N1 = 8245, Mean1 = -.00201 secs. / day, sigma1 = .000701; N2 = 1633, Mean2 = -.00067 secs. / day, sigma2 = .000501 : Z = 91.4)

9. If attempts have been made to decrease the rotational rate decline, an analysis of the data would suggest that it may have been only momentarily successful and delaying; a more deeply entrenched geophysical process appears to reign.

In an effort to monitor this issue, this researcher has developed independent time standards. Astronomic occultation observations have been and are being conducted8,9,10, and a digital time standard has been established. The expected error in the astronomic observations is approximately 0.5 seconds, and the digital time reference system has an expected error of approximately 0.2 seconds per month. The insertion of leap seconds can likely be detected independently with these reference frames in place. The difference between UT1 (atomic time) and UTC (based upon rotational rate of the earth and adjusted within tolerance of atomic time) continues to be available to a high level of precision through the U.S. Naval Observatory, and can be monitored by the public.

If one now considers the possibility that the earth’s rotation rate can be artificially affected, the next important step is to ask what physical mechanism can conceivably accomplish this. This will undoubtedly lead toward advanced studies in physics, and at this point I can only make a suggestion as to where such research might lead. The source behind the hypothesis being discussed has stated only that methods of resonance involving sub-atomic particles are the basis of the physical mechanism; no additional specific or detailed information is available.

Any hypothesis that merits serious consideration must stand the tests of cross-examination and hopefully is tenable within the laws of physics and science that we have adopted in this time and place. In an effort to conclude the current discussion and yet prompt the reader with an avenue for further work, I would like to mention the following area of physics which holds some promise for the consideration of resonance as a physical mechanism.

I have acquainted myself with a sub-discipline of physics that is termed “nuclear magnetic resonance”, and it appears to be worthy of additional effort. Nuclear magnetic resonance has developed to become a highly significant branch of modern physics, and is most commonly known within the medical community. The fundamental principle behind nuclear magnetic resonance, as I understand it, is this:

Certain atomic particles, when subjected to radio frequency energy in the presence of a magnetic field, will absorb that energy to cause variations in their sub-atomic spin rates, i.e., the angular rate of rotation of that particle. Energy absorption will occur at resonance if the proper frequencies are used in conjunction with a particular magnetic field strength5,6,7. (Note : the source states that nuclear magnetic resonance is only ancillary to the primary mechanisms which operate at a broader level and with variable energy forms beyond that of radio frequencies).

This principle is clearly under the domain of quantum physics, and as such much work lies before us to fairly evaluate the viability of such a mechanism to operate at a geophysical level. Readers with knowledge of the 4 1/2 years of research embedded within this site may recognize why such a mechanism is to be considered in all seriousness. The apparent anomalies with the earth rotational data, as they have been described above, provide a further impetus for the deeper study ahead of us.


Clifford E Carnicom
Jul 23 2003
Edited Jul 24 2003


Partial References:

1. Rique Pottenger, The American Ephemeris, 2001 to 2010, (ACS Publications, 1997), Table IV.
2. Peter Duffett-Smith, Practical Astronomy With Your Calculator, (Cambridge University Press, 1979), 23.
3. Oliver Montenbruch, Astronomy on the Personal Computer, (Springer, 2000), 41-44.
4. Duffett-Smith, 23.
5. Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, (Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1964), 35-10 to 35-12.

6. David Bohm, Quantum Theory, (Dover, 1979), 501 -505.
7. Daniel Canet, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Concepts and Methods, (John Wiley and Sons, 1996), 3-5.

8. Lunar Occultation Workbench, 3.1 (Software), Dutch Occultation Association.
9. Raymond Davis, Surveying, Theory and Practice, (McGraw Hill, 1981), 482.
10. Montenbruch, 229.
11. Petr Vanicek, Geodesy, The Concepts, (Elvier Science Publishing Co., 1986), 66-69
12. Murray R. Spiegel, Probability and Statistics, (McGraw-Hill, 2000), 228.

PREDICTING THE OPERATIONS: SUNSPOTS AND HUMIDITY

 PREDICTING THE OPERATIONS:
SUNSPOTS AND HUMIDITY
Sep 3 2002
Edited Oct 08 2002
Edited Nov 08 2002
Edited Oct 29 2003
(Recommend printing in landscape mode)
Clifford E Carnicom

SANTA FE REPORT : INDEX ON 112702 AT 0900 IS 44
Model correlation is statistically significant at 98% level as of 11/08/02

 


Additional Notes Oct 29 2003:

Please note that this article was authored on Sep 3 2002. The additional factor of vertical column aerosol density, most easily measured by star magnitude visibility, appears also to be significant in the prediction of the onset of the aerosol operations in a particular region.

 


Research over an extended period of time indicates that there is likely a strong relationship between the appearance of the aerosol operations in a given locale and time and the interaction of the following primary variables: sunspot activity, relative humidity, change in relative humidity and the relative cloud cover. The inclusion of the solar activity within this current examination may be a significant avenue of research that establishes a series of ties with earlier discussions related to ionospheric, electromagnetic and defense projects, applications of HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) and plasma physics that also appear on this site. Current studies on planetary physics and celestial considerations may demonstrate further relationships to the aerosol operations in the future.

This current work expands upon earlier presentations that have been made in the spring of 2001 related primarily to the relative humidity issue. These papers are available at The Aerosol Reports : United States; A Model Under Development and The Aerosol Report. This earlier work focused upon the consideration of relative humidity values across the nation in conjunction with observed aerosol operations. The result of that earlier work indicated a close link between increased relative humidity levels that were scaled according to local conditions and the likelihood of concurrent aerosol operations. Other researchers and considerable anecdotal information have also added to that body of correlations that now exist.

