Tesla Quote


Let's start with this simple fact: Anyone who chooses to can now go to my site, WeatherWar101.com, download the PDF of the 1971 Zion Nuclear Power Plant Study on the Effects of Cooling Towers on the Atmosphere and Weather, and verify and validate every single weather impact I have detailed in 200+ geoengineering videos. The only difference is that the study at Zion was considering the possibility of two cooling towers at one power plant. I'm talking about the reality of 62,500 power plants worldwide, many of which have enormous tower and WSAC farms that could only have one conceivable purpose.

If you cannot read, or you refuse to read, or you refuse to acknowledge what you have read, then do not speak on this subject to attempt to deny the reality – of any of it. Water is Wet, the Earth is round, and 62,500 Power Plants with anywhere from 2 to 240 Tower / WSAC Blower facilities evaporating anywhere from 18,000 gal/min to 700,000 gal/min adds trillions of gallons of Water Vapor to the atmosphere and God knows how much heat, and has for the last 50 years. End of discussion.

To deny any of this reality while ignoring all of the facts and basic cloud dynamics, is to #Self #Identify as #Psyop #Disinformation operative. To try to insult and demean me while denying reality and ignoring all of the facts, is to #Self #Identify as #Psyop #Terrorist. Chiming in from nowhere to try to insult and demean me while denying reality and ignoring all of the facts, from a blank account with no identity, no picture, no videos, no activity, and no subscribers, is to #Self #Identify as #Psyop #Terrorist operating a #Disposable #Sock account. These are simple realities, just like "Water is Wet" is, and anyone self-identifying and putting themselves in any of these categories, will be publically documented in a soon-to-come subsection of my website Psyops section.





by F. A. Huff, R. C. Beebe, D. M. A. Jones,
G. M. Morgan, Jr., and R. G. Semonin


Because of ecological considerations, controversy presently exists over the use of Lake Michigan and other natural water bodies for the discharge of waste heat from large electric power plants now under construction or planned for the near future. This problem has become especially acute in the case of a 2200-? megawatt nuclear power plant of the Commonwealth Edison Company now nearing completion at Zion, located on Lake Michigan in the northeastern part of the state (figure 1). This plant was designed for once-?through-?cooling utilizing lake discharge of the waste heat, but this method of cooling has met opposition from several sources. An alternative method of solving the thermal pollution problem is through the use of large cooling towers which dissipate the huge quantities of waste heat directly into the atmosphere. However, this alternative then raises concern about the environmental consequences of the effluent discharged into the atmosphere from the towers.

At the request of the Illinois Pollution Control Board the State Water Survey carried out a 2- ?month investigation to assemble and evaluate information on the potential effects of cooling tower effluents on atmospheric conditions with major emphasis on the Zion installation. Because of time limitations, this preliminary investigation was restricted to 1) an extensive literature review of existing information on the topic, and 2) limited in-?house research involving three studies of selected meteorological factors pertinent to evaluation of the cooling tower problem.

The first study under the in-?house research involved determination of the relative magnitude of heat and moisture outputs that would be associated with Zion cooling towers in comparison with 1) the size of naturally occurring fluxes of heat and moisture in the atmosphere, and 2) man-?made heat emissions from large urban areas.

The second study was concerned with the potential weather effects from interaction between the lake breeze and cooling tower plumes, a special problem where large bodies such as Lake Michigan are involved. The third study involved application of existing cloud modeling techniques to aid in evaluating the potential for tower plumes to initiate, trigger, or intensify the development of clouds and precipitation downwind of the Zion plant. In this preliminary investigation, we made an attempt also to assess atmospheric effects according to 1) natural-?draft and mechanical-?draft towers, and 2) wet and dry cooling methods.

Figure 1. Location of Zion Power Plant
(Elevations in feet above msl)

This report summarizes the results of the various phases of the 2- ?month study and presents conclusions and recommendations derived from the limited investigation. Definition of Terms and Tower Design Data esed a natural-?draft cooling tower is one that depends upon a chimney or stack to induce air movement through the tower. A mechanical-?draft tower is one which uses fans to move ambient air through the tower. Hyperbolic is a term used to describe the most common shape of natural-?draft towers. Wet-?type or evaporative cooling towers are those in which the cooling water is brought in direct contact with a flow of air and the heat is dissipated mainly by evaporation. They may be either of the natural-?draft or mechanical-?draft type. Dry-?type towers are those in which the waste heat is dissipated to the air by conduction and convection rather than by evaporation as in the wet-?type.

Drift is the entrained water carried from the cooling tower by the exhaust air. Blowdown is the continuous or intermittent wasting of a small amount of the circulating water to prevent an increase of solids in the water due to evaporation. Dry-?bulb temperature is the air temperature as read on an ordinary thermometer. Wet-?bulb emperature is that temperature to which air can be cooled adiabatically to saturation by the addition of water vapor, that is, the theoretical limit to which water can be cooled through evaporation. Relative humidity (percent) is the ratio of the amount of water vapor actually present in the air to the greatest amount it could hold if saturated at that temperature and pressure. Btu is the abbreviation for the British thermal unit and is the unit of heat energy commonly used by engineers.

In this report, local meteorological effects refer to those occurring within distances of 5 miles or less. Mesoscale ffects are those involving distances of 5 to 50 miles. Large-?scale effects are those extending over distances greater than 50 miles. For example, if a cooling tower effluent affected fog formation only within 5 miles of the plant, it would be considered a local effect in our terminology.

All computations involved in the in-?house studies discussed in this report have been based upon design criteria for cooling towers furnished by the Commonwealth Edison Company. Of several possible designs, the most acceptable from the standpoint of possible FAA height restrictions at the Zion site was used in our studies. This design consists of three hybrid wet-?type towers with an outlet height of 250 feet, discharge diameter of 180 feet, and fan-?forced discharge velocity of 1110 feet/?minute. Only two towers will be in operation at any one time. Average heat rejection to the atmosphere for each tower would be approximately 8.3 × 109 Btu/?hour.

Water loss to the atmosphere is estimated at 14,700 gallons/?minute for each tower in spring, summer, and fall, lowering to approximately 11,000 gallons/?minute in winter.



Basically, the literature search revealed a discouraging lack of information on how effluents from large cooling towers, such as those which would be required at Zion, affect atmospheric conditions in their vicinity. Research with respect to this problem has been hampered by the lack of well-?organized and properly conducted field studies to collect the meteorological data necessary to promote and accelerate needed research. In turn, the lack of data collection can be attributed partly to the short operational history of large cooling towers in the United States.

Fog and Icing

In the literature, more attention has been given to fog and icing associated with plumes from evaporative cooling towers than to any other weather effects. A primary reason for this is that such effects are readily observable and immediately troublesome. However, there still has been too little done to define these effects accurately. The majority opinion appears to be that fog and icing are usually minor problems with natural-?draft towers employing evaporative cooling, since these towers usually extend to heights of 350 feet or more into the atmosphere so that the plume seldom, if ever, sinks to ground level. Mechanical-?type towers release their effluent at a much lower level (50?75 feet) and in a much more turbulent condition due to fan-?forced ejection, so that there appears to be a high probability of tower-?induced fog and icing at or near the ground on occasions. However, the frequency of such occurrences cannot be assessed accurately with existing observational data.

