Posts Tagged ‘chaff’
GENUINE BULL – GENUINE PROFESSIONALS – GEORGE CARLIN – GET REAL – GIVEMEABREAKGIVEMEABREAK – BREATHTAKING QUOTES
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
GenuineBull: Persistent lies of chemically-infused butt spray dispersals from typically uninformed brains which are now seen in YouTube all over the world. Unlike normal conversations formed by normal people, GB’s words spread to form a thick blanket of bullshit, held together by straws until they reach the ground, contaminating crops, water supplies and humans with a pungent stink of lies and dessicated innuendoes which contain active human pathogens. The cure: contrailscience.com
Chemtrails Parts I and II ? Miles Muzio Chief Meteorologist KBAK-TV, CBS 29 News, Bakersfield California
Genuine professionals are people called by some as “disinformationalists” (sic).
They are ALWAYS people who KNOW what they are talking about. Chemtrailers automatically HATE these people and call them “useful idiots”.
Miles Muzio here is a regular guy who is obviously good at his job, but not too practised in rebutting or debunking conspiracy fools. (I can tell because he occasionally misuses some relevant terminology himself, which one has learned NOT to do when fighting such a war of ideas. In particular he seems unaware of the existence of supersaturation as a special condition of the stratosphere.)
He says: “This is an ongoing controversy with some people who insist a malevolent conspiracy is subliminally gassing Americans. I have found no credible evidence of this. Condensation trails are common and form as a function of temperature. Condensation nuclei are produced by hydrocarbon exhaust and quickly form ice fog in the high atmosphere. The colder it is at flight level the more persistent the ice fog is.
There are really three types of fog (which are manifest as clouds aloft): 1) regular water droplet fog at temperatures above freezing, 2) water droplet fog at temperatures below freezing (which can result in icing conditions for aircraft), and 3) ice crystal fog (ice fog). Ice fog generally forms at temperatures below -22F. In arctic towns during the dead of winter it is not unusual to have ice fog form behind cars on the road. Ice fog dissipates very slowly because it must sublime from solid to vapor which requires a molecular heat transfer of about 620 calories per gram. At extremely low temperatures in the 30,000 to 40,000 foot range (between -60 and -100 degrees F), this change of state can take some time.
When I was a military meteorologist in Alaska back in the 1970s, one of the routine forecasts I put out was a contrails prediction. It was something that dated back to World War II. Our bombers needed to know at what altitude they must fly in order to NOT produce contrails. Of course, there was radar back then and the Japanese probably could spot an incoming B-29, but perhaps not. If contrails were visible 100 miles away then everyone would know. Nomograms were developed for the prediction. It was fairly straight forward. A critical temperature and pressure was required for contrail formation, usually something like -45F. Humidity came into the equation for relatively warm temperatures, but once it got below about -70F humidity didn’t matter – ice clouds would form regardless. When you see jets in which the contrail forms for only a short distance behind the aircraft and then it quickly disappears – that means the jet is flying at an altitude close to the critical contrail temperature.
I can also tell you that the manner in which contrails disperse, or don’t disperse, reveals important information about atmospheric stability and diffluence. The same is true about lenticular clouds that form in Tehachapi. These mountain wave clouds don’t automatically form when it’s windy. There are several other considerations, such as stability, humidity and the wind angle relation to the mountain range.
In the same way contrails will expand in areas of diffluent flow (winds pulling apart over a horizontal area). Much of this also applies to steam or exhaust that is released from a common smoke stack in breezy conditions. If the smoke goes up or if it goes down, if it expands or if it stays uniform – all tell a story about the character of the atmosphere. So when contrails form an X in the sky, it means there are two persistent contrails behind aircraft with tracks at 90-degrees to each other – nothing more. Go to contrailscience.com for further details.”
“YOU ARE ALL DISEASED”
This was an American with a single-digit percentage of bullshit telling Americans what was wrong with their thinking (not that he didn’t have a world-wide appeal!). I tremendously respected and admired this man, and still keep him in mind when I write – he helps me keep my OWN bullshit in check.
What he says about DISEASE (and many other issues) should be MANDATORY MATERIAL in education.
He was the very embodiment of MATURITY…
Aviation kerosine contains no metal, and burns to form steam and carbon dioxide. Chaff is INERT. Civil planes aren’t fitted with spray equipment. The world’s 1500 active (24/7) volcanoes outdo Man’s efforts twentyfold. Living plants have converted THAT into FRESH AIR for 3 billion years. Human skin and lung diseases are caused by pollens and auto fumes and photoreactive smog combined. Worry about deforestation and the death of ocean phytoplankton. GET REAL! PEACEFULLY!
“He will just waste your time and energy” – You ARE wasting everyone’s time.
“I learned the hard way” – You have LEARNED not a thing
“posts on other chemtrail videos” - who LIE as YOU do..
“comments from other people about him on his YouTube profile” – There was ONE SMART GUY there…
“all over the web debunking chemtrails” – I would STOP if there were any PROOF to the contrary.
“google “jazzroc”" – and some extreme “chemtrailer” crap crops up amongst scientific and musical references. Embarrassing.
“logical explanation for his behavior is he is paid” – NO. For want of a scientific understanding you guys are talking complete rubbish, and I thought to point you in a scientific direction. While you talk utter crap you’ll get nowhere. (Don’t you just LOATHE people who talk past you?)
“jazzroc (aka “Epoxynous”, “doublemeat”)” – They are OTHER PEOPLE I’m pleased to have been in touch with.
“”soda pop” crap” – Which is COMPLETELY TRUE – but call it CRAP, and maybe it’ll go away, eh?
“never-ending arguments” – NEVER HAPPEN BETWEEN SENSIBLE PEOPLE.
“He attacks anyone” – I attack ANY BAD IDEA.
“chemtrails may not be simple contrails” – may not exist, for the complete ABSENCE of PROOF.
“bombard you with “scientific evidence”" – as found in TEXT BOOKS ON SCIENCE
“he refers to his own website as proof” – It has a potted life history, photographs, my composed jazz and my synthesized classics (some of it interesting. “Fire and Ice” and “Variations on a Theme by Thomas Tallis” I recommend), pictures of my daughter’s wedding, blogs on volcanoes/contrails, “intelligent” design, canvassers, religion.
“responds with a barrage of insults and bizarre accusations (such as “you are either uneducated or evil”)” – (some barrage) but only after enduring STREAMS OF ABUSE from people who are resolutely opposed to either REASON or LOOKING THINGS UP. Only YOU would think my accustion bizarre!
It IS EVIL to do HARM, and propagating LIES is HARMFUL.
“Classic misdirection” – (Yours) is being followed by MY REDIRECTION. Your answers to my posts NEVER QUESTION THE SCIENCE, NEVER argue the SCIENCE, NEVER even acknowledge the SCIENCE.
(You call Science ”DISINFORMATION”!)
Let me tell you something.
SCIENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF TO WORK AND BE CORRECT. Disbelief in Science WILL NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY.
If you have an enemy who is using WORKING SCIENCE to depopulate YOU, he is MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED if YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Science is abysmally POOR.
WAKE UP. READ UP.
And I don’t mean read up THE LIES YOU TELL EACH OTHER.
I MEAN GO TO THE LIBRARY, GO TO SCHOOL.
LEARN about the atmosphere. TRY to get a PROPER SENSE OF SCALE about the SIZE OF THE EARTH.
Read JANE’S AIRCRAFT so that you can UNDERSTAND more about aircraft design and stop making such fools of yourselves.
(A Roll of Honor)
For some time now (writing in May of 2009) I have been feeling less alone, and more heartened by others speaking up as I do against chemtard foolishness, but often more eloquently, or more wittily than I’m able to do, throwing in a lightness of touch which I both envy and admire, or cutting to the centre of a misperception with a rapier’s slash.
And so I introduce a heroine of mine, STARS15K, featuring both in YouTube and Contrailscience, who describes herself thus: “I’m just a middle-aged, middle-income, middle-American, dog-loving, wool spinning, fly-tying, sock knitting, married to the only man i ever dated, Grandma of two, cloud-freak. I’m so proud.”
That is real smart.
I’m going to add to this list, of course, because I have come across suitable candidates previously, but I dedicate it to STARS15K because, well, she probably can always head up such a list!
And what she writes here is really beautiful:
Real Science, has facts and is the same everywhere. CT theory doesn’t fit these criteria. Laws of gravity, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, physics, chemistry, meteorology can’t be repealed by any government or entity. They have to remain the same. When science shows the same results over and over again, it means that is a fact. When you have just facts, you know the truth. When you understand the truth, the sky is the sky again, clouds look like bunnies or Homer Simpson, colored sunsets are beautiful, and planes can leave signs of their passing overhead without fear and worry.
I would like to ask you why those who are in the meteorology/aviation field need to go through years of schooling when all one has to do is “look up” in order to understand what is happening as an airplane flies through varying weather conditions. If one can just simply rely on their eyes to explain complex weather movements and air masses, why go to school at all? Can’t you just imagine for a moment that these are complex concepts that require actual training to understand? Both meteorology and aviation are rare subjects to study and there are not many people in a given area who have learned about such subjects. Isn’t it possible that those you have learned from are uneducated in these subjects also?
Can I understand the complicated jet engine just by looking at it or do I need to study a bit to understand that it COMPRESSES the air it takes in and then mixes that high pressure air with fuel and ignites it to create thrust? To believe you understand the atmosphere and how all the elements work together, without studying from a source other than youtube (and other “websites”), is absurd. I hope you learn the truth someday, for your sake and the sake of your children. No one should live in fear of the lines in the sky when here there are billions of sources of pollution right down here on the ground to worry about. The funny, and ironic, FACT is that the trails hold LESS danger to you and your family than some of the water down here that is labeled fit for human consumption. You focus on the absurd while ignoring true dangers. If you fertilize your lawn, you are exposing your children to MUCH higher concentrations of dangerous substances than you can find in MILES of persistent contrails.
Please stop telling lies about people you know nothing about here, or on youtube. It makes you look foolish and paranoid. I really do hope you find the truth. I would hate to live in fear as you people obviously do.
(In his YouTube channel comments)
keeps info about the real world
hidden from the population
in storage devices called “books”
kept in secret vaults known as “libraries”.
(Such a hero of mine. His site: CONTRAILSCIENCE.COM)
How is your belief as valid as mine? I think “The cloud photos in this 100 year old book are natural”.
You think “The cloud photos in this 100 year old book indicate the use of Tesla’s scalar energy used to modify the weather, a practice that has gone on for the last 100 years and continues today”.
To back up my belief (really a theory, but let’s call it a belief, no need for semantic arguments), I point out that the science of meteorology, as practised in every country in the world by hundreds of thousands of scientists, and as reported in tens of thousands of scientific articles and research papers, and verified by millions of experiments, and as followed by millions of amateur scientists and meteorologists, and modeled by thousands of weather forecasting systems, and taught in schools and universities, is entirely consistent with the photos in the book. In addition, the exact same clouds were observed hundreds (and even thousands) of years BEFORE the book was published.
To back up your belief, what? Tesla made vague mention of “scalar energy”, a technology that nobody has ever demonstrated by experiment in any way. Technology supposedly invented 100 years ago that no country in the entire world has ever used – despite its promise of “free” energy. Somehow this is being used to modify the weather of the entire planet – and you can offer no evidence other than “it seems like something they would cover up if they were doing it”.
Not all beliefs are equally valid. If I believed that clouds were the condensed breath of invisible dragons, then you would quite likely disagree. If you want your alternative beliefs to be taken seriously, you need to at least approach the degree of evidence that supports the mainstream beliefs.
The reason we have not been able to find any legitimate proof that chemtrails exist is because they simply do not exist. The term is an internet creation to make condensation trails aka contrails sound more sinister.
When you actually look at the facts, as Uncinus proposes, you can see the argument in support of these chemtrails quickly reduces to nothing more than a bundle of pseudo-science, assumption, misguided correlations and unqualified uneducated personal testimony.
I have yet to find for myself one argument for the existence of these ‘chemtrails’ that does not skirt around the real results from real studies from real accredited sources. Instead, I have just found these arguments to resort to personal attacks and contradictory statements.
For example, how can you argue that the government is lying to us to cover this up and at the same time use government information taken out of context as the proof chemtrails exist? Logically, if this is the huge conspiracy, involving thousands of people, falsified studies and an extreme government cover up, wouldn’t the simplest thing these conspirators would do would be to remove those links to themselves?
Of course, this is speculation on my part and should be taken as such. I am not a professional of any kind in this matter and I don’t believe anyone should be convinced on my word alone just as I will never be convinced by your word alone.
What we do have, however, is science and legitimate information. Anyone can access these studies and weigh both sides of this argument and make an educated decision. For me the answer is simple; chemtrails do not exist and so this conspiracy does not exist.
Contrails do exist. Everyday, the number of airplanes in our skies increase as do the number of contrails left behind. Instead of trying to justify our paranoia with fictional conspiracies, we should be looking at what is actually going on in the world we create for ourselves.
Our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our earth is polluted, we don’t need to create something like chemtrails to prove this. Instead of creating government conspiracy in our minds we should acknowledge the real perpetrators, ourselves.
We drive the cars, we fly in the planes, and we ignore the effect each one of us has on the environment around us. No one wants to see the blood on our own hands, an enemy image is easier for us to justify than taking the blame for our own contribution to an increasingly polluted planet.
We desperately need to stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for our own actions.
We need to ask ourselves the hard question; What actions or in-actions am I taking that contribute to the problem and what am I doing to create a solution?
The answer is yours alone and yours to reconcile with yourself.
“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” -Voltaire
Ahh, the catch cry of the liar and charlatan, got no proof, caught redhanded knee deep in bullshit, then start calling people a shill to try and divert.
Show some proof, retard. show the planes on the ground, show me the tankers transporting this stuff, show me the plants manufacturing this chemical.
You can’t because it’s all bullshit.
All you have is the same dumb-arse videos. Go video rainbows in the sprinklers and drop some acid.
You can’t be any more brain damaged than you are already.
Written by JazzRoc
November 4, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with admire, aerosol, aluminium, aluminum, american, arthritis, auto fumes, aviation kerosine, barium, behavior, brain, breathing difficulties, bullshit, butt, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chaff, chem trail, civil planes, contaminating, contrailscience, deforestation, disease, diseased, disinformation, doublemeat, education, epoxynous, filaments, fresh air, genuine bull, george carlin, google, heavy haze, human, inert, jazzroc, lie, lies, lines in the sky, logical, lung disease, mandatory material, maturity, metal, metallic salts, misdirection, morgellons, musical, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, ocean phytoplankton, oily clouds, photochemical, photoreactive, plant, pollen, proof, ptb, redirection, rense, respect, scientific, scientific understanding, skin and lung disease, smog, soda pop, spray equipment, spraying, steam, straw, text book, tic-tac-toe, uninformed, unnatural cloud, volcano, webby material, website, whiteout, youtube
NOMEANSNO – NOT COMING – NOT HEALTHY – NOTHING – NOTRAILS – NUTS (TO SOMEONE WHO BLOCKED ME) – OFFICIAL (VERSION) – OGRISH – OUTSIDE IN – PAINT – PENITENT (The Longest Day II)
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
This gentleman really means “No!” He has decided the way it is, and anything that doesn’t fit the way he sees it, is OUT.
Hey Jazzy, you seem to find me about every 6 months or so. I can’t return comments on the re:on off video so i thought I would PM you. First to set it straight, are you debunking this guy?:
I know there is more to this whole topic than meets the eye. I am professionally trained in the field of thermal transfer and am fully aware of the conditions of our atmosphere. I have a better than average grasp of physics. And am a practicing expert in philosophy.
That said, any information you have of the current global attempts at controlling/modifying the weather would be appreciated. I have gleaned from our “discussions” that you know more than you are letting on. Why do the bulk of your ilk argue in the same manner? Act open to discussion yet when the chips are down, retreat behind a veil of name calling. G
First to set it straight, are you debunking this guy?:
No. Michio is setting things straight here. A whole generation of radiation meters under-read a while back. The first time such meters went into space they read NOTHING. This was because the radiation overexposure SATURATED them. All that needs to be done is add some redundancy to the network, so that info can be moved out of the way of the storm. Satellites in earth’s shadow remain useful, and advance warning of approaching storms is already in place.
I know there is more to this whole topic than meets the eye. I am professionally trained in the field of thermal transfer and am fully aware of the conditions of our atmosphere. I have a better than average grasp of physics. And am a practicing expert in philosophy.
I don’t believe you at all. Anyone with the slightest grasp of physics knows you are barking up the wrong tree.
That said, any information you have of the current global attempts at controlling/modifying the weather would be appreciated.
There are none. Just you bunch talking up a storm.
1. Teller’s Bar/Al Welsbach materials need placing higher in the atmosphere than planes can fly.
2. It’s possible to make liquid organic metals but they are expensive, corrosive, prone to spontaneous ignition, and don’t pump easily. If burnt in a turbofan they would destroy it in seconds,
3. If burnt in a turbofan there would be no GAP in the trail between the exhaust and the trail beginning. Instead the exit flame would be colored green or white.
These three objections, coupled with the fact that a jet is a 2000 deg F FLAME rule out completely ANY chemtrailer notion. One’s enough…
I have gleaned from our “discussions” that you know more than you are letting on.
Of course I do. It’s a huge field and 500 chrs is a small space to play in.
Why do the bulk of your ilk argue in the same manner? Act open to discussion yet when the chips are down, retreat behind a veil of name calling.
It’s a product of your hypocritical rose-tinted glasses worn as part of a partisan group. The opposite of what you say is almost always the truth. I certainly find personally that any chemtrailer’s assertion is a negative pointer to the truth of any matter. Faithinscience is abusive, and stands alone. I am normally abused after my first question which receives no answer, The abuser never seems to notice what he does. It’s almost like “Tourettes syndrome”.
In atmospheric physics the behavior of aircraft has been well understood for sixty years. Hundreds of papers have been written minutely examining the contents of trails to thousandths of a percent. These days they are measured and assayed using laser interferometry from satellite or ground.
It is known that in the stratosphere a jumbo can lay down thirty-five pounds of ice for each yard of forward flight. Did you know that?
The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice. Did you know that?
Now can you put one and one together and see what your mind has been doing to you?
I did not know that, and still don’t. I can not find any corroborating evidence to support such a claim, Ice is 977 times denser than vapour – a far cry from 10,000.
If Michio Kaku is so sure about a coming solar storm, you think nothing is being done about this? You don’t know about haarp and the other 25 such devices around the globe. The inventor/developer of this technology is on the record stating its scope of use?
I am well aware of contrail science, but normal contrails do not act this way, at least they didn’t when I was younger. If the reason for the extra spreading of contrails as of late, is normal, there is serious pollution issues in the stratosphere. And we should be rallying to put an end to this waste.
You cannot find corroborating evidence because you only find “chemtrailer” lies. To avoid them you must use “Advanced Search” and include “-chemtrail” and “-aerosol” in your search terms. Then if you search for “paper stratosphere aviation combustion ice trail cirrus cloud”, for instance, you get an entirely different set of results.
We’re all sure of the approaching storm. The solar cycle is well understood. I’ve told you something is being done about this. HAARP has nothing to do with this. The Sun can be hundreds of times more powerful than HAARP. The scope of use doesn’t extend as far as countering a solar storm – nor could it ever.
You aren’t aware at all of anything. You do look silly contradicting thousands of clever hard-working people. Everything you have been talking about and believe about “chemtrails” is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY REAL SCIENCE. Since when was ICE pollution? When water vapor comes out of solution in the air of the stratosphere at -40 deg F and seven miles up, it materializes as PURE ICE. The initial “pollution” of the internal combustion engine becomes diluted TEN THOUSAND TIMES. That makes it quite fresh…. As I have told you previously, EVERY word you utter points in the opposite direction to TRUTH. You waste my time. Go to a library.
This is exactly how i use the term aerosol. You are an ass. Well? Facts: you can’t back such a bs statement: “The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice.”
“Well? Facts: you can’t back such a bs statement: ‘The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice.’”
This reference I gave to you previously.
Page 17, second column second para: “The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 1.6 x 10^4 gm per meter, some three to four orders of magnitude greater than the water vapor released by typical jet aircraft, also similar to previously reported values.”
Do you want more DIRECT CONTRADICTION, or is that enough for you? By the way “orders of magnitude” means “powers of ten”. FOUR orders is 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10,000… Got it? Further searches along the lines I have already indicated to you will bring up further corroboration. If you have the courage to undertake it…
3 to 4 is a fair jump. would you not agree? And from a nasa science lab to boot. “ahh a thousand, ten thousand whats the diff! “
There is ample eye witness testimony, doctor reports and interviews, lab reports, professional statements, police fireman… all leaning towards a large scale effort to prepare for the solar storms. HAARP may be a small but crucial element in this effort. To think a govt agency would state something intentionally erroneous is preposterous! ***warren commish, 911 commish *cough-cough*
It stated the facts precisely. It is YOU who pretends otherwise. It’s only one of many papers which all say similar things. Some of them are in different languages. The last time I looked there were hundreds. There’s none so blind as one who does not wish to see.
You ask for an example then give a spurious reason to dismiss it. You call BS and then weasel out.
Preparation for high solar activity is normal. Your slant on it is absurd. I’m sure you’re unaware how you’re now changing the subject. Warren Commission? Far out! Go back to school. Unless you haven’t been in the first place. And write me no more.
so you agree with Michio but not me? YES
There is absolute proof of world wide under ground construction. SO?
From Gates’ Norwegian seed cave to the Denver Airport, yet you deny this????? NO
The sun is about to do something never witnessed by modern man. BALLS
The scope of the ability of haarp includes protection from such an event. BALLS
Warren commission’s magic bullet and the 911 commission’s magic passport should raise the hackles on the most conservative of skeptics. BALLS
so you agree with Michio but not me? YES
The sun is about to do something never witnessed by modern man. BALLS
This is WHAT Michio stated, so one of your answers here is wrong, or balls is an affirmative to you. Which is it?
And as for the passport laying on the street unscathed, if you buy that then you are an idiot. there is no way a passport went through that explosion and ended up unscathed a few blocks away. no way. This, M. Atta’s passport was planted.
It’s going through an active phase so it MIGHT do something never before witnessed. That doesn’t mean it will. The way you interpret these facts is the BALLS. Same goes for the passport. You cannot conceive of it so for you it is inconceivable. While you fail to interpret these events, the REAL events are passing you by…
btw your response fits 3 of these:
It would, whether or not I was a “disinformer”.
This whole approach (of yours) IS disinformation. Everything “chemtrail” is LIES AND EYE-BULGING HYPOCRISY.
You only have to visit a library to find real information.
“Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require… or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.”
This above statement is out of YOUR literature. It APPLIES TO YOU.
Have you noticed how your OWN information NEVER recommends you visit a library? According to your “sources” it is often a “fact” that existing sources have been “tampered with”. Does that seem plausible to you? Each book made by the million, circulated to thousands of libraries, sold privately to hundreds of thousands of people. Each reclaimed and altered?
Every day some pathetic individual tasks me about conspiracies, smogs, fuels, contrails, 9-11, with some pet theory that seems entirely original to him. It’s not original. It’s all been done, and probably in the planning stage, by people trained and qualified and with your best interests to heart, for they have to live in your world too. They have already proved their intelligence and willingness to work hard. All you have to do is the same.
In the meantime, shut up with the crap. That worked for me, it could do so for you.
Have you noticed how your OWN information NEVER recommends you visit a library?
WTF? I started this whole thing off, asking if you, or that faith dude, if you had read Dr Eastlund, or Dr Begich or William Thomas, all available in libraries. You are an asshole, your “holier than thou” attitude would get a boot in the ass in person.
Only if I don’t smack you first. I read such technical books BEFORE Eastlund, Begich and Thomas. And I avoided being a creep too. The FACTS are holier than either of us. You’re the one who can’t deal with a technical report made by the finest scientists in their field. Learn to stand on your feet.
NO, Michio stated, “around 2012 the sun’s magnetosphere WILL flip, sending out a shockwave of radiation”, not might, or may. The unknown is the effect this will have on communications and the grid. So you are giving Mr Kaku the same “know it all” attitude. As for chemtrails, you know the causal effects pertaining to contrail formation, and could you not envision a way to increase this effect? People already have. Patents exist and have been bought by the US Navy.
It won’t be doing anything it hasn’t done before “around 2012″. The reason why there will be an unknown effect of communication is that we have a higher dependency on this rather radiation-sensitive machinery known as microelectronics than we had the last time around. Any other reason you come up with will be a readout on your condition. The action of a turbofan on a low-pressure low-temperature supersaturated stratosphere could not be more extreme than it already is. Which you would understand if you have studied the subject, Which you have not. There are patents for a hotel on the Moon. Why don’t you go there? Now. While you’re there you could take a book or two… Make’em science books…
So then you do disagree with michio, man are you hard to converse with. Alter your comments and ignore facts for insults, like you are stupid, instead of saying “this is where you are wrong” type comment. I take it you did not even listen to the link of the leading physicists of our time.
The reason I am hard to converse with is that I break concepts down to their essentials where you cannot. You cannot, because you bring an agenda to the table of your own which you will support at all costs – as you have just demonstrated, for the above reasoning slipped by you as though it wasn’t there. Telling you where you are going wrong isn’t an insult. You’ll know it when I insult you. You’ll have to improve your stature first.
the navy hasn’t bought up all the moon hotel patents have they? By the time you are satisfied on this subject it will be too late. Again, insults instead of FACTS.
FYI: “…that the magnetic field of the sun undergoes a drastic change every 11,500 to 12,000 years.” That would make it modern man has never seen this occur. Of course you will bitch about the term modern man, I am referring to historic records, not evolutionary records. Oh we should check if you believe in evolution first, could be a whole can of worms with you.
Other time around? you are confusing this coming event with recorded c.m.e. events that have been witnessed. this pole shift has not been ever witnessed by a modern civilization. I am not extrapolating comments or theorizing on events, I am taking physicists words for the truth.
What i do think about is if there is proof our world leaders know about this and are doing anything to prepare/prevent or protect us from this coming solar storm. And by all accounts they are, yet you choose to insult and languish in your knowledge, acting like there is nothing in this world you don’t fully grasp. Shame.
