The Chemtrail Smoking Gun - Proof of Global Geoengineering Projects 
From: Rocky Ward 
        
      The Chemtrail Smoking Gun - Proof of Global Geoengineering
ProjectsFor the past few years investigators and researchers have been
searching for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail
spraying.
        If one searches GoogleN ews for articles on chemtrails in (with
4500 periodicals represented) not one article will be found. 
     There is simply no coverage on this topic in the mainstream media.
Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government
involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy
making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the
classification of 'Geoengineering.' This is the chemtrail smoking gun we
have been looking for. Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the
National Academy of Sciences, a monumental and in-depth study on global
warming and possible corrective measures (mitigations) was undertaken in
the early 1990s. Represented were senior researchers, faculty,
theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO's from a
multitude of prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard, General
Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center
for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations,
Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown
University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more. This colossal
study recalls the scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan Project,
yet the goals and eventual impacts of it are far greater. The Chemtrail
Smoking Gun Proof of global atmospheric geoengineering by: Bruce Conway 
"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt in
your philosophy." - Shakespeare 
      Five years ago I founded the Chemtrails Hall of Shame web site to
document and investigate the elusive Chemtrail spraying operations in
the skies above my home in the Pacific NW. The site can be found at:
http://www.lightwatcher.com/ During this time I have had the opportunity
to work with and befriend several of the luminaries within this field of
investigation: Diane Harvey, Brian Holmes and a very special
investigator who chooses to remain anonymous in this article. Each of
these individuals has contributed greatly to the subject, keeping this
topic alive within the alternative media . These chemtrail s praying
programs, which are apparently being conducted on a worldwide basis, are
evident to anyone who has the desire to look up and perceive the
evidence. Yet, definitive proof has remained elusive. Total denial by
governmental authorities, the shunning of this topic by mainstream
media, the systematic discreditation of researchers, ongoing cover-ups
by the scientific establishment, and a coordinated systematic policy of
disinformation has relegated this topic to the realm of fantasy and
paranoid delusion. Regardless, it continues to go on above our heads,
and has now grown to become the largest coordinated global engineering
project in the history of our species. How can I make such a
preposterous claim? B rian Holmes of http://www.holmestead.ca/ has
investigated these eco-crimes for the past several years. Because of his
efforts, many within Canada and on the net have become aware of the
ongoing spraying operations. Like other serious investigators who have
studied this phenomena, Brian's work has been maligned, and there are
ongoing attempts to discredit him and his sources. 
Some months ago, a Chemtrail insider that Brian nicknamed 'Deep Shield'
came forward with specific and detailed information about this
mysterious program, corresponding with him via e-mail. A transcript of
the communications with Deep Shield and the Shield Project can be read
online at: http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html. For
those of us who have studied chemtrails carefully, the rev ealing dialog
rang of the truth. Since then we have been able to study, and verify a
number of Deep Shield's primary claims. The anonymous insider gave
Brian's readers some valuable clues to follow if they wished to
investigate deeper into the history and hard science of chemtrails. A
primary clue was to investigate the term 'geoengineering.' One
investigator took the clues provided by 'Deep Shield' and dug in. She
eventually found an N.A.S. study on Geoengineering and the Mitigation of
Global Warming. This study is still available online and is also
available in hardcover. This massive document validates the insider
information provided by Deep Shield, and has lead to an additional gold
mine of evidence. This massive research study is entitled: Policy
Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the
Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming,
sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The results were presented
in 1992 and published in book form in 2000 by the National Academy
Press. This 994 page study is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global
warming, policy decisions and mitigation's (corrective measures).
Included within is the hard science many chemtrails researchers have
been searching for: the scientists, agencies, institutions and
corporations involved, cost factors, chemical formula, mathematical
modeling, delivery methods, policies, recruiting of foreign governments,
acquisition of materials, and the manuf acturing of aerosol compounds,
etc. Policy Implications of Global Warming This entire volume can
presently be read online at:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html. Keep in mind that
this study is only the tip of the iceberg. Literally hundreds of papers
on related topics have been published in scientific journals. We don't
expect this featured study to remain online for long once the cat is out
of the bag. So do check it out soon. The full involvement of foremost
government agencies, research firms, universities and private
corporations are detailed in this global 'geoengineering' study. Keep in
mind that this was approved by and funded by Congress. We expect that
this documentation will bolster the beliefs of most hardcore chemtrail
believers. It will also continue to undermining what little trust still
remains in our leaders and their institutions. This documentation proves
that they have lied repeatedly about their involvement and the existence
of chemtrail spraying programs. It also appears that we 'Chemtrail'
investigators have been chasing our tails, being intentionally
discredited, maligned, and fed disinformation to keep the actual truth
just below the levels of media perception. The real story has been
taking place in broad daylight, safely concealed under the scientific
umbrella of 'Geoengineering and intentio nal climate change.' Chemtrails
are just one of the 'mitigations' proposed to Geoengineering our planet.