Clouds and Precipitation

Quantitative data on the effects of cooling tower plumes on clouds and precipitation were found to be extremely meager in the published literature. Occasional observations of light drizzle or snow attributed to tower effluents have been reported. Also, there have been several reports of tower plumes contributing to cloud formation downwind; apparently, these are usually stratus-?type clouds and observations of cumulus developments have been rare. A few mathematical calculations have been made to determine the cloud and precipitation producing potential of cooling tower plumes, but no meteorologically acceptable analyses have been made to assess quantitatively the possibility that these plumes augment precipitation and cloud systems associated with naturally occurring storms.

Severe Weather

A search was made for any observed and/?or calculated effects of tower plumes on severe weather events, such as thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, and heavy rainstorms. Very little was found and this was of a highly speculative nature. However, from consideration of atmospheric physics and dynamics, one would expect that any severe weather event resulting from cooling tower effluents would be attained only through a triggering or stimulation effect. That is, the additional heat and/?or moisture fed into a developing storm cloud could conceivably produce an imbalance that would result in intensification into a severe weather state. However, the severe weather effect, if any, must be strictly conjectural at this time.

In general, we conclude from available information in the literature that a very distinct void exists in our knowledge of the effects of cooling tower plumes on clouds and precipitation with regard to both initiation and stimulation of these weather events. From climatological observations and cloud physics research it is known that cumulus clouds and rain showers or thunderstorms can be triggered by small inputs of energy. Consequently, it is extremely important that research be initiated to combine existing knowledge of plume and cloud properties into mathematical models that will provide reliable quantitative estimates of the plume effect on downwind clouds and rainfall.

Comparison of Cooling Tower Types

Most of the information in the recent literature relating to meteorological effects associated with cooling tower effluents concerns the natural-?draft type employing evaporative cooling. The engineering profession apparently considers these to be the best alternative to waste heat discharge into water courses. To date, no large dry cooling towers have been constructed in the United States. Consequently, dry cooling towers present an environmental problem about which little is known. Qualitatively, the large quantities of heat released to the atmosphere from dry cooling towers could produce increases in convection and turbulence and likely initiate or stimulate the development of cumulus clouds. However, the literature provides no information, and knowledge is not adequate to define in quantitative terms the meteorological significance of the tower heat release. Therefore, no further attempt has been made in this report to present a comparative evaluation of tower-?induced atmospheric effects between wet and dry towers.

Similarly, actual quantitative measurements of the differential effects of natural-?draft and mechanical-?draft tower effluents on atmospheric conditions apparently have not been made. Except for one study by McVehil (1970), only qualitative comparisons were found. Qualitatively, there appears to be general agreement that the mechanical type is more likely to produce fog and icing problems. With their higher level discharge, the natural-?draft type would be expected to become involved more readily in cloud and precipitation producing processes in the atmosphere.


Relative Magnitude of Heat-?Moisture Output from Towers

Calculations of the typical ingestion of moisture from both small shower clouds and thunderstorms indicated that the cooling tower releases of moisture into the atmosphere at a Zion-?type installation would be very small compared with the natural fluxes in storm clouds. However, it appears quite possible that the cooling tower addition to existing convective clouds might be sufficient occasionally under a favorable set of atmospheric conditions to intensify natural cloud processes, resulting in additional precipitation downwind and possibly other undesirable intensification of naturally occurring weather events.

Comparisons of available estimates of heat produced by the urban areas of St. Louis and Chicago with the heat output from cooling towers associated with a Zion-?type plant indicated that the Zion peak output would be approximately 16 percent of the total St. Louis output and 5 percent of the Chicago production. This suggests that the atmospheric heat output at Zion would represent a strong potential for affecting the local weather, although reliable quantitative estimates are not possible at this time.

Tower Effluent-?Lake Breeze Interaction

An investigation was made of possible meteorological effects from the interaction between cooling tower effluents in the Zion region and the lake breeze which annually occurs on 40 – 45 percent of the days at Zion. Large, deep lakes have a strong influence on the climate within several miles of their shorelines, and the lake interaction with the atmosphere varies between seasons. From an examination of the known meteorological characteristics of the lake breeze circulation, it was concluded that its interaction with Zion cooling tower effluents would likely result in additional snowfall under certain synoptic weather conditions.

In spring, analyses indicated that there are days on which the Zion plume would thicken an existing naturally occurring fog, but most of the time this fog would not persist more than 1 to 2 miles inland. Only very occasionally would a weather situation exist in which convective storms could be intensified by the lake breeze-?tower plume interaction. Again, the general conclusion must be that accumulated knowledge is insufficient at this time to define in quantitative terms the effects of the interaction of cooling tower plumes with a lake-?influenced atmosphere.

Cloud Modeling

Numerical cloud modeling techniques were employed in an effort to gain additional knowledge on the meteorological consequences of cooling tower effluents on clouds and precipitation in the Zion area. Results of this research must be considered first approximations only, in view of limitations in the theory involved both in current cloud models and in the interaction between a cooling tower plume and the atmosphere. In our brief study, particular attention was given to investigating atmospheric conditions in which the moist plume from an evaporative cooling tower might provide a mechanism (trigger) to enhance organized convection in the form of cumulus clouds and/?or intensify precipitation downwind from the plume release point. Typical synoptic weather conditions were selected for the various seasons for use with the cloud model.

Results of the abbreviated model study indicated that under steady light rain conditions, the water vapor flux from Zion towers could lead to a small increase in storm rainfall (trace amounts) within a few thousand feet of the tower. However, when these increases are added to the normal annual amounts from steady rains, the addition is insignificant, amounting to only a fraction of 1 percent annually. The model computations indicated that the tower plume would affect snowfall for a distance of approximately 2 miles inland in the presence of storms with onshore winds, and that the total annual snowfall would be increased 1 to 2 inches within this lake-?effect zone. Indications were found that the tower plume could also trigger thunderstorms under certain favorable weather conditions. However, since there exists such a void in the measurement of meteorological parameters in conjunction with the operation of large cooling towers, it is not possible to calculate with a high degree of confidence the specific increases in thunderstorms and other severe weather events that might be triggered by cooling tower effluents.


At this time meteorologists have not acquired adequate information to define in quantitative terms the meteorological consequences of the large amounts of heat energy and water vapor that are released into the atmosphere from cooling towers associated with nuclear power plants. The interaction between tower effluent and the atmosphere is very complex and dependent upon local conditions of climate and topography. Consequently, estimates of the environmental effects, such as undertaken for the Zion area in this report, must be recognized as speculative to a large extent, and they will remain so until extensive measurement and research programs are carried out to obtain the needed knowledge. The time to do this is now, not in 1980 or later, when the problems (whatever they may be) associated with cooling tower effluents will have increased many times with the rapidly increasing demands for electric power.

Although it was not the purpose of this report to compare the meteorological consequences of lake and atmospheric dissipation of waste heat, the authors consider it appropriate at this point to present several relevant facts pertaining to this problem. First, it is much more difficult to establish the meteorological consequences of atmospheric dissipation of waste heat from large nuclear power plants than it is to evaluate the meteorological ramifications of once-?through-?lake cooling on Lake Michigan. This is because in both time and space the lake is much more stable with respect to its meteorological properties. For example, the day-?to-?day fluctuations in temperature in the atmosphere are very much greater than in the lake water. Secondly, lake cooling spreads out the heat dissipation over a much longer time period than cooling towers, and, therefore, localized effects on the weather are likely to be less pronounced with lake cooling than with cooling towers. Strictly from the meteorological standpoint, it appears that environmental effects are likely to be no greater, and probably smaller, with dissipation of waste heat into Lake Michigan compared with atmospheric release from cooling towers.



