Weather and Climate Control a Reality?  by Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants,  April 2017.   Email


Inadvertent and planned weather, climate and hydrology control is discussed.  Despite claims to the contrary, powerful electromagnetic  signals may be able to influence the weather via AGWS although not presently predictively on a 3D small grid scale.      

Aviation contrails have highly predictable effects provided ice crystal shape and size distribution is controlled.  They can be used for both cooling and hydrology control.

However the downside is that flying in the northern Jetstream Leads to its instability and to artic warming. A new energetic hypothesis is developed which confirms the fears of     Boucher,



To achieve simultaneous control of  the weather in every quarter of the globe in a closed loop feedback engineering sense might never actually be possible.   Firstly, the world and its meteorological system is not entirely closed loop  and secondly we have not yet the technology to monitor and effect changes in small enough 3D grids, see also      


However, set against this we can be fairly certain the world has had neither natural weather nor a natural climate possibly since the discovery of agriculture and most certainly since the industrial revolution.  Further, the   most dramatic  changes  seem to have occurred since the use of large    scale electricity power transmission  grids    and  with the explosively accelerating era of international jet aviation.  This is suggestive that electrical and aviation technologies ought to be adaptable at least in some sense to take control of certain aspects of weather and climate in certain places of the globe.


Electricity grids  emit power line harmonics  shown to enhance significantly the precipitation of 2-keV electrons over the eastern parts of the American continents near L 4. Some mid-latitude hiss bands appear to consist of sets of magnetospheric lines and their associated triggered emissions, see Helliwell et al (1975).    Solar atmospheric coupling by electrons and stratospheric gases has been shown to be a major mode of solar to atmosphere (weather) coupling  by Callis et al (1998).  


In 2012. I published an online paper,   Global Climate Change, natural, inadvertent and planned controls some unsung concepts.  By Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants.  E-mail

 paper I discussed inter-alia the possibility of inadvertent and intentional weather control using electromagnetic  means.   I  also discussed unintentional weather modification as a result of upwelling AGW’s and infrasound arising from windfarms.   Since wind farms appear  at least for the time being to be here to stay I would expect  long term climate impact as well as local weather effects. 


Further  in  2013,  I discussed unexpected effects of aviation and shipping on climate stabilisation.     I have also commented on an unexpected effect of increasing lightning  frequency, i.e.  causing negative climate feedback.  Indeed with the exception of the early predictive paper by Eschenbach (2010), ‘The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis: How Clouds and Thunderstorms Control the Earth's Temperature’ I am the only author to support Eschenbach  and do so by my NOx hypothesis.  Toumi (2012) reaches exactly the opposite and in my opinion erroneous conclusion by only discussing Ozone generation.   I would add an extra mechanism by which lightning storms stabilise temperature via AGW.  AGW then  allow more      ice-supersaturated regions (ISSRs)      to form and provided either sub-visible cirrus or persistent contrail cirrus with predominantly small ( <10 micron) ice crystals form additional negative forcing occurs. 


Whether these mechanism are sufficient to totally stabilise climate remains to be seen. 



Hence, despite the recent hiatus in climate warming  and the coldest winter in Europe for many decades, globally 2016 was still classed as the warmest year on record since modern weather records  began.    I still predict further cooling in the next 20- 40 years or so in line with my prevoius published works (refs), and the dominance of solar geomagnetic effects.  


However, ultimately the solar geomagnetic   cooling trend may end and, potentially,  anthropogenic warming may well re-ensue.  In the meantime human kind will have time to plan climate mitigation strategies. One such very important strategy is to achieve carbon neutrality because this also reduces ocean acidification.  However, since there are other greenhouse gases in the equation this may not be sufficient, especially taken with the unknown and potential warming effect of windfarms.     In which case we will have to plan and prepare for geo-engineering.  