Once we began sifting through the numerous studies, experiments and
papers written on intentional climate change, we found a wealth of
supporting evidence of well funded global atmospheric modification
programs. One such paper is Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two (Jay Michaelson,
published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January, 1998) The
author makes a very convincing case for the pressing need of undertaking
geoengineering projects. He argues that regulation, environmental laws
and other stumbling blocks limit our ability to directly address the
dangers that threaten us directly and immediately. He writes: "The
projected insufficiency of Kyoto's emission reduction regime, and the
problems of absence, cost, and incentives discussed in part II, cry out
for an alternative to our present state of climate change policy
myopia." "Geoengineering--intentional, human-directed manipulation of
the Earth's climatic systems--may be such an alternative. This part
proposes that, unlike a regulatory "Marshall Plan" of costly emissions
reductions, technology subsidies, and other mitigation measures, a
non-regulatory "Manhattan Project" geared toward developing feasible
geoengineering remedies for climate change can meaningfully close the
gaps in global warming and avert many of its most dire consequences."
"In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved
from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy
journals. [FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on
the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating
phytoplankton growth with iron "fertilizer" in parts of the Earth's
oceans. [FN128] Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106
artificial "Mount Pinatubos" by allowing airplanes to release dust
particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse-
arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. [FN129]" pp. 105-106,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project." In Policy
Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the
Science Bases conclusio n, the N.A.S. found that the most effective
global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective
aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and
private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create
a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet's albedo
(reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides,
and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere. This
method was the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It
could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental
protection and regulatory entanglements. 
It is evident to anyone who care s to look up, that this mitigation is
now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that
our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project;
one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider
these to be acceptable losses. This landmark study; the widespread
experimentation and published papers of atmospheric theorists and
scientists, combined with the visual evidence that atmospheric
mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that
Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming
mitigation. The evidence is all around us. For example; this past week
Boeing Aircraft received an enormous initial order from the Pentagon for
100 Boeing 767 tanker planes, to begin replacing the Air Force's aging
fleet of KC-135s, the most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane. The
final order will exceed 500 planes. There has been no mention of the
usage of these aircraft. Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a
staggering scale, without the impediment of environmental laws or
regulatory constraints. This grand experiment is being conducted in full
view, while being concealed in plain sight. The following excerpts
detail the preferred geoengineering Mitigations for reducing greenhouse
gasses, global warming and radiation from space. Quoted from: Policy
Impli cations of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the
Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming
Evaluating Geoengineering Options "Several geoengineering options appear
to have considerable potential for offsetting global warming and are
much less expensive than other options being considered. Because these
options have the potential to affect the radiative forcing of the
planet, because some of them cause or alter a variety of chemical
reactions in the atmosphere, and because the climate system is poorly
understood, such options must be considered extremely carefully. These
options might be needed if greenhouse warming occurs, climate
sensitivity is at the high end of the range considered in this report,
and other efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions fail." "The first
set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust
or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set
changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through
carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter." "The
stratospheric particle options should be pursued only under extreme
conditions or if additional research and development removes the concern
about these problems. The cloud stimulation option should be examined
further and could be pursued if concerns about acid rain could be
managed through the choice of materials for cloud condensation nuclei or
by careful management of the system. The third class increases ocean
absorption of CO2 through stimulatin g growth of biological organisms."
Screening Out Some Sunlight "Another option for mitigating a global
warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by
limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun. This could be
done by increasing the reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the albedo.
Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and surface features
would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar radiation
reaches the earth's surface and a purposeful change in albedo would have
more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan
(1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is
sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in
the atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could
involve changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take
the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many
''mirrors" or a cloud of dust. Preliminary characterizations of some of
the possibilities that might be considered are provided below." 
Stratospheric Dust "Although the space dust option does not appear to be
sensible, computations of the residence times of 0.2-µm dust above 20
to 40 km are of the order of 1 to 3 years (Hunten, 1975). It seems to be
generally accepted that volcanic aerosols remain in the stratosphere for
several years (Kellogg and Schneider, 1974; Ramaswamy and Kiehl, 1985).
A screen could be created in the stratosphere by adding more dust to the
natural stratospheric dust to increase its net reflection of sunlight."
Mass Estimates "Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust
loading of 0.2 g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 µm increases
the planetary albedo by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease
of solar flux reaching the surface. Since an approximately 1 percent
change in solar flux is required, and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest
that, at these loadings, the dust effects may reasonably be extrapolated
downward linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust loading of
0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26 µm." "The dust in Ramaswamy
and Kiehl's model is distributed between 10 and 30 km in the
stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on radiative
forcing of a global distribution of additional dust would be somewhat
greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight is
effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease slightly the
equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have some effect on
weather intensity. Presumably, this effect can also be studied with
global climate models." Delivery Scenarios "Aircraft Exhaust Penner et
al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the
commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and
100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change
the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an
equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine
combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of
commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using
Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck,
1979a, 1984), th ey estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ´ 1010 kg
of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based
upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent
of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot,
over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be
emitted. However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate
above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the
operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years." 