The literature review revealed a discouraging lack of wel1-organized measurement programs and research upon which to assess reliably the meteorological consequences of large cooling tower effluents. Furthermore, this problem is rapidly becoming more critical as the electric power industry continues its rapid growth and ecological objections to once-through-cooling increase. Carson (1970) has pointed out that only a very limited number of research and field studies have been conducted to date on the meteorological aspects of thermal pollution, and these have been in conjunction with studies related to biological processes rather than atmospheric effects.

In the following pages, the results of our literature search have been summarized. Effort has been made to cite a sufficient portion of the large amount of literature reviewed to portray the status of present knowledge adequately but to avoid excessive repetition of similar findings, conclusions, and opinions. Results of the literature search have been grouped according to weather element.

Fog and Ice

In the literature, more attention has been given to fog and ice associated with the plumes from evaporative cooling towers than to any other weather element. A primary reason for this is that such effects are readily observable and immediately troublesome. The majority opinion appears to be that fog and ice are usually minor problems with natural-draft towers employing evaporative cooling, but that tower-induced fog may occur frequently enough to be objectionable when mechanical-draft towers of the wet type are employed.

Unfortunately, this prevailing opinion has resulted to a considerable extent from questioning of plant operating personnel. More scientifically acceptable approaches to the problem have been undertaken in several cases by private concerns employed by power companies and the Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA). However, it must be emphasized that precise calculations of cooling tower effects on fog and other weather events cannot be achieved because of 1) insufficient observational data from tower operations and 2) inadequate understanding of the atmospheric behavior of moist plume discharges and their meteorological ramifications. Consequently, any conclusions must be somewhat speculative and can lead to dissimilar evaluations, as will be illustrated later. In the following paragraphs, some representative assessments of the fog and icing problems obtained from the literature reviews are presented.

In a report prepared for the Commonwealth Edison Company, McVehil (1970) finds the problem of cooling tower effluents in the Lake Michigan area of greater consequence than indicated by the reports published by Travelers Research Corporation (1969), E G & G (1970), and FWQA (1970). McVehil indicates that his results, based upon conditions at Zion (figure 1), the area of our primary interest, must be considered contrary to the general conclusion that fog would not be a problem in the Lake Michigan area. He then points out that he has utilized observed meteorological conditions for the Zion area and proposed specifications for cooling tower equipment that would be required, whereas the report of FWQA (1970) emphasizes that their methods of estimating fog frequency were simplified and general, and not necessarily applicable to any specific site.

Since McVehil's findings are so relevant to our present problem, the following summary of his findings has been abstracted verbatim from his report:

"All evaluations have been made assuming the operation of two generating units, with a total heat load for cooling equipment of 14.3 × 109 BTU/hour. The required evaporation in cooling towers will average 18,000 gal/min. Fog potential was calculated for mechanical-natural draft towers (3 towers) and pure natural draft towers of 350 ft height (5 towers) and 500 ft height (3 towers).

The results show that fog at the surface should be expected somewhere around the plant on a maximum of 650 hours per year. The maximum frequency at any one point on the ground was calculated to be 90 hours per year from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 miles north of the plant site. These maximum fog frequencies would result from mechanical draft cooling towers. Natural draft or combination cooling towers would produce somewhat lower fog frequencies, the numbers decreasing with increasing height of the towers. Maximum ground-level fog frequencies for these towers range from 40 hours for 500 ft towers to 100 hours for 250 ft towers.

Fog should be expected on some few days during the year in any direction from the plant and with any type of cooling tower. The fog would occasionally persist for 10 miles or further downwind from mechanical draft towers. Plumes from taller towers would frequently extend much further in the free atmosphere; when the plumes contact the ground it would be at distances of 3 to 15 miles. Fog persistence will typically be two to four hours, and individual fog episodes can be expected to occur on 100 to 150 days per year with mechanical draft towers, and on 5 to 30 days per year with hybrid or natural draft towers.

Most cooling tower fog will be produced in the winter, and during the hours between 3 and 9 AM. Since fog will typically form at temperatures below freezing, icing in fog plumes is to be expected. Visibility in the fog will usually be from 200 to 1000 ft, and occasionally less. For purposes of comparison, the normal frequency of dense natural fog in the Zion area is about 20 days per year."

Comparison of Tower-Induced Fog Frequency
Derived from Modeling Studies

In view of the considerable amount of literature on fog associated with cooling towers and some disagreement on the magnitude of the problem, an effort was made to obtain a more precise evaluation of the problem through an analytical comparison of results from several of the more scientifically oriented studies reviewed in the literature search. Several investigators have attempted to estimate the frequency of tower-induced fogs through use of atmospheric models in conjunction with climatological data on wind and atmospheric stability. Three of these studies were used in our comparative analyses.

A model developed by E G & G (1970) considers the effects of buoyancy; mixing; the initial diameter, velocity, water content, and temperature of the tower plume; and information from atmospheric soundings. Case studies with this model show that the plume from natural-draft towers can reach the ground only under certain extreme conditions.

A version of this method was employed by combination with local climatological data in the Zion study by McVehil (1970) discussed previously.. The McVehil report has a rather pessimistic tone, but this results primarily from undue attention to low-profile, mechanical-draft cooling towers having an outlet height of only 60 feet. From the meteorological standpoint, it does not appear that this type should be given serious consideration at Zion or any location where fog could be a serious problem. McVehil indicates that the highest point frequency of fog caused by the 60-foot mechanical-draft cooling towers should be approximately 90 hours/year and occur at distances of 1.5 to 2.5 miles north of the plant site. This maximum point frequency is 14 percent of his estimated areal frequency of 650 hours/year.

Clouds and Precipitation

In the literature reviewed for this report quantitative data pertaining to the effects of moist plumes from cooling towers on clouds and precipitation are extremely meager. Occasional observations of light drizzle or snow have been reported in the vicinity of towers, such as mentioned by Culkowski (1962), Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (1968), Zeller et al. (1969), and Decker (1969). A few calculations have been attempted to determine the cloud and precipitation producing potential of cooling tower plumes, but as pointed out by Hanna and Swisher (1970), no analysis has been made of the possibility of these plumes augmenting precipitation from naturally occurring storms.

Analyses of E G & G (1970) indicate that moist tower plumes can initiate cloud formation. In their studies at Keystone, Pennsylvania, Visbisky et al. (1970) find that tower plumes will contribute to local cloud formations at times in varying degrees, depending upon atmospheric conditions. They conclude, however, that any cloud effect at Keystone did not appear to have a significant effect upon airport operations approximately 2 miles northwest of the plant.

Carson (1970) states that the extra heat and water vapor from cooling towers may create cumulus clouds and that the possibility of tower plumes acting as a trigger to produce extra cumulus congestus clouds and precipitation miles downwind of the release must be considered. In reviewing findings of Central Electricity Generating Board of Great Britain, Carson points out that they had found no reports of drizzle downwind from cooling towers. Cumulus clouds are sometimes formed, but they have not observed showers or precipitation being generated by the tower plumes. However, they did observe that sunshine could be altered in the area, since the visible plume may persist for a number of miles.