There are numerous proposals for geoengineering.  SRM ( solar radiation management) via stratospheric particle   injection appears from the literature  to be one of the most highly researched and theoretically muted strategies.   To me, however, such  particle injection proposals and ocean seeding seem the most ludicrous and dangerous.   The standard particle injection protocol proposed is the use of sulphate aerosol.     Anthropogenic stratospheric aerosol injection would cool the planet, stop the melting of sea ice and land-based glaciers, slow sea level rise, and increase the terrestrial carbon sink, but  the downside  would be the production of  regional drought, ozone depletion, less sunlight for solar power, and less blue skies, less UVB hence less vitamin D for people, hence more illness and cancer. Furthermore it would hamper Earth-based optical astronomy, do nothing to stop ocean acidification, and present many ethical and moral issues.  It would also cost billions of dollars.  According to Robok et al ( 2009), further work is needed to quantify many of these factors to allow informed decision-making.


Recently it has also been proposed to release electrostatic or magnetic nanoparticles into the atmosphere and rely on photophoretic lofting to lift them into the stratosphere and the geomagnetic filed to move them to the poles at a cost of between .1 and 1% GDP, see Keith (2010).      It is particularly disturbing that Alumina and Barium Titotanate  have been  suggested as possible candidates for such particles.   For example,   alumina nanoparticles can elicit a proinflammatory response and thus present a cardiovascular disease risk, see Oersterling et al (2008).  They also produce immune effects in brain cells, see Li et al (2009).  Nano-alumina is toxic in both cell culture and animal models (mouse)  and that prolonged exposure may heighten the chances of developing a neurodegenerative disease, such as AD, see  Shah et al (2015).  


 Barium titonate in nano forms   also has toxic effects as demonstrated  by size dependent toxicity effects on Chlorella vulgaris green algae, see Polonini et al (2015).  These particles probably interact with biology because of their peculiar piezoelectric and magnetic properties.  


Another method of geo-engineering is marine cloud whitening, by for instance ship tracks has been suggested as a means of causing climate cooling by increased cloud albedo. Alternatively this could be done by spraying salt spray into marine clouds.     I have supported the notion of ship use in the past (ref).  However, a more comprehensive study shows that although local effects can be very dramatic, for example   for some regions of the west coast of North America the RF due to ship tracks can be up to −0.05 Wm−2. However, because of the small global coverage of ship tracks (0.002%), the global annual mean RF due to ship tracks is small (−0.4 mWm−2), see Schereier et al (2007). 


 So if not SRM or ships, how is weather and climate control a realisable reality?


Whatever we do, if we do it locally and on a small  geo-temporal scale this is weather control.  If  it is done globally for sustained times or is done in a part of the globe   which affects the whole globe and for a sustained time scale it becomes climate control. 

Several countries now have ‘bureaus of weather’  offering to mitigate fogs, hail and rain and/or to guarantee dry weather for certain events.  


The question is ‘ Is larger scale weather control  or  seasonal or periodic control as in change of actual climate really possible?’  


Indeed, if we think objectively,  anthropogenic climate control is already happening and has been  since the respective dawns  of agriculture, the industrial revolution, electric power distribution at grid scales, more latterly aviation and most recently of all wind farms.  Even so the solar (geomagnetic Ap) signal which controls GCR particle precipitation still shows through, due to enormous and manifold amplification processes ionosphere to stratosphere and stratosphere to troposphere.       


To me it seems almost futile arguing over the contribution of CO2 to climate change because our knowledge is changing so fast that not everybody can ever be properly informed.  For example CO2 may still be being released from the oceans following earlier warming periods hundreds or even thousands of years ago (refs).  Perhaps this means that at least for the moment sustained geo-engineering methods for climate control which are not easily reversed, such as particle injections,  should never be used, in case we over cook the books.     For example, since my previous (2012)  paper there is a considerable extra body of information on sources and sinks of CO2 and feedback mechanisms pertinent thereto.  The present author does not dispute that CO2 has the potential to be a greenhouse driver, however, to reiterate what I have previously shown elsewhere and above. other factors such as aviation and geomagnetic control of  our climate presently seem to more adequately explain what is seen, especially in Europe.     