Since that time, increased attention has been given to the drought crisis that has emerged over the last three to four years, and further links from a scientific standpoint have been made to the aerosol operations with these events. Readers may wish to refer to the following paper Drought Inducement as well as an audio interview with Mr. Jeff Rense (June 4, 2002) on this same topic. Readers may also wish to become familiar with the the refuting arguments that I have made against any so-called “global warming mitigation” aerosol theories (e.g., Edward Teller) that have been proffered by certain well-publicized journalists and broadcasters. Analysis indicates that the introduced aerosols will aggravate the so-called “global warming” problem rather than lessen it. My concerns on the drought issue and the potential crisis that is likely to affect food production and water availability now and in the future have only been amplified since those presentations were made. It appears to me that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the drought to subside and crops to improve as long as the aerosol operations continue unchecked without public outcry and action.

Local atmospheric electricity and magnetometer observations have also been added to the data set as of Sep 21 2002 and Oct 07 2002 respectively. These observations are a part of current research that expands upon that presented within this page, and they will be explained further at a later time.

This paper will again be divided into two sections. The latter half will outline the more technical aspects of the study, whereas the general findings are presented above.

 


Further Discussion:

An empirical model has now been developed of the following form:

I = c * [(log(SS+1) / 2.5)4 * (log(RHmean+1) / 2)2 * ((deltaRH + deltaRHmax) / (2 * deltaRHmax)) * cos(%CC * (pi / 200))] + 10

where

SS = daily sunspot number

RHmean = average of relative humidity in per cent at ground location(RHgnd) for the site of interest and the relative humidity in percent at commercial flight elevation(RHel) (250mb).

deltaRH = the change in average relative humidity in per cent from the previous day for the site of interest

deltaRHmax = the absolute value of the maximum change in average relative humidity in per cent from the previous day for the site of interest over the time interval that the model is to be used.

c = a constant, defined as 80 /I’max

where I’max = the maximum value of the product : (log(SS+1) / 2.5)4 * (log(RHmean + 1) / 2)2 * ((deltaRH + deltaRHmax) / (2 * deltaRHmax))* cos(%CC * (pi / 200))

reached during the time interval that the model is to be used.

CC = cloud cover index estimated according to the following table:

 

Condition

CC Index

Evaluation of CC Term

Clear

0

1

Mostly Clear

25

0.92

Partly Cloudy

50

0.71

Mostly Cloudy

75

0.38

Rain or Complete Cloud Cover

100

0.0

 

I represents an index value, scaled between 0 and 100 (for usual circumstances), that indicates the suitability of conditions for (and increased likelihood for) the aerosol operations to be conducted. Lower values indicate less favorable circumstances for the aerosol operations to occur, and higher values more favorable cirumstances for the aerosol operations to occur.The following is the specific model being used for the Santa Fe NM region at this time:

I = 175 * [(log(SS+1) / 2.5)4 * (log(RHmean + 1) / 2)2 * ((deltaRH + 35) / 70) * cos(%CC * (pi / 200))] + 10
This specific model as well as the original form will be modified or revised freely as circumstances require, and it is to be considered as preliminary. In particular, the deltaRHmax term is likely to increase as a longer time interval is used for the model. .

To illustrate the use of this model, a table of data will be presented for the Santa Fe area, along with the results of the model as compared to observation reports for the same time period.

 

Date

Time

SS

RHgnd

RHel

RHmean

dRH

Natural
Cloud Cover
Estimate

CC Index

I’

I

Comments/Observations

Local
Atmospheric Electricity Measurements
Time – Obs.
uA

Local
Magnetometer
Measurements
Horiz. Component
Time – Obs
delUnit = 0.486odeflection

delM

0727

1000

323

58

NA

58

11

Clear

0

0.52

101

Blitz. Extraordinary activity reported in TX, NM, CO.. Normal range of model exceeded.

0821

2200

209

26

31

28

NA

Clear

0

NA

NA

NA.. Start of modeling; eliminate from scoring of model.

0822

0900

238

16

21

18

-10

Clear

0

0.12

31

Light ops

0823

0900

205

38

40

39

21

Clear

0

0.37

75

Heavy ops

0824

0800

207

43

57

50

11

Clear

0

0.36

72

Heavy ops

0825

0830

199

23

15

19

-31

Clear

0

0.02

14

No ops directly observed; unusual transformations of aerosol “clouds” in PM; observations insufficient and indeterminate; eliminate from scoring of model.

0826

0900

136

16

57

36

17

Clear

0

0.24

52

No ops, Jemez Mtn. fire in PM

0827

0900

105

14

17

15

-21

Clear

0

0.03

15

No ops

0827

2400

133

46

NA

46

31

Mostly
Clear

25

0.29

61

Moist air arrival in PM; heavy ops in PM

0828

0900

133

63

36

49

3

Partly
Cloudy

50

0.14

34

Light to med ops

0829

0900

87

93

40

66

17

Partly
Cloudy

50

0.16

38

Much moisture in sky; light to med ops

0830

0900

146

72

19

45

-21

Clear

0

0.08

24

Light ops to none

0831

0900

150

43

45

44

-1

Clear

0

0.19

43

None in Santa Fe(SF) region w/ clear skies; Heavy local ops on east horizon approx 200 miles easterly; aerosol cloud bank on east horizon

0901

0900

153

51

32

41

-3

Partly Cloudy

50

0.12

31

Light to Med ops east of SF in AM; none in PM. Increasing cumulus clouds. Humidity decreases in PM.

0902

0900

187

52

28

40

-1

Mostly
Cloudy

75

0.08

24

Mostly cloudy skies; No ops visible within clear patches.

0903

0900

227

68

32

50

10

Mostly
Cloudy

75

0.14

34

Mostly Cloudy skies. No ops visible within clear patches.