Aynsley (1970a), in discussing studies at Keystone, states:

"There are frequent occasions when tower plumes can be seen to evaporate and then re-condense to some extent at higher altitudes further downwind. Under stable conditions with higher humidities, the plumes will persist after leveling off and appear downwind as stratus cloud coverage, or merge and reinforce existing cloud coverage. Initiation of cumulus clouds is a rare occurrence and on such occasions, clouds triggered by the towers only precede natural cloud formations."

In general, it must be concluded from available information in the literature that a very distinct void exists in our knowledge of the effects of cooling tower plumes on clouds and precipitation, with regard to both initiation and stimulation of these weather events. From climatological observations and cloud physics research it is known that cumulus clouds and rain showers or thunderstorms can be triggered by relatively small inputs of energy. As an example, Changnon (1968a) has shown that areas downwind of Chicago have experienced 20 to 40 percent increases in precipitation due to urban-industrial effects. Hence, the possibility that cooling tower effluents could modify the rainfall distribution on a localized scale must be considered.

Temperature and Humidity

Information on how cooling tower effluents affect temperature and humidity locally has received little attention in the literature. This is probably because these weather elements have had little apparent effect except insofar as they contribute to the fog and icing problem.

Some information on humidity effects was obtained from an unpublished report of the Central Electricity Board (unofficial publication, 1968) of Great Britain. They report on one series of measurements made for one week at a power station in which hourly measurements of humidity were made. They did not detect any significant increase in humidity at 100 to 500 yards downwind of the tower using psychrometric measurements. In another study, they made continuous humidity measurements at a point 500 yards from a bank of cooling towers over a period of 8 months. It was not possible to observe any increase in humidity when the instrument was in the lee of the towers, compared with those times when the wind blew in other directions. However, they conclude that in areas where very low temperatures are experienced, the addition of water vapor in the wake of cooling towers could significantly affect the relative humidity, although at all times this effect would be partially offset by the addition of sensible heat.

Aynsley (1970a) in reporting on aerial measurements of humidity in moist plume emissions from natural-draft towers at the 1800-megawatt plant at Keystone, Pennslyvania, states:

". . . measurements of cooling-tower plume profiles indicate that humidity increases can be detected for many miles downwind."

There has not been sufficient attention given to temperature and humidity measurements to define either the frequency or magnitude of their downwind effects.

Severe Weather Events

As part of the literature review, a search was made for any observed and/or calculated effects of tower plumes on severe weather events such as thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, and severe rainstorms. Very little was found and this was of a highly speculative nature. For example, Csapski (1968), on the basis of certain observations and calculations of large thermal emissions, foresees that:

". . . severe thunderstorms and even tornadoes can be caused in very unstable weather situations by dry and clean heat emission."

It is quite evident that any severe weather event resulting from cooling tower effluents could be attained only through a triggering or stimulation effect. That is, the additional heat and/or moisture fed into a developing storm cloud could conceivably produce an imbalance that would result in its intensification into a severe weather state. Again, past urban studies provide evidence that sizeable alterations in the distribution of severe weather events can be wrought inadvertently. For example, Changnon (1969) has shown that 20 to 40 percent increases in the number of thunderstorm and hail days over and downwind of Chicago and St. Louis have resulted from the combined effects of urban-industrial heat and aerosol releases. Thus, severe weather effects, if any, resulting from cooling tower operations must be strictly conjectural at this time, but the possibility of their occurrence cannot be eliminated.

Scientific Opinions

Listed below are selected quotations and stated opinions of individuals and organizations prominent in the evaluation of power plant cooling problems. These statements have been abstracted from various technical papers and reports published recently. They portray quite vividly the void in our knowledge on the meteorological consequences of waste heat dissipation which makes evaluation of cooling tower effects
largely speculative at this time.

Dr. William P. Lowry, Oregon State University

Lowry (1970) in discussing environmental effects of nuclear cooling facilities concludes that:

"The scientific and engineering professions do not now have either the information or the experience necessary even to begin operational avoidance or reduction of the fogging problem which we know exists in connection with industrial cooling tower and pond facilities."

E G & G, Incorporated

A 1970 report prepared for the Federal Water Quality Control Administration by E G & G, a leader in atmospheric research, states that:

"Clearly, a firm understanding of environmental modification by cooling towers will have to be established by proper measurements in the vicinity of operational towers, in order to validate and refine the theoretical concepts."

They further point out that:

"Besides proper meteorological measurements, ecological monitoring will also be necessary to evaluate the total influence of the tower effluents on the environment."

Dr. Eric Aynsley, IIT Research Institute

In a paper presented at a Cooling Tower Institute Meeting, Aynsley (1970b), who has been very active in environmental studies of cooling tower effluents, makes the following statement in his concluding remarks:

"In conclusion it can be stated that there are a number of effects, mechanisms and interactions occurring both with cooling tower plumes and tower plumes mixed with nearby stack emissions. As yet, there is no simple answer and there remains many unanswered questions, the problem appearing more complex than was initially thought."

Dr. James E. Carson, Argonne National Laboratory

Carson has been involved in assessing the meteorological effects of nuclear power plants in the Lake Michigan area and has served as a consultant in our present study of cooling tower effects. In a recent
paper Carson (1970) points out:

"Meteorologists do not know how the atmosphere will react quantitatively to the large amounts of heat energy and water vapor that it will be forced to absorb as the result of waste heat from nuclear power plants."

Steven R. Hanna and Searle D. Swisher, Atmospheric
Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory, ESSA

In a paper concerned with the meteorological, effects of the heat and moisture produced by man {Hanna and Swisher, 1970), these scientists conclude that present research efforts concerning energy budgets and atmospheric effects of such sources are for the most part inadequate, but that this problem must be understood if we are to disperse waste heat and moisture with minimum effect on the environment. In discussing moisture pollution, they point out that research with respect to fogs and drizzle from evaporative cooling towers has been fragmentary.

George E. McVehil, Sierra Research Corporation

In a report prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, McVehil (1970) summarizes available knowledge on the effects of dry cooling towers on atmospheric conditions as follows:

"Dry cooling towers represent an environmental situation about which least is known. Certainly the large quantities of heat released to the atmosphere will result in an increase in convection, turbulence, and cumulus clouds. Whether these will produce any significant meteorological consequences is a problem that is beyond the scope of this study, and very possibly beyond current knowledge of atmospheric processes."





WeatherWar101 Analysis:


This study shows that not only was it already well known back in 1971 that massive amounts of water vapor from even one nuclear power plant with four cooling towers would have significant effects on the atmospheric conditions and weather, it was inexplicable to researchers conducting the study, that there was so little (public) data available on the subject.

It is also fascinating what resulting from this study. I’m still collecting information on the sequence of events, but the Zion Nuclear Power Plant was operational until January 15, 1998, but as you can see from the picture below from one year before it was shut down, those towers and that cooling method was never approved for this plant. There are over 7,000 operational power plants in the United States (almost all of which have some form of the cooling towers that were not approved at Zion for environmental reasons), and it is as difficult to find data on this massive global source of Water Vapor now as it was in 1971.


