"According to the Associated Press, the American Meteorological Society says no hypothesis for hurricane modification has ever been proven to work. Meteorologists remain intrigued by Dyn-O-Mat's idea, but the field's history of unfulfilled promises has left them wary of Cordani's claims. 'The Dyn-O-Mat folks need to develop a credible scientific hypothesis and move beyond anecdotal accounts [of] 'We dumped the stuff in a cloud, and it went away,' ' says Hugh Willoughby, director of the Hurricane Research Division at the National Oceanic & Atmosphere Administration (NOAA)." http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Chemtrails/Dyn-O-Gel.html
Picture 1: Dr. Hugh Willoughby Picture 2: Patent of Peter Cordani Picture 3: Peter Cordani in front of a company's plane Picture 4: Peter Cordani with Polymer
Hurricanes Ike and Gustav yet again have inflicted varying levels of devastation to two major Gulf Coast cities and their environs. Must we always respond to hurricanes by evacuating millions, then expending billions torestore shattered lives and replace battered property? Instead, why not use Yankee ingenuity to tame Mother Nature, as man has done since he cobbled together the first dam?
I have wondered this since I created my weather-modification project nine years ago. My simple idea has appeared on virtually every major American newschannel. I would air-drop my environmentally friendly, super-absorbent powder on an isolated section of a hurricane's eye-wall. This would soak up huge amounts of moisture on contact and simultaneously cool the storm's coretemperature. This potentially would drain some of its energy and sufficiently disrupt it to lessen its destructive force. Decreasing a hurricane's power byeven one category would save lives and property.
Dr. Hugh Willoughby, former director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division, initially welcomed my idea.
'It has a chance,' Willoughby said on CBS' 'Early Show' on July 7, 2000. 'This one actually is something that we'll take a look at.'
On Willoughby's suggestion, my team and I used an airplane on July 19, 2001 to drop $40,000 worth of my patented powder into a threatening thunderstorm off Florida's east coast. The cloud formation soon vanished. "The people in the tower visually confirmed that there was a tall buildup, and the next moment it was gone" from Doppler radar, Kevin Sullivan, the Palm Beach International Airport's control tower supervisor, told the Associated Press.
Despite this successful demonstration, Willoughby now has become a critic of the very idea that he previously welcomed. Journalists have quoted him invirtually every interview I have given to promote hurricane mitigation.
Willoughby never has visited my laboratory nor seen this idea in action, but has voiced his opinion about it anyway. This has prevented the public from recognizing that there is an alternative to today's policy of pre-emptive surrender to hurricanes.
For instance, Willoughby has told interviewers that slowing a hurricane required 10 aircraft. Then he said 300 planes were necessary. Most recently, he told NBC's Palm Beach affiliate, WPTV: "Basically, it would take more C5As - the military heavy-lift aircraft - than exist in the world by a hugefactor."
Weather modification expert Waylon "Ben" Livingston, a former NOAA projectdirector with a degree in cloud physics, finds this laughable. He believes "seeding" a hurricane requires as few as two small aircraft to drop material into it and decelerate its devastating winds.
My own belief is that eight to 10 powder-filled Boeing 747s would get the job done.
What is the correct answer? No one knows. The way to figure this out isnot with endless debate, but actual field testing. Hurricane reduction should involve NOAA's scientists, military or FEMA pilots, and my hurricane-calmingpowder dropping from those planes into storms. Everybody wins!
Here is what I find most perplexing: Asked the question, 'What do you think of Peter Cordani's idea?' a normal person would reply: 'It may or may not work. But good luck to him. If he succeeds, imagine the benefits to humanity."
Renewed federal interest in this matter suggests that the idea I have pushed since 2001 no longer seems far fetched. Senator Kaye Bailey Hutchison (R- Texas) is seeking $100 million for hurricane-reduction research. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is considering a $1.6 million proposal by University of Colorado professor Joe Golden and his colleagues for hurricane-related lab studies.
Uncle Sam's anti-hurricane efforts remain theoretical. Conversely, WeatherTech is ready to go. Had my team and I received a call, we could have launched planes over the Gulf of Mexico to try to soothe Ike. Think how Galveston might look today with a few trees down and some shutters blown tothe ground, rather than a city reduced to splinters.