“…that the magnetic field of the sun undergoes a drastic change every 11,500 to 12,000 years.”
Does that make the change due NOW, 500 years from NOW, or some time in-between?
I’m not about to instruct you, even if you look to me as pathetic as a goldfish that’s just flopped out of its tank. DO your own work. I had to do the same. “Modern”. LOL
See, yet again insults. Water off a ducks back, my e-asshole. You seem satiated with the power of ten in your facts, where as this one is what like 5%, Kaku and others have seen this event as happening in 2012, why do you think that could be? Our sun is acting the oddest it has since we have been observing it, yet you know better. Oh wise one!
Satiated with LOGIC, more like. You should try it some time.
there will be credible samples retrieved soon enough. You will doubt those at first as well.
one last thing: why does no one direct me to info on how the trail from a plane will thin out, width-wise, turn into virga and cover a quarter of the sky. Not one source for the science behind this, and not to mention this has only been occurring for the last 20 years or so. Pollution, perhaps. Then should this not be a wake up call to clean up our act. The tons of fuel burned daily to cart people around is mind boggling. 230 million gallons per day according to BP. Could this not be the factor increasing the so called persistent contrails?
The reasons why “no-one directed” you is that the explanation is complex. It is actually there, in the reference I gave you. In the report.
Simply speaking, it is helped by the aircraft’s wave vortex. The trails are swept up in it, turning inside out many times within it for several minutes. Vortex motion ceases some fifty miles behind the aircraft. The slight downward angle of the vortex would put that end hundreds of metres lower in the stratosphere. Trails ALWAYS fall. Also the two side-by-side trails can interfere with each other, and “link” together in what look exactly like smoke rings. This is called “the Crow Instability”.
As a consequence the underside of the trail adopts a “sawtooth” appearance. Each “tooth” is a virga. At every virga centre is a downward-moving column of air. This is where much of the ice deposition takes place. Because of the increased weight of the heavier ice particles they fall faster.
This whole process continues, falling through, until the surrounding stratospheric layer has no ice to give. As the particles fall down through the lower stratosphere they are falling into COLDER air, which supports them. The layers may be drier, so they evaporate there. (But generally the reverse is true: the layers get less capable of holding water vapor in solution as the temperature falls). It is possible that only when the ice crystals reach the warmer air beneath the tropopause, they finally evaporate. This will be normally a level surface. Hence the flat grey underside appearance you typically see. That underside will be between four and five miles high at European latitudes.
What I have written here is itself an over-simplification.
If you are really interested in knowing more, my blog offers many sources. You just have to follow the links till you get to the papers, and then look up the references the papers themselves leave. Do that for a while and you will know at least as much as I do, Maybe.
no, no, no… you are describing a natural event, the persistent contrail.
In a week or so I will put together a video SHOWING what I am talking about. One of your cohort, jesuslives57, went through this same argument. I am referring to the complete thinning out of a trail, till it is spread wide open, filling the sky! Maybe you have never seen this occur. That would explain your position. There is no reason for a normally produced contrail to act like this, without some extra factor.
See, I have read up on all of this, have research atmospheric sites and have emailed meteorologist…all with no answer for my question. Most ignore, some, like you, repeat the known information, some like jl57, deny this is from planes!
I witnessed a plane over Victoria BC two summers ago. It flew directly over the city left three circular blobs, relatively small. These expanded until the sky was overcast. I phoned to get a friend to video them but no luck. These were not any way normal.
“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 1.6 x 10^4 gms per meter, some three to four orders of magnitude greater than the water vapor released by typical jet aircraft, also similar to previously reported values.”
This FACT is what you cannot accept. Many research papers have discovered the same basic information since 1953 when contrails were first analyzed in depth. You say “There is no reason for a normally produced contrail to act like this, without some extra factor” and I am telling you the extra factor is SUPERSATURATION. You must have seen this word before. You just DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT THIS IS. So study it. Study THE PHASES OF WATER. Use the advanced search exclusion process to find yourself some REAL TRUTH and not the lies you are accustomed to reading. You will discover SCIENCE and put away childish dreams.
why are you such an asshole? were you abused as a child? Look at the images from the 40′s of persistent contrails then look up! see the difference?
I am positive you do not know the effect I am writing about, as you are not addressing the topic.
I am professionally trained in thermodynamics, and am an adult. so you can eat your condescending attitude, shit it out and eat it again. I didn’t say I was mature. I went through some old videos, none really capture clearly what I have ONLY stated. And we must be very clear for you so you don’t dodge the point, yet again. I will post a video soon enough with your name on it, then please comment on how your non-belief in added particulate is responsible. There are doctors on record stating they treat the symptoms of exposure to these chemicals. They must be lying, ill educated morons also.
“There are doctors on record stating they treat the symptoms of exposure to these chemicals. They must be lying, ill educated morons also.”
How do you KNOW these symptoms are the result of “exposure to these chemicals”? Is that what the doctors actually stated? Were they actually a doctor, and not a fraud like Hildegarde Staninger?
What “linkage” is there here? Did someone say they saw a trail in the sky seven miles up?
If repeating hearsay and drummed-up uneducated witness testimony and the creepiness of people like Staninger doesn’t make you a lying, ill-educated moron, than I don’t know what will. Thanks for assuming that was what I was thinking. It saved me the effort.
“I am professionally trained in thermodynamics” yes, I heard you before. I don’t believe you were “trained” at all. Shown a book and videos, and asked questions, more like.
You don’t seem open enough to thinking to be educable. I obtained my training at the National Gas Turbine Establishment in its heyday, working on and designing modifications to gas turbines and test chambers.
I have my own empirical evidence of manufactured trails, relating them to you would be pointless. If Dr Hildegarde Staninger is such a moron, like me, why is the CDC conducting an investigation into Morgellon’s/unexplained dermopathy also? I guess they are full of morons too. Must be tough being so smart and trapped in that pathetic body! Well they say one is either smart or good looking, can’t have both!
I do not need to prove my education to you, but I am a refrigeration mechanic, energy transfer is a large part of the training. 5 years worth.
and needless to say top of my class. Your training should let you know that factors can be altered, there is ample proof to believe this effect is possible.
“One of your cohort, jesuslives57 went through this same argument.” And you call ME an asshole. JL57 and I haven’t ever exchanged more than a couple of dozen words. If you want to know who MY cohort is – it’s YOU. It’s a wonderful life…
“I have my own empirical evidence of manufactured trails, relating them to you would be pointless”
If empirical, it’s a first. Congratulations on your Nobel Prize.
“If Dr Hildegarde Staninger is such a moron, like me, why is the CDC conducting an investigation into Morgellon’s/unexplained dermopathy also?”
Because it is unexplained?
“9i guess they are full of morons too. Must be tough being so smart and trapped in that pathetic body! Well they say one is either smart or good looking, can’t have both!”
You must be REALLY good-looking!
“I do not need to prove my education to you, but I am a refrigeration mechanic, energy transfer is a large part of the training. 5 years worth.and needless to say top of my class.”
It’s a pity trusting the expertise and professionalism of thousands of atmospheric scientists wasn’t part of your curriculum. Perhaps if you don’t have it you cannot appreciate it.
“Your training should let you know that factors can be altered, there is ample proof to balieve this effect is possible.”
My training tells me persistent contrails exist, and things without any evidence for them need hard EVIDENCE before they are deemed to replace things which are KNOWN to exist.
If you had such evidence you would have rammed it down my throat, I’m sure. Here’s mine:
THE CLEAR INVISIBLE NATURE OF THE TRAIL “GAP” IS PROOF OF NO METALS BEING PRESENT.
NO ORGANIC MATERIALS CAN PASS THROUGH A FLAME WITHOUT COMBUSTING.
TURBOFAN ENGINES CAN PRODUCE AN ICE TRAIL 10,000 TIMES LARGER THAN THEIR ICE OF COMBUSTION.
Empirical: originating in, or based on, observation or experience. Does this mean something else to you? I gave you the smart/ugly thing, you always go the cheap’n'easy route?
I never claimed anything about a gap, typical for the angry rebuttal types is to lump all together, I suppose I think there is a problem with the water because rainbows appear in lawn sprinklers, like that dbootsthediva person. Well now you have gone from a blanket denier to a “waiter for proof”, baby steps. The nozzles are placed, not in the combustion, but out the plane body, there are plane mechanics on record stating there are 500 gallon tanks on these planes. There are patents on aerosol delivery systems, bought up by the US navy, that detail such systems.
empirical riginating in or based on observation or experience. Does this mean something else to you?
i gave you the smart/ugly thing, you always go the cheap’n'easy route?
I never claimed anything about a gap.
NO. I’m telling you the GAP proves the absence of metals.
Well now you have gone from a blanket denier to a “waiter for proof”, baby steps
It’s just my experience of waiting and being disappointed by the trite crap “revealed” to me..
the nozzles are placed, not in the combustion, but out the plane body, there are plane mechanics on record stating there are 500 gallon tanks on these planes. There are patents on aerosol delivery systems, bought up by the US navy, that detail such systems.
Apart from the fact that ANYONE could type up a shitstorm (and they do) – there’s NOTHING. The PTB have obviously had a total success there… Patents – go visit the Moon.
trusting the expertise and professionalism of thousands of atmospheric scientists
like the Canadian govt scientists that have had a gag order placed on them?
NO ORGANIC MATERIALS
who said anything about organic? The last decade has brought about monumental advances in polymers.
like the Canadian govt scientists that have had a gag order placed on them?
No. Like the REST OF THE WORLD for SIXTY YEARS.
who said anything about organic? The last decade has brought about monumental advances in polymers.
Polymers ARE organic.
That’s all very stupid. Perhaps I should apply, eh? There’s enough STUPID as there is.
“If these are CONTRAILS, then WHY are they not coming from the engines” – THEY ARE*. It takes a SPLIT SECOND for jet exhausts to cool from 1100deg C to -40deg C. That can be up to 800 feet away at operational altitude. *Except in the case of aerodynamic trails and highly-supersaturated air.
“Contrails disappear within minutes” – NO. They can disappear in SECONDS in DRY AIR, or NOT DISAPPEAR AT ALL in SATURATED AIR, or ANYTHING IN-BETWEEN.
“some are indeed contrails, but lots of them are NOT!” – If you UNDERSTAND what I have just written then you NOW KNOW THIS STATEMENT TO BE UTTERLY WRONG.
They are indeed not healthy, but both are fitness itself compared with science-hating conspiracy fruitloops.
Volcanic action is twenty times more dangerous than aviation combustion, works 24/7, and doesn’t worry me either, because I know that Life air-conditions it. Fresh air itself was once volcanic effluent.
Something sensible to worry about would be the removal of forests and phytoplankton, but you don’t do sensible, do you?
(The life’s work of dbootsthediva):
“‘secret’, ‘hidden in plain sight’ weather eng HAARP” – There’s NOTHING as HIDDEN as something which DOESN’T EXIST. HAARP is a radio establishment IN THE MIDDLE OF ALASKA - A QUARTER WAY ROUND THE GLOBE.
“In the UK it’s mainly used to create the depressing uniform dull grey sky which has now become accepted as standard ‘British weather’” – FALSE. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY – WELL, WAY BACK TO THE SIXTIES…
“But HAARP isn’t the only thing at work here” – IT ISN’T AT WORK HERE. IF IT WORKS AT ALL IT’S LINE-OF-SIGHT.
“orgonite cloudbuster” – NOR IS THIS. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE BUT FAKE.
“‘mackerel sky’ clouds just materialising out of nowhere” – NO. SUNLIGHT IS ADDING ENERGY TO THE BOUNDARY LAYER AIR, WHICH RISING, CONDENSES OUT SOME OF ITS WATER VAPOR AS CLOUD. THE EXPRESSION “MACKEREL SKIES” IS CENTURIES OLD…
“getting it in May 2006″ – AND BOY YOU GOT IT.
“makes HAARP effects more obvious” – YOUR LUNACY MORE OBVIOUS…
“formation of artificial clouds” – YEAH, JUST AROUND YOU…
“prevents the grey cloud layer forming completely” – IN THE WINDMILLS OF YOUR MIND…
“leaving white clouds in an obvious strange pattern” – LEAVING THEM THE WAY THEY WERE…
“There’s also a few chemtrails in the background” – OF COURSE!
“28 secs into it, did you catch a plasma EM field?” – YEP, MY $33 WEBCAM CAME WITH A CONVERSATION GENERATOR WHICH DOWNLOADS INTO PERFECT GIBBERISH
“58 secs Sensor Orb alert. and 1.01 too?” – SEE? GIBBER. GIBBER.
“Quantum Cryptography/clouds morph/smaller images/another image altogether” – GIBBER. GIBBER. GIBBER.
“tree leaves/pixels” – GIBBER. GIBBER.
“aerosol carbon coenzyme” – GIBBER “helps create” – A COSMETIC? “catalyst” – MAGIC SCIENCE WORD.
“chemtrail can expand instead of dissipating” – GIBBER!
“No stratus or cirrus cloud formations without the help of the synthetic plasma field” – ALL SINGING AND DANCING GIBBER!!!
“We are not in Kansas anymore” DOROTHY “not real clouds” – ESSENTIALLY WRONG!
“ultrafine powders & transparent liquids of multi layered metallic silica oxides varieties, bacteria, and chemicals to create different catalysts for different cryptography effects”
BAGS OF MAGIC SCIENCE WORDS!
WAIT A MINUTE. CRYPTOGRAPHY IS THE WRITING OF CODES SUCH AS THE MORSE CODE AND THE DECRYPTION OF ENIGMA!
“ive seen chemtrails here in New Zealand & the exact same thing happens with the weather, what are they doing?” – I WILL DECRYPT THIS FOR YOU: NOTHING.
The air in ANY clear blue sky ALWAYS contains WATER. It’s in the form of VAPOR. Water vapor is a CLEAR INVISIBLE GAS.
Reference to standard physical tables gives you the means to work out the ACTUAL amount of water present in a clear blue sky, and at a ground temperature of 23 deg C and a RH of 65% it works out that there’s 3,300 tons of INVISIBLE WATER VAPOR in the CLEAR air to the horizon from where you are standing.
In general, when you are looking at THE TROPOSPHERE with its blue sky with rising cumuli, it pays to remember there’s LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN WATER CONTENT between BLUE SKY and CLOUDS.
The STRATOSPHERE above ALSO contains water vapor. Its temperature just above the TROPOPAUSE is NEVER warmer than -40 deg C. Due to the INTENSE COLD and the THIN AIR, much less vapor can be held in the air, before it exhibits SATURATION or even SUPERSATURATION.
A passenger airplane at 35,000 ft and 550mph deposits its exhaust in the form of CO2 gas and ice crystals at, say, 50lb per mile. That’s about 25 lb of water per mile, laid as a “cirrus” cloud of intensely frozen ice crystals. The craft has a large wave vortex which acts as a “mixer” for the crystals and they are spread into that stratosphere’s layer.
If the RH of the layer is less than 100% then those crystals SUBLIME into water vapour, the trail DISAPPEARS, and THE LAYER’S RH RISES.
If the RH of the layer is 100%, the layer is said to be SATURATED, and the CONTRAIL PERSISTS INDEFINITELY.
If the RH of the layer is greater than 100%, the layer is said to be SUPERSATURATED, the CONTRAIL not only PERSISTS INDEFINITELY but also GAINS WEIGHT as water vapor freezes ONTO the contrail’s ice crystals. The HEAVY trail material increases its rate of descent (ice crystals are ALWAYS falling).
Now it should be OBVIOUS to you that REPEATED PASSAGES of AIRCRAFT through stratospheric layers INCREASE the RH of the layer to SATURATION, and WHEN that happens, TRAILS WILL PERSIST AND SPREAD TO FILL THE LAYER. BLUE SKIES WILL BE GONE…
SO – CHEMTRAILS ARE A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION.
AND THEN YOU PROJECT UPON OTHERS YOUR CONFUSION, AND YOUR HATRED.
Thanks for the imaginatively-titled cloud pictures. Always gratefully received. Your land is less of a desert than Tenerife. In fact it is very beautiful.
You’re a lucky man. Or could be…
NUTS (TO SOMEONE WHO BLOCKED ME)
I didn’t say you were nuts, did I? Check. Thanks for not censoring me, some have. For evidence, follow a civil jet with a quick light plane trailing a fine net & capture bottle. Analyse it yourself. I never found results like the ones claimed on my engine test bed.
The annual (24/7) volcanic action of Earth’s 1500 active land volcanoes outdoes Man’s 300 million tons of jet fuel by 2000%. Life has converted it into fresh air for at least 3 billion years. Worry about the forests and phytoplankton. Whoops…
Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics.
Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear.
Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns.
Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953.
The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004).
Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.
More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market.
“lingering contrail is not the best description” – Oh, yes it is!
“A contrail will remain visible for longer with different humidity and temperature but thinning and creating cloud cover?” – Supersaturated air THICKENS the trail so much it falls as PENDULES. You have seen them…. As a trail IS ICE it IS CIRRUS CLOUD. As for filling a stratospheric layer, that’s EASY, the WAVE VORTEX supplies the energy. Some of that energy is STILL THERE half an hour later…. If you knew ANYTHING at all about the atmosphere (which you don’t) you’d pipe down… As it is you’re loudmouthing away, and I can’t stop you.
“Read the patent holders comments about the multiple uses of H.A.A.R.P.” – It’s used to HEAT a line-of-sight AREA of the ionosphere. It is less effective than my microwave is for warming my tea. It’s a research establishment studying aspects of the near-vacuum in the ionosphere. It cannot be aimed directly at your arse unless you’re flying at 110,000 ft over Alaska…. and if you were, you wouldn’t feel a thing…. being a radio establishment it has strategic possibilities, but catalyzing clouds over Europe, for instance, is not one of them. It has the “beam focussing power” of Mr. Magoo.
“N.A.S.A.’s comments on ozone replacement” – Go like “stop air travel and your problems will disappear (until the next volcanic eruption)”.
“U.S.A.F.’s fuel additives” – Boron hydride? Nitromethane? Pfft – a few fast fighters? Solid additives to fuels would be REALLY DANGEROUS to the planes. Liquid additives couldn’t include aluminum or barium for various technical reasons. BLOOD PRODUCTS are a JOKE – surely? *(Since this I realize you were reanimating the MYTH that there is Ethylene Dibromide in JP-8). Wrong!
“world wide spray programme” – Unachievable. THE WORLD IS FIFTY TIMES THE AREA OF THE UNITED STATES!
“German airforce admits to mass spraying“* – A MOMENTARY CHAFF RELEASE IS NOT “MASS SPRAYING”. How is your ability to be LOGICAL? *(Since then I have discovered that this was a fraudulent mis-translation of the original German. Vicious.)
“U.S. sprays radar imaging materials over Afghanistan” – Pfft. Next can please….
“reports from pilots and air traffic controllers” – EVERY ONE OF THEM SO FAR OUT OF CONTEXT AS TO BE A LIE. More fraud.
“real events happening above us daily” – A million tons of combusted kerosine = a million tons of stratospheric ice, mostly sublimed to water vapour, is what is REALLY happening daily.
“I do not deny alot of the footage and discussion on the net is ill-informed and plain wrong” – GOOD.
“William Thomas’ analysis of this subject” – HAVEN’T SEEN IT. SHALL LOOK.
“it is not as simple as you try to write it off as in your videos and comments” – OH, YES IT IS! My videos are MUSICAL. Shows how hard YOU research…
“I can provide url’s to all this information” – Oh, God. Send them.
“And a final note your formula is for carbonated water not soda pop” – Haha. True, but a damned sight closer than ANY chemtrail statement!
Hahahahaha… …you all think you’re original and it’s the same old PAP! POP?
In return for wading through WT and your urls I demand you check out my blog.
There are at least SOME TRUE THINGS stated there…..
“aluminum, anthrax*, lupus*, fungus*, silver iodide*, barium, bacteria*, titanium” – Those marked * would be incinerated by a gas turbine. A turbofan’s exhaust is as STERILE as a hospital SURGERY. The rest you will find are COMMON INGREDIENTS OF HOUSEHOLD PAINT (Well, not the barium or silver)..
“the COMBINATION of pollens, auto fumes, and urban smog can cause severe auto-immune failure, asthma, and death in the young, weak, or elderly”
I’m quoting myself here. Didn’t you read it? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER!
“Admire your passion” – that’s me – passionately pissed-off by brainless panic-mongering.
“prior to 1998 are extremely rare” – Cheap video cameras were. Persistent contrails WEREN’T.
“of military origin” – Military? THEY take pictures of EVERYTHING.
“trails are spewing directly from the plane” – EASILY HAPPENS in super-saturated air. You ought to thank your lucky stars when you see that, for it means THE AIR IS VERY CLEAN.
“FAA tells contrails appear a wing-span distance from back” – That’s a ROUGH GUIDE. That distance REALLY depends on the VELOCITY of the plane and the TEMPERATURE and HUMIDITY OF THE AMBIENT AIR.
“you consider temp as well, not only humidity” – Do you think I don’t know that?
“The avg temp easily estimated even from ground temp measurement” – NO IT IS NOT. It is a ROUGH GUIDE through the TROPOSPHERE and NO GUIDE AT ALL AFTER THE TROPOPAUSE. ABOVE THE TROPOPAUSE THE TEMPERATURE IS NEVER WARMER THAN -40 DEG C. IT CAN BE -80 DEG C.
“ground temp of 30 C or more it is hardly likely that a plane flying low enough 2 be visible by the naked eye could produce a normal contrail” – IF IT’S ABOVE THE TROPOPAUSE THAT WON’T BE A TRUE STATEMENT, WILL IT?
“let alone a lasting plume” – In SATURATED AIR in the STRATOSPHERE there is NO WAY those ICE CRYSTALS WILL DISAPPEAR. Sunlight REFLECTS OFF them. That is WHY they are WHITE.
PENITENT (The Longest Day II)
Informative hub. I learned something new.
Bard of Ely
Thanks for responding, SweetiePie!
Nice summation; well done.
Hi Bard, good article. Yes, chemitrails are real but important is detect and differe them from the common contrails. Of course, the amount of metallic matter in them is a good way for understand they are not a simple condensation.
Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, randomlight and Fabrizio!
Very nicely put Bard although the small part about reference to “persistant contrails vs. Chemtrails” really makes no difference as the USAF is gonna say no matter what ya wannna callem, they have always been there and ain’t hurtin’ no one,,,,,RIGHT
Bard of Ely
I am sure you are right, Darol, but I put that in because I know Rosalind thought it was important and I was attempting to give as full a picture as possible!
Many a conspiracy at the top they will never tell us, thanks for the insight and I did see the show you referenced on Discovery. Good job.
Bard of Ely
Thank you! It was good that Discovery did a program on it and even though it didn’t really go very far it nevertheless was one of the first reports by the media to give any coverage to the subject!
Dear Bard, this is a rather horrifying subject. I’ve never actually heard of this before. The only chemical trails that i”ve heard of are the ones behind jet planes and of course spills of pesticides and insecticides that are sprayed by planes on the american and russian farms. Would you please write a more encyclopedic article on this on the copper wiki. My friends and i would be extremely grateful. The site is http://www.copperwiki.org Do check out some of the articles on sunscreen and eco fibres and please do send feedback when and if you get the time. thanks
Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Mhadavi, and I agree it is a “horrifying subject” and this is perhaps why some people go into denial about it and say everything is OK and it’s just vapour trails. This puzzles other people who are alarmed by what they can see in the sky and what they have found out. And these trails and skies covered in the artificial clouds they make is a new occurrence. If you look at photos from around the world from over ten years back there are normal skies with blue skies and white clouds ot perhaps grey ones but never skies streaked with trails and skies covered in whitish haze from such trails. It just doesn’t add up! When I left the Uk in 2004 the sky wasn’t covered in trails but when I went back in 2007 it was! Something has changed! If you add in the admitted reports of military chaff then of course people will be concerned. Whatever is going on it has, as you can see here, spawned a whole new terminology and a movement of people. If I can find time I will submit an article for that site so thank you for the suggestion!
Bard, Great post! I have been talking to people about chemtrails quite a bit. It is about awareness and getting others informed. Most people have not even a second thought to look up and see the obvious “writing in the sky”. They are getting better and better in making them look like nice, natural whispy clouds to fool the sheeple. We notice how there will be criss crosses all over the sky one day and the next couple, none. I wonder if we will ever know the truth, what they are, why, and how do they detirme where they spray. There have been many postulations of the ominous reasons to spray of which include keeping us from evolving spiritually and acheiving enlightenment. I find it an interesting speculation as most things in this world, especially instituted by the government, do carry this side effect. Looking forward to learning and sharing more…Namaste, Dre
The How To Hub
A little timeline – I am 31 years old and have grown up in Australia. As a teenager I used to see the trails and think they were cool, you know like the air force jets with the coloured smoke displays…..my perspective as an adult is ….HORROR. What kind of world are we going to leave our future generations?
Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Dre and Shaye! Dre, I have heard the points you have made but I thank you for posting them here for others to read. Shaye, I have a British friend who doesn’t accept that chemtrails are harmful but who thinks they are pretty. Personally I think, and a lot of people share this opinion, whether they are harmful or not, a sky with old-fashioned fluffy clouds that make ptictures in the sky for the mind’s eye is far superior aesthetically to a sky graffitied with lines and criss-crosses and finally a whitish haze of false cloud. And that is another part of it – weather forecasts nowadays often talk about haze and hazy conditions. We never used to have all this haze but had skies with clouds or without but not the mess that is so often there now. As Dre, has pointed out some days there is none of this and then the skies return to how they were meant to be.
We have them here in Oregon as well. It seems this is a world wide problem? On the days that chemtrails are being used, the planes criss-cross the sky and before you know it, instead of a beautiful blue-skyed day, you have complete overcast.
Bard of Ely
Yes, Karen, and the picture you describe is being reported over and over and over again and IF anyone manages to get any sort of response from anyone official they will say that what is being seen is normal and they are harmless contrails! How can it be harmless to cut out the light with such a cloud cover? Of course, it can’t! We never used to have skies like these! Thanks for posting!