This is the only nuclear power plant I have ever seen in the United States, that has no cooling towers of any kind. Not only does it not have the tall towers, it doesn’t have so much as a single bank of WSACs (Wet Surface Air Cooler). It’s all but impossible to find a power plant of any fuel type, that has no WSAC whatsoever. Nuclear power plants in the United States (other than Zion) generally have enormous WSAC facilities and WV Gen capability, as illustrated in the image below (Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant).

Palo Verde Site Aerial Photo 10-07-13


As my viewers know and as anyone investigating this work will find out, there is consistent effort to suppress this reality. It is all covered in detail in the Psyops section of this site.

In fact, as you can see by this study, suppressing this reality has been deliberate methodology for 50 years. It’s the reason why even though all of the concerns voiced by these many scientists over the impact of only four cooling towers at one power plant were sufficient to prevent their approval and construction, the very serious concerns raised by the study – have been completely ignored and buried. At least as far as the public is concerned.

The issues raised in this 1971 Zion Power Plant study and the issues that I demonstrate are geoengineering reality not only match each other exactly – they match the reality we see.

The entire foundation of the current state of global geoengineering is fully spelled out.

  • All eval­u­a­tions have been made assum­ing the oper­a­tion of two gen­er­at­ing units, with a total heat load for cool­ing equip­ment of 14.3 × 109 BTU/hour. The required evap­o­ra­tion in cool­ing tow­ers will aver­age 18,000 gal/min. Fog poten­tial was cal­cu­lated for mechanical-natural draft tow­ers (3 tow­ers) and pure nat­ural draft tow­ers of 350 ft height (5 tow­ers) and 500 ft height (3 towers).
  • Analy­ses of E G & G (1970) indi­cate that moist tower plumes can ini­ti­ate cloud for­ma­tion. In their stud­ies at Key­stone, Penn­syl­va­nia, Vis­bisky et al. (1970) find that tower plumes will con­tribute to local cloud for­ma­tions at times in vary­ing degrees, depend­ing upon atmos­pheric con­di­tions.
  • Car­son (1970) states that the extra heat and water vapor from cool­ing tow­ers may cre­ate cumu­lus clouds and that the pos­si­bil­ity of tower plumes act­ing as a trig­ger to pro­duce extra cumu­lus con­ges­tus clouds and pre­cip­i­ta­tion miles down­wind of the release must be con­sid­ered.
  • There are fre­quent occa­sions when tower plumes can be seen to evap­o­rate and then re-condense to some extent at higher alti­tudes fur­ther down­wind. Under sta­ble con­di­tions with higher humidi­ties, the plumes will per­sist after lev­el­ing off and appear down­wind as stra­tus cloud cov­er­age, or merge and rein­force exist­ing cloud cov­er­age.
  • From cli­ma­to­log­i­cal obser­va­tions and cloud physics research it is known that cumu­lus clouds and rain show­ers or thun­der­storms can be trig­gered by rel­a­tively small inputs of energy. As an exam­ple, Changnon (1968a) has shown that areas down­wind of Chicago have expe­ri­enced 20 to 40 per­cent increases in pre­cip­i­ta­tion due to urban-industrial effects. Hence, the pos­si­bil­ity that cool­ing tower efflu­ents could mod­ify the rain­fall dis­tri­b­u­tion on a local­ized scale must be considered.
  • Mea­sure­ments of cooling-tower plume pro­files indi­cate that humid­ity increases can be detected for many miles downwind.
  • Severe thun­der­storms and even tor­na­does can be caused in very unsta­ble weather sit­u­a­tions by dry and clean heat emission.
  • It is quite evi­dent that any severe weather event result­ing from cool­ing tower efflu­ents could be attained only through a trig­ger­ing or stim­u­la­tion effect. That is, the addi­tional heat and/or mois­ture fed into a devel­op­ing storm cloud could con­ceiv­ably pro­duce an imbal­ance that would result in its inten­si­fi­ca­tion into a severe weather state. Again, past urban stud­ies pro­vide evi­dence that size­able alter­ations in the dis­tri­b­u­tion of severe weather events can be wrought inad­ver­tently. For exam­ple, Changnon (1969) has shown that 20 to 40 per­cent increases in the num­ber of thun­der­storm and hail days over and down­wind of Chicago and St. Louis have resulted from the com­bined effects of urban-industrial heat and aerosol releases.
  • The sci­en­tific and engi­neer­ing pro­fes­sions do not now have either the infor­ma­tion or the expe­ri­ence nec­es­sary even to begin oper­a­tional avoid­ance or reduc­tion of the fog­ging prob­lem which we know exists in con­nec­tion with indus­trial cool­ing tower and pond facilities.
  • Clearly, a firm under­stand­ing of envi­ron­men­tal mod­i­fi­ca­tion by cool­ing tow­ers will have to be estab­lished by proper mea­sure­ments in the vicin­ity of oper­a­tional tow­ers, in order to val­i­date and refine the the­o­ret­i­cal concepts.
  • Besides proper mete­o­ro­log­i­cal mea­sure­ments, eco­log­i­cal mon­i­tor­ing will also be nec­es­sary to eval­u­ate the total influ­ence of the tower efflu­ents on the environment.
  • In con­clu­sion it can be stated that there are a num­ber of effects, mech­a­nisms and inter­ac­tions occur­ring both with cool­ing tower plumes and tower plumes mixed with nearby stack emis­sions. As yet, there is no sim­ple answer and there remains many unan­swered ques­tions, the prob­lem appear­ing more com­plex than was ini­tially thought.
  • Mete­o­rol­o­gists do not know how the atmos­phere will react quan­ti­ta­tively to the large amounts of heat energy and water vapor that it will be forced to absorb as the result of waste heat from nuclear power plants.
  • In a paper con­cerned with the mete­o­ro­log­i­cal, effects of the heat and mois­ture pro­duced by man {Hanna and Swisher, 1970), these sci­en­tists con­clude that present research efforts con­cern­ing energy bud­gets and atmos­pheric effects of such sources are for the most part inad­e­quate, but that this prob­lem must be under­stood if we are to dis­perse waste heat and mois­ture with min­i­mum effect on the envi­ron­ment.
  • Cer­tainly the large quan­ti­ties of heat released to the atmos­phere will result in an increase in con­vec­tion, tur­bu­lence, and cumu­lus clouds.
  • Analy­ses of E G & G (1970) indi­cate that moist tower plumes can ini­ti­ate cloud for­ma­tion. Tower plumes will con­tribute to local cloud for­ma­tions at times in vary­ing degrees, depend­ing upon atmos­pheric con­di­tions.
  • From cli­ma­to­log­i­cal obser­va­tions and cloud physics research it is known that cumu­lus clouds and rain show­ers or thun­der­storms can be trig­gered by rel­a­tively small inputs of energy.

So, what happened to all of these concerns from 1970? They disappeared from the scientific community and from society as a whole (more to the point were deliberately suppressed and buried), while simultaneously being developed as the foundation of the global geoengineering process.

We have 50 years of evidence of this reality. The very serious concerns raised by the Zion Power Plant study were enough to prevent their use on environmental reasons for that one plant, but that tower methodology was subsequently implemented on 7,000 power plants in the United States, and 62,500 power plants worldwide. The potential impact of that one power plant that was deemed too great a risk to the environment, now exists in reality 62,500 times over.