Water vapour for instance in terms of its infra-red absorbance has the potential to cause many  times the greenhouse  effect of CO2 and yet has only recently entered into the great climate debate.    Stratospheric water vapour concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Solomon et al ( 2010)  show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapour probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. Their findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an extremely important driver of decadal global surface climate change, more so than CO2.  Rosenlof et al consider ten data sets covering the period 1954–2000 are analyzed to show a 1%/yr increase in stratospheric water vapor. The trend has persisted for at least 45 years, hence is unlikely the result of a single event, but rather indicative of long-term climate change. A long-term change in the transport of water vapor into the stratosphere is the most probable cause.   Schmidt et al (2010) conclude that clouds and water vapour per se are responsible for up to 50%   of climate greenhouse sensitivity. 


The dryness of the stratosphere has been explained, in general terms, as water condensation from the rising branch of the Hadley cell at the tropical tropopause (Brewer, 1949), but Ellsaesser (1974) suggested that the mean tropical tropopause is not cold enough to account for the observed water vapour mixing ratios.  During intense thunderstorms that in part penetrate the tropopause, investigators have observed (1) an increase in local stratospheric water vapour and (2) the temporary presence of air parcels substantially colder than and higher than the tropopause. These cold parcels are calculated to have extremely low water vapour mixing ratios, and their occurrence in the stratosphere suggests a mechanism whereby the effective condensation temperature could be systematically colder than the tropopause. Ice crystals from the cloud, evaporating in the warmer stratosphere, presumably cause the observed increase in water vapour, but mixing of cold desiccated air parcels with lower stratospheric air would tend to decrease its water content.  Johnston and Solomon (1979) consider there are opposing factors concerning the role of severe cumulonimbus storms on stratospheric water, and it may require detailed, microphysical analysis to see which effect is larger.    I have  commented on increased thunderstorm activity being a natural negative feedback response to climate warming  whether  of natural or anthropogenic cause.     There is great consolidation of my hypothesis and observation here.  



This leads me to proposal number one.  ‘Control storms’ and we can control global temperatures, via stratospheric water  and NOx content, we also modulate  Ice supersaturation.     



Tinsley and Deen (1991) first commented on the apparent  response of the troposphere to MeV-GeV particle flux variations and the fact that there appeared to be a  connection via electrofreezing of supercooled water in high-level clouds.


The ionization production by MeV-GeV particles (mostly galactic cosmic rays) in the lower atmosphere has-well defined variations on a day-to-day time scale related to solar activity, and on the decadal time scale related to the sunspot cycle. Their  results based on an analysis of 33 years of northern hemisphere meteorological data showed clear correlations of winter cyclone intensity (measured as the changes in the area in which vorticity is above a certain threshold) with day-to-day changes in the cosmic ray flux. Similar correlations are also present between winter cyclone intensity, the related storm track latitude shifts, and cosmic ray flux changes on the decadal time scale. These point to a mechanism in which atmospheric electrical processes affect tropospheric thermodynamics, with a requirement for energy amplification by a factor of about 107 and a time scale of hours.     They  hypothesized that  ionization affects the nucleation and/or growth rate of ice crystals in high-level clouds by enhancing the rate of freezing of thermodynamically unstable super-cooled water droplets  known to be present at the tops of high clouds. The electro-freezing increases the flux of ice crystals that can glaciate midlevel clouds. In warm core winter cyclones the consequent release of latent heat intensifies convection and extracts energy from the baroclinic instability to further intensify the cyclone. As a result, the general circulation in winter is affected in a way consistent with observed variations on the inter-annual/decadal time scale. They proposed  effects on particle concentration and size distributions in high-level clouds may also influence circulation via radiative forcing.    Net cloud radiative forcing is positive in most cirrus cases.  However the exceptions are  very important for climate cooling control.  These are  cirrus clouds with a large number (>107 m−3) of small (mean maximum dimension <30 μm) ice crystals and cirrus clouds with bi-modal crystal size distribution and large particle size for the second maximum peak, see Zhang et al (1999).



This leads me to proposal number 2 ‘Control energetic particle precipitation you also control stratospheric water, storm tracks and radiative forcing’      


My work on the magneto-acoustic phenomenon known as the Hum suggests a link with renewable energy systems the world over (refs) and a further link     with the UK (European)   and US Electricity Grids.  Furthermore the Hum has links with weather forecasting.  Thus either directly or indirectly as a consequence of or in parallel with the Hum, world power systems must already   be influencing our weather.  It is well known they influence space weather and hence the ionosphere (refs).  