0904

1000

266

49

17

33

-17

Clear

0

0.14

34

No ops

0905

1000

215

34

21

27

-6

Clear

0

0.16

38

No ops

0906

0800

225

46

59

52

25

Clear

0

0.51

99

Very heavy ops in western sky and ABQ; progressive activities and dispersals over Santa Fe; numerous reports of heavy ops at several locations in U.S.A.

0907

0900

189

44

33

38

-14

Partly
Cloudy

50

0.09

26

Light to no ops. Increasing cloudiness
throughout day. Another storm system
destroyed.

0908

0900

180

54

29

42

4

Mostly
Clear

25

0.23

50

No ops

0909

0830

221

75

51

63

21

Mostly
Cloudy

75

0.19

44

Light to no ops visible w/in clear patches of sky. Increasing cloudiness through day.

0910

0900

194

88

33

60

-3

Rain

100

0.00

10

Rain. No vertical visibility. Exclude from scoring.

0911

0900

226

98

36

67

7

Rain

100

0.00

10

Rain. No vertical visibility. Exclude from scoring.

0912

0800

213

90

38

64

-3

Mostly
Cloudy

75

0.11

29

No ops within clear patches.

0913

0830

258

89

24

45

-19

Clear

0

0.27

57

No ops

0914

0900

246

72

23

47

2

Partly
Cloudy

50

0.22

49

No ops. Reports of heavy activities in eastern US.

0915

0900

256

71

22

46

-1

Clear

0

0.30

62

No ops

0916

0800

168

86

13

50

4

Clear

0

0.25

54

No ops

0917

0900

190

67

27

47

-3

Clear

0

0.22

48

No ops

0918

0900

228

53

38

46

-1

Partly
Cloudy

25

0.25

53

No ops. Increasing cloudiness throughout day and heavy rain in PM.

0919

0900

225

76

2

39

-7

Partly Cloudy

50

0.14

35

Cloudy in AM. Partly cloudy later AM and PM. Light ops in northern horizon at sunset.

0920

0800

206

74

18

46

7

Clear

0

0.31

64

No ops.

0921

0900

237

66

14

40

-6

Clear

0

0.22

49

No ops

2300 .480

0922

0800

217

59

16

37

-3

Mostly
Clear

25

0.21

46

No ops. Measurements 1500-1800 taken at Jack’s Creek, Elev 9500′

0030 .476
0900 .477
0915 .475
1500 .478
1615 .499
1630 .501
1800 .491

2100 .488

0923

0800

218

66

18

42

5

Clear

0

0.29

61

No ops

0030 .473
0900 .479
1300 .477
2315 .471

0924

0900

209

57

31

44

2

Mostly
Clear

25

0.25

53

No ops. Cumulus clouds diffused by aerosols.

1000 .479
1300 .476

0925

0800

240

59

25

42

-2

Mostly
Clear

25

0.24

52

No ops. Cumulus clouds diffused by aerosols.

0015 .474
0100 .472
0130 .474
0900 .475
1545 .502
1815 .477

0926

0800

230

49

31

40

-2

Partly
Cloudy

50

0.17

40

No ops. Repeated diffusion of clouds by aerosol base.

0900 .474

0927

0800

157

56

25

40

0

Clear

0

0.20

44

No ops.

0900 .475
1500 .467
1530 .465
1530 .466
2000 .475

0928

0800

185

93

19

56

16

Rain

100

0.00

10

Rain. No vertical visibility. Exclude from scoring.

0030 .476
0900 .476

0929

0900

140

71

19

45

-11

Mostly
Cloudy

75

0.05

19

No ops.

0830 .481
0830 .493
0915 .473
0930 .475

0930

0900

146

62

35

49

4

Clear

0

0.22

49

No ops. Note solar storm index @100+.

0930 .486
0930 .494
1115 .488
1115 .477
1115 .473
1240 .495
1645 .480
1645 .483

1001

0800

94

77

19

48

-1

Partly
Cloudy

50

0.10

27

No ops. Note solar storm index @100+.

0015 .480
0015 .474
1300 .478
1300 .482
1300 .483
1300 .493
1800 .509
1800 .504

1002

0800

105

66

22

44

-4

Clear

0

0.13

33

No ops. Solar wind storm ceases.

1015 .494
1015 .485
1015 .477

1003

0800

99

65

20

43

-1

Clear

0

0.13

33

No ops. Solar storm increases again.

0915 .475
0915 .473
0915 .483
1215 .493
1215 .509
1445 .466
1445 .466
1445 .460

1004

0830

81

46

16

31

-12

Clear

0

0.06

21

No ops.

1000 .475
1000 .476

1005

0900

98

32

30

31

0

Clear

0

0.11

30

No local observations available. Exclude from scoring. Exteme sinus allergic response in AM after overnight outdoor exposure in San Luus Valley CO. Visibility degradation from aerosols apparent.

1030 .452

1006

0900

155

35

56

45

15

Clear

0

0.30

62

No local observations available. Exclude from scoring. Reports of heavy ops in Phoenix and Tuscon and SW NM on CTTUSA after hiatus. Msmts. taken at Salida CO, Elev 7000′.

1000 .460
1000 .460
1215 .499
1215 .483
1215 .477

1007

0900

126

63

18

40

-5

Partly Cloudy

50

0.10

28

No ops. Increasing cloudiness. Heavy aerosol cloud bank to S. and SW.
Solar storm index @84.

0930 .460
0930 .458
0930 .459
1245 .463
1245 .458
1500 .459
1500 .453
1500 .457
1915 .466
1915 .468
1915 .460
2000 .483

2400 398

1008

0830

143

63

61

62

22

Mostly Clear

25

0.34

69

Light to med ops. Heavy aerosol cloud bank over ABQ; in process of extending to Santa Fe. Wind increases. Dissipation of aerosol bank by 1415. Observations @1530 in Espanola NM under clear skies.