Now, let’s look at the fundamental component of global geoengineering that can be derived from this study.

  • Analy­ses of E G & G (1970) indi­cate that moist tower plumes can ini­ti­ate cloud for­ma­tion. Tower plumes will con­tribute to local cloud for­ma­tions at times in vary­ing degrees, depend­ing upon atmos­pheric con­di­tions.
  • From cli­ma­to­log­i­cal obser­va­tions and cloud physics research it is known that cumu­lus clouds and rain show­ers or thun­der­storms can be trig­gered by rel­a­tively small inputs of energy.

Let’s presume, hypothetically for the moment, that instead of seeing this information as further destructive to the natural cycle and balance of the planet, we instead wanted to use this information – to actually create weather.

If we know that that one cooling tower can initiate and contribute to cloud formation, then we know two will contribute even more. If we know two cooling towers will contribute to cloud formation, then we know that four cooling towers will contribute twice as much as that.

If we know one power plant with four cooling towers will contribute significantly to cloud formation, then we know two power plants, separated by a little distance, will contribute even more to cloud formation.

If we know that two power plants in series will contribute significantly to cloud formation, then we know that four in sequence would contribute even more, as would 10 in sequence, as would 100, or 1000, or 7,000… or 62,500.

In order to create a rainstorm then for instance, all we would need to do is start the cloud system with a Water Vapor release from Power Plant A, wait until that initial cloud of Water Vapor reached station B, then continue feeding the cloud system with Water Vapor release from Station B, wait until that more developed cloud system reaches Station C, then continue feeding the cloud system with Water Vapor release from Station C, and so on until the cloud system reaches saturation – and drops the accumulated Water Vapor as rain.


Now, recognize that there is nothing hypothetical – about any of this. The ability to do this, is the only explanation for the last 50 years of history. The concerns for the environment were meticulously, deliberately, and strategically sabotaged and marginalized, while a global network of 62,500 Water Vapor Generators (each capable of firing 18,000 gal/min of Water Vapor into the air – as the most conservative possible estimate) was constructed around the globe. The fact that the Zion Power Plant ran to decommission in 1998 without these towers at all, proves that this methodology is not now, nor was it ever necessary to implement on such a massive global scale… for any other reason than the ability to create weather.


Quite clearly this information and this reality have been systematically suppressed for the last 50 years. 50 years ago the scientific community said “The time to do this (exten­sive mea­sure­ment and research pro­grams car­ried out to obtain the needed knowl­edge on cooling tower impacts) is now, not in 1980 or later, when the prob­lems (what­ever they may be) asso­ci­ated with cool­ing tower efflu­ents will have increased many times with the rapidly increas­ing demands for elec­tric power.” 50 year later, whatever discussion there was about this reality was silenced, marginalized, and coopted for use in developing the global geoengineering grid. This isn’t speculation of any kind. The world we live in proves it.

As I have shown pertaining to the geoengineering issue, and to psyops in general, the 25 Rules of Disinformation are the foundational tools for discrediting, marginalizing, and suppressing any actual truth or real information. Everyone should become intimately familiar with them. You are subjected to them a thousand times a day whether you are aware of it or not, and this understanding is critical in being able to sift through the massive amounts of disinformation that dominates cyberspace and media.

For 50 years, this is how they have managed to coopt any reality in the scientific community, and silenced any dissenting voices. It’s no mystery to me what happened to any of these scientists that tried to tell the truth about this reality, or how they were badgered, insulted, ignored, and silenced. I‘ve had to deal with all the same tactics firsthand. Again, all of it is documented in the psyops section… which incidentally, is one of the differences between myself and the scientific community.

Dane Wigington is quintessential example of this methodology and these tactics. For years I tried to contact him, thinking he was ‘real geoengineering activist’ like many people do, and he never responded – once. As time went on, it became clear that he was not only ignoring me, he was ignoring anyone who mentioned this work, and deleted any comments posted on his site or forums that pertained to myself and this work. At every possible opportunity I encourage people to test the veracity of my statement. Contact Dane Wigington at geoengineeringwatch.org, his Twitter account, or Facebook, and simply mention WeatherWar101. See for yourself what his reaction is.

As more time passed, it became clear that Dane Wigington was also contacting my viewers and supporters directly, to discredit me, this work, and this reality. Bear in mind, Dane Wigington has not once even communicated with me directly – much less debated any aspect of global geoengineering.

When my colleague Sofia Smallstorm went on Red Ice Radio and did a spectacular job explaining the reality of global geoengineering and the significance of the primary component – Global Water Vapor Generation from the Power Plant Grid – Dane Wigington once again did not confront me directly to contest this reality… he once again emailed Sofia Smallstorm directly to discredit me. Sofia Smallstorm (one of the very few people I have encountered in this field with actual integrity, and the author of the Foreword to my eBook: NO NATURAL WEATHER), naturally informed me of it. This, is what Dane Wigington had to say (exactly as sent):

Hello Sophia, hope you are well.

I had your recent interview with Red Ice sent to me, just wanted to give you an FYI on the claims WW101 makes on the cooling towers, the claims are beyond ridiculously false. I worked on cooling towers for Bechtel in California, they can only put out enough steam to form a small cloud just over the facility. Do the math on 2 inches of rain over even a small geographic area, its a massive amount of water. I know what I am speaking about on this issue Sophia, the WW101 claims of the cooling towers is totally ludicrous. This is to bad as the images he has of the NEXRAD are good.

Again, hope you are well.


The list of Dane Wigington’s deliberate and constant efforts to discredit me and to suppress this work is well documented and extensive, but most recently he wrote two articles – again, to specifically discredit me and to suppress the reality of Cooling Tower Water Vapor as the number one component of Global Geoengineering (which is also the number one “Greenhouse Gas”).

“Setting The Record Straight For Those That Truly Care About The Battle To Stop Climate Engineering” – Dane Wigington

About WW101

I have indeed made clear my disagreements with WW101 and I stand by everything I have stated in this regard. WW101 has put out some good and I believe accurate information about NEXRAD radar, but other videos put out by WW101 are completely unhelpful and untrue. Some of the WW101 videos blame all the weather disruptions on the sun without so much as mentioning the climate engineering issue. Other videos state that all the moisture for storms is coming from power plant cooling towers. This conclusion is so far from reality that it does not even deserve a response. Now it seems that WW101 is branching out to personal attack videos in the effort to try and extract revenge from those who don’t agree with his “its all just the sun” or his “cooling tower” theories.

One again, Dane Wigington has never had a “disagreement” with me, because he has never had a conversation with me. This is just a lie. Me “blaming all the weather disruptions on the sun without so much as mentioning the climate engineering issue,” is also just a lie. I have 135+ detailed video on geoengineering… not one of them has anything to do with the Sun. Note the other obvious psyop tactic: Five years of suppression and subversive attacks to discredit me, this work, and this reality, but when I document and illustrate the tactics being used – It’s “me attacking and extracting revenge on them.”

Finally, and most significantly for this topic, Dane wrote an article – intended to do exactly what has been done for the last 50 years. Dismiss the reality of Cooling Tower Water Vapor while discrediting and silencing messenger… in this case, me.

Like I said however, I’m not like the rest of the scientific community. I can decipher and document psyops tactics as easily as I can geoengineering.