Perhaps Gherzi  1946 was the first to establish a link between the Ionosphere and weather forecasting and examined radio echoes from the various ionised layers we usually associate with   HF radio reflection, i.e. E, F and F2.    They concluded there were forecasting aspects relating to the future movements of the world’s   major air masses.   It is usually accepted that the ionosphere is controlled at least in part by space weather input such as solar flux and GCR flux.   Very early meteorologists  also knew about another space weather influence on the ionosphere and atmosphere, namely meteors.      In ancient history, the term meteorology literally meant the study of anything that fell from the sky. Meteors from outer space were called "fire meteors". Rain was called "hydro-meteors", and frozen precipitation, such as hail and snow was referred to as "ice meteors".  A comprehensive discussion of my work here can be found at     The conclusions reached are that GCR flux is most relevant to UK weather but solar and meteor input cannot be neglected.   


There are at least four distinct links between the ionosphere and the lower levels of the atmosphere.  These are : heat/light energy fluxes,  the global electric circuit,  two way propagating gravity waves and atmospheric chemistry.


An almost complete model has been provided by Simoes et al [6] and I further refined it as above in 2012, see


Hunsucker (1982), was probably one of the first to review and discuss the link between Atmospheric gravity waves generated in the high-latitude ionosphere and particle precipitation in the auroral regions and the link between travelling ionospheric disturbances and AGW.  


Proposal number 3 ‘Use ionospheric heaters to control particle precipitation and or AGWS’ 


The original patents for ionospheric heating systems envisaged, inter alia, weather control, see    US2007238252 (A1) ― 2007-10-11,, claim 18.   Despite this there are no actual references in the scientific literature to direct weather effects  from people that have actually worked at such facilities.  There are however, dozens of alarmist publications by journalists and the like.  


Leyer and Wong (2007) also summarise the stated aim of the use of high power EM waves in the atmosphere in general: ‘Powerful electromagnetic (EM) waves can exert well-defined influence on the atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere. These active EM interactions can provide spatiotemporal information on the near-Earth space environment (geospace). Objectives include remote monitoring and controlling of a wide range of parameters of geospace, controlling properties of the ionosphere and magnetosphere, as well as interaction with large-scale natural energy sources. In addition, applications such as mitigation of atmospheric pollutants and solar power satellites are discussed. Studies of EM wave interactions also contribute to the knowledge of anthropogenic effects in the geospace environment, such as the increasing use of EM radiation.’


It can be clearly seen that if we can modulate ionisation ( heating), AGW and clouds/aerosols we ought to be able to strongly influence or even take control of weather/climate.    So what of the evidence?


Very recently indeed Prikryl et al (2016)  has established a  link between high-speed solar wind streams and explosive extratropical cyclones.  Their  evidence shows that explosive extratropical cyclones tend to occur after arrivals of solar wind disturbances such as high-speed solar wind streams from coronal holes when large amplitude magneto-hydrodynamic waves couple to the magnetosphere-ionosphere system. These MHD waves modulate Joule heating and/or Lorentz forcing of the high-latitude thermosphere generating medium-scale atmospheric gravity waves that propagate energy upward and downward from auroral zone through the atmosphere. At the tropospheric level, in spite of significantly reduced amplitudes, these gravity waves can provide a lift of unstable air to release the moist symmetric instability thus initiating slantwise convection and forming cloud/precipitation bands. The release of latent heat is known to provide energy for rapid development and intensification of extratropical cyclones.   In  my 2012 paper I challenged the normally accepted view that gravity waves were only relevant to the extent that they ascended upwards from the troposphere to the ionosphere.   I set up my two-way model and added it to Simoes’ diagram.   Prikryl’s observation confirms my hypothesis  and thus brings  electromagnetic weather and climate control into the real world. 