1000 .475
1000 .473
1000 .472
1100 .475
1100 .475
1100 .479
1315 .473
1315 .473
1315 .473

1400 .475
1400 .473
1400 .473

1530 .483
1530 .506

1945 .505
1945 .481

0100 405.00
0215 405.25
0830 405.25
0900 406.00
1100 405.50
1200 404.00
1300 403.00
1900 402.00
7.0
0.2
0.0
1.5
-0.2
-1.5
-1.0
-0.2
RMS=2.6
n=8

1009

0800

128

64

23

44

-18

Clear

0

0.08

24

No ops Local hospital employee report of increased respiratory and sinus illness amongst employees.

0830 .474
0830 .476
0830 .475
1330 .472
1330 .478
1330 .474

0800 401.50
0815 402.00
0845 402.25
0930 402.25
2100 397.50

0.0
2.0
0.3
0.0
-.4
RMS=0.9
n=5

1010

0900

226

33

26

29

-15

Clear

0

0.13

32

No ops. Increased reports of heavy ops across other portions of country at CTTUSA. Rapid respiratory illness onset approx 1600.

0930 .473
0930 .475
1015 .479
1015 .489
1015 .474
1350 .495
1350 .502
1350 .469
2115 .474
2115 .472
2115 .478

0900 401.75
2030 401.75

0.4
0.0
RMS=0.3
n=2

1011

0900

244

42

38

40

11

Clear

0

0.36

73

Light ops overhead in AM. Extensive aerosol bank to west increasing throughout day. Winds increase from west. Light to med ops toward PM as haze extends.
Significant respiratory illness continues.

0930 .475
1530 .472
1530 .478
1530 .478
1715 .481
1715 .479
1715 .474

0900 402.00
1500 398.75
1700 398.50

0.0
-0.5
-0.1
RMS=0.3
n=3

1012

0900

178

38

56

47

7

Mostly Clear

25

0.26

55

Med to heavy operations in conjunction with aerosol based cloud bank that continues from yesterday. Significant respiratory illness continues. Note www.wundergound.com reports conditions as being continuously clear in spite of rapidly increasing “cloud” bank. Note rapid change in local magnetic field not occurring with HAARP magnetometer readings.

1245 .473
1245 .472
1245 .474
1845 .478
1845 .480
1845 .476

1115 400.00
1230 402.00
1430 400.50
1600 397.00
1845 399.00
2230 400.50

1.6
0.8
-1.4
-2.0
0.4
RMS=1.4
n=5

1013

0900

171

37

30

33

-14

Cloudy

100

0.00

10

Full cloud cover. No vertical visibility. Exclude from scoring.
Note changes in local magnetic field not occurring with HAARP magnetometer readings. Sky clears in afternoon. Magnetic field variation decreases as sky clears.

0930 .475
0930 .472
0930 .472
1630 .476

0800 400.00
0830 399.00
0845 401.25
0945 401.25
1145 398.00
1415 399.50
1500 398.50
1630 398.75
2300 400.75

0.0
-2.0
9.0
0.0
-1.6
0.6
-1.3
0.2
0.3
RMS=3.2
n=9

1014

0800

167

65

28

46

13

Mostly Clear
(aerosol based)

25

0.28

59

Medium to heavy ops. High level aerosol bank developing. Increasing winds again. HAARP magnetometer shows high activity for a few hours. Limited mag observations. Atmosphere trashed.

0900 .473
0900 .473
0900 .472
1745 .474
1745 .476
1745 .475
1745 .476

0830 402.30
0900 402.80
2245 402.00

0.2
1.0
-0.8
RMS=0.7
n=3

1015

0830

175

42

38

40

-6

Mostly ‘Cloudy’
(aerosol based)

25

0.06

38

Light to med ops; a continuing operation. Extensive high level ‘cloud’ cover is primarily aerosol based. Relatively low level mag activity at HAARP.Extensive aerosol bank developed over ABQ carrying through sunset. Emergency broadcast system becomes active (unnannounced; no intro) on AM bands today. Consider heightened alert status. Numerous reports of heavy ops in varied locations across country. Note increased current with bank over ABQ vs Santa Fe.; Santa Fe cleared approx 2 hrs. prior to sunset. Notice sudden increase in current (i) after clearing of sky. Same event in Espanola 100802. HAARP mag remains quiet.

0930 .477
0930 .473
0930 .473
2150 .486
2150 .495
2150 .491

0015 402.30
0830 402.50
0900 403.00
1030 404.00
1115 404.00
1815 403.75
2130 405.00
2300 408.00
2355 409.80

0.2
0.0
1.0
0.6
0.0
-0.0
0.4
2.0
2.0
RMS=1.0
n=9

1016

0845

165

55

48

51

11

Partly ‘Cloudy’
(aerosol based)

25

0.28

59

‘Cloud’ base is completely artificial. A major operation continues-heavy ops. Ops continued throughout previous night visible by moonlight. Low level persistent cough returns; symptoms again consistent with mycoplasma. Reports at CTTUSA of heavy ops across US and Canada continue. CME on sun Oct 14; magnetic filament collapse on Sun Oct 15. Stable I with aerosol bank.

0900 .473
0900 .473
0900 .473
1750 .473
1750 .473
1750 .473

0900 409.60
1645 408.00
1800 408.00
2230 407.60

0.0
-0.2
0.0
-.1
RMS=0.1

1017

0830

182

51

25

38

-13

Partly Cloudy(significant aerosol influence remains)

50

0.10

27

No ops in AM hours. Effects from major operation over past 5-6 days easily visible. ‘Cloud’ base is a mix of cumulus, stratus and aerosol base.
Stable I readings remain. Increasing clouds through day. Ops visible near sundown with increased clouds; another storm system degraded or destroyed. ELF meter during day indicates highly stable mag field; measurements concur.