Rules of Disinformation:

Dane Wigington has employed the same set of disinformation tactics consistently (all documented in the Psyops section), and this “article” was a spectacularly glaring example of it. Dane Wigington dismissed my ten years of work and research in a single paragraph, based on nothing but his say-so.

Read the rules below, keep in mind the 50 years of scientific reality I have documented above, then read Dane Wigington’s insulting psyops dismissal of reality.

2. Become incred­u­lous and indig­nant. Avoid dis­cussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being crit­i­cal of some oth­er­wise sacro­sanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gam­bit.

6. Hit and Run. In any pub­lic forum, make a brief attack of your oppo­nent or the oppo­nent posi­tion and then scam­per off before an answer can be fielded, or sim­ply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Inter­net and letters-to-the-editor envi­ron­ments where a steady stream of new iden­ti­ties can be called upon with­out hav­ing to explain crit­i­cism, rea­son­ing — sim­ply make an accu­sa­tion or other attack, never dis­cussing issues, and never answer­ing any sub­se­quent response, for that would dig­nify the opponent’s view­point.

8. Invoke author­ity. Claim for your­self or asso­ciate your­self with author­ity and present your argu­ment with enough ‘jar­gon’ and ‘minu­tia’ to illus­trate you are ‘one who knows’, and sim­ply say it isn’t so with­out dis­cussing issues or demon­strat­ing con­cretely why or cit­ing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No mat­ter what evi­dence or log­i­cal argu­ment is offered, avoid dis­cussing issues except with denials they have any cred­i­bil­ity, make any sense, pro­vide any proof, con­tain or make a point, have logic, or sup­port a con­clu­sion. Mix well for max­i­mum effect.

19. Ignore proof pre­sented, demand impos­si­ble proofs. This is per­haps a vari­ant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regard­less of what mate­r­ial may be pre­sented by an oppo­nent in pub­lic forums, claim the mate­r­ial irrel­e­vant and demand proof that is impos­si­ble for the oppo­nent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his dis­posal, or it may be some­thing which is known to be safely destroyed or with­held). In order to com­pletely avoid dis­cussing issues, it may be required that you to cat­e­gor­i­cally deny and be crit­i­cal of media or books as valid sources, deny that wit­nesses are accept­able, or even deny that state­ments made by gov­ern­ment or other author­i­ties have any mean­ing or rel­e­vance.

20. False evi­dence. When­ever pos­si­ble, intro­duce new facts or clues designed and man­u­fac­tured to con­flict with oppo­nent pre­sen­ta­tions — as use­ful tools to neu­tral­ize sen­si­tive issues or impede res­o­lu­tion. This works best when the crime was designed with con­tin­gen­cies for the pur­pose, and the facts can­not be eas­ily sep­a­rated from the fab­ri­ca­tions.

“Cooling Towers For Weather Modification? Absolute Nonsense” – Dane Wigington

I have had a number of people request that I address the completely ridiculous information being put out by some stating that power plant cooling towers are being used for climate modification.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-2 I have not written about this disinformation until now as the cooling tower conclusion is so ludicrous that I felt it did not need to be “debunked”.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-2Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-9Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-19 This being said, some published pictures of the steam plumes above cooling towers could be confusing to those that have not done the math.

I have personally worked on cooling towers for Bechtel Power over three decades ago.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-8 The facility I was involved with was the “Coolwater Coal Gassification Project” located in Dagget, California. Dagget is in the middle of the Mojave Desert. How much available water is there in this desert? Not much, and for this reason these cooling towers were a “closed loop” system.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-20 Many power plants use this type of system to conserve water. Power plants use steam generators in most cases, how can they not generate steam? In comparison to even the smallest of rainstorms, the amount of water vapor put out by the cooling towers is barely a drop in the ocean.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-20 As already mentioned, many facilities simply recirculate the water, only losing a slight amount to steam.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-20 The “cooling ponds” that supply the water for the steam generating plants are not very large and are supplied by conventional wells in many cases.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-20 People need to picture the amount of water that pours out of the sky which can form huge lakes and rivers in a very short time. To believe that isolated steam cooling towers could magically put this volume of water into the sky from water sources that are often only ponds fed by wells is beyond ridiculous.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-2Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-9Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-19 We must all use our sense of reason and avoid conclusions that come from an impressive picture without due consideration.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-2Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-9Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-19 Though there is much we can not yet know about in regard to the full spectrum of the climate modification programs or the mechanisms that carry these programs out, the cooling tower moisture supply theory should be buried in the tomb of the totally impossible.Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-2Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-9Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-19
Dane Wigington

  • Rules-of-Disinformation-Number-20- The "closed loop" deflection, is a another lie. It only applies to the water / steam that actually turns the turbine... which is only half of the system. The Cooling Tower process where tens of thousands of gallons of water per minute is sprayed and evaporated, is an Open Loop system. Self-proclaimed Bechtel Cooling Tower Expert Dane Wigington certainly know this, and he knows claiming the entire system is "closed loop" is an evasion and a lie.


(Under Construction)


NNW-101-Amazon-1"NO NATURAL WEATHER" is a clearly written simple tutorial about weather modification and much more, designed for newcomers to the concept, but also full of explanations and clarifications that will add to the research of those who are already aware. Start at the beginning and let this narrative take you on a journey from soup to nuts, A to Z.

Share the series with your family and friends! There is no better time than now to educate yourself to what is and has been going on, and the thoughtful guidance provided by this seasoned researcher is the best company you could have on such an alarming journey. For yes, it is alarming to learn that our planet is being altered in ways that it may never recover from.

It is time for us all to voice our collective power, but no one can do so until the actual knowledge has been given and shared. Thank you, WeatherWar101, for your immense contribution!

Sofia Smallstorm - (Excerpt from Foreword)

My Review of WW101 Geoengineering 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Doug
Jan 02, 2015
A very simple to read and understand version of what has been going on with the unusual weather over the past 50 years.Great job WW101!
Look through your ego to the sky 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Bruce Nicholas
Dec 18, 2014
This should be required reading for every conscious breathing human. Doubters and denialists should walk outside,tilt their heads upward with eyes open and watch it happen. I did.
Excellent work in geoengeneering for several years 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By R. S.
Nov 15, 2014
WeatherWar101 done very excellent work in geoengeneering for several years. He is the highly reccomended expert at youtube. You can buy blind and never astonished.
As a fan of Weatherwar101 this ebook puts it all 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Teresa
Aug 26, 2014
As a fan of Weatherwar101 this ebook puts it all together simply and makes me wish it was written so I could show the family who do not use the internet for their information.
An excellent compendium on the subject 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Iris
Jul 07, 2014
Do you think that understanding what is happening in our sky is too complicated to understand? Then this book will prove you otherwise. WeatherWar101 explains not only what we are witnessing in basic terms, but how an altered climate snug up on us stealthily. Reading 'No Natural Weather: Introduction to Geoengineering 101' gave me a new perspective on why Geoengineering is still so fiercely denied.
This is a great book in the first step to understanding the "How's" 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Theresa M. Pratt
Jul 03, 2014
WeatherWar101 has been working tirelessly in educating the public regarding our engineered weather. This is a great book in the first step to understanding the "How's" and "Why's" of Geoengineering. Regardless of whether you are a believer or not, condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Five Stars 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Kay Ward
Sep 11, 2014
Excellent and informative book, everyone should read this...
Easy to understand book 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By DJ Oct 24, 2014
Well put together, easy to understand book. Should open a few eyes.
Some real TRUTH about Climate Change 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By D. W. Sep 11, 2014
WW101 has dug deep to research what is really going on with our weather today. This book should be read by everyone who desires to know the truth about "climate change".
Finally! 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Marcy Ruland June 18, 2014
I've known about this truth for years but I have struggled with why the natural systems of cloud & rain formation no longer existed. Why & how was it "broken", for how long & who was responsible? Finally, some clear answers that make sense.
Excellent Work - Could also be named Go-engineering For Dummies 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Michael June 18, 2014
I have observed, monitored and photographed geo-engineering activities for 7 years now. Myself and many like me are extremely frustrated with the persistent almost daily activities that are quite apparent in the skies across the US and much of the world. The very fact that the Federal, State and Local Governments and the Military are all complicit is maddening. We have witnessed the geo-engineering of highly destructive weather events and weather patterns. Here is one example of photographic evidence of one of my observations of a geo-engineered 40 inch Blizzard that hit Hamden CT http://youtu.be/QNoUW4wb9zU