Bard, Wow…You have opened my eyes and mind at the same time… I live in the Northeast on the coast of the US…minutes from the Bush compound – Walkers point. The airspace is littered with intenational flights heading to Boston’s Logan and various NY hubs. We also maintain one of the largest US Airforce runways at Portsmouth, NH Pease Air base (only SAC refuling now). The resulting asthma, allergies, flu-like illness, respiratory and sinus problems, nose bleed, fatigue and depression, tinnitis, sight problems and inflammation of the eyes, dizziness, skin rashes, high blood pressure and pneumonia STATISTICS would be very interesting to calculate for this region. Do you have any ideas how I may find this information out statistically? The Bull
Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Bull! I don’t personally know how you’d get such answers but I would thank that someone at the chemtrailtrackingusa forum would and what’s more the members would welcome such an idea – there is often the call there for ways of doing something that produces scientific data that can be given to the authorities and the debunkers so they can be asked to explain it! In other words we need to be able to talk their language back at them. Please consider joining and posting there if only for the one thread. The link is at the bottom of my article.
Very informative! I have been reading about contrails for years, but I have never heard them referred to as chemtrails before. I have noticed, though, that many of them do seem to have a lot more hang time lately. I live relatively close to a major airport, and have noticed that, on some days, there are upwards of 100 contrails in the sky, while on others there are only a few.
Bard of Ely
Thanks for your feedback, rmr! You have a mystery there whether they are harmless or not! Debunkers of the subject say the trails only persist in certain atmospheric conditions to which my question is why did such conditions not exist until in the last decade or so in which chemtrails have been reported? There are two airports on this island and plenty of planes in and out but mostly no chemtrails, however, when I went back to Cardiff in Wales last year the skies were covered in trails daily as was the airport there and it didn’t used to be like that!
Great hub Steve, and as you well know a subject close to my heart as an active campaigner for the awarenes of persistent contrails (chemtrails). We have lots and lots of PC (persistent contrails) here in Devon UK, and most ppl do not bat an eyelid at them, till I alert them to the possibility of what they actually are and how to tell them apart from real contrails. Most ppl are surprised that this subject is not covered by the media, and the intelligent ones are concerned by its conspicuous abscence, as it it not even ridiculed as a hoax in the media. I have witness chembows (as you know) sun halos and a myriad of PC’s in various formations. The freak weather we have had in economically poor areas in recent times is confirmation for me that some sort of NWO plan to eradicate “the useless eater population” is in full swing. I still do my research and blog on the matter.
Bard of Ely
Thanks for the feedback, Lou, and yes, I know you know what is going on!
You may believe that chemtrails are real, O Bard, but you are wrong. You are wrong, and you cannot prove you are right. Your “proof” is that “thousands of people say so”. These people that “say so” share many, and perhaps all, of the attributes of people that believe the Earth is flat, the Sun goes round the Earth, that God made Man “in his own image” (6,000 years ago!), and we CANNOT possibly have evolved from an ape-like creature five million years ago, that we are “imbued with a soul”, and if we “please God” we will “go to Heaven” after our body dies and rots. These people are DELUDED by their own ignorance and fear. They, on the whole, suffered through their educational period (personally I found it unpleasant even while top of the a-stream in a grammar school) and never learned to respect the opinions of people more able than they were to grasp essential scientific principles. Otherwise they would, of course, believe the word of atmospheric scientists who have for decades been telling these people that persistent contrails are a natural by-product of large-scale mass air transit.
The first queries as to why the sky turned white were made in the late fifties and early sixties, so the topic is NOT exactly a new one. Even before that collisions occurred between close-flying Flying Fortress bombers on 1000-bomber daylight bombing raids on Germany between 1943 and 1945 when they too turned the skies white with the exhausts from their 18-cylinder radial engines in particularly cold and humid conditions. If a million tons of kerosine are burned daily (yes!) in the stratosphere, which is thin and cold and easily humidified with relatively small amounts of water, then large areas of the sky are going to turn WHITE. This is the “white” of ice crystals – water! The rest is fanciful paranoia, with a small amount of LIES, DECEIT and FRAUD. For that, blame Carnicom and some ignorant and some shameless YouTubers. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you were better-educated, Bard, you would be. Your activity is harming society. I have amassed quite a lot of support literature at http://jazzroc.wordpress.com and invite your response…
Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting your opinions, Jazzroc, however, I am no further convinced by your arguments!
Perhaps after all you REALLY ought to read my wordpress blog. In it you will find confirmation of everything I have mentioned above, and directly-attributable quotes from specialist atmospheric scientists, graphs, details and photographs of almost all relevant material, specific proofs of chemtrailers’ fraudulent claims and blow-by-blow debunks of EVERY chemtrail claim. What more can one do, when confronted by a deluded and harmful person who is determined in his ignorance to do further harm? Well, advise you NOT to visit the US, I suppose. THERE they have the Patriot Act (which is not my idea of nice legislation!) What you are doing falls within the parameters of that act, and newly-trained and less sympathetic people there might well take it upon themselves to “educate” you, seeing as you are obviously determined never to do the job yourself.
Even in a British society noted for its tolerance of stupidity you might find that at some time in the near future (these are changing times!) your ignorant disregard of scientific principles, technocratic excellence and social decency will cause you to fall foul of the law. Don’t ever say I didn’t warn you…
Bard of Ely
JazzRoc, I have read your blog, and as it happens it is now probably being read by some freemasons – as I saw earlier that one has left a link to it and a recommendation in the Universal Freemason’s message board of which I am a member. I have told you that I don’t agree with you but you do not appear to be able to agree to disagree but become insulting and threatening in tone (warning me) and how you expect anyone to want to hear from you when you adopt these ways I really don’t know. However, as I have also told you, I don’t believe that this subject should all be a one-sided debate of chemtrail believers agreeing with chemtrailbelievers and on the other side the scientific debunkers all debunking – I would suggest that both sides have much to learn but they cannot do so if stuck viewpoints are held! You happen to believe in science and have a lot of faith in it and I don’t simple as that. You don’t believe in God and I do!
I happen to agree with you that there are people who are ill and blaming chemtrails may not be ill from chemtrails but from other sources. I also agree with you that the crosses are in completely different levels of the sky and only look like crosses from down below. You see I don’t totally disagree with you but on the other hand I am convinced that chemtrails are very real and that weather modification is one definite use they are being put to, but I have told you that before.
You call people “uneducated” but what does that mean? It means that they don’t happen to agree with the official version of things perhaps – I certainly don’t! Scientists can and do lie and if you want an example, fluoride is one that springs to mind and mercury amalgam being another! There are many people active in the opposition to chemtrails who are educated to university standard eg Dr Stephen McKay whom I have mentioned in the article. I happen to have a BA degree, a diploma in media, 5 A-levels and 6 O-levels and that counts as educated by most people’s standards. Education though is often indoctrination and manipulation turning out people to carry on the system and brainwashed to believe what they are told not to think for themselves!
“it is now probably being read by some freemasons” – what a horrible thought! “Universal Freemason’s message board of which I am a member” – what, another horrible thought! “insulting and threatening in tone” – without a doubt you are a fool, for you are still ever-ready to accept baseless arguments and reject the remorseless logic of mine. I advised you not to visit the US, nor Britain after 2012. Personally I’ll admit to finding it difficult to be pleasant to someone like you who is practically as dangerous as a bomb-wielding terrorist with your spreading of lies and fear. I regard you now exactly the way I regard arms dealers. You are living in a safe spot and a safe era where your wickedness is going unpunished, but that won’t last for ever. “you expect anyone to want to hear from you” – I certainly won’t lie to gain plausibility like the people YOU believe. “both sides have much to learn” – Science and the truth of Science is not a democracy. Only ONE side is utterly ignorant in this case, and it’s YOURS. You have learnt nothing and are telling lies as a consequence. “You happen to believe in science and have a lot of faith in it” – I put no FAITH in Science. That’s like putting FAITH in Mathematics. Is one FAITHFUL to LOGIC, or merely LOGICAL? “You don’t believe in God and I do!” – Which God is this? The jealous one? The one who made the Universe in six days six thousand years ago? “I am convinced that chemtrails are very real” – As real as your god, santa claus, and the tooth fairy. “weather modification is one definite use they are being put to” – Sure thing. The three million four hundred thousand tons of barium required to provide a mono-molecular coating over the whole Earth would only take eighty-five thousand tanker sorties using one and a half million tons of fuel. And, of course, next week, you’d have to repeat it, etc.
“You call people “uneducated” but what does that mean?” – It means believing “weather modification is one definite use they are being put to”. “Educated” is what I have just demonstrated to you: the ready use of mathematics and a true knowledge of the properties of the Earth to show you just what foolishness you speak. “I happen to have a BA degree, a diploma in media, 5 A-levels and 6 O-levels and that counts as educated by most people’s standards” – Hmm. And I’ve seen those standards fall year after year. By my standards you are DIM. If I were as dim as you are I’d keep my stupid mouth shut. It seems you are too dim to understand how dim you are. That IS a shame… “believe what they are told, not to think for themselves” – How ironic! Shine a light on that…ah, but your batteries are low, and your light bulb glows a faint orange… lacking scientific understanding, you cannot see how misled you have been, and how misleading and dangerous you now are.
Bard of Ely
It appears from all that that we are no longer friends seeing as you keep on insulting me and are so bigoted in your views. You do not allow others freedom of thought and opinion and are another form of the thought police. Yes, I do believe people like David Icke and Clifford Carnicom whom you condemn. I have tried to present a balance of views here by letting you have your say and included them in the article above but it clearly isn’t working and maybe this is why all the chemtrail sites block you?
The Freemason who has posted your link found it here where you posted it and that is freedom of information as it should be! Seeing as you think so lowly of me now what do you make of Beck who has released a new song called Chemtrails? I applaud him for putting the subject in the mainstream world of pop music!
I’ve never heard of chemtrails. Thanks for writing this hub. JazzRoc – If your case is correct, you’ve considerably weakened it by the way you have chosen to argue your point here.
Bard of Ely
Hi Eric! Thanks for posting!
Eric, my case is correct. If I were arguing with someone who simply misunderstood contrails I might be more polite, but there is more to it than that. You would do well to leaf through http://jazzroc.wordpress.com
Bard: “we are no longer friends” – that’s as it should be. You won’t find arms dealers in my list of friends either. “you keep on insulting me” – I keep on describing you as an ignorant person who is way above your head, and causing harm within our society by insisting that people you do not know are deliberately poisoning the whole of our society, using baseless assertions and faulty reasoning. You’ve GOT to be stupid, because I cannot see you as THAT intelligent and malevolent. “so bigoted in your views” – I see you’ve decided I’m not “programmed” (that’s the usual one) so I must be simply bigoted. It seems to me that you consider the understanding of science to be a form of bigotry. Well, we live in a scientific and technological world, and here we are using that very technology to conduct this argument. You are arguing with a man who has tested jet engines in their test beds, helped in the construction of the supersonic wind tunnel used to test the Concord’s engines, helped in the construction of the nuclear decanning plant in Windscale, helped in the construction of the world’s first ethernet network, and the world’s first modern electric city car. (And many other things, but that’s by-the-by). I know exactly how gas turbines work and exactly how their exhausts work in the stratosphere, and exactly how the stratosphere functions from my personal work experience. This isn’t a “view”. I can BUILD these things.
You turn up with your “fear of science”, read a whole bunch of foolish and baseless and totally inaccurate assumptions in a scientific field you don’t understand at all, and accuse INNOCENTS of attempted GENOCIDE. Who is the BIGOT here?
“You do not allow others freedom of thought and opinion” – This IS “freedom of thought and opinion”. How can your statement be correct? “are another form of the thought police” – Really! “I have tried to present a balance of views” – We aren’t talking about a “balance of views”. Science is not a “balance of views”. You’re either CORRECT or WRONG. “it clearly isn’t working” – It’s working fine from my perspective. You are doing EVIL and I’m trying to prevent you, albeit unsuccessfully so far. I’m trying to sting you into some feeling of remorse for what you are doing, and hoping that you might, after all, educate yourself out of your delusion.
I’m also showing others that this ludicrous topic is opposed by scientists and other educated people. It is we who are doing things in this society, we who provide the wealth and power for travel and information systems (like this one) to the benefit of everyone. We have been able to do this by years of poorly-paid study, experiment and practice. We are professionals and deserve respect for our abilities and achievements – not this ignorant and shocking diatribe to which we are subjected.
In 1981, as our small team of electronics engineers clustered around an oscilloscope in a Wood Green laboratory which was demonstrating for the first time in the world that it was possible to send information down a wire at a rate of a hundred megabits per second (and we knew we were witnessing the start of a world revolution in information), nothing would have led me to believe that twenty-seven years later I would find myself using this fabulous system to conduct arguments about contrails with dumbed-down and deluded pseudo-scientists. How IRONIC!
Bard of Ely
“I’m trying to sting you into some feeling of remorse for what you are doing, and hoping that you might, after all, educate yourself out of your delusion.” – You are trying to tell me what to do and how to think and no one has the right to do that to anyone else! Do you send your insulting opinions to all the well known authors/speakers who believe and talk about chemtrails or do you only post your one-sided opinion and rudeness on the sites of people like me and those who post chemtrail videos? And if you feel that America and the UK would find my opinions illegal, then if you are right then it only goes to show that these countries are fascist non-democratic police states, which many believe anyway.
When we first met I thought we could get on well but clearly I was wrong. I do not like arguments and this is what this is. We had a big falling out before in which I deleted you at Myspace and swore and you have detailed that in your blog. I am not going to react with anger that way this time but as you admit here we are no longer friends I will delete you at Myspace. If Kingfisher is ever a money-making success I would see that you got your share. It seems that is all we share. I am not surprised that people at YouTube and chemtrail sites complain about you if this is an example of how you act. It is not a debate about a subject but a rude verbal assault by you who will not tolerate others having their beliefs or opinions or to post these in public.
How timely. Tim Flannery, one of Australia’s top scientists has proposed that Global Warning could be slowed by injecting sulphur into the top levels of the atmosphere. He says that it could be put there by mixing it with jet fuel. This would be called “Global Dimming”.
Bard of Ely
Thanks for the link, Eric! Yes, I saw the news on this proposed insanity at Alex Jones’ site.
Debbie Peace love
Hi Bard Are you sure that Jazzroc isn’t a fox news presenter because he sure does sound like one to me. When they lose their arguments they resort to petty playgrond name calling and insults. Because they have lost the debate and cannot bring an intelligent debate to the table.
As you are aware I take a keen interest in chemtrails. Anyone who tells me they do not exist had better open their eyes and look up to the sky! You would have to be blind not to see them. Over here in the UK they make pretty pictures of chemtrails. We get the noughts and crosses obviously pilots having a game of tic tac toe. Well they have to dump whatever their dumping so they may of well have some fun. We get circles, loads of pretty pictures over here. Does not look to me as if they are planes with people on board and places to go! Why are the planes that are chemtrailing PLAIN White with NO markings! Planes usually advertise who they are up in the skies.
Why has there been a huge increase in breathing problems? Considering less people smoke. Also this new phenomenia Morgellons? Doctors are asking this question too. Also this may have something to do with the honeybee’s demise too.
Why does the mainstream media keep silent about chemtrials. If they were ordinary contrails I am sure we would have had something on the media by now trying to debunk the “Chemtrail Theorists” However, their silence is deafening. Also as many people have noticed our weather is fine until the planes come and low and behold we have rain! Oh I suppose its all coincidence. I am sorry but there are too many “Coincidences” concerning chemtrails.
Why is jazzroc so angry? If he disagrees with you on chemtrails then that is his prerogative. However, to call you all the names he has called you shows he has something to fear. I wish jazzroc could give us some facts and figures to why you are wrong because he proves nothing. Yes I understand he worked on engines big bloody deal! does not prove a thing!
IF you don’t want to believe what is right in front of your eyes. Then that is up to you. However, the best way to hide something is to put it in full view. When someone throws nasty insults and name calling. Especially to someone who is very well read on his subject. The insult thrower is shown to be what he is. A fool.
Bard of Ely
Debbie, thank you very much for posting and your support on this! To be fair to Jazzroc, though he doesn’t extend much fairness to me, he does provide a lot of info in his blog, which he has provided the link for and is worth reading, however, it doesn’t satisfy me or put my worries to rest on the subject, as I have already pointed out. It is a shame that it appears that Jazzroc has got himself excluded from sites where he could be hearing in detail from people living with illnesses they attribute to chemtrails and reports of daily coverage of their skies like get reported at chemtrailtrackingusa group for example. However, it seems that he doesn’t want to listen to what others say but just believes he is right so they must be wrong and then he wishes to impose his views on them, which I have called a bigoted approach. When they fail to accept what he says he does what he has done to me – he becomes very rude, threatening and insulting.
I think the point you raise on the media silence is a very valid one. Jazzroc would probably say the media cannot report on something that doesn’t exist but I would say the media has reported in great detail on things that don’t exist such as the weapons of mass destruction that were never found and other government lies. And if there is nothing to fear from the chemtrails then why doesn’t the media get someone who can explain it to do so? Why doesn’t Jazzroc volunteer instead of carrying on his barrage of insults and debunking posts? I would have thought the media could call upon scientific ‘experts’ to explain the matter but they do not do so! Maybe Beck’s song Chemtrails will bring the subject into the public mainstream arena where it belongs. According to Wikipedia, his song has been played on BBC R1, which maybe the first time the BBC has used the word chemtrails. I searched their site long ago and it isn’t there, although contrails are and defined as harmless.
Debbie Peace Love: “Are you sure that Jazzroc isn’t a fox news presenter” – I’m a retired engineer living fifteen miles away from the Bard in Tenerife. Are you sure you aren’t being abusive here? “open their eyes and look up to the sky” – and you’ll see contrails. If you look at the sky you’ll see the Sun go round the Earth. Now, DOES the Sun go round the Earth? “Does not look to me as if they are planes with people on board and places to go!” – You can tell all that from seven miles beneath? You should get a job in Air Traffic Control. They need you! “Why are the planes that are chemtrailing PLAIN White with NO markings” – Your first unwittingly ignorant question. It’s a physical phenomenon called “blue light scattering”. Educate yourself. Try WIKI. “Why has there been a huge increase in breathing problems considering less people smoke?” – Because there has been a huge increase in arable farming, with new crops with new pollens, industry is still increasing using exotic materials with dangerous dusts when cutting and grinding without adequate air filtration, because urban photochemical smogs are still increasing, and finally because power stations are burning less safe materials as the world’s oil supplies dwindle. The Western diet of over-processed foods with too much meat and too little fruit, coupled with high-stress levels and poor exercise regimens and contaminated water supplies doesn’t help at all. Overall, this is an already complex intermix of factors by itself, requiring a massive statistical effort to sort out – before you come along with IMAGINARY ills. “Also this new phenomenia Morgellons? Doctors are asking this question too?” – Look it up in WIKI. In Science as a whole, FACTS are established using DUPLICATION of results and PEER REVIEW of research. This HASN’T HAPPENED WITH MORGELLONS’ CLAIMS. Ergo – it’s NOT Science and NOT TRUE. “Also this may have something to do with the honeybee’s demise too.” – May it? See above. You must remember that scientists get famous for discovering things, so the pressures are there to make these discoveries. See above. “Why does the mainstream media keep silent about chemtrials?” – They have tried it on, burnt their fingers, and won’t do it again! “Also as many people have noticed our weather is fine until the planes come and low and behold we have rain!” – Or perhaps, the humid air that creates the contrails eventually causes rain? “Oh I suppose its all coincidence. I am sorry but there are too many “Coincidences” concerning chemtrails.” – There are too many “coincidences” in the minds of those that are deluded!
“Why is jazzroc so angry?” – I should cheer when ignorant “Chicken Littles” accuse innocent people of attempted mass murder, should I? “to call you all the names he has called you shows he has something to fear.” – Of course I have something to fear! STUPIDITY is a DANGEROUS thing in a technological world! “I wish jazzroc could give us some facts and figures to why you are wrong because he proves nothing.” – I doubt whether you could appreciate proof if you met it. You need a modicum of scientific understanding which you’ve already demonstrated you don’t have. However, there’s always WIKI and my blog “Yes I understand he worked on engines big bloody deal! does not prove a thing!” – A bit more than that, dear. I’m a scientist. And an artist. And a musician. “IF you don’t want to believe what is right in front of your eyes. Then that is up to you. However, the best way to hide something is to put it in full view.” – The sun – does it ACTUALLY go round the earth? “When someone throws nasty insults and name calling.” – They need to be STOPPED! Your hypocrisy is showing! Or hadn’t you noticed that CHEMTRAILS insult hard-working, decent professional people (and anyone else who has a modicum of commonsense)? “Especially to someone who is very well read on his subject. The insult thrower is shown to be what he is. A fool.” – All that glitters is not gold. You may read, but you patently do not understand. A fool is what YOU are.
Bard: “it doesn’t satisfy me or put my worries to rest on the subject” – You demand to be spoon-fed scientific understanding, but it doesn’t come that way. You must study for years for such understanding to arrive. If you DO NOT HAVE this understanding, you will NEVER be satisfied. In the interim, perhaps you could moderate your pseudo-scientific assertions….
“he could be hearing in detail from people living with illnesses they attribute to chemtrails – it seems that he doesn’t want to listen to what others say” – I thought it was I that was the insulting person. I have read what people have said, and it is obvious that there is no direct link. We ALL breathe in a mass of dusts, pollens, viruses and bacteria with every breath we take. Our bodies have a tolerance for doing this which has been EARNED by the deaths of countless millions of our predecessors over four billion years.
“I have called a bigoted approach” – The correct approach to YOUR “chemtrail” bigotry.
“he becomes very rude, threatening and insulting” – How is it that you continually forget the nature of your claim? Why can’t you see that you ARE what you claim ME to be?
“why doesn’t the media get someone who can explain it to do so?” – Because it is too difficult and boring a job for them (they would LOSE ratings)!
“the media could call upon scientific ‘experts’ to explain the matter” – I am such an expert. How successful am I?
“contrails are defined as harmless” – And of course they are. It is YOUR BEHAVIOUR that is harmful.
Bard of Ely
Jazzroc, I will let Debbie reply to you here if she so wishes. I would ask you this: if what you say are harmless contrails and harmless cloud cover resulting from them cut out the sunlight getting through do you not think it is likely to affect bee navigational ability when it has been established by SETI that sunlight is the main navigation tool for the insects? Please see: http://www.setiai.com/archives/000064.html So whether its water vapor converted to ice or toxic particles the result is surely the same – less light gets through. This can be clearly seen when sun halos form as they do now we have these trails so often in the sky!
Really, Bard, I wonder what happens when you address yourself to read something! I could answer your question from my internal understanding, but just in case there was a built-in trick I addressed myself to the text in question, and found it answered your question completely!
“if what you say are harmless contrails and harmless cloud cover resulting from them cut(ting) out the sunlight getting through do you not think it is likely to affect bee navigational ability when it has been established by SETI that sunlight is the main navigation tool for the insects?” NO. Like all navigating animals on Earth, bees are NOT reliant on the visible Sun for navigation. Any such creatures that were SOLELY reliant upon the Sun would have been rendered extinct by the first large volcanic outburst or cometary impact than obscured the Sun for a sufficiently large period. And there been quite a few of these over the preceding 500,000,000 years. Bees sense the Sun, polarized light, landscape features, magnetic fields, and use two techniques of distance measurement (the latter one “optical flow” is new to me, but entirely unsurprising). What follows is a direct quote from the article: “All of these senses are redundant. That is to say, remove any one of them and the bee will probably still be able to navigate without problems. When the sun is obscured by clouds or trees, but patches of blue sky are still visible, the honey bee is able to use polarized light as a backup navigation system. The light coming directly from the sun is unpolarised. Some of this sunlight, however, is scattered by air molecules and a pattern of polarized light is set up in the sky. This pattern consists of a roughly circular set of gradients centered around the sun. The polarization is at its most intense at a 90′ angle from the sun. By detecting the polarization angle bees are able to infer the location of the sun. Exactly how they manage to do this is still unknown.”
Did you actually READ this? It ANSWERS the question you put to me! Do you know what “redundant” means in this context?
“So whether it’s water vapour converted to ice or toxic particles the result is surely the same – less light gets through.” – Here you once again demonstrate your scientific ignorance. “Toxic particles” cannot flow through the gas-turbine injectors. Injectors are hardened steel precision-ground tubes with very small internal diameters. Flow-control valves also clog if fine solids pass through them. In fact, they must both be protected by a high-capacity low-micron filter, which, of course, would stop solids. DUSTS PUT OUT ENGINES. Passenger aircraft are built down to a price by civilian businesses. Their wings contain spars, tanks and control equipment. They are built to very tight tolerances and riveted or glued down firmly. They do not have “empty spaces” and “extra pumps and nozzles” built into them for CHEMICAL ATTACK.
“Less light gets through” – It has been demonstrated by two different scientists using two different techniques in two different parts of the Earth that incident sunlight falling on the earth has been reduced by at least 15% over the last forty years. It is attributed to the industrial revolution, not just in the west, but in the middle and far east – it’s the consequence of COMBUSTION IN GENERAL. It is known that the contribution of air travel is 3% of this.
“This can be clearly seen when sun halos form as they do now we have these trails so often in the sky!” – The Sun has formed halos in the Earth’s stratosphere for four-and-a half billion years. The ice crystals that form such a halo are PURE. Any more than the single nucleating molecule at its centre (which every water droplet or ice crystal needs to form at all) and crystal formation is interfered with, and the halo effect disappears also.
You should know this, Steve, as we FREQUENTLY see halo effects round both Sun and Moon here, but NEVER when the KALIMA dust is in the sky. Hadn’t you noticed?
Bard of Ely
Yes, I know what redundant means but was thinking that if sunlight is the main tool then this could be what has messed them up and I note that they are OK here where we do not get many trails or blanket coverage with artificial cloud. Back in the UK where I went I saw trails and white cloud covering large areas made by these trails and the bees have nearly vanished so I joined the dots.
You make an excellent point about the halos and I know that they are dependent on water vapor so dust (or particles) should not produce this effect. I have to admit what you say makes sense to me on that.
If solid particles cannot go through the engines, which makes sense to me too, how did Teller’s sunscreen proposal work or this new madness by Prof Flannery of wanting to use sulfur? To my knowledge both aluminum (Teller) and sulfur (Flannery) are solids.