In 2012 I quoted some 2005 references to suggest AGW modulation ought to be possible. Further since that 2012 publication there is now overwhelming evidence in the scientific literature that ionospheric heaters, including HAARP, EISCAT and SURA belonging to at least two world super-powers are indeed capable of generating AGW’s when operating  at 100MW plus power levels.   See for example Panasenko et al   Kunitsyn et al (2015)  describe artificial AGWS with a   spatial  period  of  observed  disturbances  is  200–250  km  and  they  are  easily traced by satellite  up to a distance of 700–800 km from the heated region.  Andreeva et al (2016) similarly but there stated purpose is to create artificial radio ducting, but we must understand the effects this will also have upon weather and climate if sustained.    Padipta and Lee (2013) refer to AGWS generated at the HAARP facility. 


HAARP is no longer operated by the US military   and since 2015 has been used on an experimental basis only by Alaska Fairbanks University, Geophysical  Institute.



EISCAT RADAR is an ideal tool for mapping the movement of AGW’s created and wave -wave interaction  of AGW’s in a turbulent atmosphere and thus it is my sincere belief artificial AGW’S will be able soon to be used for  purpose in weather,  climate and hydrological control.



Proposal number 4 ‘ Use contrail engineering  in conjunction with proposal  3  either in an active mode or in a diagnostic mode’


Built up over the last couple of decades, there is  now  a huge body of evidence relating to the ways in which aerosol and aviation effects weather and climate.            

I have previously mentioned effects of contrails and persistent contrails.   Control these and you can also control weather.  Recent patents (refs) allow safe enhancement and suppression of contrails without needing to resort    to the use of dangerous chemicals.   Typical regions where the occurrence of contrails is  above average  are in the upper atmosphere: (a) ahead of a surface warm front either in moist warm layers before the cirrus clouds arrive or more likely with the cirrus in a warm conveyor belt and (b) ahead of a surface cold front in rapidly moving cold air in the turbulent regions near a band of strong wind (though the speed is not necessarily as high as in a jet). Usually, the atmosphere is baroclinic in the contrail region. Most of the detected contrails occur in divergent flow patterns in the upper troposphere in slowly rising warm or locally turbulent cold air masses.


A)    Diagnostic mode:  Contrails (especially the persistent) variety have very characteristic Satellite LW spectra.     Effectively over Britain they mark the edge of the transatlantic jet stream.   So can thus be used in a diagnostic mode  to see if the jet can be artificially displaced.  There is sufficient literature on AO and NAO teleconnections to suggest this to be possible    because particle precipitation will alter arctic cloudiness and polar vortex, see also my papers on the Hum.      



B)    Active mode:  I have discussed this in its simplest sense elsewhere.  Although there is much dispute about the sign of radiative forcing  of persistent contrails  in the literature even those authors which suggest entirely positive forcing, suggest some three times less positive forcing when flying by day compared to with by night (ref).   I have made experimental studies which show that while climate change is beneficial to London and the South East it is highly detrimental to North Wales which is becoming much colder.  I attribute this to many more daytime than night-time flights over Wales.      The work of  Meerkötter et al strongly supports my notion (ref).  Their conclusion is a simple but critically important one:  ‘Contrails cool the surface during the day and heat the surface during the night, and hence reduce the daily temperature amplitude. The net effect depends strongly on the daily variation of contrail cloud cover. The indirect radiative forcing due to particle changes in natural cirrus clouds may be of the same magnitude as the direct one due to additional cover.’     Stuber et al (2006) have shown that

night flights account for only 25 per cent of daily air traffic, but contribute 60 to 80 per cent of the contrail forcing. Further, winter flights account for only 22 per cent of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean forcing. These results suggest that flight rescheduling could help to minimize the climate impact of aviation.



Thus to cool the climate all flying should be done by day and  in summer and none by night.


Persistent contrails are now extremely prevalent around the World.     In a 2003 study they were found to exist 53% of the time in Europe.  In a 2008 study they were found to exist for between 40-80% of the time in Ireland.     Estimated sky coverage of contrails is evaluated by satellite.     However, no satellite program or papers in the literature discuss the very dramatic effects observed  living underneath a major air corridor.   Areal coverage expressed by satellites are often quoted as low as .1 -8%.