This book is a must have for the average person who like me is aware that there is something very wrong with what we are observing and need to learn more.

I finally understand what is going on 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By boambria June 17, 2014
I can't wait for the others to come out. this is a must read for anyone trying to make sense of the weather modification process. thank you so much!
No Natural Weather: Introduction to Geoengineering 101 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By D. Hudyman June 12, 2014
This is an excellent book & brilliantly written. WeatherWar101 obviously understands the issues of Geoengineering, and how it affects this planet. It is a great contribution to the truth and reality of what we face. Thank you to Sofia Smallstorm for her contribution.
Man-made-Weather by Geoengineering 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Boris N Hiesserer June 10, 2014
I highly recommend this well researched E-book, as it is of highest scientific value! Everyone interested in meteorology and especially those who call themselves professionals in this field should get a copy and some know-how of the ongoing planetary geo-engineering operations and it's strategies - such as mixing Chemtrails (aerosol cloud seeding) with Water Vapor Generation (over land and sea) and stimulate the mixture by Nexrad Frequency Control radar technologies. It's the same here in Europe and that 's exactly why WW101's E-book is so important: it helps our planetary citizenship to


GET THE FACTS!!!! MUST READ!!! 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By 1nterloper June 10, 2014
I have been a follower of your work for over a year now and I commend your continuing efforts in educating our peers about this assault on the planet. This eBook educates readers about the facts of what is going on in the skies around the world. Real science, real manipulation, real results. WW101 lays the facts out perfectly time after time and urges the reader to think critically about the reality we live in. An extremely important piece of reading material that will change our understanding of the world we know.
Great Insight into the question: What is going on in our sky? 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By C. Bowman June 10, 2014
Many of us remember the skies without the perpetual haze and the lingering streaks that dissipate into more haze. We remember those days. 'No Natural Weather: Introduction to Geoengineering 101' seeks to provide some answers based on the available evidence and does a terrific job.

Geoengineering has been a weapon of war as far back as the Vietnam war.

In 1977, the former Soviet Union and the United States signed a treaty to limit the use of weather modification. The UN 'Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other hostile use of Environmental Modification Techniques' was adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976 and signed in Geneva May 18, 1977 by a total of 33 countries.

Geoengineering is a reality in our skies. Those trying to deny it's existence are experiencing cognitive dissonance or simply look ridiculous because the evidence speaks to the contrary.

Although some of the information on Geoengineering remains classified, there is abundant evidence that what this is doing to our planet may be perhaps the crime of the century. There is plenty of good information is this E-book to stir up a passionate outcry.

'No Natural Weather:Introduction to Geoengineering 101' is highly recommended.

I found this E-book through the author's YouTube channel WeatherWar101. I could heartily recommend that as well.

Tea Kettles over land masses 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Rose June 10, 2014

This e-book by WeatherWar101, 'No Natural Weather: Introduction to Geoengineering 101' simplifies what one sees on radar and weather maps. The term 'Tea Kettles over land masses' demonstrate how the combined, sequential pluming effects, are occurring. The Proper Terminology used in the book helps the reader understand what they're seeing, making it easy to explain to others.

The ability for fine tuning weather systems should help to Avoid devastation, not Create it. Hurricane Season in the Northern Hemisphere is now here. Future damaging weather systems in Your Area will be Man Made. WeatherWar101 easily teaches how these storms are built in this e-book, 'No Natural Weather: Introduction to Geoengineering 101'.

Be Aware and Stay Aware. Share this with your older, more mature Children. Our Future.

Excellent Starting Point 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Henwhisperer June 4, 2014
WeatherWar101 has done an excellent job of outlining the facts surrounding geoengineering. People who are unfamiliar with how our unnatural weather is made, or those just starting to wake up to it, will find the explanations easy to understand.
A Must Read 5-Star-Icon-1-1
By Donald June 2, 2014
We are all witnesses to the ongoing Geo-engineering programs that are taking place around the world. This first eBook in a series explains in simple terms how we got to this point and what you can do to help raise awareness to this ongoing crime against humanity.

WW101 Joomla PayPal 1 SM

I have known Sofia Smallstorm for many years and as evidenced by her inclusion in my documentary “Weather War Big Picture: Geo-Engineering & Bio-Engineering - V.1” and her foreword in my eBook “No Natural Weather: Introduction to Geoengineering 101,” she is a researcher I have great respect and regard for.

Some time ago Sofia wen on Red Ice Radio as well. Her understanding and ability to explain this reality (while doing it in her soothing voice that can make the most disturbing realities palatable somehow) is unequaled. If you want an excellent walk through of the basics of geoengineering and this work, I suggest you start here.

The topic of Chemtrails, like all other aspects of geoengineering, has been intermingled with so much misinformation, that it has largely been turned into a punchline. This is typical for any visible actual truth that they just can’t make people forget about. If they can’t make a topic go away, the next best thing is to distort it with massive amounts of misinformation, that people can’t discern the reality from the deliberately manufactured lunacy. Ultimately this makes the entire topic “suspect,” it gets dismissed as “tinfoil hat” fair, and the followers get dismissed as crazy “conspiracy theorists.” Quite obviously, this is all by design, and is an integral part of the methodology to keep people from ever discovering any real truth.

However, Chemtrails are a very real component of geoengineering. Ironically (but deliberately) deniers claim Chemtrails that stay in the sky (or grow) for hours, or that are visibly and instantly affected by Frequency, are simply “Water Vapor,” while at the same time claiming that hundreds of thousands of gallons a minute vaporized at any one power plant, combined with hundreds of other power plants – is an insignificant amount of Water Vapor that doesn’t affect (or effect) rainfall at all. Confusion and contradiction are tools that are used abundantly in disinformation and reality suppression.

In this video however, you will find the factual evidence and reasons for Chemtrails – all of which can verified. It is very important to separate the reality from the manufactured misdirection.

For a comprehensive breakdown of all major aspects of Geoengineering (Chemtrails, Nexrad, Water Vapor Generation, etc.), and Bioengineering, watch this full length documentary. Sofia Smallstorm is included with presentation on Chemtrails, Morgellons, and Transhumanism.

Go to top