0830 .475
0830 .476
0830 .475

0800 407.25
1930 407.75

0.0
0.0
RMS=0.0
n=2

1018

0900

215

80

26

53

15

Cloudy(significant aerosol influence)

100

0.00

10

No vertical visibility in AM..Exclude from scoring. I and B stable. Mix of cumulus and aerosol base in PM; mostly cloudy.

0900 .473
0900 .473
0900 .475
2145 .476
2145 .471
2145 .474
2145 .472

0900 407.20
1030 406.75
1100 406.50
1145 406.75
1300 407.50
1445 407.25
1645 407.00
2215 407.00

0.0
-0.3
-0.5
0.3
0.6
-0.1
0.1
0.0
RMS=0.3
n=8

1019

0900

200

73

33

53

0

Mostly Clear

25

0.25

54

No ops. Sky clears.

LF (Low Frequency) Data Monitoring Begins

0900 410.00
2000 406.90
2230 406.75

0.3
-0.3
0.0
RMS=0.2
n=3

1020

0830

156

74

33

53

0

Clear

0

0.23

50

No ops. HAARP mag. quiet also.

0830 406.50
2000 406.50

0.0
0.0
RMS=0.0
n=2

1021

0900

179

54

29

42

-11

Mostly Clear.

25

0.14

34

No ops. Significant aerosol influence upon ‘clouds’. HAARP mag remains quiet. Significant sunspot group has developed, #162. Mag spike at sunset – LF meter correlates.

0015 407.50
0200 407.50
0900 408.00
1115 407.60
1400 407.50
1800 407.00
1845 406.25
2000 406.25
2400 406.00

0.2
0.0
0.1
-0.2
-0.0
-0.1
-1.0
0.0
-0.1
RMS=0.4
n=9

1022

0815

NA
(179 used)

62

32

47

5

Mostly Clear

25

0.25

53

No ops. Med.

0800 406.25
1945 406.00

0.0
0.0
RMS=0.0
n=2

1023

0815

132

83

26

54

7

Partly Cloudy

50

0.17

40

No ops. Thunder in AM, no rain.
Note solar storm index @100+.
Rain in PM; dynamic extended lightning storm in ABQ. LF meter shows reversal with arrival of rain.

0815 405.90
1000 408.20
1300 408.40
1930 405.30

0.0
1.3
0.1
-0.5
RMS=0.7
n=4

1024

0900

149

96

26

61

7

Partly Cloudy

50

0.19

44

No ops. Extreme magnetic disturbance at HAARP mag in PM.
Radiosonde data not available
Exclude from scoring.

0200 406.20
0830 406.10
2315 408.30

0.l
0.0
0.1
RMS=0.1
n=3

1025

0930

149

89

26

57

-4

Mostly Clear

25

0.18

42

No ops overhead in AM.. Radiosonde data not available. Extremely heavy ops begin at midday and carry through afternoon. Heavy aerosol bank visible over ABQ in late AM, extends with heavy aerosol ops over Santa Fe throughout day. LF meter depicts significant aberration. Exclude from scoring.

0945 408.10
1415 406.00
2115 405.80

0.0
0.4
0.0
RMS=0.2
n=3

1026

0915

151

71

26

48

-9

Cloudy

100

0.00

10

Radiosonde data not available.
Exclude from scoring.
Frequent heavy rains.

0930 408.10
1215 408.75
1900 407.50
2000 407.75
2300 407.25

0.2
0.2
-0.2
0.3
0.2
RMS=0.2
n=5

1027

0930

143

89

32

61

13

Partly Cloudy

50

0.22

48

No ops.
Note solar storm index @58.
Solar storm index at 1830 is 100+.
Significant magnetic aberration appears on LF meter in afternoon.

0930 408.40
1830 408.75

0.1
0.0
RMS=0.1
n=3

1028

0830

120

96

23

60

-1

Partly Cloudy

50

0.15

36

No ops.

0830 408.30

0.0
RMS=0.0
n=1

1029

0815

143

79

30

54

-6

Mostly Cloudy

75

0.07

22

No ops visible w/in clear patches.
LF patterns differ from previous week.

0815 408.10
2330 407.70

0.0
0.0
RMS=0.0
n=2

1030

0830

168

72

29

51

-3

Mostly Clear

25

0.19

44

No ops.

0830 407.80

0.0
RMS=0
n=1

1031

0845

182

79

25

52

1

Clear after fog dissipates in AM.

0

0.26

55

No ops directly overhead in AM. Fog in AM, clearing in AM. Major and extensive aerosol bank develops to W-NW on horizon by mid-morning. Aerosol bank extends toward easterly toward Santa Fe by md-afternoon. LF meter shows repeat concave increase in frequency structure in correspondence with encroaching aerosol bank. Sinus allergic response begins.

0030 407.20
0845 407.00
1330 407.40
1730 407.00

0.0
0.0
0.1
-0.1
RMS=0.1
n=4

1101

0830

134

79

36

57

5

Mostly Cloudy

75

0.09

26

No ops visible within clear section on northern horizon.

0845 407.6
2200 406.0

0.0
0.1
RMS=0.1
n=2

1102

1000

169

81

10

45

-12

Cloudy

100

0.00

10

No vertical visibility. Exclude from scoring.

0915 405.2
2100 402.3
2145 403.0

-0.1
-0.2
0.9
RMS=0.5
n=3

1103

0845

177

47

45

46

1

Mostly Clear

25

0.22

48

No ops in AM overhead.. Heavy aerosol based cloud bank in southern sky. High level aerosol based ‘clouds’ with wave formations overhead. Magnetic field shows increased activity. Solar storm index @78.Strong increase in LF frequency recorded yestereday PM and night. Artificial aerosol bank extends in coverage throughout day; appearance completely artificial. Report of demarcation line to north at Hooper CO. Aerosol ops begin and visible overhead immediately prior to sunset. Note increased magnetometer activity. LF meter shows much activity and requires repeated recalibration.
ELF frequencies detected with developed resonant circuit. Readings found at 2.5Hz (+/- 0.5Hz), 16Hz (+/- 1.0Hz), 21Hz (+/- 1.0Hz) and 31Hz (+/- 1.0Hz). Also 60Hz and 120Hz (2nd harmonic) power grid detected.