"An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to
carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute
it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assump tion is made that the same
amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the
tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere).
The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above
about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well
to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The
altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year."
"In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and
express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904
million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly
more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission
requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the
delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the differ ence between
English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be
delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as
soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required."
"The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances
at the same effective rate should be investigated." 
Changing Cloud Abundance - The Approach "Independent studies estimated
that an approximately 4 percent increase in the coverage of marine
stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient to offset CO2 doubling (Reck,
1978; Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989) suggests that the average
low-cloud reflectivity could be increased if the abundance of cloud
condensation n uclei (CCN) increased due to emissions of SO2. It is
proposed that CCN emissions should be released over the oceans, that the
release should produce an increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo
only, and that the clouds should remain at the same latitudes over the
ocean where the surface albedo is relatively constant and small."
"Albrecht (1989) estimates that a roughly 30 percent increase in CCN
would be necessary to increase the fractional cloudiness or albedo of
marine stratocumulus clouds by 4 percent. Albrecht's idealized
stratocumulus cloud, which he argues is typical, has a thickness of 375
m, a drizzle rate of 1 mm per day, and a mean droplet radius of 100 mm,
and he assumes that each droplet is formed by the coalescence of 1000
smaller droplets. The rate at which the CCN are depleted by his model is
1000/cm3 per day. Consequently, a bout 300/cm3 per day (30 percent of
1000) of additional CCN would have to be discharged per day at the base
of the cloud to maintain a 4 percent increase in cloudiness. This
assumes that the perturbed atmosphere would also remain sufficiently
close to saturation in the vicinity of the CCN that additional cloud
cover would be formed every time the number of CCN increased." 
Mass Estimates of Cloud Condensation Nuclei "With Albrecht's assumption
in mind that cloudiness in a typical ocean region is limited by the
small number of CCN, we now extrapolate to the entire globe. On the
average, 31.2 percent of the globe is covered by marine stratiform
clouds (Charlson et al., 1987). If no high-level clouds are present, the
number n of CCN that need to be added per day is 1.8 ´ 1025 CCN/day.
The mass of a CCN is equal to 4/3pr3 ´ density, an d it is assumed
that the mean radius r is equal to 0.07 ´ 10-4 cm (Charlson et al.,
1987). Because the density of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is 1.841 g/cm3, the
CCN mass is 2.7 ´ 10-15 g. The total weight of H2SO4 to be added per
day is 31 ´ 103 t per day SO2 if all SO2 is converted to H2SO4 CCN. To
put this number in perspective, a medium-sized coal-fired U.S. power
plant emits about this much SO2 in a year. Consequently, the equivalent
emissions of 365 U.S. coal-burning power plants, distributed
homogeneously, would be needed to produce sufficient CCN." 
"Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud condensation nuclei appears to
be a feasible and low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate any
quantity of CO2 equivalent per year. Details of the cloud physics,
verification of the amount of CCN to be added for a particular de gree
of mitigation, and the possible acid rain or other effects of adding CCN
over the oceans need to be investigated before such system is put to
use. Once a decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and
begin to operate in a year or so, and mitigation effects would be
immediate. If the system were stopped, the mitigation effect would
presumably cease very rapidly, within days or weeks, as extra CCN were
removed by rain and drizzle." "Several schemes depend on the effect of
additional dust compounds in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere
screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere
by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or
being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear
feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much
CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot,
to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited,
at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.)
Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two
of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately.
Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped,
mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot)
delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust
delivered to the midstratosphere." 
"Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice until
shortly before they were needed for mitigation, although research to
understand their effects, as well as design and engineering work, should
be done now so that it will be kn own whether these technologies are
available if wanted." "Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is
the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options
might be implemented." 
(end of excerpts) 
Following is a partial list of those involved in this monumental study:
(former Senator) DANIEL J. EVANS (Chairman), Chairman, Daniel J. Evans
& Associates, Seattle, WashingtonROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS, Secretary,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. GEORGE F. CARRIER, T.
Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Emeritus, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of
Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts ROBERT A.
FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren,
Michigan THOMAS H. LEE, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World
Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM D. NORDHAUS, Professor of
Economics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut GORDON H. ORIANS,
Professor of Zoology and Director of the Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of Washington, Seattle STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head,
Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder, Colorado MAURICE STRONG, Secretary General, United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, New York (resigned
from panel February 1990) 
SIR CRISPIN TICKELL, Warden, Green College, Oxford, England VICTORIA J.