If one lives under such an air corridor,  one often     experiences the transition from contrail to persistent contrail, the spreading into cirrus cloud either full white sky, mares tails, sub –visible or blanket cirrostratus.   One can often witness  amazing and cyclic transitions between these cloud  types   over periods of minutes or hours, catalysis     by fall streaks or AGW all of which are easily visible to the naked eye and one can witness amazing once rare optical effects and haloes and sun dogs at any latitude once reserved for the polar regions.    



In the contrail and contrail cirrus cases black carbon (BC) particles dominated the residual size spectra for particles smaller than 1 μm. The coarse residual particle mode (Dp≥1.5 μm) in contrails consisted almost completely of mechanically generated metallic particles which contributed only about 1% to residual particle number but approximately 50% to residual particle volume. Observed particle number concentrations and BC mass concentration of the residual particles were 0.2 cm−3 and 16 ng m−3 inside the contrail and 0.02 cm−3 and <2 ng m−3 inside the cirrus. The fraction of BC particles (0.1 μm<Dp<0.8 μm) in the interstitial aerosol samples increased with altitude from <70% at 8 km to 95% at 11 km near the air-traffic corridors with number concentrations of ≈0.1 cm−3, see Petzold (1998).



The point I make is these things are so common they now completely dominate earth’s climate.   The danger is there are now patents springing up on how to completely suppress contrails.   We should be extremely careful  before moving from a policy of all to none in view of the negative climate feedback that contrails are showing in some parts of the world.        


Simply flying at different heights ought to be sufficient to test climate models.  Following the findings of Petzold (1998),  flying higher should make more small crystals and cool more.  This is directly contrary to existing ideas about flying lower to avoid contrails!      



Ice crystal shape also has a substantial effect on the cloud reflection and absorption for a given size; more complex ice particles reflect more solar radiation. For most solar reflection it has been proposed to use  a contrail cirrus cloud model consisting of a combination of bullet rosettes (50%), hollow columns (30%), and plates (20%), with sizes ranging from 1 to 90 µm in association with radiation perturbation studies,  see …

Anthropogenic AGWS and aircraft vortices may also be  accidentally relevant for climate cooling by assisting cirrus and contrail cirrus formation with the right size ice crystals.      


Jensen (1996) discusses the extreme dryness of the lower stratosphere is believed to be caused by freeze-drying of air as it enters the stratosphere through the cold tropical tropopause. Previous investigations have been focused on dehydration occurring at the tops of deep convective cloud systems. However, recent observations of a ubiquitous stratiform cirrus cloud layer near the tropical tropopause suggest the possibility of dehydration as air is slowly lifted by large-scale motions. In this study, we have evaluated this possibility using a detailed ice cloud model. Simulations of ice cloud formation in the temperature minima of gravity waves (wave periods of 1–2 hours) indicate that large numbers of ice crystals will likely form due to the low temperatures and rapid cooling. As a result, the crystals do not grow larger than about 10 µm, fallspeeds are no greater than a few cm-s−1, and little or no precipitation or dehydration occurs. However, ice clouds formed by large-scale vertical motions (with lifetimes of a day or more) should have fewer crystals and more time for crystal sedimentation to occur, resulting in water vapor depletions as large as 1 ppmv near the tropopause. Gradual lifting near the tropical tropopause, accompanied by formation of thin cirrus, may account for the dehydration. 



I have previously discussed global aviation and the way that it can account more effectively than CO2 alone for recent warming and  cooling hiatus evets, ref ……



Very recently indeed, Storelvmo et al (2014) have discussed cirrus cloud seeding from a theoretical basis as  ‘a climate engineering mechanism with reduced side effects’. Their analysis shows that seeding of mid and high latitude cirrus clouds has the potential to cool the whole planet by 1.4K.   The analysis does also  show, however,    a modest reduction in rainfall. 