0130 405.8
0845 405.3
1045 406.2
1815 404.8
2030 403.0

0.8
-0.1
0.4
-0.2
-0.8
RMS=0.5
n=5

1104

0845

217

100

2

51

5

Snow

100

0.00

10

No vertical visibility. Exclude from scoring. LF meter shows significant rise in frequency throughout previous night. Note magnetometer activity.

0100 402.1
0845 402.2
1000 405.5
2015 406.0

-0.2
0.0
2.6
0.0
RMS=1.3
n=3

1105

0830

166

70

22

46

-5

Clear

0

0.19

43

No ops. LF meter active. HAARP magnetometer active.

0830 405.3
1115 404.8

-0.1
-0.2
RMS=0.2
n=2
1106

0800

175

66

21

43

-3

Clear

0

0.20

46

No ops.

0800 404.1

0.0
RMS=0
n=1
1107

0930

234

77

43

60

17

Clear

0

0.48

94

Extremely heavy ops on northern horizon and in ABQ in AM hours. Direction of ops is E-W. Aerosol bank extends over Santa Fe region through mid-day. Heavy aerosol ops conducted in SF post 1200.
Notice increased magnetomer activity.

0030 407.8
0915 404.0
1015 404.3
1515 407.2
1815 407.8

0.2
-0.4
0.3
0.6
0.2
RMS=0.4
n=5

1108

0800

259

43

36

40

-20

Mostly Cloudy

75

0.04

18

No ops visible within clear patches.
Storm front negatively impacted w/ aerosol contamination of atmosphere.

0800 407.5
1345 408.3

0.0
0.2
RMS=0.1
n=2

1109

0845

252

81

3

42

2

Rain

100

10

No vertical visibility. Exclude from scoring. Note magnetometer activity. High winds. Heavy rains at night HAARP has no unusual activity; exceptionally flat magnetometer. Conflict between local mag and HAARP again.

0845 411.2
1300 408.8
1715 406.1
2130 402.2
2200 401.0
2400 400.2

0.2
-0.6
-0.6
0.9
2.4
0.4
RMS=1.1
n=6

1110

Rain

100

0.00

10

No vertical visibility. Exclude from scoring.

1111

0830

219

53

33

43

1

Mostly Cloudy

75

0.10

28

No ops visible within clear patches.

0830 408.1

0.2

1112

0900

197

67

25

46

3

Clear

0

0.27

57

No ops in AM. Extremely heavy ops begin at midday in narrow 20 degree band essentially directly overhead. Appears as a target zone. Aerosol bank diffuses overhead in localized region. Extremely heavy ops begin in afternoon and carry through day. Ops visible at night. Emergency broadcast comes on unannounced. Higher threat level implied through this and news accounts.Minimum no. of mag. readings.

0900 407.2
1200 406.8

0.0

1113

0830

155

43

55

49

3

Clear w/exception to heavy ops

0

0.23

50

Extremely heavy ops. Major activity. Minimum no.of mag. readings.

0900 404.0

0.0

1114

0845

182

67

43

55

6

Mostly Cloudy

75

0.11

30

No ops visible. Cloud development significantly degraded by aerosol base. Note low mag reading.

0845 397.6

-0.3

1115

0900

185

89

30

60

5

Clear

0

0.31

64

Direct observations not available. Exclude from scoring.

1116

0900

185

72

25

49

-11

Clear

0

0.16

39

Direct observations not available. Exclude from scoring. Heavy ops in Durango CO.

1117

0900

162

46

42

44

-5

Clear

0

0.18

42

Direct observations not available. Exclude from scoring.ot available. Exclude from scoring. Heavy ops in Durango CO. Heavy ops in ABQ reported.

1118

0900

139

36

25

31

-13

Clear

0

0.10

27

No ops. Increased winds.

0930 396.3

1119

0900

119

43

41

42

11

Clear

0

0.21

47

No ops. Aerosol bank visible on W. horizon in afternoon.

0900 397.5

1120

0930

105

46

32

39

-3

Clear

0

0.13

32

No ops. Solar storm index @100+

0930 403.9

1121

0900

108

51

19

35

-4

Clear

0

0.12

31

No ops.

0900 408.7

1122

0900

143

65

19

42

7

Clear

0

0.22

42

No ops during day. Ops begin at night, visible by moonlight.

1123

0800

124

57

33

45

3

Minimal natural cloud cover; aerosol banks increasing.

0

0.18

42

Heavy ops apparently conducted at night; heavy aerosol bank over ABQ and extending towards Santa Fe. Med op activity overhead. Note earlier active solar storm index on 1120.

0800 403.2

1124

0915

126

44

17

30

-14

Clear

0

0.08

24

No ops.

0915 407.3

1125

0900

120

75

40

58

28

Partly Cloudy; heavy aerosol compent to ‘cloud’ base

50

0.31

52

Heavy ops in mid-day. Numerous reports of heavy activities across country..

1126

0915

106

45

27

36

-22

Mostly Clear; aerosol bank on southern horizon.