Palm Beach inventor and entrepreneur Peter Cordani designed the WeatherTech hurricane-mitigation system (U.S. Patent 6,315,213).
For further information, contact Tom Strenta at 561-531-1085
Ross Gunn and B. B. Phillips, U. S. Weather Bureau AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF AIR POLLUTION ON THE INITIATION OF RAIN in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 14, 1957, 272-280 Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1957)014<0272:AEIOTE>2.0.CO;2
" (...) Which U.S. Agencies might be involved: I can easily identify expertise and capability in the following agencies: (...) 3) There are individual research groups within DOE and NOAA that could make important contributions to modeling, field campaign and measurement programs. (...)" in: House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing “Geoengineering IIe: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges” Thursday, February 4, 2010 Room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building I Written Testimony Dr. Philip Rasch Atmospheric Science and Global Change Division Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington, 99354 page 10 http://www.chemtrails911.com/docs/2010/HearingCharterFeb42010/Hearing_CharterTestimonyRasch.pdf
Individuals Engaged in Weather Modification Activities, COMMERCE/NOAA-8.
System location:
Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 6010 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Md. 20852.
Categories of individuals covered by the system:
Individuals and associations involved in weather modification operations.
Categories of records in the system:
Individual's name and address; type of weather modification activity; location and duration of project; and equipment used.
Authority for maintenance of the system:
Pub. L. 92-205; 15 CFR part 908.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
See routine use paragraphs in the Prefatory Statement. Also information is made available to anyone who so requests to comply with Pub. L. 92-205.
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Storage:
Electronic data base.
Retrievability:
Filed sequentially by name.
Safeguards:
Records are located on an electronic data base with full public access upon request to comply with Pub. L. 92-205.
Retention and disposal:
Records are maintained indefinitely.
System manager(s) and address:
Office of the Director, Office of Weather Modification, see above address.
Notification procedure:
Information may be obtained from: Director, Office of Administration, NOAA, Room 6863, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Washington, DC 20230. Requester should provide name, address, date(s) of project etc., pursuant to the inquiry provisions of the Department's rules which appear in 15 CFR part 4b.
Record access procedures:
Requests from individuals should be addressed to: Same address as stated in the notification section above.
Contesting record procedures:
The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4b. Use above address.
"Monica Medina Appointed U.S. Commissioner to International Whaling Commission Will lead delegation to June meeting in Morocco
February 19, 2010
Monica Medina, Commerce Department principal deputy under secretary for oceans and atmosphere, has been appointed the U.S. commissioner for the International Whaling Commission by President Barack Obama.
The U.S. commissioner serves as the head of the U.S. delegation to meetings of the IWC and leads negotiations on issues related to the commission. Medina will lead the delegation at the next IWC annual meeting in Agadir, Morocco in June.
Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Medina served as a senior officer in the Pew Environment Group, where she provided advice and assistance on issues of marine law and policy. She previously was the deputy director of the U.S. Office of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. She also spent four years as a partner at Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, with a practice focused on environmental law, corporate law, and biotechnology matters.
From 1992 through 1999, Medina held a number of positions in the Clinton Administration and on Capitol Hill, including NOAA General Counsel from 1997 to 1999, where she represented the United States in several international negotiations, and argued significant cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Before joining NOAA, Medina served as Deputy Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, with oversight of the environment division. Earlier, she was a senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Founded in 1946, the IWC normally meets once a year to review the condition of whale stocks and to modify conservation measures as appropriate. The commission has used various means of regulating commercial whaling including a moratorium, establishment of open and closed seasons, open and closed areas, protection of certain species, size limits for each species, and limits on the catch of whales in any one season.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. Visit us on Facebook." http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100219_medina.html
" (...) While the National Academy agreed that people can affect the weather, its 2003 study cited a lack of "unequivocal scientific evidence" that weather modification did it. On the other hand, statements by the American Meteorological Society and others support the effectiveness of winter cloud-seeding projects, crediting them with adding 5 percent to 20 percent to snowfall in target watersheds, which then melts into reservoirs.
Research involving computer modeling might help decide the issue. It would be the case for dealing with thunderstorms on the Great Plains, but especially so when considering something like a hurricane.