I assume that these substances would be sprayed from tanks with nozzles etc that you say are not in passenger planes but whilst that may well be the case, what about military planes? Surely they can have these adaptations?
“I know what redundant means but was thinking that if sunlight is the main tool” – and there’s your paradox – “redundant” means “if an element is removed, the function of the remainder persists”.
“blanket coverage with artificial cloud” – All these clouds are cirrus. In supersaturated air the ice crystals of cirrus clouds, whether natural or man-made contrails, will gain weight and fall until they become diffuse clouds of water droplets (stratus) or if they reach the ground – fog. This fog, whatever its origination, is practically pure water. The impurities (and we’re talking fractions of a percent here) will be soot (from a gas turbine) or aluminum silicate (from the land) or methyl sulfide (from the sea). NONE of these will poison bees. The most likely killer of bees is a virus. The second most likely killer is a bacterium. The third most likely is a fungus. The fourth most likely is another strain of bees. Use your commonsense. Cities and industrial landscapes occupy about 2% of the Earth’s surface area – there may be cumulative effects for which they share a worldwide responsibility, like increasing proportions of carbon and sulfur dioxides in the air, but aircraft have only a 3% share in this. It is more likely that Nature itself is killing the bees.
It is very unfortunate (but obviously true) that these bee enemies are also arranged in the order of being the most difficult to discover. You have to remember (if you ever knew) that due to the incredible scales involved, finding a specific lethal bacterium on a bee might be like finding a single unknown person in a city, and that finding a single lethal virus on a bee (it might be INSIDE a bacterium!) might be like finding a single unique person on Earth – namely VERY much harder than finding a needle in a haystack – in fact well-nigh impossible.
“I joined the dots” – but only the dots you could see…”how did Teller’s sunscreen proposal work or this new madness by Prof Flannery of wanting to use sulfur” – Teller’s proposal was never answered. Flannery’s was to use rockets, but this engineer can tell you now that the whole proposal was flaky, and very much more likely to do harm than good. After all, what is acid rain? (Er – sulfur dioxide meets water – makes sulfuric acid!) How good is THAT for trees? “To my knowledge both aluminum (Teller) and sulphur (Flannery) are solids” – It isn’t impossible to turn both into organic liquids. Sulfur is fairly easy, aluminum difficult and expensive. (Barium is much more difficult and is so dense and reactive that specially-lined tanks and mechanical stirrers would be required!)
However on the scale of the Earth you can forget it. I’ve told you already that a single shot of barium for the Earth would require 3.4 million tons. That’s for a single pass… Can you envisage the US (and who else could it be?) shelling up for 85,000 KC105 tanker flights on a weekly basis, when its economy is about to go down the tubes? The whole idea is ridiculous. The surface area of the Earth is fifty times larger than the United States.
“what about military planes?” – It’s your best argument, but doesn’t pan out when you consider the logistics. See above.
You say you have read my blog. I can tell you’re not telling me the truth, for this is thoroughly answered there, and here I’m forced to repeat myself.
As I have said before, Steve, you cannot defeat me using scientific argument, because I know the science involved. If you really get down to basics (and of course you can’t!) I would fight you all the way and still end up the winner.
Your side knows this and has found other ways to defeat me – by blocking, by corruption, by fraud, by lying. But never by science. Blocking and corruption are beyond my powers to overcome, but occasionally I have defeated fraud. And lies are easy to deal with.
What I would like for you to do (apart from stopping making all these false assertions!) is come up with questions which really challenge me, and not questions which any book on atmospheric physics or topical science programme can answer.
And here is one for you. In my blog there is a link to a fascinating British invention which provides a safe, easy, cheap and reversible method of controlling and reducing Global Warming. What is it?
Bard of Ely
Tony, I have had a big realisation and not sure how I missed this apart from by association – I saw trails and white hazy skies and sun halos and my logic said the halos were caused by what was in the trails. However, because I was believing the trails were bad I was assuming the halos had to be too and had read how they are a sign in the Hopi system of the end of this system which added to my belief they are bad. But in doing this I was failing to see something I know – that halos form when there is water vapour, not when there is dust or particles. Therefore, looking at this now it means that the white trails and white artificial cloud cover would appear to be, as you and other non CT-believers have said, water vapour turning to ice crystals! This means that “chembows” would also be made of water. This means a lot that I have been believing was wrong!
Crumbs, Steve. Answers like this REALLY pull the rug out from under my feet! I am so accustomed to dogged argument that I don’t really know now what to say. Except, of course, that there is much more to this than what we have covered so far, and even if “chemtrails” don’t exist, then for sure most ills suffered by both Man and Nature are STILL down to Man!
My point all the way through my “campaign” against “chemtrails” is that WHILE “chemtrails” are the focus of attention, the REAL problems are NOT ADDRESSED.
Namely, people ARE suffering from lung and skin allergic reactions, and possibly dying. These people will be the young, the old, the poor, and people who have already been weakened by some other disease. Not having “media share”, they can slip away without causing a stir or attracting attention. Awful. And I’m fairly sure that’s happening, not from any particular facts I possess (except perhaps my own intense allergy to Britain’s summer months!), but from a half-century of experience in the ways of the world.
I have watched the quality of Britain’s air, water, and food drop decade by decade. And the quality of life! The fuddy-duddy “Empah” values, stiff-upper-lip, reserve, and artificial politeness PRESERVED a life quality we have LOST. Lack of stress! Peace!
I’m also concerned about CARS. In the sixties the Conservative transport minister Dr. Beeching removed half our rail network. This rail network was a web of railway that reached to every town and virtually every village in the country. It was a fabulous real estate asset because it was JOINED UP, and could hence be converted – perhaps into a clean and efficient tramway, or a road, or a canal, or an information highway. Or maybe left as part of a modern automatic railway. Well, once broken up and flogged off as packets of land no longer joined up, that which cost the Victorians SO much trouble was cast to the wind…
In the seventies there was the Oil Crisis, when the price of oil tripled overnight. “Now” I thought “there is bound to be a drive towards light and efficient people movers!” What did we build? 4 by 4′s, juggernauts as big and heavy as the monsters built in the US during the fifties! The SUPERMARKET “juggernauts” drove across our valleys in the eighties, removing trees and hedges and small-holdings in their factory-farming “techno-park” drive to produce consistently-sized, brightly-coloured, poisoned, tasteless “vegetable” (or “animal”) pap, leaving in their wake air filled with herbicides, pesticides, and pollens, and sordid concentration camps of bird and animal suffering. And then the cars. Without a decent railway or bus system or information system we were forced into cars. (Not you, Steve, I know.) Thousands of cars. MILLIONS of cars. On occasion the M25 was a stationary six-lane CAR PARK (with all engines running) for a HUNDRED MILES. What in God’s Name sort of LUNACY is THAT? Cars, poisoned air, poisoned water, denatured food, the mass-torture of birds and animals. Rudeness in public. Temporary and demeaning employment. Fraud in Banking and Insurance. Mortgage and Equity crises. Lying politicians. Foreign war. STRESS… BRITAIN!
Chemtrails are simply (apart from their nonexistence) SURPLUS TO REQUIREMENT.
The anti-GW invention is the salt-spray trimaran of Dr. Stephen Salter. Apart from turning the skies of the southern Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans somewhat leaden (and reducing the violence of storms in the area, and providing refuge for shipwrecked sailors) these devices do no harm whatsoever. Only five hundred of them are needed, and they can be switched off overnight if that were necessary.
Bard of Ely
Tony, please see the update I have added. I can admit I was wrong about a lot of it and felt I should make a public statement here explaining my reasoning. Thank you, because in the course of this I have understood how I was ignoring facts or overriding them due to my belief in the basic chemtrail conspiracy and my mistrust in scientists and official authorities. I would think that has happened with many of the other people who haven’t given you a chance or really read all you have had to say!
“This means a lot that I have been believing was wrong!” – Steve, that was a gracious (and almost unique!) apology which temporarily took my breath away. It is unusual for a “chemtrail” adherent to back down over anything. The only previous instance I can recall was – you – about a year ago. Yet, after that, you soon got into full swing again. So may we look at your phrase “a lot that I have been believing” and pick it apart a little? Can you now be believing that yes, there ARE poisons being dispensed, but they DON’T make white lines in the sky? Perhaps you now believe that no, they CAN’T be passenger planes, but they CAN be military KC105 tankers which are NOT laying visible trails? Invisible trails of WHAT might these be? Do you know how many KC105s there are – compared with the number required to carry out Edward Teller’s proposal? (ET – the original “Strangelove”!) NOT ENOUGH. Not enough tankers, not enough fuel, not enough barium.
Did you notice the satellite image of the whole of the North Atlantic Ocean in my blog that showed contrails as a grid of white lines concentrated ONLY over the middle of the ocean (where there was a huge north-south cold front!) with virtually no contrails over the land anywhere? If they were “spraying”, WHY would that occur? Did you see the “chemtrailer” version of a (on-off) “gap” in a contrail that was patently photoshopped into existence? Did you see the Sciechimiche video claiming to be the inside of a “spraying” aircraft which was “fabricated” from a photo of the interior of the Boeing 777 Long Range Prototype, which at the time contained interconnected barrels of water (in place of the seating) for directly testing the consequences of varying its centre of gravity?
I hope you COMPLETELY understand that there is NOT A SINGLE WORD OF TRUTH in ANY PART of the “chemtrail conspiracy”, and that some of the “claimants” are NOT DELUDED but actively FRAUDULENT. And “Geo-engineering” is not necessarily a dirty word…
Steve, I looked at your stop press, and it warmed my heart to see it. But it is an afterword in your Hub entitled “Are Chemtrails Real, and Contrails a Con?”, so I suppose the end results of this episode may still be deleterious, and a distraction from solving our true difficulties. I hope you will soon return to your laudable activities in the fields and woods of permaculture, wildlife, wild foods, conservation and Nature.
Bard of Ely
I will have a look at that video now! I do not claim to know how many planes the miltary has or where they hold them. I have seen the “inside a tanker” video you refer to and am well aware of the reality of that episode having been caught up in it personally online. I read a lot of the conspiracy authors and watch their lectures and the majority have included chemtrails as a reality and I find it hard to believe they are all knowingly lying, especially when I know that much of the other material covered is true. So I have to conclude they blind themselves as I have done. I have taken down my STOP CHEMTRAILS banners at Myspace because they show trails which you have convinced me are water vapour and until anyone can prove anything to the contrary I am as of now not promoting CTs as a reality. In fact when I have the time I will do a rewrite of what I have posted above here probably and stick it on Myspace. JazzRoc was he right? Yes, but nobody wanted to know!
I would much prefer to stick to things I do know about such as nature but in this case I got involved in it by seeing skies that are not as they used to be, which you have convinced me is caused by far more water being in them, and I assume this was the case when this happened before as you have detailed regarding past occurrences of persistent contrails.
I notice that you’ll find on the YouTube co-display page an article by Alex Jones concerning the Sun’s role in Global Warming, where he suggests this coming Solar Cycle will show the Sun’s brightness increasing by 50%. In the 4.6 billion years (and 200 million solar cycles) since the Sun and its solar system formed, the Sun has increased its brightness by (I think) 27%. This means that the mean brightness increase of the Sun per cycle is 0.000000135%. The Sun is not yet middle-aged in terms of its own life, and is expected to burn for another 10 billion years before it dies. It is proceeding smoothly, and showing just its usual behaviour – a tiny increase every cycle. It strains credibility to believe that THIS Solar cycle brightness increase is going to be 370 BILLION times greater…
So how can Alex Jones say this? Perhaps he isn’t a scientist, but I’ve just sat down with a calculator and rattled out the figures – and you can do it too. What sort of lunacy is this? Why does it happen these days? Where is the ACTION here? What’s the REAL agenda?
Bard of Ely
I saw that video. Alex says all sorts – a lot of it right and some of it wrong and as you say he is not a scientist which he admits! He is a good showman and a very successful alternative broadcaster and many people say all sorts of things about him good and bad. I have listened to him a lot over the years but not so much in recent months although I subscribe to his blog at Myspace, and I find myself knowing AJ supporters and others who are against him.
To answer your question why this is happening – there is the conspiracy theory that would tell you it is all part of the Illuminati Great Work of Ages plan and has been designed to be like this or maybe it’s just because a vast number of people want answers and are fed up with lies from politicians, governments, world leaders, religions, scientists, global manufacturers, and the media. Alex is one of many who provide answers so he has a ready audience. People have distrust in traditional leaders and ‘experts’ and want new ones – it’s been going this way for a long time and I would personally say a lot started in the sixties when people began looking for alternative ways and wanted to change the system. It’s when I got involved.
first off i would like to say i am new to this subject and at present not swayed either way, but i have read both sides to this argument and the continuing argument between bard and jazzroc, jazzroc by your standards i am extremely uneducated, but reading the posts here by both you and bard i am dissapointed in the way in which such an educated person argues their point, firstly it seems you pick on a sentence and then discredit it as much as possible by insulting everything it implies, it’s like reading a list of insults rather than a fair and equal argument, and no doubt you will do the same to this comment picking up on bad spelling, grammar and such saying how uneducated i am, but i am and i can admit this, also you claim to be a scientist yet your views are firmly set with no room for change, does science not show us now that the impossible is possible? does history not show us that science get’s it wrong time and time again? you are everything that is wrong with science today! science is an ever-changing and growing subject and needs open-minded people for its progression, and yes this has been a bit of a snipe at you maybe unfairly, but try looking at things from a different point of view for a change, for if there is one thing life has taught me is that there is always 2 sides to everything! and if we point blank refuse to look at one side we become lost in our own delusions.
Bard of Ely
Thanks for your thought, unknown! Perhaps JazzRoc will reply to your points?
“does science not show us now that the impossible is possible?” NO. The impossible has been shown forever to be, and to have been, impossible. The Universe is consistent to the laws we have uncovered to as far as we can see, which is to a distance of thirteen and a half billion light years. There are NO other rules operating other than the ones we have uncovered – other than the rules we HAVEN’T uncovered!
“does history not show us that science gets it wrong time and time again?” YES. And THEN it gets it RIGHT. Consider how you and your mother avoided death when you were born, and all the other aspects of your material existence which “wrong” science has got “right”, and contrived to make your life OTHER than “nasty, brutish, and short”! Consider the means by which you argue here. Consider that once I worked in a team to develop this means.
“you are everything that is wrong with science today!” Well, thanks. Had I known this, perhaps I would have have NOT designed the world’s first ethernet transceiver. Perhaps PEOPLE are what’s wrong with science. Perhaps you are a victim (already) of a dumbing-down process I saw begun in the early seventies. Perhaps you are also a victim of fiscal policy (namely the total surrender of “democratic” western governments to private banking interests). But you are NO victim of mine! I have been in opposition to every wicked and deleterious policy change I’ve seen occur since I’ve ever been able to vote. That’s almost EVERY CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN MADE. I opposed entry into the Common Market (Britain should be strong and self-sufficient and independent), I opposed the Conservative Selsdon Committee (that dumbed YOU down!), I opposed the destruction of the Engineering, Shipbuilding, Mining and Machine Tool Industries, I opposed the Falklands War, I opposed the destruction of the Coal Mines, I opposed the idea that Britain could be a Fiscal Service for the World (ridiculous!), I opposed the rapid exploitation of North Sea Gas (further destroying the mining industry), I opposed the feeding of meat to cows, I opposed the idea that GM pollinating plants merely needed a 20-yard separation (!), and I opposed entry into the Iraqi war. Then I LEFT THE COUNTRY.
I had become VERY FED UP of being ROBBED (in ALL uses of that term) CONTINUALLY over a forty-year period. Even now I am close to destitute, as employment is hard to find for a sixty-four-year-old Welshman without money or transport in a Spanish fishing resort village. But it is warm here, and I am close to my grandson, and my needs are few. I shall soon create a solar home and permaculture food garden and achieve true self-sufficiency.
“science is an ever changing and growing subject and needs open-minded people for its progression” Can’t disagree with you here! Of course, it is necessary to point out that to be “open-minded” requires that one is EDUCATED in the first place. Otherwise one merely “opens” an EMPTY mind…
“and yes this has been a bit of a snipe at you maybe un-fairly” Completely.
“but try looking at things from a different point of view for a change” Well, I’m a qualified engineer and industrial designer and practise those disciplines. Now I compose music. The idea of a “different point of view” is QUITE POPULAR with engineers, designers, musicians! It helps CREATE NEW THINGS.
“for if there is one thing life has taught me is that there is always 2 sides to everything!” Science isn’t a democratic debate. There is ONLY a CORRECT side and an INCORRECT side. Life hasn’t taught you ANYTHING, it seems…
“and if we point blank refuse to look at one side we become lost in our own delusions” No, you HOLD ONE. I’d like to point out that if I’m arguing with an American it really makes no difference – the same evil and wicked policies are maintained by both Britain and the States. If the cap fits…
ok, well you have indeed made some valid points against what i have said to you, and claiming that you are everything wrong with science today was unfair and i apologize for that comment, but to say i have been dumbed down is also a bit much, and when i talk of the impossible being possible one reference comes to mind and that is of quantum physics, but i will say thankyou for your reply and your comments and will discuss this more in due course. oh and just to clear that last part up,i am definatly not an american,i would like to say that my original comment was posted mainly for the way in which you come across, it is a little offensive in all honesty, and it bugged me, in reality i was not having ago at your abilities as a human being but more for the way that you put your point across, and somewhere in there i shall admit that i got a litte lost and sidetracked from the point i was getting at.
I accept your apology. Quantum physics does at first seem as though the impossible may be possible, but there is a fantastic SCALE effect at work here. The scale of quantum physics is so small and local (and quick!) that the distances involved in organic molecules eg., from ONE peptide bond to the NEXT in a DNA molecule, become equivalent to the distances between stars. All the “magic” is taking place in a “storm” (which is not even of microscopic size!) which on the whole averages out as – “non-magic” – nothing. I am a Star Trek fan, and believe that “beam me up Scotty” (etc.) has tended to convince non-scientists that these types of events may some day be within the reach of scientists. These programmes are FANTASIES. Their “science” (in almost all cases!) is poor. One isn’t looking at a possible future – at all. It is quite wrong to mix up a blend of fear of the US govt with fanciful ideas with radio stations (HAARP), barium stearate powders (“chemtrails”), “nanotechnology”, “mindcontrol”, aliens, and what-have-you, instead of finding the real solutions to lung and skin diseases. The solutions will be found using Science, not Fantasy. In the meanwhile “chemtrails” are a harmful distraction, an additional problem.
hey i’m from new zealand and they spray us here too. i know that they are definitely spraying something because you can’t turn a contrail on and off. we also see up to 4 planes spraying at once, they do a run across the city then turn around and spray again. i notice on days when they spray that all my flatmates seem to be more agitated and depressed. it seems to affect the wind. because our city usually is really windy and gets SE and N prevailing winds. but over the last 3 years the winds are coming from weird directions and it is hardly ever windy anymorei have also seen the rainbows in the fake clouds too i heard that there is a secret haarp installation here too
Bard of Ely
Steve, please have a look at contrailscience and JazzRoc’s blogs – the links are here to provide info. But basically you just seeing ice crystals forming the trails and fake cloud. They do not turn them on or off but are moving from one layer of the sky to another and if there is no water vapor present to crystallise as ice then you see no trail and it looks as if it’s turned off.
The rainbow effects are caused again by ice crystals – there are no forms of dust or particles metallic or otherwise that will cause this. It is likely that people are depressed and agitated by seeing the trails because if what they have heard about them as a danger and because it is something they have not seen until recently. However, there is nothing to fear apart from fear itself and the reason we see all these trails is because the sky has far more water in it and there are far far more planes up there.
I am emailing you to inform you of a strike that is being organized on July 4th 2008 against the New World Order and the spraying of chemicals in our skies. I am hoping to reach as far as I can with the message that there are good people out there who really want to change things. We all need to support each other and create a the kind of world it should be. Please spread the word of change and promote this website after all this affects us all. Please visit www.freewebs.com/changetheworldforever for more info. We need to change what is happening to our world and to our skies, for the sake of ourselves and for generations to come.
H2O is a greenhouse gas and that cannot combat global warming. I didn’t read jazzroc’s comments and can’t help wonder if he flies the planes. Pollution does block sunlight from traveling deep into earth but I think there are better ways than pollution to stop global warming WTF!
Bard of Ely
I’m not sure who said water was combatting global warming so don’t really understand the point you are making but I am sure there are far too many planes seeing as they are causing the problem we are seeing and whilst I no longer believe that the trails and artifical clouds are toxic it is still not right at all to have all these tons of ice crystals blotting out the blue skies and sunlight! And many places could desperately use the water down here! Thanks for your feedback, MD!
The point I was making is frost and mist are h2o, not chemtrails. I am not saying that I believe in one side or the other on this, if you read the blog on myspace I was talking about, it was more detailed. I do think the theory falls in line with other theories that becoming more factual. At least, it is more believable than reptilian theories!
Bard of Ely
Thanks for explaining! Well, the strange thing is I am no longer a chemtrail believer after several years but I am a reptilian believer, although not so sure about the shapeshifting! I have actually just written over 3,000 words on why I believed in chemtrails and why I no longer do for another project. There was logical thought gone into both my belief and how I finally lost that belief but the most interesting part of it all for me was that when I was a chemtrail-believer I was blocking out seeing some things, which I knew. This was not logical thought but the control over my analytical mind by the belief system I had.
I am going to have to read your conversation with jazzroc when I have more time. I have some chemistry knowledge and would be happy to look at this as logically as possible.
Bard of Ely
MD, thanks for what you posted but for the video it is just like all the others of which I have seen hundreds. They all are claiming that the trails are chemtrails and I no longer accept that so there is nothing to fear from them for myself or others who do not believe. As for finding cures for the illnesses said to be caused by chemtrails this is an impossibility if the chemtrails do not exist and are merely ice which simply messes the sky up. The illnesses and symptoms are caused by many other things and obviously need to be cured but personally I see no point blaming the trails and I no longer do so.
BTW as an example, I have had chronic sinus problems that I believed to be caused by chemtrails. I no longer believe this and have concluded that the problem is caused by my deviated septum, which two doctors said was the reason. I have found a cure – salt water dropped down my nasal passages.
No big deal about the deleted posts, I didn’t feel comfortable putting the article up there. i would’ve sent a link but the profile I found it on is set to private so I do not think I could send a link. It was a lot longer of a article but I am not intent on changing your mind. The fascinating part I thought, was the evolving DNA. I started classes this week so I am becoming too busy for this subject. If I come across any proof you haven’t heard of I will send you a myspace message with a link. Lots of things can cause asthma and sinus problems, nearby trains using diesel, car pollution, airports, pollen. See you on another topic friend!
Bard of Ely
Yes, lots of things present in the modern world can and do produce symptoms like sinus problems and asthma that get blamed on chemtrails! Yes, there are all manner of theories about DNA – depends who you agree with really! Michael Tsarion says we all have alien DNA mixed with human and that is the root cause of evil in the world. It’s a good explanation. Michael doesn’t think there are any saviours for the world condition but ourselves and I am inclined to agree with him on both counts. This is our nightmare and we have to deal with it!
hey. i hear planes at the same time every morning. I live in gwealod y garth in cardiff. we have had some really heavy downpours but i gues the rain is everywhere anyway. I have uncontrollable burny sneezing fits random spates & ive never had hayfever. Could be dust but i think i would be sneezing all of the time if was. my sleep patterns change and i feel different when i drink tap water.
Bard of Ely
I know Gwaelod y Garth very well – a beautiful place! No, rain at all here – in fact a drought! I hope the tap water doesn’t have fluoride in it like it does in many places now – a much worse threat than chemtrails, which I don’t any more believe exist! Sneezing is caused by many things and there are countless things which people are allergic to with cats, house dust mites and many types of pollen being a few. In many places people are exposed to pollens like oil seed rape that is a fairly new crop that is being cultivated on a wide scale.
If these don’t exist how come there is this chemtrail tracking site I go to that tells you when they will be here and when they won’t be here and it’s dead on 90% of the time? How would this guy know if they did not exist? I mean I think they do exist and they are up to something up there, what it is I have no clue but I have heard both sides of the argument and use common sense when I look up and I know these are different from the contrails I see on some days. Some days I see contrais and then these all over the sky. Jazzroc and his arguments are not going to sway me from these things or make it like they don’t exist, like the devil they exist and they don’t want you to know it. I am staying believing and studying these and reading about them. Some say they know some who fly and say they do spray these things and think it is for our good, some say it’s just chaff and the military does spray it to jam radar, check those out in youtube. It has been on the news in Cali as well and weather channels if you look for it, so people do know and are up on these things, not enough people but some know. BTW as for the tracking site, I would put it up but some idiot will try to get it taken down if they are with the GOVT. or looking to keep these a wrap, I think I will pass but thats NO LIE. He tells when they will be spraying, and bottom line it happens.
Bard of Ely
Please post the tracking site here! As far as I am concerened it is simple to predict when trials will occur if you know flight paths. The problem with the subject is that chemtrail believers call persistent contrails “chemtrails” and non-believers call them contrails. And it is a belief system because I am a past believer and it was very hard for JazzRoc to get me to see the logic of his arguments! I am now a non-believer. I could give you an example of predicting trails: at around 10am on Sundays in winter but not in summer a plane goes across where I live and it leaves a long lasting trail that I used to call a chemtrail. Pics I have posted of this believers call a chemtrail, as I did. But now if I see the same trail and accept it as a persistent contrail of ice crystals. Conditions have changed and we are now seeing persistent trails which we have not been used to seeing and we have been led by those propagting the chemtrail belief to call them chemtrails but they are simply long lasting trails of ice crystals I now believe.
JazzRoc is a well known DISINFORMIST. He magically appears at any discussion of atmospheric manipulation discussion and thwarts it with local fallacy pseudo-science, mostly released as countermeasures to chemtrail discussion. BEWARE!!
Bard of Ely, i still can’t believe how easily you’ve been pushed over.
Bard of Ely
As I have explained before JazzRoc is none of the things people claim he is! He is someone I know personally and have met many times and actually worked on music with as well as having enjoyed walks around the island here. But people post other opinions about him when they know nothing about him apart from the fact that he does not believe in chemtrails.