25

0.05

18

No ops

0915 403.2

11274

0900

100

63

32

47

11

Clear

0

0.19

44

No ops

0900 403.2


Readers may see that the model over the interval considered is showing a fairly high level of accuracy in predicting when conditions for aerosol operations are more favorable for this region. It is to be understood that the model is NOT expected to predict the actual occurrence of operations; only the existence of favorable conditions for the operations.
A failure of the model occurs when a low index value is computed but observations of heavy aerosol operations occur overhead. Failure can not be positively established when a high index is computed and heavy aerosol operations DO NOT occur, as suitable CONDITIONS only are considered within the model. Specific additional environmental and physical factors that produce failure are to be identified at that time; other citizens may wish to contribute to that goal. Additional evaluations over time will demonstrate the success or failure of this model.

It is of interest to discuss how the consideration of solar activity has come to be incorporated into this model in addition to the previous consideration of relative humidity alone. This brings to attention the events of and surrounding July 27 of this year. Observations of aerosol activity prior to this date, especially during the months of June and the first half of July 2002 appeared to be declining based upon commonly used reporting sources. During the last week of July, this appeared to change as reports suddenly and dramatically increased. On July 27 2002 the following public report was made by Lorie Kramer, a sincere and dedicated activist of Chemtrail Tracking USA:

“BLITZ in SW Houston, Sat Jul 27 2002

This is the absolute WORST spraying I have seen in quite a few months. They are laying it down and have been since early morning. The smear is thicker than I’ve seen for 2 years. INCREDIBLE. I bought a disposable camera but won’t be able to get the film developed until tomorrow or Monday, when I do I’ll post it. CREEPS!”

The same intensity of aerosol operations was further confirmed by simultaneous observations in New Mexico and Colorado from equally reliable sources. One must ask, what was unique in an environmental, meteorological or geophysical sense on or around the date of July 27, 2002 that might affect the sudden increase in intensive operations? One factor which deserves close attention is the daily sunspot number, as it ranked upon this date as one of the highest values seen within recent years. The monthly sunspot number in June had declined to 84.5, one of the lowest values of the three previous years. The daily sunspot number on July 27 reached a peak of 323, and remained at an extremely high level for several days before and after this date. This event, combined with humidity studies during the last year and a half, as well as consideration of the ionization properties of barium (see previous research) is unique enough to warrant further evaluation in the model that has been developed above. Observations over time will determine if the hypothesis of solar energy combined with humidity aspects is justified or not; studies to confirm or refute the model are welcomed by other citizens.


Scoring the model:

There are several different methods by which the model above may be evaluated; a favorable result appears to be produced by a variety of tests at this point. The means that will be chosen to evaluate is Spearman’s correlation, a non-parametric statistical test which does not require any assumptions about the distribution of the data. Spearman’s correlation is dependent upon a ranking system, which is more reasonable in this case to accomodate any subjective qualities of the observational data that is to be used. The following ranking system will be used for the observational data:

0-50 None to light ops
50-80 Light to medium ops
80-100 Medium to heavy ops

The midpoint of these intervals will be used to establish a ranking system. The details of this statistical test will not be explained here; readers may wish to refer to “Practical Statistics” by Russell Langley, Dover, 1970 for further information. The reader is not expected to follow the mechanics of this test procedure without the use of this reference or its equivalent.

The test will be completed as follows for the period from 082102 to 110802 and on 072702, with excluded values as noted above. As the tabulation of all data is lengthy, the only the final tabulations and z score computation will be shown:

n = 68
Sum of D2 = 28264
Ties:

t50 = 1

10412 ( 1) = 10412.5

t9 = 2

60 (2) = 120

t2 = 11

0.5 (11) = 5.5

t3 = 6

2 (6) = 12

t4 = 1

5 ( 1) = 5

 

Sum = 10555

 

D2 + T = 38819
(1 / 6) * (n3 – n) = 54, 740
38819 / 54740 = .709
1 – .709 = .291
Z = 681/2 * (.291) = 2.40
Z is significant at 98% level.

From the reference above (page 204), the z score for this data set is computed at 2.40. The results of this test are therefore significant at the 98%+ level. This indicates a likely significant correlation between the model data and the observational data. Correlation does not infer causality. The results of this test demonstrate that the model proposed is worthy of continued use.

 

DROUGHT INDUCEMENT

DROUGHT INDUCEMENT
Clifford E Carnicom
Apr 02 2002
Edited Apr 07 2002

 

Recent analysis leads to the conclusion that the extensive and systematic aerosol operations that are being conducted without informed consent are aggravating, if not instigating, the elevated drought conditions that are now commonly being observed.

The current discussion centers upon the heat aspects of the atmosphere, which are currently under investigation. This paper will be presented in two sections: an initial general and conceptual statement of the problem and findings, to be followed by a more detailed presentation based upon certain fundamentals of physics, chemistry and mathematics.

In regard to the preliminary discussion, it is necessary to introduce the physical term known as the “specific heat” of a substance. Here is the definition of the specific heat:

The specific heat is the amount of heat required to flow into a substance to produce a one degree rise in temperature.

Comprehension of this definition is helpful to understand the basis of the discussion which follows. Tabulations of specific heats of the elements and various compounds are readily available within reference books. Even more importantly, it is necessary to recognize the practical application of this definition through the following additional statements:

A substance with a high specific heat requires more heat energy to raise its temperature a given amount than one with a low specific heat. Similarly, and conversely, and in particular related to the current discussion, a substance with a lower specific heat will raise higher in temperature with a given amount of heat than a substance with a higher specific heat. This importance of this latter fact will hopefully become apparent to the reader in due course.

The general and conceptual question that arises is this: Given that the air of the earth has a specific heat value, what would be the projected heat effect of introducing metallic particulate aerosols into that atmosphere? And specifically, what would be the projected effect of introducing particulate forms of aluminum, barium, magnesium, titanium and calcium? This itemized list of elemental contributions is of special interest because of both historical and recent investigations that confirm their unexpected presence in our atmosphere in direct association with the advent of the aircraft aerosol operations.

