U.S. Government ordered DHS to work on Manipulating Hurricanes

By MELISSA MELTON | INFOWARS | OCTOBER 31, 2012

While the debate rages regarding whether or not the U.S. government uses weather manipulation technology to steer storms like Hurricane Sandy, further evidence shows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been engaged in research to do just that for years.

In 2008, an article in New Scientist discussed a new DHS project that funded research into guiding and directing the intensity of hurricanes.

Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP) worked with Project Stormfury veteran Joe Golden and a panel of other experts “to test the effects of aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.” HAMP was funded under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million.

In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official memorandum regarding OAR’s review of a “Statement for Work” for HAMP.

Read the memo here.

“While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes,” Spinrad wrote.

He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature’s inherent unpredictability overall. Spinrad also noted that any collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA’s mission (which Spinrad and NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do).

NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes. Recent budget cuts are expected to hit NOAA’s satellite program, the heart of the organization’s weather forecasting system, by $182 million.

Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification programs as if its general, accepted knowledge. Although DHS was turned down, the agency moved ahead with their research without NOAA’s participation.

A paper co-written by several participants in the HAMP project including Joe Golden entitled, “Aerosol Effects and Microstructure on the Intensity of Tropical Cyclones,” was released in the July 2012 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. In conclusion, the authors wrote, “We recommend that hurricane reconnaissance and research airplanes are equipped with aerosol and cloud physics instruments and fly patterns that will allow such measurements.” Drone use in “areas where safety concerns preclude aircraft measurements” was also called for.

The spraying of aerosols into the air, otherwise known by the monicker “chemtrails,” is promoted under the guise of geoengineering with a surface excuse to halt global warming. The practice has been openly called for more and more recently, although the chemtrail phenomenon has already been reported across the globe for years now. In the Environmental Research Letters journal, scientists’ most recent geoengineering proposal detailed an “affordable” $5 billion project wherein airplanes will spray sulfur particles in the atmosphere to cool the planet.

In HAMP’s final report, authors concluded, “Pollution aerosols reduced the cloud drop size and suppressed the warm rain forming processes in the external spiral cloud bands of the storms.” It was also mentioned, “During the past decade it was found that aerosols (including anthropogenic ones) substantially affect cloud microphysics,” proving deliberate chemtrailing has been occurring for at least the past ten years.

Though the paper was labeled “final report,” further journal articles regarding HAMP have been released, and the HAMP project was reportedly not scheduled to end until 2016.

The question remains: With its bizarre combination of elements, was deliberate manipulation through HAMP research at play in Hurricane Sandy?

NASA Satellite Shows That Global Temperatures Continue Their Plunge

by Steven Goddard
Real Science
February 7, 2012

Strange that NASA’s Hansen isn’t talking about this remarkable event. It would be easy to get the impression that he has an agenda which has nothing to do with science.

Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellites

Please move the cursor to the altitude scale along the left side and click the graphic to view the global atmospheric temperature trend for the selected layer in the atmosphere, or choose a layer in the atmosphere from the pulldown menu at the bottom left. You may also view the current global Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) satellite image at many different layers of the atmosphere.

Daily averaged temperatures of the Earth are measured by the AMSU flying on the NOAA-15 satellite. The satellite passes over most points on the Earth twice per day. The AMSU measures the average temperature of the atmosphere in different layers from the surface up to about 135,000 feet or 41 kilometers. During global warming, the atmosphere in the lower atmosphere (called the troposphere) is supposed to warm at least as fast as the surface warms, while the statosphere above the troposphere is supposed to cool much faster than the surface warms.

These pages make extensive use of JavaScript and Java™. If you cannot view the graphs, you must download the latest version of Java from java.com.

What is a brightness temperature? A brightness temperature is a descriptive measure of radiation in terms of the temperature of a hypothetical blackbody emitting an identical amount of radiation at the same wavelength.

The brightness temperature is obtained by applying the inverse of the Planck function to the measured radiation. Depending on the nature of the source of radiation and any subsequent absorption, the brightness temperature may be independent of, or highly dependent on, the wavelength of the radiation.

A more technical description can be found in the Wikipedia article.

Meteorologists Simply Can’t Predict a Hurricane’s Strength

by Seth Borenstein
MyWayNews
August 29, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) – Hurricane Irene was no mystery to forecasters. They knew where it was going. But what it would do when it got there was another matter.

Predicting a storm’s strength still baffles meteorologists. Every giant step in figuring out the path highlights how little progress they’ve made on another crucial question: How strong?

Irene made landfall Saturday morning at Cape Lookout, N.C. – a bull’s-eye in the field of weather forecasts. It hit where forecasters said it would and followed the track they had been warning about for days.

“People see that and assume we can predict everything,” National Hurricane Center senior forecaster Richard Pasch said.

But when Irene struck, the storm did not stick with the forecast’s predicted major hurricane strength winds.

“It’s frustrating when people take our forecasts verbatim and say, ‘This is where it’s going to be at this time and this is how strong it’s going to be,'” Pasch said. “Because even though the track is good it’s not certain.”

But it’s getting there.

By Monday night, five days before Irene first hit the East Coast, the hurricane center figured the storm would come ashore around the North Carolina-South Carolina border. By Tuesday night, they predicted it would rake the coast. And on Friday morning – 24 hours before landfall – they had the storm’s next day location to within 10 miles or so.