If you read what I have written you will find that my belief in the subject was already on shaky grounds when I found that the air in South Wales under “chemtrailed” skies was cleaner than usual not badly polluted. At the time I couldn’t understand this as I had been led to believe by chemtrailers that the air was being poisoned. Clearly it was not the case. I have not seen any evidence for chemtrails as a reality apart from all the videos, photos, reports etc by chemtrail believers and what I used to think were chemtrails.
I have concluded that the chemtrail belief system is a disinformation campaign itself and a very successful one.
Written by JazzRoc
October 28, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with aerodynamic trail, aerosol, aerosol carbon coenzyme, alaska, aluminium, aluminum, arthritis, artificial cloud, aviation combustion, bacteria, barium, blood product, blue sky, boron hydride, boundary layer, breathing difficulties, british, carnicom, catalyst, chaff, chem trail, chemtrail, cirrus, clear invisible gas, cloud, conspiracy, contrail, cryptography, cumuli, dbootsthediva, descent, enigma, ethylene dibromide, faa, fake, falling, false, filaments, forest, fresh air, fruitloop, gibber, gibberish, globe, haarp, heavy haze, indefinitely, ionosphere, jet exhaust, line-of-sight, lines in the sky, lunacy, lung disease, mackerel, metallic salts, military, morgellons, morse, Mr. Magoo, NASA, nitromethane, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, notrails, oily clouds, orgonite cloudbuster, pendules, persist, phytoplankton, ptb, radio establishment, rense, rh, saturated, science-hating, sensible, silica, sixties, spraying, strange pattern, stratosphere, stratospheric layer, sublime, supersaturated, temp, tic-tac-toe, troposphere, uk, understand, unnatural cloud, USAF, volcanic, volcanic effluent, wave vortex, weather, webby material, whiteout, windmill, world wide spray program
SUPERCOMPUTING THE CLIMATE – PENROD – SOME REAL SCIENCE -FLYING IS FUN
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
This is not my Introduction Page.
If you want my “STOP PRESS” and access to ALL updated features of this site you should SAVE my Introduction Page to your Favorites.
SUPERCOMPUTING THE CLIMATE
PENROD – Debunking Chemtrail Debunking Debunking
This a response to a long and plausibly persuasive letter written by someone called “Penrod” which has made the rounds of the chemtrail world over the past few years. It is without facts and evidence, but probably “works” because of its great size. The reader thinks to himself “no-one would write such a long letter if there weren’t something to it”. And of course, that was WHY it was written. This exercise in sophistry places the writer in a position superior, for instance, to the Neils Bohr Institute!
I will preface this with a cursory search using Google which sets the stage for what follows:
Google Search Results 1 – 7 out of 645 for “paper” “aviation” “saturated” “atmosphere” “contrails” “-chemtrails” “-aerosols” – Dec 19th 2008.
“Contrail Formation and Persistence”
“Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form. GOES-8 satellite photographs taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present show significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing the condition necessary for contrail persistence.”
S J Moss (1999). The Testing and Verification of Contrail Forecasts using Pilot Observations from Aircraft. Meteorological Applications
“Recent research has shown that old forecasting techniques may not be wholly applicable to modern aircraft that now use more efficient engines. In order to compare the performance of both the old and new forecasting techniques a validation trial was carried out over a nine-month period in which RAF pilots reported when and where contrails did and did not occur.”
Wakes of War: Contrails and the Rise of Air Power, 1918-1945 Part II—the Air War over Europe, 1939-1945
“It is easy to see that, if the air is so cold that it cannot hold much water as vapor, the water in the exhaust may be sufficient, when added to the moisture already in the atmosphere, to raise the humidity in the turbulent wake to or beyond the saturation value. If this condition exists, some of the water vapor will condense and a visible trail will form.”
A Laboratory Study of Contrails
“The existence of supercooled water at temperatures significantly colder than -40C is not a generally-accepted fact, but has been suspected by theorists for some time. Fig. 5 demonstrates that such supercooling of contrail condensate, whatever its purity, is possible.”
Contrail Observations over Southern and Eastern Asia in NOAA/AVHRR data and Comparisons to Contrail Simulations in a GCM
“400 NOAA-14 satellite scenes from four months of the year 1998 were analysed. Both regions show sufficient air traffic to produce an observable amount of contrails. Thus we are able to measure for the first time contrail frequencies in the tropics and compare it to a nearby mid latitudinal region. The annual average of the daily mean contrail cloud coverage is 0.13% for the Thailand region and about 0.25% for the Japan region. For both regions the contrail cover is largest during spring. The daily cycle shows surprisingly high contrail coverage during night in spite of lower air traffic densities during night time.”
Proceedings of the Aircraft Research Association – http://www.greenerbydesign.org.uk/resources/2003_conference/The_Technology_Challenge.pdf
“Persistent contrails, which in time degenerate into cirrus cloud, only form in air which is saturated with respect to ice and the conditions for their formation and persistence are reasonably well understood. There’s no prospect of a technological fix for that. If you fly through an ice-saturated region in the atmosphere, you’ll produce a persistent contrail.”
EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT WAKE DYNAMICS ON CONTRAIL DEVELOPMENT – http://eiger.mae.wvu.edu/AEAP99.html
1. Generally contrail ice in near equilibrium with ice mass proportional to contrail volume (except for the rapidly falling vortices early, and precipitation regions later).
2. Contrail volume largely determined by vortex dynamics (until ~ 4 min.) and Brunt-Vaisala oscillations (until ~ 20 min.).
3. Passive tracer, ice mass and ice number density distributions differ (strong dependence on RH ice ).
4. Heating due to adiabatic compression of falling vortex system can lead to significant ice crystal number depletion. (depending on RH ice , EI ice# , aircraft type).
5. Strong species fluctuations can have a significant impact on measured chemistry [e.g. HO2 /OH] in the aircraft wake.
You could, perhaps, look up the other 638 references, or select other relevant search terms, but you’ll notice I’ve chosen “chemtrails” and “aerosol” as terms to be excluded.
Debunking Chemtrail Debunkers – The Government’s Quisling Shills
As disreputable as it can be to engage in the unethical and underhanded, it can be as vile to know about the unscrupulous, and not acknowledge its existence.
The author knows about both.
The past few years has seen an unusual occurrence in the skies over the country.
For fifty-five years, actually.
Several or more times a month, jet planes, flying overhead, would start leaving unorthodox trails in the sky. Instead of the normal kind of contrails, usually accredited to jet aircraft, which stretch for a short distance behind the tail of the jet, and dissipate, as the sun warms and evaporates the ice crystals in the tails, these would stretch, generally, from horizon to horizon. Jets would fly overhead, spouting white, straight, thin clouds behind them, but, instead of disappearing quickly, they would persist stubbornly, forming a long path across the sky.
This happens in a humid stratosphere – ALWAYS.
The lane of cloud laid, then, would start to spread, side to side. Over the space of up to several hours, it would hang in the air, expanding. As it spread, it would thin, but not enough to completely evaporate. Indeed, apparently, never does a chemtrail actually evaporate! Instead, it would form a haze, sometimes even oily in appearance, from one side of the sky to the other, marking the path the jet took, but many, many times wider.
This happens because the trail gets caught up in the aircraft’s WAVE VORTEX – ALWAYS.
One of the most basic laws of Science is the one which says: “things stay the same (wherever they are) unless something new is added to the equation”, ie., there is no magic, invisible, imperceptible operation whereby a static situation might be changed (anywhere), and thus it will remain in perpetuity.
In our real world, and over considerable stretches of time, there are ALWAYS subtle operations taking place, but they are perceptible and they are measurable.
In the case of persistent contrails, if we assume the ice crystals are precipitated into a perfectly-saturated layer, they are originally destined to remain in “perpetuity”. Stratospheric layers are normally stabilized and still, but then of course the passenger aircraft comes barreling along with its massive wave vortex (like two small tornadoes on their sides) and gets a’stirring. About a quarter of an hour later, the stirring has come to a stop through frictional forces, and then the crystals will start to slowly fall.
The layer with its ice crystals spread throughout it is dependent on the incident sunlight for its density and altitude, and as night falls and the sunlight no longer supplies heat energy, it will contract and fall. The crystals may fall out of the layer at this time, but as they fall through the tropopause they will probably evaporate into the warmer air beneath.
Ice crystals in the higher layers won’t have this option – they will fall slowly through the layer boundaries into lower layers. As the majority of stratospheric layers are NOT saturated, the crystals will sublime into water vapor (raising the humidity of that layer) and “disappear”.
As the substance left behind by the passing plane slowly spread across the sky, it would come to be joined by one, then another, then another, as other jets covered the same area of sky. Eventually – in a very short time, in fact! – the entire sky could be covered with a wispy haze, and what was once a crystal clear day, now wouldn’t show a single patch of blue! And what sun did manage to shine through could, often, be accompanied by an oily, multi-colored reflection from the substance now lying thickly overhead.
Stratospheric layers are THIN, and if heavily supersaturated can render themselves OPAQUE after the through flight of a SINGLE AIRCRAFT. The description “oily” is a consequence of INTERFERENCE by the very fine ICE crystals with the sunlight passing through them. This can only occur when the material – water – is PURE. With the exception of the nucleating molecule, regular crystal formation is not possible with adulterants present.
A long-distance (5000 kilometer) flight by a Boeing 747 will spread the equivalent weight of its fuel load in ice into the stratosphere, where it will sublime and “disappear” if the layers are dry. However, if the layers are NOT, then it will persist and possibly accrete more ice.
It is quite possible for the trail to accrete A THOUSAND TIMES and even TEN THOUSAND TIMES its weight in ICE if it passes through a supersaturated layer. (The ice held in supersaturation as a vapor can only be there in conditions of absolute purity – or else it would, of course, have precipitated as ice onto whatever ambient impurities there were.)
See “A Jumbo Jet and an Ocean Liner” here:
It is this vast (and non-intuitive) increase in trail size which fuels this debate. They become VAST… the jumbo flight we are considering here can precipitate 80,000 tons of ice – the weight of a large ocean liner!
This has been a commonplace in the United States, and apparently, numerous other countries, as well, for about six years now! Those who examine these phenomena have termed them “chemtrails”, to distinguish them from contrails, and to emphasize the evident presence of foreign substances in the clouds. Since about 1997, these tracks have been a constant presence in the skies of the country.
WRONG. The phenomenon has been photographed continually since 1940. Persistent contrails are NOT a “constant presence”, but only to be found in humid conditions. “Chemtrails” are mythological.
Sometimes, they can be in parallel lines. Sometimes, there can be several. Sometimes, there can be many, all at once. Sometimes, they can be curved. Sometimes, they can form “X”s. Sometimes, they form “H”s. Sometimes, they can form more elaborate patterns. Sometimes, they will form the collections of lines called “spider webs” or “grids”. Sometimes, they will form what is called the “fan pattern”. And, often, strange and even abnormal and bizarre effects can also be observed.
And will ALWAYS be so observed, as they are the NORMAL consequence of CIVIL AVIATION TRAFFIC when the stratosphere is HUMID.
And, when the trails appear, they can cause many different effects, besides ruining the appearance of a day. In some places afflicted by chemtrails, it is reported, for example, that, shortly afterward, heavy rains, likely induced by the trails, will form. But these rains, often, will rain down strange materials, evidently from the tracks in the sky.
The OTHER WAY AROUND. The trails are caused by humid air in the first place. This humid air makes the rain. The proof of this is that trails are frequently seen from space over the mid-ocean. They always coincide with wet weather conditions.
Some rainfalls will produce a thick, viscous, reddish material covering trees, cars and houses. Sometimes, a fine, spider web-like substance will be evident everywhere. And, often, residents living below the clouds will begin to experience serious symptoms, from headache to muscle aches to nausea to difficulty breathing to bloody noses! Many describe the symptoms as similar to flu and, indeed, in areas over which the chemtrails are formed, it is reported, advertisements for volunteers in a study of flu will appear in local newspapers a couple of days before the onslaught of chemicals in the sky.
There have ALWAYS been these materials transported in the sky, just as people have ALWAYS experienced breathing illnesses and skin diseases. I remember having to scrape red Saharan sand off my car in Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, England, in 1973!
Attempts at analysis have been attempted by numerous individuals determined to find out
Yes, by laying collection devices on the ground (as if trays were capable of rejecting ground-level dusts!). As instanced at the beginning of this article, proper scientific sampling and analyses of trails have been carried out at frequent intervals since the fifties by various professional authorities.
what is being done to the people, and frequently opposed by evident betrayers of the public mandate.
A BASELESS ACCUSATION, for which you have produced NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.
The analyses that have been attempted have yielded constituents of the chemtrails ranging from ethylene dibromide to aluminum chaff to barium oxide to pseudonomas fluoroscens and pseudonomas aeruginosa.
These ground level tray samplings have collected materials which are ALWAYS found EVERYWHERE you find MAN.
Ethylene dibromide is a compound which, due to its fire repellant properties, has been added to JP-4 jet fuel to produce JP-8 fuel. It is a potent pesticide, which has also been listed by the EPA as one of the deadliest chemicals known.
Entirely (and mendaciously) untrue. It WAS an additive to gasoline (in the sixties). It was not an additive to JP-4 and is NOT found in JP-8! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8
Using the search “JP 8 composition” in Google, the first up was this:
JP-5 AND JP-8 97 3. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL INFORMATION 3.1 CHEMICAL …
Both JP-5 and JP-8 are distillate fuels consisting of distilled process streams refined from crude petroleum.
The characteristics of JP-8 fuel (such as density and distillation temperatures) are very similar to those of JP-5 (DOD 1992).
There is no standard formula for jet fuels.
Their exact composition depends on the crude oil from which they were refined. Variability in fuel composition occurs because of differences in the original crude oil (Custance et al. 1992; IARC 1989) and in the individual additives.
As a result of this variability, little information exists on the exact chemical and physical properties of jet fuels (Custance et al. 1992).
However, the differences in these fuels are minor. The primary ingredient of both JP-5 and JP-8 is kerosene, and the composition of these fuels is basically the same as kerosene, with the exceptions that they are made under more stringent conditions and contain various additives not found in kerosene (DOD 1992; IARC 1989).
The crude oil from which JP-5 and JP-8 are refined is derived from petroleum, tar sands, oil shale, or mixtures thereof (DOD 1992). Typical additives to JP-5 and JP-8 include antioxidants (including phenolic antioxidants), static inhibitors, corrosion inhibitors, fuel system icing inhibitors, lubrication improvers, biocides, and thermal stability improvers (DOD 1992; IARC 1989; Pearson 1988). These additives are used only in specified amounts, as governed by military specifications (DOD 1992; IARC 1989).
Straight-run kerosene, the basic component of the kerosene used for jet fuels, consists of hydrocarbons with carbon numbers mostly in the C9–
C16 range. Like all jet fuels, straight-run kerosene consists of a complex mixture of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons (LARC 1989). Aliphatic alkanes (paraffins) and cycloalkanes (naphthenes) are hydrogen-saturated, clean burning, and chemically stable and together constitute the major part of kerosene (IARC 1989).
Aromatics comprise 1o-20% and olefins less than 1% of the jet fuels (JARC 1989). The boiling range of kerosene, JP-5, and JP-8 is well above the boiling point of benzene (a carcinogenic aromatic) and many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); consequently, the benzene content of kerosene and these jet fuels is normally below 0.02%, and PAHs are virtually excluded (IARC 1989).
Aluminum chaff is powder, as fine as talc, used to scramble enemy radar.
False. Chaff is composed offine needles of zinc-plated glass, their length tuned to the wavelength of the radar it is expected to jam. It was first used by Britain in WWII, when it was called “WINDOW”. It is expelled in “bursts”, not as a continuous stream! Its only purpose is to produce a stationary target “blip” on enemy radar screens. It is chemically inert, and similar to Christmas tinsel.
Barium oxide is a crystalline compound purportedly useful for reflecting radio signals, supposedly making it possible to transmit over the curve of the earth.
False. It is NOT crystalline. It will be not distinguishable from calcium oxide (quicklime), except by density.
It was discovered to be possible to reflect radio beams off the underside of the ionosphere (a hundred miles up!) about a hundred years ago (Marconi). But the ionosphere does this normally. The use of Barium been tested once or twice in HAARP experiments to reach and focus over the horizon, using small sounding rockets. No aircraft fly that high.
Pseudonomas fluoroscens is a bacteria capable of producing potent, flu-like symptoms. Pseudonomas aeruginosa, on the other hand, is considered one of the deadliest pathogens known.
And they are found EVERYWHERE. Even on YOU. I quote:
Jounal of Clinical Microbiology. 1976 March
Epidemiology of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa infections: determination by pyocin typing.
“P. aeruginosa was isolated from 45 of 353 environmental samples, including water fountains, ice machines, bar soaps, and germicide solutions for toilet brushes. Twenty percent of the environmental samples were untypable but, among typable strains, the five most common environmental strains were the same as the strains most frequently isolated from patients. The organism was frequently isolated from noses (39%), throats (39%), and stools (29%) of patients with P. aeruginosa infections or colonizations in urine, sputum, surgical wounds, or skin lesions. Six of eight patients had P. aeruginosa in their tracheostomy wounds. Autoinfections by strains already acquired on carrier sites may be significant.”
These are only a few of the unusual materials found in abnormal abundance after chemtrail appearances in many parts of the country! In their wake, numerous theories have been advanced for their presence.
They are NOT “unusual” materials. They are ubiquitous!
Aluminum chaff has been suggested as being used to prevent terrorist communications from being successful in the country.
Barium oxide has been proposed to be being employed to facilitate American military and governmental broadcasts across the nation and overseas. It has also been linked to the generally obscure, but technically public, HAARP project. HAARP stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. It resides on a site apparently more than a mile square, near Galcona, Alaska. The purpose of the site is an almost 30 acre array of 180 antennas. They represent their intent to be to develop methods of using the earth’s aurora to facilitate communication and as an espionage tool. Barium oxide crystals are believed to be effective in this.
So? A lot of actions are, have been, and will be “proposed”. HAARP’s capabilities are mostly line-of-sight. Only its low-energy wavelengths reach over its horizon. Barium Oxide is NOT stable: on meeting water it will react with it to form barium hydroxide and liberating heat.
Ethylene dibromide and the numerous pathogens often found in abundance after massive chemtrail presence over an area have led to considerations that everything from eugenics to wholesale destruction of populations is an aim of the apparent campaign of serial spraying over the country.
This statement is entirely without basis. Pathogens are ubiquitous throughout the entire world, and it would not be possible to NOT find them.
EDB might only be found as a vapor, and in vanishingly small amounts. I do not believe that at normal trace dilution in air it would be even possible to identify EDB.
Other theories such as weather manipulation and control of global warming have been advanced for the spraying in the skies over the nation. The fact that rainstorms are often claimed to result from chemtrails in the Pacific Northwest can relate to this, but, in that area, many of the instances of severe sickness after chemtrails have also been reported.
Such propositions are abstract and are not real. Contrails precede rainstorms because they are both consequential upon HUMIDITY. Correlation and causation have been proved in this case. Satellite pictures of trails confirm this. In the case of contrails and sickness, correlation has been proved not to mean causation. Infection normally has a causation closer to home, such as public transport, meeting places – other people.
In fact, though, it is often possible to raise objections to each theory, and that fact is frequently employed by those who call themselves “debunkers” to criticize, demean and even baldly ridicule those who want an answer to the issue of chemtrails! It is possible to counter each theory, it appears, because, in fact, no one is universally correct!
Countering you is easy, for you are universally INCORRECT.
It appears that many different purposes are being served by chemtrails, and, for each, different substances are being sprayed into the air. To claim one unique purpose for every case of aerial spraying is to run the risk of not identifying correctly what is being done in each particular area.
It appears that, stuck with a range of theories which are all baseless, you haven’t a clue as to what to attribute to which. Unsurprisingly.
Is it the military which conducts this “world-wide” campaign, or the civil passenger jets?
For example, in the Northeastern part of the United States, chemtrails have been a prevalent sight for some time, now. However, there, they rarely, if ever, precipitate a rainstorm. Indeed, in that part of the country, the purpose of chemtrails seems to be to forestall rainfall.
One reason for your confusion is that you fail to distinguish between the troposphere and the stratosphere. The former is what YOU call “the weather”, the latter is where AIRPLANES FLY. Calling contrails “chemtrails” without basis is all you are doing here.
Since at least winter of 2002, that part of the country has experienced massive drought. Reservoir levels are down almost to record lows, if not actually below them! Yet, in that time, chemtrailing has been very frequent! In fact, it had become a pattern that forecasters would predict showers or even thunderstorms a couple of days ahead, then chemtrails would be seen in abundance in the sky, and, afterward, the predicted precipitation would not come! The region would be lucky if it got a misting on days when, previously, thunderstorms were forecast. This went on through most of the winter of 2002, and has begun, again, the past couple of months.
Correlation does not mean causation. When groundwater is sampled during dry periods, then the concentration of its dissolved solids rises. That is the causation. There is nothing here permitting you to claim “chemtrailing has been very frequent“!
The reason for this seems to be that, in the Northeast, the purpose of chemtrails was to disturb the process that can generate a rainstorm.
As I said before, your failure to make accurate distinctions leads you on to completely baseless accusations.
In general, a rainstorm can occur if warm, wet air rises particularly quickly into an overlying cold area.
In the troposphere all air is “wet” (even when it is CLEAR). All overlying air is colder. That is why it is UNSTABLE. All it needs is a source of heat beneath it to start it moving upwards.
This can result in the rapid cooling of water into clouds like thunderheads.
The rising air ISN’T COOLED by the overlying air: it cools by ADIABATIC EXPANSION as it rises into a lowering pressure. The cumulonimbus anvil you see above is spreading out as it meets this change in air conditions (troposphere-to-stratosphere). If you look you can see the change in conditions. Above the tropopause (where the air temperature at an absolute minimum) is the stratosphere, where the air temperature rises with increasing altitude.
The sudden, uncontrolled invasion of wet air into cool air seems to spawn many of the systems that give rise to rainstorms.
Rubbish. “Sudden, uncontrolled invasion” is the way the physics of the troposphere normally operates!
What chemtrails seem to have been used to accomplish, for at least the past year in the Northeast, has been to steadily gently mix the air at the boundary layers between air masses.
More rubbish: stratospheric layers do not intermix: they remain in STRATA (layers). That is WHY the stratosphere is so called.
Flying in the border between wet and cold air, the chemtrails seem to have been intended to control the rate and degree of mixing of the air, allowing cloud banks to form, but not swiftly and suddenly.
Rubbish. (This ignorant man dares to teach atmospheric physics!)
Wispy but not stormy cirrus clouds were the inevitable result, each time, the sky hazing over into a sheet of white, but never cumulous clouds.
There are NO SUCH CLOUDS as “stormy cirrus clouds”. Cirrus clouds are in the stratosphere, which lies above ALL storms. “Horsetail” cirrus is caused by shear between layers. The layers do not mix when they shear.
Among other things countering the “arguments” of debunkers that chemtrails are only normal contrails, and not some kind of controlled program on the part of government, is that, when chemtrails formed in the Northeast, for at least the past year, cumulous clouds never formed! If chemtrails were harmless and innocuous paths of water vapor from random jets, there would have to have been at least one case when cumulous clouds formed, following such an onslaught. But they never did.
Seems reasonable to you who doesn’t understand that the stratosphere is ABOVE the troposphere, which is where cumulus clouds may be found, and NEVER MIXES WITH IT. Most cumulus clouds are ten thousand feet (two miles) beneath the stratosphere!
The only reason any relief was seen in the past year in the Northeast was that chemtrails were not always laid immediately prior to an expected storm system. For a period, near the end of winter 2002, and into the beginning of spring 2002, chemtrails were not laid, just before storm fronts were expected. When a storm was predicted, and chemtrails were not produced in the sky, the storm, generally, occurred. In the last of the letters we sent, we outlined the means whereby chemtrails could be used to prevent rain and promote drought. Immediately following them, the chemtrails slacked off in the Northeast, rains picked up and the drought lessened significantly. The connection is not easily deniable, if at all. But a deliberate, planned nature of the phenomena is eminently apparent. Certainly, the chemtrails utilized in the Northeast, for about the last year, follow a pattern apparently geared toward controlling the mixing of air layers. Once they begin, they generally last for between four and six hours. They can occur twice in a day, but not often. They have been known to occur at night, also. Not only do they evidently prevent cumulus clouds from forming, these chemtrails almost never occur on a day when there are cumulus clouds in the sky! Once the clouds characteristic of the kind of chaotic mixing of air masses, that produces rainstorms, are present, it seems the purpose of the chemtrails in the Northeast is obviated, so they aren’t attempted. They generally do not occur, too, on very windy days, but they occur more during windy days than on days with cumulus clouds. On windy days there generally isn’t an air layer overlying another, so the object of chemtrails seems nonexistent for the most part then. They also seem to occur more often on warm days, than on cold, or on the warmest day in a span of days.
This whole paragraph characterises the meaninglessness you might find both if you attempt to find a formula for what is essentially a chaotic natural process, and when you don’t understand the ordinary processes either. The physics of such processes are well known, of course. They can be simulated, but can NEVER be predicted.
The constant feature of your writing is your failure to distinguish between the differing properties of the troposphere and the stratosphere, and the vast difference in height (and temperature, and, incidentally, pressure) between the two.
Chemtrails in other parts of the country may be for other purposes, and so may not be laid in the same patterns as those in the Northeast – those in the Pacific Northwest, for example, may be intended to facilitate the operation of the HAARP project, only a short ways north, in Alaska – but the serious drought conditions that afflicted the country, this year, seem to indicate that that was a purpose for many of those observed in the last few months.
There seems little plausible reason – if any – to doubt that chemtrails are deliberately produced, and not normal contrails.
You haven’t actually given ANY reason to claim this. So why should they exist?
Unsurprisingly, however, though, there are those who seek to oppose the assertions of those who contend that chemtrails are abnormal, and should be stopped. Apparently calculatedly, they term themselves “debunkers”, to inculcate the perception that concern over chemtrails is, more than “misguided”, an out-and-out hoax or fraud! Indeed, a number of them have used the term “hoax” in describing the concern over chemtrails – evidently suggesting that those who address the issue are actually pulling a prank on themselves – and even accused some who pursue the issue of doing it purely for personal profit.