It can be stated that the introduction of the majority of these five elements will have the net effect of increasing the temperature of the atmosphere of this planet. This is a consequence of the specific heat values of the elements under primary consideration. This finding is potentially of the greatest consequence to both the life and welfare of this planet. It is reasonable to conclude that this finding may reveal a direction connection with, or impact upon, the rising prevalence of observed drought conditions. It is hoped that the citizens of this nation and the planet in general will organize to the level of confronting directly the ramifications of the aerosol operations which remain in progress, and to continue to force full disclosure and accountability.

Additional Notes:

Research in the near future will be focused upon the the continued quantitative assessment of physical impact upon the atmosphere and ecosphere. The results presented here are an entirely separate and distinct issue from the moisture absorption or collection properties of the aerosols, as are also commonly observed. Specific heat properties of substances are intrinsic to the nature of the elements themselves. Corrections or modifications to this page will be made as is appropriate.

 

 


Expanded discussion:

The specific heat of a substance (c) is defined as c = dQ/(dT*m), where Q is the amount of heat entering a mass (m) of substance, and the consequent rise in temperature is dT. The SI units of specific heat are kJ / (kg * K) where J refers to joules, kg is kilograms, and K is degrees Kelvin.

The specific heat of air can be taken as 1.003kJ/(kg * K) with little variation amongst the considered pressures or temperatures. This means that approximately 1003 joules of energy are required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of air by one degree Kelvin (or Celsius). For the sake of comparison to more commonly encountered forms of energy and power, a watt is equal to one joule per second.

The above definition can also be manipulated into the form : dT = dQ / (m * c). From this expression, we can see that given a fixed amount of heat flow (dQ), a decreased value for the specific heat (c) will result in a greater rise in temperature (dT). This is especially relevant to the current topic, as the majority of the aerosols under consideration all have a specific heat value less than that of air.

Our interest in evaluating the effect of aerosol introduction upon subsequent increases or decreases in atmospheric temperature lead us to consider the specific heat of a mixture. That is, we must consider the effects of multiple ingredients within a substance, and their effect upon the heat transfer properties of that substance.

The specific heat of a mixture is given by:

cp = sum (mfi * cpi)

where mfi is the mass fraction of the ith component, or contribution to the total. This is defined as:

mfi = mi / m

where mi is the mass of the ith component, and m is the total mass of the mixture.

cpi is the specific heat of the ith component of the mixture, and cp is the specific heat of the mixture.

Let us first consider the specific heat of air alone, which is well established within the references, and which herein a value of 1.003 kJ/ (kg * K) has been assumed. In this presentation, the specific heat of air will be designated as c(a).

Now let us consider an added ingredient to this gas, or air. In particular, this will be an aerosol of a particular element. We will designate the mass of this introduced element as m(e) and the specific heat of this element as c(e). From the definition of the specific heat of a mixture given earlier, we may now write the specific heat of the air combined with the introduced aerosol as:

cp = (m(a) / (m(a) + m(e))) * c(a) + (m(e) / (m(a) + m(e))) * c(e)
What now becomes of interest to us is the ratio of cp to c(a), i.e, the ratio of the specific heat of the combined mixture (air + aerosol) to the specific heat of air itself (cp / c(a)). If this ratio is less than one, it means that the introduction of the aerosol (or element or compound) will cause a greater rise of temperature in the modified atmosphere for a given amount of heat (sunlight) into the system.

 

Let us now form this ratio:

cp / c(a) = ((m(a) / (m(a) + m(e))) * c(a) + (m(e) / (m(a) + m(e))) * c(e)) / c(a)

or

cp / c(a) = (m(a)*c(a) + m(e)*c(e)) / (c(a) * (m(a) + m(e)))

Now our interest lies under what conditions this ratio is less than one, as that will produce a net increase in temperature of the modified air for a given amount of heat. If the ratio were to manifest as greater than one, then the converse would be true. Let us examine the question of under what conditions the ratio becomes less than one:

(m(a) * c(a) + m(e) * c(e)) / (c(a) * (m(a) + m(e)) < 1

or

m(a) * c(a) + m(e) * c(e) < m(a) * c(a) + m(e) * c(a)

or

m(e) * c(e) < m(e) * c(a)

or

c(e) < c(a)

This result is important for the following reason. This result reveals to us that if we were to introduce an element into the atmosphere with a specific heat less than that of air, it would have the net effect of raising the temperature of the modified atmosphere for a given amount of heat (i.e., sun) input into the system (i.e., ecosphere).

Of course, the question that now arises is, what is the specific heat of the elements (as a minimum) that are under consideration? Here are the values for these as well as a few others for us to consider:

Element or Compound

Specific Heat
kJ / (kg * K)

   
Air 1.003
Water 4.184
Ice 2.1
Aluminum 0.92
Barium 0.19
Titanium 0.52
Magnesium 1.02
Calcium 0.65

 

With regard to the elements under examination, we can see that with exception to magnesium, each has a specific heat less than that of air. The current analysis leads us to conclude that the introduction of each of the elements with a specific heat less than that of air would have the effect of increasing the temperature of the modified air for a given amount of heat. We also see, on the contrary, that the introduction of water into the atmosphere, would have a beneficial effect upon heat reduction due to the large value of specific heat.

These results portend significant consequences and ramifications upon the health of this planet and its atmosphere. It is difficult to deny the projected and current influence upon drought conditions for the earth as long as the aerosol operations remain unchecked. It is reiterated that the citizens of this nation and earth have the duty to force full accountability, disclosure and cessation of the aircraft aerosol operations which remain in progress.

 

Authored at Angel Peak, New Mexico
Apr 02 2002

 

 


The following link to The National Drought Mitigation Center
based at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
is provided as a result of research efforts
by a member of the message board
attached to www.carnicom.com

THE DROUGHT MONITOR

Appreciation is extended to this individual for the above contribution.