C)    Contrail engineering for hydrology control


In addition to Storelvmo et al (2014),  Schumann et al (2015) also comment on contrails impacting  the entire hydrological cycle in the atmosphere by reducing the total water column and the cover by high- and low-level clouds.  The mass of water in aged contrails may exceed 106 times the mass of water emitted from aircraft. 


In a personal study of the weather in North Wales going back 5 years, I have shown Wednesdays to be a predominantly    dry.      This would appear to be the result of Wednesdays being the heaviest  day in transatlantic west ( USA) TO East ( Europe) flights.


Such flights often take advantage of the prevailing    eastwards flowing Jetstream.   It has long since been known that turbulence in jet streams allows the formation of natural Jetstream cirrus (1953).


Cleary aviation will modify this cirrus and the ice crystal shape and size distributions therein.    


The proposal is that flying in jet streams probably has the tendency to reduce rainfall and cause frontolysis.   


On the other hand when aircraft fly through lower cloud they have the potential to cause local precipitation and without the need for additional seeding agetns, see Heymsfield et al 2010.    This may be regarded as localised or very small scale frontogenesis.

All  of the above effectors are monitored extensively by air, from the  ground and by satellite.


If you can monitor and you can control even haphazardly, then you can establish cause and effect  and perfect.


I am forced therefore to pose  the question if  an independent scientist with only self –training in meteorological aspects can arrive at  such conclusions why haven’t  meteorologists and climatologists?     


An alternative question could also be posed, ‘if they have why no public disclosure ?’   Ever since  Canute, human kind has dreamt of being able to tame the elements.  I now sincerely believe  the potential, if not the moment, has arrived.   


A closing note backing up those who have proposed that a day’s international flying has more effect on weather and climate than a year’s worth of CO2.

I decided to look at this from a very different perspective than it is has, as far as I am aware, ever been looked at before?

Commercial Aircraft often fly in the Jetstream.  The Power of all the world’s Jetstreams =     7.5million megawatts.

Let us approximate those of the Northern hemisphere to 3.75 million megawatts.

1 four engine jet produces 300megawatt.   If they are all flying in the jet stream and 14000 are in the air right now, we have 14000x300 = 4.2 million megawatts!  

Lift to drag ratios are usually about 4:1 thus we have an equivalent of 1.05 million megawatts drag.

Thus combined drag of all the aircraft flying in the jet stream in any one day equates to a very significant percentage of the power of the Jetstream itself.


Is there any wonder then that the Jetstream is becoming more and more displaced and less predictable as aviation expands.


I have previously made the observation that statistically Wednesday is the driest day of the week  in Gwynedd. I ascribe this directly to roughly 40% more early morning  flying in the Jetstream due to midweek business travel.


Thus the 21 Century phenomenon of a vast expansion in aviation, cheap foreign holidays and the like is fuelling climate change more than CO2.  


The flip side of the coin is that  these ‘inadvertent’      changes to weather and climate can easily be ‘manipulated’ by changing flight paths, number of flights and time of flying on any specific day of the work.   Hypothesis will doubtless be shown to be reality within the near future.



1.      In the short time, we could never precisely control the weather in every part of the globe at small scale grid levels because we presently do not have the technology to instrument for the requisite feedback loops.  This could potentially change in future maybe by using nanobot systems.


2.      Despite electromagnetic energy from power systems and ionospheric heaters   only being a tiny fraction* of solar incident power there is no doubt that it can generate acoustic gravity waves (AGW) which could potentially influence weather, climate and hydrology particularly in the further as we learn more about  their interactions and those of the ionosphere and troposphere.   * Analogous to the ‘butterfly’ effect in a chaotic system.  For example tiny  ‘dust devils’ in the Sahara can spawn major storms elsewhere. 


3.      Contrail ice seeding has the potential to cool the planet if used appropriately.


4.      Contrail technology can also be used for hydrological control.


5.      Flying in the Jetstream is having disastrously detrimental effects in the Northern Hemisphere.


6.      A new ‘energetics’ explanation of (5) above has been advanced.         


7.      I  propose that changes to weather and climate can easily be ‘manipulated’ by changing flight paths, number of flights and time of flying on any specific day of the work.   Hypothesis will doubtless be shown to be reality within the near future.