Anyone who forms opinions on a topic before he has educated himself HAS pulled a prank on himself!
As if someone choosing to try to make a profit off a situation suddenly makes that situation not exist. Many have tried to hawk fake nostrums to eliminate the symptoms of the common cold, but that doesn’t make the common cold nonexistent.
I see. “Chemtrails” are real BECAUSE chemtrailers are fraudulent.
Moreover, the “debunkers” regularly tout the software, Flight Explorer, to “identify” aircraft using routes where chemtrails form. Not only do they apparently, wish to negate the existence of chemtrails by simply calling them contrails, they seem to want to convince the public that they arise from innocuous, harmless aircraft simply because unidentified, unverified information a piece of software displays on a screen says it does.
The Flight Explorer software shows the normal civil aircraft routes. When these coincide with humid stratospheric conditions they ALWAYS produce persistent trails. Each dot corresponds to an aircraft. There are quite a few…
They try to “counsel” people against using the guidance of their eyes and their common sense in chemtrails; they, instead, apparently, want them to blindly obey “the official story”.
The “official story” happens to be established atmospheric science. Your whole attitude to science is one of contempt.
Indeed, such faulty “reasoning”, coupled with an attitude of guile and contempt, seems universally to characterize the chemtrail debunkers.
Use your eyes. The Sun goes round the Earth doesn’t it? Scientists are WRONG, are they?
The interpretation of data requires more than just the ability to write about it. Understanding science gives one the ability to correctly interpret data. People who hold science in contempt frequently don’t have this ability. You don’t…
As their own “explanation” of the phenomenon, they carp the common line that “under certain precise conditions of temperature, pressure and humidity, water vapor from jet exhaust will act as the nuclei for condensation of water in the air around the jet. “The preciseness of the conditions, evidently, is intended to “explain” why all jet trails are not the elongated, long lasting sight that chemtrails are. But, within at least the last year, days with chemtrails constitute no less than about a third of the entire year!
“‘Their own “explanation’” are your words, Penrod, for established atmospheric science. This science has been developed by thousands of scientists over nearly a hundred years. You have already demonstrated your inability to understand this subject. You do so here…
In many cases, we woke up to already hazed over skies, indicating that chemtrailing had been done before dawn, or deformed, but elongated, wispy clouds would be present in the sky, indicating that chemtrails had been laid elsewhere, and drifted to where we were. As a result, chemtrail days constitute no less than one third, and, sometimes, no less than 40%, of the days! Far from a “precise” set of circumstances. If you add in the fact that, even after chemtrails may have passed, persistent haze can remain in the upper atmosphere, turning the sky a sickish white, or limiting the blueness of the natural sky that is permitted to show through, you have that no more than two or three genuinely blue sky days are permitted per month, anymore! Chemtrail opponents list this as one of their primary complaints with chemtrails, as well, the simple fact that they are being systematically robbed of their blue sky. Only a few decades ago, summer could guarantee weeks worth of clear, blue days. Now, to have just one is an event, at least in the Northeast. During the past summer, in Northern New Jersey, there haven’t been more than five or six days, all told, that were bright blue. Nor is this an insignificant thing. Substituting bright blue days with heavily overcast, low-hanging skies, or persistent mists, instead of the kind of rain that will clear a sky of haze, produces a listless even despondent atmosphere. Over time, it can depress individuals and even sap them of initiative.
A million tons of ice dumped daily into the stratosphere is bound to change things, but you appear to forget that there are such things as “dull days” in normal weather. Chemtrails don’t exist, and it seems it’s you who are depressed and lacking the initiative to learn about atmospheric science.
Experiments during the Seventies and Eighties, in fact, suggested that certain colors can promote certain types of responses. Pink was found, in some, to have a calming effect; brown and orange were found to stimulate appetite; and bright, light blue was found to promote imagination. Isolation cells in a number of jails, as a result of this, were painted pink, and the prevalence of browns, oranges and reds in the color schemes of fast food restaurants, during the Eighties, is testament to an evident unscrupulousness in their “marketing” tactics! Withholding clear skies from the populace seems, also, targeted at controlling the people’s initiative and foresight. Someone in government, it appears, doesn’t want the people to think for themselves about what they see going on around them.
You are attempting to link in other things to convince yourself. In fact, the research into the psychological effects of colors has a much older history than you appear to know.
As reliable as the provability of tenuousness in the debunkers, “arguments” – and the eminent apparent danger in chemtrailing – is the debunkers’ coming up with yet other attempts at discrediting those who oppose chemtrails. They couldn’t deny the existence of days when huge numbers of chemtrails clutter the skies, because innumerable photographs to the contrary exist. If that wasn’t the case, there is little doubt they would try to utterly and baldly deny their existence, altogether. Initially, though, they did, apparently, try the wheeze that “aircraft exhaust can’t alter the environment”! That has since been overturned by a number of studies indicating that, at the very least, the obscuring effect of normal contrails was enough to lower the earth’s temperature by at least 1º Fahrenheit.
During daytime – and RAISING it by one degree during the night. Net result zero.
It has always been known in scientific circles that combustion (of anything!) affects the atmosphere. If you merely took the single step of entering the words into a search engine you would have discovered this. You were obviously too depressed and sapped…
Equally as determinedly posited was the assertion that, even if long, environmentally-altering trails were being laid, it wasn’t deliberate. Countering that is the revelation that numerous patents and proposals for using aircraft to affect weather have been filed, in the past few years alone! “Cloudseeding” is the least of the methods; preventing global warming was a major goal of many. Recently, too, even the military published a proposal tothe effect of using weather control in wartime as a “force multiplier” against enemy troops. They termed their proposal “Owning the Weather by 2025″.
Yes, many things are proposed, but proposition doesn’t guarantee existence. Much as correlation doesn’t guarantee causation.
In the face of these demonstrations of their evidently patent falsehood in opposing chemtrail followers
A lie, because so far you still haven’t produced even a single item of evidence. Not even over ten years of trying.
debunkers have taken up the line that, even though jet exhaust can affect the environment, and even though there are plans to utilize that to control the weather, jets never release anything other than normal exhaust into the air. In the recent past, however, CNN aired a report of military planes, among other things, releasing egg whites into the air to test radar methods for, putatively, tracking drug planes! It is questionable what aspect of the situation the debunkers will attempt to attack next.
BUNKUM is always worth attacking. There’s no UPSIDE to BUNKUM.
And the debunkers have shown every determination to oppose suspicion about and examination of chemtrails as much as would be necessary to end questioning about them! They have taken out whole websites devoted to opposing chemtrail suspicions; they have even launched mirror sites of websites, to provide as much a saturation of the internet with their evident propaganda as possible!
In my case, I met this bunkum a year and a half ago. I too am taking steps to counteract the social damage caused by your lies and libels and slanders. While you waste everyone’s time on this bunkum, people are still suffering the ills you mention (which have, obviously, other causes).
They run the gamut from an individual that calls herself “ChickieDeb”, and identifies herself as “a housewife from Indiana” – ChickieDeb being one of those who launched three websites devoted to debunking – to an organization given the frankly questionable name “New Mexicans for Science and Reason – suggesting they see “science” and “reason” to be two totally separate and unrelated things.
I think not! Reason is the first step in science.
Jay Reynolds, who seems proud to oppose the assertion that chemtrails are not normal contrails, and who also sponsored three separate sites to mirror his assertions, likewise states, on his website: “the real state of things that agrees with facts and reality.” Meaning, presumably, that, for Mr. Reynolds, “facts” and “reality” are two totally separate and unrelated things. Before struggling to oppose investigation into chemtrails, the debunkers, it appears, should attempt developing a pose that doesn’t come across as that of an incompetent poseur.
Once more, I think not!
The nature of the debunkers’ refutations, however, is consistent with the stock in trade of those without a leg to stand on. Pre-eminent among their “tools” is out-and-out derision. Jay Reynolds titles his mirror sites “Contrails or Trails-CON?” One of the devotees of chemtrail examination, William Thomas, he terms a “snake oil salesman”.
The temptation to deride you is hard to resist. You still haven’t produced any evidence, and now you’re into “ad-hominem” fallacies!
On ChickieDeb’s site, cdebsjournal.topcities.com/Rhaltitude.htm, she quotes Jay Reynolds as characterizing those who mobilize the movement to study chemtrails as “X-file wackos”, and ChickieDeb openly agrees. Larry Lawson, whom ChickieDeb identifies as a “chemtrail perpetrator”, is also referred to, by her, as a “pipsqueak”. On the same page, incidentally, ChickieDeb condemns “religious fundamentalists”, like she models Mr. Lawson to be, who “think that God is unable to take care of things by Himself”. ChickieDeb seems of the opinion that people should just sit still and do nothing,leave it all to God – or whatever she tries to pass off as a deity – to do things in the world. She seems intent on coercing others into a willing complacence and disinterest in taking action in the world. The title of another of her websites devoted, apparently, to deceiving people about the reality of chemtrails is “DO YOU WANT TO STOP BEING AFRAID?”
A laudable question. It is you who is “deceiving people about the reality of chemtrails”! And you who is creating needless fear.
Apparently she couldn’t be happier if everyone agreed not to be concerned about what is being done to their environment, and just let their rights and interests be run roughshod over! Even an atheist would accept that God would not have created man just to sit and watch the world; a purpose for creating man was so that man could do things and not leave it to God to “take care of things by Himself”. Having people stand up for themselves, however, seems anathema to what ChickieDeb has in mind for them.
I AM an atheist, thankyou, and don’t need YOU to put words in my mouth. As an atheist I don’t accept that “God” exists. Nor should you put words in her mouth. You still haven’t produced any evidence.
The debunkers seem never at a loss for disparaging names to call those who seem to threaten the government secret they work so hard to hide, or a boundless store of contempt for others.
It’s boundless for those slanderers and time-wasters like you.
The evident attempt to vilify suspicion of chemtrails is also a commonplace on debunkers, websites. ChickieDeb titles at least one of her mirror sites, worldzone.net/international.checkiedeb, “CHEMTRAIL HOAX – The Best Kept Secret In the World”. On that site, ChickieDeb gives space to an article by Jay Reynolds, entitled “HOW TO RUN A CHEMTRAIL SCARE FOR FUN AND PROFIT”. On one of the pages on one of ChickieDeb’s mirror sites,www.worldzone.net/international/chickiedeb/cgi/col2.shtml, chemtrail opponents are belittled for accusing debunkers of not using logic, and it is said, of them, that “they refuse to recognize logic and rationale”.
Shame, the link’s non-existent (like your evidence. But I found the article, thanks).
“Rationale”, it could be mentioned, for ChickieDeb’s information, means the “excuse” or “justification” one uses to “explain” their actions. It is not an accompanying quality with logic. What ChickieDeb seems to have wanted to mention – yet apparently did not have the depth of education to supply – was “rationality”.
Bully for you.
On the page, worldzone.net/international/chickiedeb//cgi/eyeswideshut.shtml, ChickieDeb acknowledges that a term the debunkers use for chemtrail opponents is “Insane Cloud Posse”.
Contempt is a large part of the debunkers, stock in trade. When not engaging in determined vituperation of chemtrail opponents, the debunkers attempt a “validation” of their condemnation of chemtrail concerns, usually through patently indulgence in fraudulent double-talk and specious “demonstrations”.
This definition of science, I know, precedes your demonstration of complete scientific ignorance.
The endless, arch and professorial expositions on “temperature, humidity and pressure” is only one aspect of this tack. Even there, though, the debunkers find it difficult to work within the bounds of their own presentations. On http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html, Thomas Schlatter, who passes himself off as a “NOAA meteorologist”
contends that long lasting contrails can occur if the temperature is less than 70º and the relative humidity of air, compared to ice is greater than 100%, that is, there is more than enough water vapor to replace ice as ice dissolves in the sunlight.
Ice DOES NOT “dissolve in sunlight”! (It sublimes into water vapor. Is that your idea? Yes – that IS your idea!))
The apparent purpose of this seems to be just to give the impression that long lasting contrails are possible. But it soon became evident that this was also describing an eminently unlikely – if not patently impossible – situation. To apparently patch up this problem, ChickieDeb on the web page cdebsjournal.topcities.com/leadpage.htm, apparently desperately and recklessly blurts that “contrails can occur with zero humidity if the temperature is cold enough”. Leaving aside the fact that she conveniently says only that “contrails” – not long-lasting contrails – can occur under those conditions – which no one denies – on the web page the link she provides leads to, someone named Dr. Patrick Minnis asserts only that meteorological instruments reading humidity at high altitudes have been supposedly, consistently wrong, so that presumably high altitude humidities are larger than expected.
There is nothing either unlikely or impossible about this. There ARE problems with measuring high-altitude humidities due to icing taking place at the instrument aperture. Attempting to use heating to clear it will obviously distort the humidity figures. It can be done these days using “remote” laser interferometry from the ground.
Importantly, on the page, it also refers only to “contrails” forming, not long-lasting contrails. In what seems to constitute little more than what is termed “hand-waving”, Dr. Minnis then goes on to state, without explanation or justification, that relative humidities have to be greater than 100% for “contrails to persist for very long”, but, “at those cold temperatures, a small error in moisture measurement” can lead to “a large error” in the relative humidity. Supposedly, then, not only are relative humidities at high altitudes greater than previously thought, they, putatively, are even greater than they appear, because readings might have a small error that can translate into a massive difference in the actual humidity.
“someone named Dr. Patrick Minnis”? Do you mean THIS person?
PATRICK MINNIS, Climate Sciences Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 420, Hampton, VA 23681. Born in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Raised in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma graduating from Casady School in 1968. 1991 – Ph.D., University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, Meteorology 1978 – M.S., Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO, Atmospheric Science 1972 – B.E., Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, Materials Science & Metallurgical Engineering, Senior Research Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center Science Directorate, 1981-1986, Research Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center Materials Application and Technology Division, 1977-1981, Research Engineer, Kentron International, 1972-1975, Product Engineer, Ferro Fiberglass.
Who works with a team of scientists at NASA on this?:
Who knows better than anyone else (except the other members of his team) about the condition of the Earth’s atmosphere – THAT Dr. Minnis?
If Dr. Minnis “waved his hand”, unlike you, it would mean that he could back it up with serious results. You like to contend with Dr. Minnis, but NOT with the preceding fifty years’ work in atmospheric physics. Why? Was it something he said? Maybe:
Minnis, Patrick and Cox, Stephen K.: A Polynominal Representation of 6.3mm Water Vapor and 4.3mm CO2 Atmospheric Transmissivities. Atmospheric Science Paper No. 264, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, 20 pp., December 1976.
Minnis, Patrick and Cox, Stephen K.: Magnitude of the Radiative Effects of the Sahara Dust Layer. Atmospheric Science Paper No. 283, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, 111 pp., January 1978.
Harrison, Edwin F.; Minnis, Patrick; Gibson, Gary G.: Orbital and Cloud Sampling Analyses for Multisatellite Earth Radiation Budget Experiments.Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 491-495, September-October 1983.
Brooks, David R. and Minnis, Patrick: Comparison of Longwave Diurnal Models Applied to Simulations of the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Vol. 23, pp. 155-160, January 1984.
Brooks, David R. and Minnis, Patrick: Simulation of the Earth’s Monthly Average Regional Radiation Balance Derived from Satellite Measurements. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Vol. 23, pp. 392-403, March 1984.
Minnis, Patrick and Harrison, Edwin F.: Diurnal Variability of Regional Cloud and Clear-Sky Radiative Parameters Derived from GOES Data, Part I: Analysis Method. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Vol. 23, pp. 993-1011, July 1984.
Minnis, Patrick and Harrison, Edwin F.: Diurnal Variability of Regional Cloud and Clear-Sky Radiative Parameters Derived from GOES Data, Part II: November 1978 Cloud Distribution. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Vol. 23, pp. 1012-1031, July 1984.
Minnis, Patrick and Harrison, Edwin F.: Diurnal Variability of Regional Cloud and Clear-Sky Radiative Parameters Derived from GOES Data; Part III: November 1978 Radiative Parameters. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Vol. 23, pp. 1032-1052, July 1984.
Brooks, David R.; England, Christopher F.; Hunt, Gary E., and Minnis, Patrick: An Intercomparison of Meteosat 1 and GOES 2 Visible and Infrared Measurements. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanographic Technology, pp. 283-286, September 1984.
Stuhlmann, Rolf; Minnis, Patrick, and Smith, G. Louis: Cloud Bidirectional Reflectance Functions: A Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Results. Applied Optics, pp. 396-401, February 1985.
Rossow, W.; Mosher, F.; Kinsella, E.; Arking, A.; Desbois, M.; Harrison, E.; Minnis, P.; Ruprecht, E.; Simmer, C., and Smith, E.: ISCCP Cloud Algorithm Intercomparison. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Vol. 24, pp. 877-903, September 1985.
Briegleb, B. P.; Minnis, P.; Ramanathan, V., and Harrison, E. F.: Comparison of Regional Clear-Sky Albedos Inferred from Satellite Observations and Model Computations. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Vol. 25, pp. 214-226, February 1986.
Brooks, D. R.; Harrison, E. F.; Minnis, P.; Suttles, J. T., and Kandel, R. S.: Development of Algorithms for Understanding the Temporal and Spatial Variability of the Earth’s Radiation Balance. Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 24, pp. 422-438, May 1986.
Fishman, J.; Minnis, P., and Riechle, Jr., H. G.: Use of Satellite Data to Study Ozone in the Tropics. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, pp. 14451-14465, December 1986.
Minnis, P.; Harrison, E. F.; Brooks, D. R., and Young, D. F.: Temporal Variability of the Radiation Budget over the Tibetan Plateau Determined from the ERBE Satellites. Atmospheric Radiation, Progress and Prospects: Proceedings of the Beijing International Radiation Symposium, China Press, pp. 76-81, 1987.
Minnis, P.; Harrison, E. F.; and Gibson, G. G.: Cloud Cover over the Equatorial Eastern Pacific Derived from July 1983 ISCCP Data Using a Hybrid Bispectral Threshold Method. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 92, pp. 4051-4073, April 1987.
Potter, G. L.; Cess, R. D.; Minnis, P.; Harrison, E. F., and V. Ramanathan: Diurnal Variability of the Planetary Albedo: An Appraisal with Satellite Measurements and General Circulation Models. Journal of Climate, Vol. 1, pp. 233- 239, Mar. 1988.
Suttles, J. T.; Green, R. N.; Minnis, P.; Smith, G. L.; Staylor, W. F.; Wielicki, B. A.; Walker, I. J.; Young, D. F.; Taylor, V. R., and Stowe, L. L.: Angular Radiation Models for Earth-Atmosphere System: Volume I – Shortwave Radiation.NASA RP 1184, 144 pp., July 1988.
Minnis, P. and Wielicki, B. A.: Comparison of Cloud Amounts Using GOES and Landsat Data.Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 93, pp. 9385-9403, August 1988.
Harrison, E. F.; Brooks, D. R.; Minnis, P.; Wielicki, B. A.; Staylor, W. F.; Gibson, G. G.; Young, D. F.; Denn, F. M., and the ERBE Science Team: First Estimates of the Diurnal Variation of Longwave Radiation from the Multiple-Satellite Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE).Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 69, pp. 1144-1151, October 1988.
Ramanthan, V.; Cess, R. D.; Harrison, E. F.; Minnis, P.; Barkstrom, B. R.; Ahmad, E., and Hartmann, D.: Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Science, Vol. 243, pp. 57-63, January 1989.
Minnis, P.: Viewing Zenith Angle Dependence of Cloudiness Determined from Coincident GOES East and GOES West Data( size ~10 MB). Journal of Geophysical Research , Vol. 94, pp. 2303-2320, January 1989.
Harrison, E. F.; Minnis, P.; Barkstrom, B. R.; Ramanathan, V.; Cess, R. D., and Gibson, G. G.: Seasonal Variation of Cloud Radiative Forcing Derived from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 95, pp. 18687-18703, October 1990.
Minnis, P.; Young, D. F.; Sassen, K.; Alvarez, J. M., and Grund, C. J.: The 27-28 October 1986 FIRE IFO Case Study: Cirrus Parameter Relationships Derived from Satellite and Lidar Data. Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 118, pp. 2402 – 2425, November 1990.
Minnis, P.; Heck, P. W., and Harrison, E. F.: The 27-28 October 1986 FIRE IFO Case Study: Cloud Parameter Fields Derived from Satellite Data. Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 118, pp. 2426- 2446, November 1990.
Cahoon, D. R.; Levine, J. S.; Cofer III, W. R.; Miller, J. E.; Minnis, P.; Tenille, G. M.; Yip, T. W.; Heck, P. W., and Stocks, B. J.: The Great Chinese Fire of 1987: A View from Space. Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climate, and, Biospheric Implications, MIT Press, pp. 61-66, 1991.
Minnis, P.; Young, D. F., and Harrison, E. F.: Examination of the Relationship between Infrared Window Radiance and the Total Outgoing Longwave Flux Using Satellite Data. Journal of Climate, Vol. 4, pp. 1114-1133, October, 1991.
Harrison, E. F.; Minnis, E. F.; Gibson, G. G.; and Denn, F. M.: Orbital Analysis and Instrument Viewing Geometry Considerations for the Earth Observing System (EOS) Satellite. Astrodynamics, Advances in the Astronuatical Sciences, Vol. 76, pp. 1215-1227, 1991.
Minnis, P.; Heck, P. W.; Young, D. F.; Fairall, C. W., and Snider, J. B.: Stratocumulus Cloud Properties Derived from Simultaneous Satellite and Island-Based Instrumentation During FIRE, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 31, pp. 317-339, April 1992.
Betts, A. K.; Minnis, P.; Ridgway, W., and Young, D. F.: Integration of Satellite and Surface Data Using a Radiative-Convective Oceanic Boundary Layer Model, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 31, pp. 340-350, April 1992.
Baum, B. A.; Wielicki, B. A.; Minnis, P., and Parker, L.: Cloud Property Retrieval Using Merged HIRS and AVHRR Data. Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 31, pp. 351-369, April 1992.
Cess, R. D.; Harrison, E. F.; Minnis, P.; Barkstrom, B. R.; Ramanathan, V., and Kwon, T. Y.: Interpretation of Seasonal Cloud-Climate Interaction Using Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Data. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 97, pp. 7613-7617, May 1992.
Takano, Y.; Liou, K.-N., and Minnis, P.: The Effects of Small Ice Crystals on Cirrus Infrared Radiative Properties. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, pp. 1487-1493, August 1992.
Minnis, P.; Harrison, E. F.; Stowe, L. L.; Gibson, G. G.; Denn, F. M.; Doelling, D. R., and Smith Jr., W. L.: Radiative Climate Forcing by the Mt. Pinatubo Eruption. Science, Vol. 259, pp. 1411-1415, March 5, 1993.
Minnis, P.; Takano, Y., and Liou, K.-N.: Inference of Cirrus Cloud Properties Using Satellite-Observed Visible and Infrared Radiances, Part I: Parameterization of Radiance Fields. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 50, pp. 1279-1304, May 1, 1993.
Minnis, P.; Heck, P. W., and Young, D. F.: Inference of Cirrus Cloud Properties Using Satellite-Observed Visible and Infrared Radiances, Part II: Verification of Theoretical Cirrus Radiative Properties. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 50, pp. 1305-1322, May 1, 1993.
Wang, S.; Albrecht, B. A., and Minnis, P.: Regional Modeling of Marine Boundary Layer Clouds, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 50, pp. 4022-4043, October 1, 1993.
Harrison, E. F.; Minnis, P.; Barkstrom, B. R., and Gibson, G. G.: Radiation Budget at the Top of the Atmosphere. Atlas of Satellite Observations Related to Global Change, Cambridge Univ. Press, Edited by R. J. Gurney, J. L. Foster, and C. L. Parkinson, pp.19-38, 1993.
Baum, B. A.; R. F. Arduini; B. A. Wielicki; P. Minnis; and S.-C. Tsay: Multilevel Cloud Retrieval Using Multispectral HIRS and AVHRR Data: Nighttime Oceanic Analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 99, pp. 5499-5514, March 20, 1994.
Cess, R. D., M. H. Zhang, P. Minnis, L. Corsetti, E. F. Dutton, B. W. Forgan, D. P. Garber, W. L. Gates, J. J. Hack, E. F. Harrison, X. Jing, J. T. Kiehl, C. N. Long, J.-J. Morcrette, G. L. Potter, V. Ramanathan, B. Subasilar, C. H. Whitlock, D. F. Young, and Y. Zhou: Absorption of Solar Radiation by Clouds: Observations Versus Models.Science, Vol. 267, pp. 496-499, January 27, 1995.
Wang, P.-H., M. P. McCormick, P. Minnis, G. S. Kent, G. K. Yue, and K. M. Skeens: A Method for Estimating the Vertical Frequency of the SAGE II Opaque Cloud Frequency.Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 22, pp. 243-246, February 1, 1995.
Wang, P.-H., P. Minnis, and G. K. Yue: Extinction (1-mm) properties of high-altitude clouds from solar occultation measurements (1985-1990): Evidence of volcanic aerosol effect. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, pp. 3181-3199, February 20, 1995.
Minnis, P.; Smith, W. L., Jr.; Garber, D. P.; Ayers, J. K.; and Doelling, D. R.: Cloud Properties Derived From GOES-7 for the Spring 1994 ARM Intensive Observing Period Using Version 1.0.0 of the ARM Satellite Data Analysis Program. NASA RP 1366, August 1995, 59 pp.
Martin, G. M.; D. W. Johnson; D. P. Rogers; P. R. Jonas; P. Minnis, and D. Hegg: Observations of the Interaction between Cumulus Clouds and Warm Stratocumulus Clouds in the Marine Boundary Layer during ASTEX. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 52, pp. 2902-2922, 15 August 1995.
Mace, G. G., D. O’C. Starr, T. P. Ackerman, and P. Minnis: Examination of Coupling Between an Upper Tropospheric Cloud System and Synoptic-Scale Dynamics from Wind Profiler and Radiosonde Data. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 52, pp. 4094-4078, 1 December 1995.
Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Ruedy, R.; Lacis, A.; Asamoah, K.; Borenstein, S.; Brown, E.; Cairns, B.; Caliri, G.; Campbell, M.; Curran, B.; De Castro, S.; Druyan, L.; Fox, M.; Johnson, C.; Lerner, J.; McCormick, M. P.; Minnis, P.; Morrison, A.; Pandolfo, L.; Ramberran, I.; Zaucker, F.; Robinson, M.; Russell, P.; Shah, K.; Stone, P; Tegen, I.; Thomason, L.; Wilder, J.; Wilson, H.: A Pinatubo Climate Modeling Investigation. “The Effects of Mt. Pinatubo Eruption on the Atmosphere and Climate”, NATO ASI Series Vol. I 42, “Global Environment Change”, Springer-Verlag, Edited by G. Fiocco, D. Fua, and G. Visconti, pp. 233-272, 1996.
Harrison, E. F.; Minnis, P.; Young, D. F.; Gibson, G. G.; Donaldson, J. L.; and Smith, O. C.: ERBE-Like Averaging to Monthly TOA (Subsystem 3). “Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, Volume II: Geolocation, Calibration, and ERBE-Like Analyses (Subsystems 1-3)”, NASA RP 1376 Vol. 2, edited by CERES Science Team, December, 1995, pp. 85-119.
Baum, B. A.; Welch, R. M.; Minnis, P.; Stowe, L. L.; Coakley, J. A., Jr.; Titlow, J.; Tovinkere, V.; Heck, P. W.; Trepte, Q.; Doelling, D. R.; Mayor, S.; Berendes, T.; Han, Q.; Christopher, S. A.; Kuo, K.-S.; Penaloza, M.; Logar, A.; and Davis, P.: Imager Clear-Sky Determination and Cloud Detection (Subsystem 4.1). “Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, Volume III: Cloud Analyses and Radiance Inversions (Subsystem 4)”, NASA RP 1376 Vol. 3,edited by CERES Science Team, December, 1995, pp. 43-82.
Baum, B. A.; Minnis, P.; Coakley, J. A., Jr.; Wielicki, B. A.; Menzel, P.; Titlow, J.; Tovinkere, V.; Heck, P. ; and Mayor, S.: Imager Cloud Height Determination (Subsystem 4.2). “Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, Volume III: Cloud Analyses and Radiance Inversions (Subsystem 4)”, NASA RP 1376 Vol. 3, edited by CERES Science Team, December, 1995, pp. 83-134.
Minnis, P.; Kratz, D. P.; Coakley, J. A., Jr.; King, M. D.; Garber, D.; Heck, P.; Mayor, S.; Young, D. F. and Arduini, R.: Cloud Optical Property Retrieval (Subsystem 4.3). “Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, Volume III: Cloud Analyses and Radiance Inversions (Subsystem 4)”, NASA RP 1376 Vol. 3,edited by CERES Science Team, December, 1995, pp. 135-176.
Young, D. F.; Harrison, E. F.; Wielicki, B. A.; Minnis, P.; Gibson, G. G.; Barkstrom, B. R.; Charlock, T. P.; Doelling, D. R.; Miller, A. J.; Smith, O. C.; and Stassi, J. C.: Time Interpolation and Synoptic Flux Computation for Single and Multiple Satellites (Subsytem 7.0). “Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, Volume IV: Determination of Surface and Atmosphere Fluxes and Temporally and Spatially Averaged Products (Subsystems 5-12)”, NASA RP 1376 Vol. 4, edited by CERES Science Team, December, 1995, pp. 69-108.
Harrison, E. F.; Young, D. F.; Minnis, P; Gibson, G. G.; Cess, R. D.; Ramanathan, V.; Murray, T. D.; and Travers, D. J.: Monthly Regional TOA and Surface Radiation Budget (Subsystem 10.0). “Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, Volume IV: Determination of Surface and Atmosphere Fluxes and Temporally and Spatially Averaged Products (Subsystems 5-12)”, NASA RP 1376 Vol. 4, edited by CERES Science Team, December, 1995, pp. 139-156.
Randall, D.; Albrecht, B.; Cox, S.; Johnson, D.; Minnis, P.; Rossow, W.; and Starr, D.: On FIRE at Ten. Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 38, pp. 37-177, 1996.
Toon, B.; Anderson, B.; Minnis, P.; Ackerman, T.; Jacob, D.; Miake-Lye, R.; Schwartz, S.; Tolbert, M.; Turco, R.; Starr, D.; Wiscombe, W.; and Laero, F.: Observations-Subsonic Aircraft: Contrail and Cloud Effects Special Study (SUCCESS) Workshop and White Paper Excerpts.NASA RP 1385, edited by A. M. Thompson, R. R. Friedl, and H. L. Wesoky, May, 1996, pp. 175-199.
Wang, P.-H.; Minnis, P.; McCormick, M. P.; Kent, G. S.; and Skeens, K. M.: A 6-Year Climatology of Cloud Occurrence Frequency From SAGE II Observations (1985-1990).Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 101, pp. 29,407-29,429, December 27, 1996.
Westphal, D. L.; Kinne, S.; Alvarez, J. M.; Benjamin, S. G.; Eberhard, W. L.; Heymsfield, A. J.; Kropfli, R. A.; Mace, G. G.; Matrosov, S. Y.; Melfi, S. H.; Minnis, P.; Pilewskie, P.; Snider, J. B.; Soden, B. J.; Starr, D. O’C.; Uttal, T.; and Young, D. F.: Initialization and Validation of a Simulation of Cirrus Using FIRE-II Data.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 23, 1996, pp.3397-3429.
Minnis, P.; Mayor, S.; Smith, W. L., Jr.: and Young, D. F., 1997: Asymmetry in the Diurnal Variation of Surface Albedo.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 35, 879-891.
Minnis, P.; Ayers, J. K.; and Weaver, S. P.: Surface-Based Observations of Contrail Occurrence Frequency Over the U.S., April 1993 – April 1994.NASA Reference Publication 1404, December, 81 pp., 1997.
Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Ruedy, R.; Lacis, A.; Asamoah, K.; Beckford, K.; Borenstein, S.; Brown, E.; Cairns, B.; Carlson, B.; Curran, B.; de Castro, S.; Druyan, L.; Etwarro, P.; Ferede, T.; Fox, M.; Gaffen, D.; Glascoe, J.; Gordon, H.; Hollandsworth, S.; Jiang, X.; Johnson, C.; Lawrence, N.; Lean, J.; Lerner, J.; Lo, K.; Logan, J.; Luckett, A.; McCormick, M. P.; McPeters, R.; Miller, R.; Minnis, P.; Ramberran, I.; Russell, G.; Russell, P.; Stone, P; Tegen, I.; Thomas, S.; Thomason, L.; Thompson, A.; Wilder, J.; Willson, R.; and Zawodny, J.: Forcings and Chaos in Interannual to Decadal Climate Change.Journal of Geophysical Research., 102, November 27, 1997, pp. 25,679-25,720.
Lin, B.; Wileicki, B. A., Minnis, P.; and Rossow, W. B.: Estimation of Water Cloud Properties from Satellite Microwave and Optical Measurements in Oceanic Environments. I: Microwave Brightness Temperature Simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 103, February 27, 1998, pp. 3873-3886.
Lin, B.; Minnis, P., Wielicki, B. A.; Doelling, D. R.; Palikonda, R.; Young, D. F., and Uttal, T.: Estimation of Water Cloud Properties from Satellite Microwave and Optical Measurements in Oceanic Environments. II: Results.Journal of Geophysical Research, 103, February 27, 1998, pp. 3887-3905.
Minnis, P. and Smith, W. L., Jr.: Cloud and Radiative Fields Derived from GOES-8 During SUCCESS and the ARM-UAV Spring 1996 Flight Series. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 25, April 15, 1998, pp.1113-1116.
Minnis, P.; Young, D. F.; Nguyen, L.; Garber, D. P.; Smith, W. L., Jr.; and Palikonda, R., 1998: Transformation of Contrails Into Cirrus Durring SUCCESS.Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 25, April 15, 1998, pp.1157-1160.
Young, D. F.; Minnis, P.; Baumgardner, D.; and Gerber, H.: Comparison of In Situ and Satellite-Derived Cloud Properties During SUCCESS.Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 25, April 15, 1998, pp.1125-1128.
Wang, P.; Minnis, P.; McCormick, M. P.; Kent, G. S.; Yue, G. K.; Young, D. F.; and Skeens, K. M.: A Study of the Vertical Structure of Tropical (20°S – 20°N) Optically Thin Clouds from SAGE II Observations. Atmospheric Research, 47-48, 1998, pp. 599-614.
Young, D. F.; Minnis, P.; Gibson, G. G.; Doelling, D. R.; and Wong, T., 1998:Temporal Interpolation Methods for the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Experiment. J. Appl. Meteorol. , Vol. 37, 572-590.
Wielicki, B. A., Barkstrom, B. R., Baum, B. A., Charlock, T. P., Green, R. N., Kratz, D. P., Lee, R. B., Minnis, P.,Smith, G. L., Young, D. F., and the CERES Science Team, Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES): Algorithm Overview. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 36, July 1998, pp. 1127-1141.
Mace, G. G.; Ackerman, T. P.; Minnis, P.; and Young, D. F.: Cirrus Layer Microphysical Properties Derived From Surface-Based Millimeter Radar and Infrared Interferometer Data. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 103, 23,207-23216, 1998.
Minnis, P.; Garber, D. P.; Young, D. F.; Arduini, R. F.; and Takano, Y.: Parameterization of Reflectance and Effective Emittance for Satellite Remote Sensing of Cloud Properties. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 55, 3313-3339, 1998.
Rinsland, C. P.; Gunson, M. R.; Wang, P.; Arduini, R. F.; Baum, B. A.; Minnis, P.; Goldman, A.; Abrams, M. C.; Zander, R.; Mahieu;, Salawitch, R. J.; Michelsen, H. A.; Irion, F. W.; and Newchurch, M. J.: ATMOS/ATLAS 3 Infrared Profile Measurments of Trace Gases in the Tropical Upper Troposphere: Cirrus Microphysical Properties and Trace Gas Enhancements from Rapid, Deep Convective Transport. J. Quant. Spectros. Rad. Transfer, Vol. 60, 903-919, 1998.
Rinsland, C. P.; Gunson, M. R.; Wang, P.; Arduini, R. F.; Baum, B. A.; Minnis, P.; Goldman, A.; Abrams, M. C.; Zander, R.; Mahieu;, Salawitch, R. J.; Michelsen, H. A.; Irion, F. W.; and Newchurch, M. J.: ATMOS/ATLAS 3 Infrared Profile Measurments of Clouds in the Tropical Upper Troposphere: Cirrus Microphysical Properties and Trace Gas Enhancements from Rapid, Deep Convective Transport. J. Quant. Spectros. Rad. Transfer, Vol. 60, 891-901, 1998.
Jensen, E. J.; Ackerman, A. S.; Stevens, D. E.; Toon, O. B.; and Minnis, P., 1998: Spreading and growth of contrails in a sheared environment. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 103, pp 31, 557-587, 1998.
Fahey, D. W., U. Schumann, S. Akerman, P. Artaxo, O. Boucher, M. Y. Danilin, B. Karcher, P. Minnis, T. Nakajima, and O. B. Toon, 1999: Aviation Produced Aerosols and Cloudiness, Chapter 3 of IPCC Special Report: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere., Cambridge University Press, 65-120.
Minnis, P.; U. Schumann, D. R. Doelling, K. M. Gierens, and D. W. Fahey, 1999: Global Distribution of Contrail Radiative Forcing,Geophys. Res. Ltrs., Vol. 26, 1853-1856.
Meerkötter, R.; Schumann, U.; Doelling, D. R.; Minnis, P.; Nakajima, T.; and Tsushima, Y., 1999: Radiative Forcing by Contrails, Annales Geophysicae, Vol. 17, 1070-1084.
Curry, J. A.; Hobbs, P.; King, M. D.; Randall, D. A.; Minnis, P.; Uttal, T.; Isaac, G. A.; Pinto, J. O. et al, 2000: FIRE Arctic Clouds Experiment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81, 5-29.
Dong, X., P. Minnis, T. P. Ackerman, E. E. Clothiaux, G. G. Mace, R. N. Long, and J. C. Liljegren, 2000: A 25-month Database of Stratus Cloud Properties Generated from Ground-Based Measurements at the ARM SGP Site. J. Geophys. Res., 105, 4529-4537.
Valero, F. P. J., P. Minnis, S. K. Pope, A. Bucholtz, B. C. Bush, D. R. Doelling, W. L. Smith, Jr., and X. Dong, 2000: The absorption of solar radiation by the atmosphere as determined using consistent satellite, aircraft, and surface data during the ARM Enhanced Short-Wave Experiment (ARESE). J. Geophys. Res., 105, 4743-4758.
Minnis, P. and M. M. Khaiyer, 2000: Anisotropy of Land Surface Skin Temperature Derived from Satellite Data. J. Appl. Meteorol., 39, 1117-1129.
Lin, B. and P. Minnis, 2000: Temporal variations of land surface microwave emissivities over the ARM Southern Great Plains Site. J. Appl. Meteorol., 39, 1103-1116.
Stephens, G. L., R.G. Ellingson, J. Vitko Jr, W. Bolton, T.P. Tooman, F.P.J. Valero, P..Minnis, P. Pilewskie, G.S. Phipps, S. Sekelsy, J.R. Carswell, S.D. Miller, A. Benedetti, R.B. McCoy, R.F. McCoy, Jr, A. Lederbuhr, and R. Bambha, 2000: The Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (UAV) Program, Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 81, 2915-2937.
Nordeen, M. L., P. Minnis, D. R. Doelling, D. Pethick, and L. Nguyen, 2001: Satellite observations of cloud plumes generated by Nauru, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 631-634.
Lin, B., P. Minnis, A. Fan, J. A. Curry, and H. Gerber, 2001: Comparison of cloud liquid water paths derived from in situ and microwave radiometer data taken during the SHEBA/FIREACE. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 975-978.
Duda, D. P., P. Minnis, and L. Nguyen, 2001: Estimates of cloud radiative forcing in contrail clusters using GOES imagery. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 4927-4937.
Minnis, P., V. Chakrapani, D. R. Doelling, L. Nguyen, R. Palikonda, D. A. Spangenberg, T. Uttal, R. F. Arduini, and M. Shupe, 2001: Cloud coverage during FIRE ACE derived from AVHRR Data. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 15,215-15,233.
Doelling, D. R., P. Minnis, D. A. Spangenberg, V. Chakrapani, A. Mahesh, S. K. Pope, and F. P. J. Valero, 2001: Cloud Radiative Forcing During FIRE ACE Derived from AVHRR Data. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 15,279-15,296.
Dong, X., G. G. Mace, P. Minnis, and D. F. Young, 2001: Arctic stratus cloud properties and their impact on the surface radiation budget; Selected cases from FIRE ACE. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 15,297-15,312.
Wang, P.-H., R. E. Viega, L. B. Vann, P. Minnis, and G. S. Kent, 2001:i A further study of the method for estimation of SAGE II cloud occurrence. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 12,603-12613.
Garreaud, R. D., J. Rutllant, J. Quintana, J. Carrasco, and P. Minnis, 2001: CIMAR-5: A snapshot of the lower troposphere over the subtropical southeast Pacific. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 2193-2208.
Duda, D. P. and P. Minnis, 2002: Observations of aircraft dissipation trails from GOES. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 398-406.
Minnis, P., 2002: Satellite Remote Sensing of Cirrus, Chapter 7 in Cirrus, Oxford University Press, David K. Lynch, K. Sassen, D. O’C. Starr, and G. Stephens, Editors, pp. 147-167.
Lynch, D. K., K. Sassen, A. Del Genio, A. Heymsfield, P. Minnis, M. Platt, M. Quante, U. Schumann, and H. Sundqvist, 2002: Cirrus: The Future. Chapter 21 in Cirrus, Oxford University Press, David K. Lynch, K. Sassen, D. O’C. Starr, and G. Stephens, Editors, pp. 449-455.
Pope, S. K., F. P. J. Valero, W. D. Collins, and P. Minnis, 2001: Comparison of SCARAB, GOES-8, aircraft, and surface observations of the absorption of solar radiation by clouds. J. Geophys. Res., 107 (D11), 10.1029/20001JD000672.
Wang, P.-H., P. Minnis, B. A. Wielicki, T. Wong, and L. B. Vann, 2002: Satellite observation of long-term changes in tropical cloud and outgoing longwave radiation from 1985 to 1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 37-1 – 37-4, 10.1029/2001GL04264.
Minnis, P., L. Nguyen, D. R. Doelling, D. F. Young, W. F. Miller, and D. P. Kratz, 2002: Rapid calibration of operational and research meteorological satellite imagers, Part I: Evaluation of research satellite visible channels as references. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 19, 1233-1249.
Minnis, P., L. Nguyen, D. R. Doelling, D. F. Young, W. F. Miller, and D. P. Kratz, 2002: Rapid calibration of operational and research meteorological satellite imagers, Part II: Comparison of infrared channels. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 19, 1250-1266.
Dong, X., P. Minnis, G. G. Mace, W. L. Smith, Jr., M. Poellot, R. T. Marchand, and A. D. Rapp, 2002: Comparison of stratus cloud properties deduced from surface, GOES, and aircraft data during the March 2000 ARM Cloud IOP. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 3256-3284.
Chepfer, H., P. Minnis, D. F. Young, L. Nguyen, and R. F. Arduini, 2002: Estimation of cirrus cloud effective ice crystal shapes using visible reflectances from dual-satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 107 (D23), 10.1029/2000JD000240.
Minnis, P., 2002: Contrails. Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, Academic Press, London, J. Holton, J. Pyle, and J. Curry, Editors, pp. 509-520.
Wang, P., P. Minnis, B. A. Wielicki, T. Wong, R. D. Cess, M. Zhang, L. B. Vann, and G. S. Kent, 2003: Characteristics of the 1997/98 El Nino cloud distributions from SAGE II observations. J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D1), 10.1029/2002JD002501.
Loeb, N. G., N. Manalo-Smith, S. Kato, W. F. Miller, S. Gupta, P. Minnis, and B. A. Wielicki, 2003: Angular distribution models for top-of-atmosphere radiative flux estimation from the Clouds and the Earths Radiant Energy System instrument on the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite. Part I: Methodology. J. Appl. Meteorol., 42, 240-265.
Ho, S.-P., B. Lin, P. Minnis, and T.-F. Fan, 2003: Estimation of cloud vertical structure and water amount over tropical oceans using VIRS and TMI data. J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D14), 4419, 10.1029/2002JD003298, 25 July 2003.
Minnis, P., J. K. Ayers, M. L. Nordeen, and S. P. Weaver, 2003: Contrail frequency over the United States from surface observations. J. Climate, 16, 3447-3462.
Lin, B., P. Minnis, and A. Fan, 2003: Cloud liquid water path variations with temperature observed during the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) experiment. J. Geophys. Res., 108, 0.1029/2002JD002851.
Minnis, P., J. K. Ayers, R. Palikonda, and D. N. Phan, 2004: Contrails, cirrus trends, and climate. J. Climate, 17, 1671-1685.
Duda, D. P., P. Minnis, L. Nguyen, and R. Palikonda, 2004: A case study of the development of contrail clusters over the Great Lakes. J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1132-1146.
Minnis, P., A. V. Gambheer, and D. R. Doelling, 2004: Azimuthal anisotropy of longwave and infrared window radiances from CERES TRMM and Terra data. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D08202,doi:10.1029/2003JD004471.
Smith, G. L., B. A. Wielicki, B. R. Barkstrom, R. B. Lee, K. J. Priestley, T. P. Charlock, P. Minnis, D. P. Kratz, and N. Loeb, 2004: Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System (CERES): An overview. Adv. Space Res., 33, 1125-1131.
Sherwood, S. C., J.-H. Chae, P. Minnis, and M. McGill, 2004: Underestimation of deep convective cloud tops by thermal imagery. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31 (11), 10.1029/2004GL019699.
Min, Q, P. Minnis, and M. M. Khaiyer, 2004: Comparison of cirrus optical depths from GOES-8 and surface measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 109, No. D15, D15207 10.1029/2003JD004390, August 12.
Sherwood, S. C., P. Minnis, and M. McGill, 2004: Deep convective cloud top heights and their thermodynamic control during CRYSTAL-FACE. J. Geophys. Res., 109, No. D15, D15207, 10.1029/2004JD004811.
Mace, G. G., Y. Zhang, S. Platnick, M. D. King, P. Minnis, and P. Yang, 2005: Evaluation of cirrus cloud properties from MODIS radiances using cloud properties derived from ground-based data collected at the ARM SGP site. J. Appl. Meteorol., 44,221-240.
Pyatt, B. A. Albrecht, C. Fairall, J. E. Hare, N. Bond, P. Minnis, and J. K. Ayers, 2005: Evolution of marine boundary layer structure across the cold tongue ITCZ complex. J. Climate., 15, 737-753.
Huang, J., P. Minnis, B. Lin, Y. Yi, M. M. Khaiyer, R. F. Arduini, and G. G. Mace, 2005: Advanced retrievals of multilayered cloud properties using multi-sensor and multi-spectral measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 110,D15S18.
Wielicki, B. A., T. Wong, N. Loeb, P. Minnis, K. Priestley, and R. Kandel, 2005: Changes in Earths albedo measured by satellites. Science, 308, 825.
Zhang, M. H., W. Y. Lin, S. A. Klein, J. T. Bacmeister, S. Bony, R. T. Cederwall, A. D. Del Genio, J. J. Hack, N. G. Loeb, U. Lohmann, P. Minnis, I. Musat, R. Pincus, P. Stier, M. J. Suarez, M. J. Webb, J. B. Wu, S. C. Xie, M. -S. Yao, and J. H. Zhang, 2005: Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation model with satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 110,10.1029/2004JD005021.
Ignatov, A., P. Minnis, N. Loeb, B. Wielicki, W. Miller, S. Sun-Mack, D. Tanre, L. Remer, I. Laszlo, and E. Geier, 2004: Two MODIS aerosol products over ocean on the Terra and Aqua CERES SSF datasets. J. Atmos Sci.,62, 1008-1031.
Dong, X., P. Minnis, and B. Xi, 2005: A climatology of midlatitude continental clouds from the ARM SGP Central Facility: Part I: Low-level cloud macrophysical, microphysical and radiative properties. J. Climate, 18, 1391-1410.
Minnis, P., 2005: Response to comment on Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate. J. Climate, 18, 2783-2784.
Garrett, T. J., B. C. Navarro, C. H. Twohy, E. J. Jensen, D. G. Baumgardner, P. T. Bui, H. Gerber, R. L. Hermann, A. J. Heymsfield, P. Lawson, P. Minnis, L. Nguyen, M. Poellot, S. K. Pope, F. P. J. Valero, and E. M. Weinstock, 2005: Evolution of a Florida cirrus anvil. J. Atmos. Sci. 62, 2352-2372.
Chepfer, H., V. Noel, P. Minnis, D. Baumgardner, L. Nguyen, G. Raga, M. J. McGill, and P. Yang, 2005: Particle habit in tropical ice clouds during CRYSTAL-FACE: Comparison of two remote sensing techniques with in situ observations. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D16204, 10.1029/2004JD005455.
Minnis, P., R. Palikonda, B. J. Walter, J. K. Ayers, and H. Mannstein, 2005: Contrail properties over the eastern North Pacific from AVHRR data. Meteorol. Z., 14, 515-523. (For a reprint, please contact email@example.com)
Duda, D. P., P. Minnis, D. P. Garber, and R. Palikonda, 2005: CONUS contrail frequency and coverage estimated from RUC and flight track data.Meteorol. Z., 14, 537-548. (For a reprint, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org)
Garber, D., P. Minnis, and P. K. Costulis, 2005: A USA commercial flight track database for upper tropospheric aircraft emission studies over the USA and southern Canada. Meteorol. Z., 14, 445-452. (For a reprint, please contact email@example.com)
Palikonda, R., P. Minnis, D. P. Duda, and H. Mannstein, 2005: Contrail coverage over the United States of America during 2001 derived from AVHRR data.Meteorol. Z., 14, 515-523. (For a reprint, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org)
Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, L. Nazarenko, A. Lacis, G. A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, M. Bauer, S. Bauer, N. Bell, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y, Cheng, A. Del Genio, G. Feluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, M. Kelley, N. Kiang, D. Koch, J. Lean, J. Lerner, K. Lo, S. Menon, R. Miller, P. Minnis, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, D. Romanou, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, B. Wielicki, T. Wong, M. Yao, and S. Zhang, 2005: Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18104, 10.1029/2005JD005776. (Note: Manuscript is ~21MB)
Zhao, T. X.-P., I. Laslo, P. Minnis, and L. Remer, 2005: Comparison and analysis of two aerosol retrievals over the ocean in Terra/CERES-MODIS Single Scanner Footprint (SSF) data: Part I – Global evaluation .J. Geophys. Res., 110, D21, D21209, 10.1029/2005JD005851.
Zhao, T. X.-P., I. Laslo, P. Minnis, and L. Remer, 2005: Comparison and analysis of two aerosol retrievals over the ocean in Terra/CERES-MODIS Single Scanner Footprint (SSF) data: Part II – Regional evaluation. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D21, D21209, doi:10.1029/2005JD005852.
Minnis, P., Y. Yi, J. Huang, and J. K. Ayers, 2005: Relationships between radiosonde and RUC-2 meteorological conditions and cloud occurrence determined from ARM data. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D23204, doi:10.1029/2005JD006005.
Sharon, T. M., B. A. Albrecht, H. H. Johnson, P. Minnis, M. M. Khaiyer, T. M. Van Reken, J. Seinfeld, and R. Flagan, 2006: Aerosol and cloud microphysical characteristics of rifts and gradients in maritime stratocumulus clouds. J. Atmos. Sci. 63 , 983-997.
Dong, X., B. Xi, P. Minnis, and C. N. Long, 2006: A climatology of midlatitude continental clouds from the ARM SGP Central Facility: Part II: Cloud fraction and radiative forcing. J. Climate, 19, 1765-1783.
Huang, J., P. Minnis, B. Lin, T. Wang, Y. Yi, Y. Hu, S. Sun-Mack, and K. Ayers, 2006: Possible influences of Asian dust aerosols on cloud properties and radiative forcing observed from MODIS and CERES. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06824, doi:10.1029/2005GL024724.