Twenty years ago, 24-hour forecasts were lucky if they got it right within 100 miles and the average 36-hour forecast within 146 miles. With Irene, that was about the accuracy of the five-day forecast.

“This is a gold medal forecast,” retired hurricane center director Max Mayfield said. “I don’t think there’s any doubt: I think they saved lives.”

The current director, Bill Read, tried not to sound boastful: “In the big picture of things, it looks like it panned out very well.”

There are two reasons for the steady improvement in forecasts: Better computer models and better data to go into those models. With Irene, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration spent extra money with jet flights and weather balloons across the country to get far more data than usual and it paid off in even better forecasts, Mayfield said.

Irene also was the type of storm that chugs off of Africa that is pretty simple to forecast accurately, said Georgia Tech meteorology professor Judith Curry, who makes private forecasts for energy interests with her firm Climate Forecast Applications Network.

Storms in the Gulf of Mexico are much more fickle, with weaker and less obvious steering currents. In 1985, Hurricane Elena caused evacuation chaos as it threatened to hit western Florida twice, but never did so.

On the negative side, the forecast after Irene hit the Bahamas had it staying as a Category 3 and possibly increasing to a Category 4. But it weakened and hit as a Category 1 storm and stayed that way up the coast until it faded into a tropical storm by the time it reached New York City. It lost strength as it moved north over land and cooler water.

Read said they will go back and figure out what happened, but noted they have made huge strides in projecting where a hurricane will hit. In past storms, they would have issued warnings for Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, but there were no evacuations there for Irene.

“We’re not completely sure how the interplay of various features is causing the strength of a storm to change,” Read said.

One theory is that a storm’s strength is dependent on the storm’s inner core. Irene never had a classic, fully formed eye wall – even going through the Bahamas as a Category 3.

“Why it did that, we don’t know,” Read said. “That’s a gap in the science.”

Georgia Tech’s Curry said one of the main problems is that the giant global computer models that do so well forecasting the track require large scale data. The keys to intensity changes are usually too small for big computer models, she said.

Mayfield says what’s needed is better real-time, small-scale information, like Doppler radar. NOAA used old propeller planes to take Doppler radar data inside Irene, but the information will be used to design better intensity forecasts in the future, he said.

And when it comes to damage from Irene, the problem wasn’t wind strength, but storm surge and flooding, which was the message from forecasters all week long.

Given that the accuracy of forecasting intensity has not changed much at all in 20 years, Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society, said he thought the strength forecast was pretty good.

Coming Solar Storms May Damage Electric Grids

Reuters
August 8, 2011

Three large explosions from the Sun over the past few days have prompted U.S. government scientists to caution users of satellite, telecommunications and electric equipment to prepare for possible disruptions over the next few days.

“The magnetic storm that is soon to develop probably will be in the moderate to strong level,” said Joseph Kunches, a space weather scientist at the Space Weather Prediction Center, a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

He said solar storms this week could affect communications and global positioning system (GPS) satellites and might even produce an aurora visible as far south as Minnesota and Wisconsin.

An aurora, called aurora borealis or the northern lights in northern latitudes, is a natural light display in the sky in the Arctic and Antarctic regions caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere.

Major disruptions from solar activity are rare but have had serious impacts in the past.

In 1989, a solar storm took down the power grid in Quebec, Canada, leaving about six million people without power for several hours.

The largest solar storm ever recorded was in 1859 when communications infrastructure was limited to telegraphs.

The 1859 solar storm hit telegraph offices around the world and caused a giant aurora visible as far south as the Caribbean Islands.

Some telegraph operators reported electric shocks. Papers caught fire. And many telegraph systems continued to send and receive signals even after operators disconnected batteries, NOAA said on its website.

A storm of similar magnitude today could cause up to $2 trillion in damage globally, according to a 2008 report by the National Research Council.

“I don’t think this week’s solar storms will be anywhere near that. This will be a two or three out of five on the NOAA Space Weather Scale,” said Kunches.

SOLAR SCALE

The NOAA Space Weather Scale measures the intensity of a solar storm from one being the lowest intensity to five being the highest, similar to scales that measure the severity of hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.

The first of the three solar explosions from the sun this week already passed the Earth on Thursday with little impact, Kunches said, noting, the second was passing the Earth now and “seems to be stronger.”

And the third, he said, “We’ll have to see what happens over the next few days. It could exacerbate the disturbance in the Earth’s magnetic field caused by the second (storm) or do nothing at all.”

Power grid managers receive alerts from the Space Weather Prediction Center to tell them to prepare for solar events, which peak about every 12 years, Tom Bogdan, director of the center said.

He said the next peak, called a solar maximum, was expected in 2013.

“We’re coming up to the next solar maximum, so we expect to see more of these storms coming from the sun over the next three to five years,” Bogdan said.

Growing threat from solar storms

AP
May 17, 2011

A senior official at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says solar storms pose a growing threat to criticial infrastructure such as satellite communications, navigation systems and electrical transmission equipment.

NOAA Assistant Secretary Kathryn Sullivan says the intensity of solar storms is expected to peak in 2013 and countries should prepare for “potentially devastating effects.”

Solar storms release particles that can temporarily disable or permanently destroy fragile computer circuits.

Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who in 1984 became the first woman to walk in space, told a U.N. weather conference in Geneva on Tuesday that “it is not a question of if, but really a matter of when a major solar event could hit our planet.”