TSCHINKEL, Senior Consultant, Landers, Parsons and Uhlfelder,
Tallahassee, Florida PAUL E. WAGGO NER, Distinguished Scientist, The
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven PETER BREWER,
Executive Director, Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research Center, Pacific
Grove, California RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 
ROBERT CRANDALL, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT EVENSON, Professor of Economics, Yale University, Economic Growth
Cente r, New Haven, Connecticut DOUGLAS FOY, Executive Director,
Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts ROBERT A. FROSCH,
Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan
RICHARD GARWIN, Fellow, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown
Heights, New York, and Adjunct Professor of Physics, Columbia
University, New York JOSEPH GLAS, Director, Vice President, and General
Manager, Fluorochemicals Divisio n, E.I. du Pont, Wilmington, Delaware
KAI N. LEE, Professor and Director, Center for Environmental Studies,
Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts GREGG MARLAND, Scientist,
Environmental Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World
Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD, Professor of
Physics, University of California, Berkeley, and D irector, Center for
Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California
EDWARD S. RUBIN, Professor, Mechanical Engineering and Public Policy,
and Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies,
Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania MILTON RUSSELL,
Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, and Collaborating Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary
Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder,
Colorado EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF, Professor of Political Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge THOMAS H. STIX,
Professor, Department of Astrophysics and Plasma Physics Laboratory,
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey EDITH BROWN WEISS, Professor
of Law, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (resigned from panel
October 1990) GEORGE F. CARRIER (Chairman), T. Jefferson Coolidge
Professor of Applied Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts WILFRIED BRUTSAERT, Professor of Hydrology, Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York ROBERT
D. CESS, Leading Professor, State University of New York, Stony Brook
HERMAN CHERNOFF, Professor of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts ROBERT E. DICKINSON, Professor, Institute of Atmospheric
Physics, Department of Atmos pheric Sciences, University of Arizona,
Tucson JOHN IMBRIE, H.L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography, Department
of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
THOMAS B. KARL, Meteorologist, Climate Research and Applications,
National Climate Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina MICHAEL C.
MacCRACKEN, Physicist and Division Leader, Atmospheric and Geophysical
Sciences, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California,
Livermore BERRIEN MOORE, Professor and Director, Institute for the Study
of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham Staff
ROB COPPOCK, Staff Director DEBORAH D. STINE, Staff Officer NANCY A.
CROWELL, Administrative Specialist MARION R. ROBERTS, Administrative
Secretary Papers of special interest to Chemtrail Investigators Jay
Michaelson 1998 Geoengineering: A climate change Manhattan Project -
Stanford Environmental Law Journal January -
http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two Edward Teller (director
emeritus, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), "The Planet Needs a
Sunscreen" Wall Street Journal, October 17, 1997. -
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html Climate Change 2001:
Working Group III: Mitigation - by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm
Ramanathan, V. 1988. The greenhouse theory of climate change: A test by
an inadvertent experiment. Science 243:293-299
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html Schimel, D., D.
Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos, D. Raynaud, T., Wigley, M.
Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, E. Sanheuza, X., Zhou, P.
Jonas, R. Charlson, H. Rodhe, S., Sadasivan, K. P. Shine, Y. Fouquart,
V. Ramaswamy, S. Solomon, J., Srinivasan, D. Albritton, I. Isaksen, M.
Lal, and D. Wuebbles, 1996: Radiative forcing of climate change. In
Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 69-131.
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html Ramaswamy, V.,
R. J. Charlson, J. A. Coakley, J. L. Gras, Harshvardhan, G. Kukla, M. P.
McCormick, D. Moller, E. Roeckner, L. L. Stowe, and J. Taylor, 1995:
Group report: what are the observed and anticipated meteorological and
climatic responses to aerosol forcing? In Aerosol Forcing of Climate,
Vol. 20. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 386-399.
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html Ramaswamy, V.,
1988: Aerosol radiative forcing and model responses. In Aerosols and
Climate, A. Deepak Pub lishing, 349-372
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.htm Ramaswamy, V.,
and J. T. Kiehl. 1985. Sensitivities of the radiative forcing due to
large loadings of smoke and dust aerosols. Journal of Geophysical
Research 90(D3):5597-5613.
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html Reck, R. A.
1984. Climatic Impact of Jet Engine Distribution of Alumina (Al2O3):
Theoretical Evidence for Moderation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Effects.
Report GMR-4740. Warren, Mich.: General Motors Research Laboratories,
and paper presented to the American Geophysi cal Union, San Francisco,
Calif., December 1984. Hunten, D. M. 1975. Residence times of aerosols
and gases in the stratosphere. Geophysical Research Letters 2(1):26-27.
Mueller, A. C., and D. J. Kessler. 1985. The effects of particulates
from solid rocket motors fired in space. Advances in Space Research
5(2):77-86.