'There's a real clear model for convincing people,' said Willoughby, the former NOAA Hurricane Research Division director. 'Go in a model and tweak the innards to simulate an effect. It's not as much fun as climbing into a plane, flying into a hurricane and dumping the stuff into the clouds, but it could be really convincing if it's done right.' (...)" http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...n-hurricane-atmospheric-administration/2
THE RISE AND FALL OF HAMP William R. Cotton*1, William L. Woodley2, Isaac Ginis3, Joseph H. Golden4, Alexander Khain5, and Daniel Rosenfeld5 1Dept of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA 2Woodley Weather Consultants, Littleton, CO 80127 USA 3 Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882 USA 4Golden Consulting Group, San Ramon, CA 94583 USA 5Institute of Earth Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904 Israel http://earth.huji.ac.il/data/file/danny/126_Cotton_JWM_2011.PDF
"If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. {6.5, 7.7}" http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf page 29
One sentence before the IPCC-report pretends that SRM is not realized yet: "Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification." http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf page 29
"NOAA study: Increase in particles high in Earth’s atmosphere has offset some recent climate warming July 21, 2011
A recent increase in the abundance of particles high in the atmosphere has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade, according to a new study led by NOAA and published today in the online edition of Science.
In the stratosphere, miles above Earth’s surface, small, airborne particles reflect sunlight back into space, which leads to a cooling influence at the ground. These particles are also called “aerosols," and the new paper explores their recent climate effects -- the reasons behind their increase remain the subject of ongoing research.
“Since the year 2000, stratospheric aerosols have caused a slower rate of climate warming than we would have seen without them,” says John Daniel, a physicist at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo. and an author of the new study.
The new study focused on the most recent decade, when the amount of aerosol in the stratosphere has been in something of a “background” state, lacking sharp upward spikes from very large volcanic eruptions. The authors analyzed measurements from several independent sources – satellites and several types of ground instruments – and found a definitive increase in stratospheric aerosol since 2000.
“Stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade,” Daniel said. “The increase in aerosols since 2000 implies a cooling effect of about 0.1 watts per square meter – enough to offset some of the 0.28 watts per square meter warmingeffect from the carbon dioxide increase during that same period.”
The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles.
Daniel and colleagues with NOAA, CIRES, the University of Colorado, NASA, and the University of Paris used a climate model to explore how changes in the stratosphere’s aerosol content could affect global climate change – both in the last decade, and projected into the future. The team concluded that models miss an important cooling factor if they don’t account for the influence of stratospheric aerosol, or don’t include recent changes in stratospheric aerosol levels.
Moreover, future global temperatures will depend on stratospheric aerosol. The warming from greenhouse gases and aerosols calculated for the coming decade can vary by almost a factor of two — depending on whether aerosols continue to increase at the same rate as over the past decade, or if instead they decrease to very low levels, such as those experienced in 1960.
If stratospheric aerosol levels continue to increase, temperatures will not rise as quickly as they would otherwise, said Ellsworth Dutton, also with NOAA ESRL and a co-author on the paper. Conversely, if stratospheric aerosol levels decrease, temperatures would increase faster. Dutton and his colleagues use the term “persistently variable” to describe how the background levels of aerosol in Earth’s stratosphere can change from one decade to the next, even in the absence of major volcanic activity.
Ultimately, by incorporating the ups and downs of stratospheric aerosols, climate models will be able to give not only better estimates of future climate change, but also better explanations of past climate changes.
“The ‘background’ stratospheric aerosols are more of a player than we thought,” said Daniel. “The last decade has shown us that it doesn’t take an extremely large volcanic eruption for these aerosols to be important to climate.”
Authors of the paper are: Susan Solomon, University of Colorado; John Daniel, Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory; Ryan Neely, CIRES-University of Colorado and NOAA-ESRL; J.P. Vernier, NASA-Langley Research Center and University of Paris; Ellsworth Dutton, Global Monitoring Division of NOAA-ESRL; and Larry Thomason, NASA-Langley.
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Facebook, Twitter and our other social media channels." http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html
"The major ICAS activity for September was sponsorship of the 17th Annual Interagency Conference on Weather Modification. The meeting, hosted by NOAA, was held on 13-15 September at the Sheraton-Fontainebleau Inn, Ocean City, Md. The General Chairman was Dr. Ronald L. Lavoie, NOAA. (...)" in: Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol. 57, No. 11, November 1976 page 1360-61 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1021346952 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477-57.11.1360
ICAS is the acronym for "Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences"