Mace, G. G., S. Benson, K. L. Sonntag, S. Kato, Q. Min, P. Minnis, C. H. Twohy, M. Poellot, X. Dong, C. Long, Q. Zhang, and D. R. Doelling, 2006: Cloud radiative forcing at the ARM climate research facility: Part I. Technique, validation, and comparison to satellite-derived quantities. J. Geophys. Res., 111, 10.1029/2005JD005921.
Garrett, T. J., J. Dean-Day, C. Liu, B. K. Barnett, G. G. Mace, D. G. Baumgardner, C. R. Webster, T. P. Bui, W. G. Read, and P. Minnis, 2006: Convective formation of pileus near the tropopause. Atmos. Chem., & Phys., 6, 1185-1200.
Ignatov, A., P. Minnis, W. Miller, B. Wielicki, and L. Remer, 2006: Consistency of global MODIS aerosol optical depths over ocean on Terra and Aqua CERES SSF datasets. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D14202, doi:10.1029/2005JD006645.
Kato, S., N. G. Loeb, P. Minnis, J. A. Francis, T. P. Charlock, D. Rutan, E. E. Clouthiaux, and S. Sun-Mack, 2006: Seasonal and interannual variations of top-of-atmosphere irradiance and cloud cover over polar regions derived from the CERES data set. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L19804, 10.1029/2006GL026685.
Huang, J., B. Lin, P. Minnis, T. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Hu, , Y. Yi, and J. K. Ayers, 2006: Satellite-based assessment of possible dust aerosols semi-direct effect on cloud water path over east Asia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L19802, 10.1029/2006GL026561.
Huang, J., P. Minnis, B. Lin, Y. Yi, T.-F. Fan, S. Sun-Mack, and J. K. Ayers, 2006: Determination of ice water path in ice-over-water cloud systems using combined MODIS and AMSR-E measurements .Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L21801, 10.1029/2006GL027038.
Dong, X., B. Xi, and P. Minnis, 2006: Observational evidence of changes in water vapor, clouds, and radiation at the ARM SGP site. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L19818, 10.1029/2006GL027132.
Lin, B., B. A. Wielicki, P. Minnis, L. Chambers, K. Xu, Y. Hu, and A. Fan, 2006: The effect of environmental conditions on tropical deep convective systems observed from the TRMM satellite. J. Climate, 19, 5745-5761.
Chiriaco, M., H. Chepfer, P. Minnis, M. Haeffelin, S. Platnick, D. Baumgardner, P. Dubuisson, M. McGill, V. Noel, J. Pelon, D. Spangenberg, S. Sun-Mack, and G. Wind, 2006: Comparison of CALIPSO-like, LaRC, and MODIS retrievals of ice cloud properties over SIRTA in France and Florida during CRYSTAL-FACE. In press, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 43, .
Chepfer, H., P. Minnis, P. Dubuisson, M. Chiriaco, S. Sun-Mack, and E. D. Riviere, 2007: Nitric acid particles in cold thick ice clouds observed at global scale: Link with lightning, temperature, and upper tropospheric water vapor. J. Geophys. Res., 112, 10.1029/2005JD006602.
Verlinde, H., J. Y. Harrington, G. M. McFarquhar, V. T. Yannuzzi, A. Avramov, S. Greenberg, N. Johnson, G. Zhang, M. R. Poellot, J. H. Mather, D. D. Turner, E. W. Eloranta, B. D. Zak, A. J. Prenni, J. S. Daniel, G. L. Kok, D. C. Tobin, R. Holz, K. Sassen, D. Spangenberg, P. Minnis, T. P. Tooman, M. D. Ivey, S. J. Richarson, C. P. Bahrmann, P. J. DeMott, A. J. Heymsfield, and R. Scholfield, 2007: The Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE). Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 205-221.
Minnis, P., J. Huang, B. Lin, Y. Yi, R. F. Arduini, T.-F. Fan, J. K. Ayers, and G. G. Mace, 2007: Ice cloud properties in ice-over-water cloud systems using Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) visible and infrared scanner and TRMM Microwave imager data. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06206, doi:10.1029/2006JD007626.
Comstock, J. M., R. dEntremont, D. DeSlover, G. G. Mace, S. Y. Matrosov, S. A. McFarlane, P. Minnis, D. Mitchell, K. Sassen, M. D. Shupe, D. D. Turner, and Z. Wang, 2007: An intercomparison of microphysical retrieval algorithms for upper tropospheric ice clouds. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 191-204.
Turner, D. D., A. M. Vogelmann, R. Austin, J. C. Barnerd, K. Cady-Pereira, C. Chiu, S. A. Clough, C. Flynn, M. M. Khaiyer, J. Liljegren, K. Johnson, B. Lin, C. Long, A. Marshak, S. Y. Matrosov, S. McFarlane, M. Miller, Q. Min, P. Minnis, W. OHirok, Z. Wang, and W. Wiscombe, 2007: Optically thin liquid water clouds: Their importance and our challenge. Bull. Am.Meteorol. Soc., 88, 177-190.
Mecikalski, J. R., W. F. Feltz, J. J. Murray, D. B. Johnson, K. M. Bedka, S. M. Bedka, A. J. Wimmers, M. Pavlonis, T. A. Berendes, J. Haggerty, P. Minnis, B. Bernstein, and E., Williams, 2007: Aviation Applications for satellite-based observations of cloud properties, convection initiation, in-flight icing, turbulence and volcanic ash. In press, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.
Minnis, P., 2007: Contrails. Our Changing Planet: A View from Space, Cambridge Publishing, London, UK, R. Williams and K. Partington, Eds., in press.
Spangenberg, D. A., P. Minnis, M. D. Shupe, M. R. Poellot, and Z. Wang, 2007: Mixed-phase cloud detection over the Atmospheric Radiation Measurmeent North Slope of Alaska site from MODIS 6.7 – 12.0 µm data. Submitted to J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.
Huang, J., P. Minnis, Y. Yi, Y. Hu, Q. Tang, X. Wang, Z. Lin, K. Ayers, C. Trepte, and D. Winker, 2007: Summer dust aerosols detected from the CALIPSO satellite over the Tibetan Plateau. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18805, doi:10.1029/2007GL029938.
Wang, H., R.T. Pinker, P. Minnis, and M.M. Khaiyer, 2007: Experiments with cloud properties: Impact on surface radiative fluxes. Accepted, J. Atmos Oceanic Technol.
Dong, X., P. Minnis, B. Xi, S. Sun-Mack, and Y. Chen, 2008: Comparison of CERES-MODIS stratus cloud properties with ground-based measurements at the DOE ARM Southern Great Plains site. In press, J. Geophys. Res., 10.1029/2007JD008438.
Pfffff – only one hundred and fifty three science papers, eh, working with hundreds of brilliant qualified researchers, using the finest equipment in the world… what could HE possibly know? What a fly-by-night!
The “margin of error” the debunkers seem to want to lend to reality, to back their contentions, appears even larger and more encompassing than the actual situation. Characteristic of other forms that the pedagogic patronizing of the debunkers can take is in the typically flippantly entitled entry “fun With Math”.
Sadly, this isn’t there…
There, a “correspondent”, who takes the name BEE, puts up the pose of “proving” that “there is simply no way physically for anything sprayed at the height at which contrails (or supposed chemtrails) are observed to reach any kind of concentration on the ground which would have any effect on people whatsoever”. He begins by considering a “worst case scenario” of a jet hovering overhead, at various heights, dumping different amounts of material, with wind going at various speeds. Among other things, though, he assumes a “source rate” for the spraying of “63 billion micrograms per second”. This works out to 63,000 grams/second, or 140 lbs./second. That’s almost 8 tons per minute! If BEE is willing to be so unreliable in even this early part of the “explanation”, there is no reason to trust him in what he says later.
Why? Is it too much for you? ACTUALLY, a Boeing 747 can precipitate two hundred and fifty tons of ice in a minute when flying through supersaturated air. And here it is – doing just that:
His conclusions are no less questionable.
What? Than yours?
Proceeding from a supposed height, for the jet, of from 2 to 2000 meters above the ground, he reels off supposed “maximum concentrations” for the sprayed substance. He goes from 19.3 billion micrograms/cubic meter to .75 micrograms/cubic meter. The highest value is related to a situation for the plane 2 meters in the air, the lowest value, for one 2000 meters high. He evidently wants to “dramatically demonstrate” that the results from a “realistic” situation are very, very low. An eminent problem with that, however, is that, not only does BEE look at varying heights for the jet, for each jet, there is also a different distance downwind looked at. The jet 2 meters in the air has a “maximum concentration” 60 meters downwind quoted, a jet 100 meters high has a value at 15,000 meters downwind given, and for the jet at 2000 meters, the concentration at 3.5 billion meters, or 2.2 million miles, downwind! It is unlikely, if not completely impossible, that material would drift for 2.2 million miles over the earth, before coming to rest.
Not true at all. Spores are found at the poles. Who’s to say they haven’t circled the Earth a hundred times? The ice crystals in such trails, initially at least, are smaller than these pollen grains…
What is more, for all the insistence, by BEE, that winds would dissipate chemtrail material, that has never been observed! They spread and combine with other chemtrails, but they have never been seen to be blown away by winds!
Huh. They are laid in the stratosphere – you know, the place with jet streams of up to 150 mph. It is motionless extremely rarely! It is MADE UP of separate “winds”!
In fact, it is their tendency to stay in one place, unchanged, except for spreading, for hours on end, which was one thing which brought them to the public’s attention. If the purpose of the chemtrails was to stay in one place and, at least, physically affect the environment, such as causing a drought, or even form clouds and then let rainwater wash it down to the soil, contaminating people that way, then they are, apparently, doing exactly what was desired of them.
See above! Once more you whole case depends on making up a different “science” from that of scientists. But it is they who are qualified and experienced in this, not you.
How easy it is for the chemtrail defenders
I think “people who hate ignorant liars” would be the way I would put it.
they shape up as little more than that! – to “exonerate” chemtrails of things no one said they were doing.
None of us are “exonerating” chemtrails, any more than we are “exonerating” ZEUS. There is no proof of their existence here…
For that matter, too, all the supposedly legitimate physical calculations BEE presumably performed
Yes. ”Talking down” more physics you don’t understand, are you?
does not prove that there aren’t substances which can affect, or even harm, people at concentrations of only about 1 microgram/cubic meter! Allergens work at very small concentrations, pathogens can be dangerous at those low levels, and various poisonous gases can be potent at even lower concentrations!
And what allergens, pathogens, and poisonous gases are in these trails?
Withholding important information can be as crucial as misrepresenting information, in promoting a fraudulent proposal!
Bearing false witness is a cardinal sin which will put you straight to Hell.
Add the fact that, on a day of regular chemtrailing, as many as 30 or more trails can be left in any affected area of sky, and there is a likelihood that huge amounts of dangerous material will be released.
But the trails are ICE, and you haven’t proved otherwise! And even if they weren’t made of ice, I really do not think you understand how large the Earth is….
And where displays of contempt and presumed exercises in sophistry do not succeed
Your work here IS an exercise in sophistry. The only thing that has distinguished you so far from the average chemtrailer is your slightly better spelling, although “cumulous” is actually spelt “cumulus”, and an apostrophe is this ” ‘ ” (I removed yours!).
the debunkers appear to rely on out and out fraud!
Seeing as a characteristic of “chemtrailer” behavior IS fraud (and I can quote many examples of it), you’re now beginning to annoy me.
A favored technique, for example, is saying that chemtrails are nothing more than normal contrails, then going through elaborate proofs that contrails are not unusual or dangerous and, because contrails are not unusual or dangerous – which, in truth, has not been proved! – then, what chemtrail observers complain about can’t be unusual or dangerous! Just about every chemtrail debunker site has at least one page devoted to “examining” and “explaining” contrails, then diffidently insisting that that’s all that chemtrails are – using even less proof than the chemtrail opposers use for their statements! – and “concluding” that, therefore, chemtrails do not exist, and chemtrail opposers are just chasing falsities.
They are talking about established atmospheric science. Science is something that has been confirmed and tested by unknown others, so solidly that any predictions it is possible to make from the data prove to be correct as well. It is a pity that you cannot understand this.
The facts of chemtrails, however, do not bear out debunkers’ insistences.
I don’t wish to repeat the word “liar”, but draw your attention to the fact that you have yet to produce a fact.
Among other things, the references to chemtrails began only around 1997. There are no references to unusual, persistent cloud trails before that date. Contrails didn’t suddenly start to become long-lived under certain circumstances only after 1997. And it unlikely that people will have suddenly started to become aware of something as obvious, and apparently pernicious, as vapor trails that persist for hours, then spread and coalesce into sun blocking cloud decks only in 1997. The very fact that no complaints of long, spreading contrails before 1997 is sufficient to establish that chemtrails must be real, and not normal contrails.
What you say here is an out-and-out LIE. The first persistent contrail was recorded about 1922, they were photographed frequently during WW2, and feature in newspaper reports throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties. Hundreds of scientific papers have been written on them since the first in 1953.
Tellingly, though, and apparently not coincidental at all, is the fact that, in October 1997, the system of reporting visibility date, from the National Climatic Data Center, was abruptly reduced from the then standard maximum of 40 miles, to only 10 miles. To reduce visibility information that way only endangers such things as aerial navigation! To do so peremptorily, in that manner, was utterly incompatible with any consideration of protecting the welfare of citizens.
It was a consequence of improved radar, perhaps!
What it does seem geared for, however – what seems more important than the interests of the public! – is keeping the government from having to acknowledge that there was something out there that long range data would need them to report! Something, too, that seems likely to be nothing less than a hindrance to long-range visibility, as well. There was something out there that the government didn’t want the people to know about. But the indications that chemtrails are real go beyond even that.
And this evidence is – where?
Debunkers, for example, could try to “argue” that, on days when chemtrails don’t appear, it’s because the weather conditions at the planes’ height don’t permit them. The planes are there, they would demand, but the peculiar conditions that turned innocent contrails into extended lines in the sky simply weren’t present.
We’ve covered all this. It’s atmospheric physics. Just pick up a textbook!
But, even at the height at which chemtrails are apparently laid, planes can be seen and heard slightly. Because they take a long time passing through the sky, that high up, they form a low rumble that can persist for many minutes. On the days when chemtrails do not appear, neither the bright specks that the planes appear as, nor the low rumble are heard. More than that, not even normal contrails – which should form under just about any condition! – are not present. When chemtrails do not form high in the sky, it is because the planes that form them are not up there. The forming of chemtrails, then, is related more to the presence of special planes high up that particular day, and not, evidently, certain conditions affecting planes that are, putatively, present every day.
This is also atmospheric physics. The sound of the aircraft is refracted both by differing layer densities, headings and velocities. Under certain conditions it may not reach the ground. Planes not laying contrails at all (quite possible in relatively warm, dry air), are quite simply, not seen.
A phenomenon that chemtrail followers also point to to indicate the suspicious nature of the trails is what is termed the “on and off switch”. Often, when chemtrails appear overhead, there will be a space in the trail, where what seems to be aerial spraying was turned off, for a time, then turned back on. This does not happen, ever, for conventional contrails. Planes forming the short tails of contrail fog behind them do not go through periods when the cloud will disappear; the clouds themselves, even though they last for a short time, do not show spaces in them. Debunkers,unsurprisingly, dismiss these claims, insisting that there is nothing in the breaks in chemtrails that indicate anything out of what they term the usual.
You have already demonstrated that you cannot distinguish between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Were you able to, you would know that they are right and you are wrong. The stratosphere is invisibly layered with regions of different humidities.
Tellingly, though, actual addresses of the issue of the “on off switch” are rare on debunker websites. In fact, only one site, www22.brinkster.com/Seawana/Conspiracies/Chemtrails.asp, which boasts the title, “The Way of the Dodo”, actually devotes any real space to an attempted “explanation” of chemtrail breaks. In characteristically contemptuous and insulting fashion, the section begins, “Ah yes. These rare photos are a favorite among the believers.” The originator of the site, who identifies himself as Skip Ernst, describes “the neanderthals running” spray operations as having “mistakenly turned off the spray for a few moments”. “Can you believe the government has hired a bunch of bumbling idiots to perform their top secret operations?”, Mr. Ernst adds, mockingly. He posits that the breaks are caused by jets having “simply passed through a pocket of air where contrails” – carefully, he doesn’t refer to them as “chemtrails”! – “will not form. The air could be too warm or too dry to form the ice crystals which make a contrail visible.”
Sadly, yet another non-existence. The rest is physics, which you haven’t yet understood. You CAN, you know, understand it if you merely make the attempt…
It is eminently unlikely, if not patently impossible, that air that high up would be so warm, to begin with. The jets that form chemtrails typically fly at at least three miles high.
More like SEVEN. And the word is CONTRAILS. And the ambient temperature and water vapor pressure will be the determinants.
Even if it was too warm, a trail, of sorts, of water vapor would be likely, following the jet.
Water vapor is colorless and transparent, so you are correct, but you wouldn’t see it. A trail of water (vapor) follows EVERY plane that has its engines on.
And, even if the air were very dry, a trace of the ice crystals from the jet engines, that supposedly form the “seed” for the chemtrail, should be visible, and it is not.
Very wrong. Any ice crystals formed in dry air sublime to water vapor in a fraction of a second. The exhaust temperature is 1100 deg C, so it always leaves the engine as steam – invisible until it cools. Anything at all, if finely-divided, will seed the condensation of water.
And that is leaving aside, entirely, the fact that there is little reason to believe that an isolated, tiny, patch of air could be so radically different from the overwhelming mass of air around it!
That is the NATURE of the stratosphere which YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. It is your ignorance that gives you little “reason to believe”! Understanding science requires NO ”belief”.
If an area of warm or dry air were to intrude, it is likely that it would be no time before the rest of the air around it would bring it into equilibrium.
Wrong. The stratosphere is STABLE, and already in equilibrium.
More than that, though, Mr. Ernst, will have to explain how it is possible for chemtrails with breaks, supposedly caused by differing air masses, to occur in close proximity to chemtrails with no breaks!
See above. You have completely failed to comprehend the nature of the stratosphere. STRATUM is the Latin for “layer” – the stratosphere is layered, and because its stable layers don’t intermix they have different humidities.
“I’ll leave it at that and let you be the judge”, he concludes archly. If he’s telling the absolute, incontrovertible truth, which he pretends to be, then he would be able to call it that! He wouldn’t have to leave it to the reader to “be the judge”.
That is what is called “respecting the reader”. In your case, a mistake, but what the hell…
That in itself all but brands the material on the Seawana site utterly untrustworthy.
Only to someone incapable of understanding the science. How is it possible to trust anyone speaking about science when they obviously don’t understand it?
Mr. Ernst also takes issue with, among other things, the observation that “most chemtrails seem to be created at altitudes above commercial flights”, which can be taken to be an indication that chemtrails are not normal contrails, but the result of government flights. “That is because the probability of a contrail being produced at a higher altitude is much greater”, he retorts. “Next please”, he adds, smugly, evidently content that he has put any question of the formation of chemtrails to rest, firmly. But, if the chemtrails are being produced at altitudes higher than commercial jets use, as he himself seems willing to accede, what is leaving them? It is apparent, then, that it is only government planes laying the trails, and that is far from , makingsomething that discounts the likelihood of their being a government operation’.
What height do passenger planes fly at? You suggest three miles! It’s six to seven miles! What height do the military fly at? You don’t know? …but I’ll give you a clue – it’s higher still! Will that be colder? – No!
I have seen videos claiming the aircraft flying my mother to visit me was a “chemtrail sprayer”. So if it isn’t passenger planes, it’s the military. But it’s “worldwide”, and the military’s aviation bill doesn’t stretch that far… So, it’s local to you, and “military”.
In which case it’s NOT a GLOBAL spraying campaign, is it? People like you are so irritating…
Moreover, how could Flight Explorer, which seems to record only commercial flights, attest to the flight plans of those jets causing the chemtrails?
“Chemtrails” are still something you haven’t produced evidence for. What’s the point of answering your question? I could ask you what sort of defense the military could offer if you could track them on Flight Explorer, I suppose…
Among the site’s other demonstrations / antipathy for everything that exists.
This paragraph is ad hom, and I’ll ignore it, except that if it’s antipathetic to you, I’d be in agreement with it.
Nor, indeed, is it only apparently “disinterested individuals” who have attempted to quell investigation into chemtrails. Branches of the government have taken it upon themselves to denounce the consideration that chemtrails were anything but ordinary contrails, and even gone so far as to officially term it a “hoax.”
It fits the description “hoax” perfectly so far. Any evidence of “chemtrails”? No.
The United States Air Force web page on the subject, http://www.af.mil/environment/contrails_chemtrail.shtml, for example, is entitled “The Chemtrail Hoax”. While it may be a purview of individuals to term something a “hoax” at will, a branch of the government is considered more bound by the law in its actions, so that, for them to term something a “hoax” is automatically to have it characterized according to the legal definition of the term. More than that, it indicates that sufficient examination has been carried out to back that characterization.
It has. Fifty years and thousands of qualified man-hours of research in atmospheric physics indicate “chemtrails” to be a HOAX.
Legally, a “hoax” is far more than just some kind of prank, gag or practical joke; it is a willful and malicious act of mayhem, usually for the aggrandizement of the “perpetrator”.
EXACTLY SO. You are aggrandizing yourself ABOVE scientists, for a start.
By titling their page that way, the Air Force, then, officially accuses all the honest, straightforward citizens genuinely concerned about at least the affront of their skies being clouded over, and sunlight all but banished from their lives, as malingerers and frauds.
Which you surely are, if you insist on “chemtrails” without a trace of evidence, and any knowledge of atmospheric physics. You are committing the cardinal sin of “bearing false witness against your neighbour”, which puts you in (your) Hell…
A common tactic of the guilty is to cast the first stone and blame the innocent, at least to try to buy enough time to shore up their defenses against justice.
One day, you WILL probably have to defend yourself against justice, for you ARE causing harm right now.
As with all other “debunkers”, the Air Force proceeds to declare that contrails can be caused to remain for very long periods, based on temperature and humidity. Like the other debunkers, they never once assert that the conditions that would allow contrails to persist – if at all – are conditions that are likely to, or even possibly can, occur on the earth, at the present!
But they do, and I’ve covered that. There are HUNDREDS of papers about contrail formation readily available on the web, as I have already demonstrated.
Unlike the other “debunkers”, the Air Force, on their site, don’t include barometric pressure in the “explanation”, an eminently glaring omission, utterly calling everything they say into question!
No, it proves that you do not know what you are talking about. The vapor pressure of water is completely independent of atmospheric pressure. It’s a function of its temperature alone.
Also unlike the other “debunkers”, the Air Force does claim that “winds” can affect the persistence of contrails. Too, and indicative of the fact that they may engage in the eminently questionable act of taking it on themselves to term suspicion of chemtrails a “hoax”, but they are still bound by considerations of justice and fairness, the Air Force, on their site, declare that contrails can be caused to last long periods of time because of “aircraft exhaust characteristics”. The nebulous reference is, apparently, meant to downplay the matter, but, technically, “aircraft exhaust characteristics” includes what is being pumped out. And it is precisely the contention of chemtrail opponents that high flying military jets are pumping unorthodox and irregular materials into the air.
And so far there is no evidence of what you say. I have personally analyzed jet engine exhaust products and found them to exactly what they are claimed in the standard literature to be.
You, on the other hand, don’t even know where to obtain that literature…
In phraseology evidently intended to gull the unwitting into believing that normal characteristics of jet exhausts can, under the right circumstances, be made to last long periods of time, the Air Force, in actuality, seems to admit that unorthodox materials in their exhaust are what is forming chemtrails. They fill out their “disproof” of the existence of chemtrails with a list of links to “debunker” web sites that no longer exist, and one link to a site in Denmark that “demonstrates” the non-existence of chemtrails by showing pictures of chemtrails and calling them contrails! It is instructive that this practice of “proving” something doesn’t exist by simply calling it something else is taking place on a site operated by the Neils Böhr Institute.
You really don’t understand what you are up against here. The Niels Bohr Institute is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the difference of our present world from the world of Queen Victoria. The understanding of the basis of our material existence sprang from this source. Atomic Theory, Relativity, Quantum Physics, Cosmology owe nearly EVERYTHING to this institute.
If that is the level of “intellectual discourse” involved in “debunking” chemtrails, it is only further testimony to the truth of their existence.
No it is not, and so far you’ve produced NOTHING that IS. You or the Neils Bohr Institute? Please! Self-aggrandizement or what!
If that is the level of honesty involved in the movement against chemtrail opponents, it strengthens the evidence that they are, indeed, an act of craven contempt for the people. But contempt seems a given, both in the perpetrating of chemtrails, and in the apparent attempted cover-up. Indeed, it is apparently inherent, how spiteful and disdainful the sites devoted to debunking conspiracy theories regularly are to those who acknowledge their existence.
Well. I find you cravenly contemptible because you have produced no evidence so far, and are still continuing to lie, libel, and slander. I agree with them… not you…
If conspiracy theories really were untrue, those who subscribed to them would be deluding themselves.
YES INDEED. And deluding others, and bearing false witness against yet others.
They would be genuinely wasting their time.
YES INDEED. And that of others.
That is a tragedy, and would be approached as a tragedy, by those with genuine honor and the kind of concern and regard for others that would be consistent with telling them the truth.
That was MY first approach, which was totally wasted. It was met by lies and slander directed at ME. It still is.
The arrogance and disregard to be seen among the conspiracy theory debunkers is that to be found in those incapable of the truth, or of any display of honor or decency. Their very malignance proclaims their assertions utterly untrustworthy and specious.
It seems to me that it is YOU that is incapable of truth. You have yet to produce ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Without truth, you ARE without honor or decency, as you are maligning innocent people…
There is every reason to believe, indeed, that those who call themselves debunkers are, in fact, quisling shills for government, trying to keep the truth from the people. They willingly admit to being considered that by many conspiracy theory examiners, and just as quickly – and without proof – dismiss the accusation, but it seems very near the truth, if not the truth itself. And this demonstrated malevolence of character, more so than much else, pronounces conspiracy theories far from unreliable; indeed, anything but unproved, or disproved. And that includes chemtrails. The evidence is that, not only are chemtrails real, there seems to be a dedicated movement to try to dissuade those who acknowledge the existence of chemtrails from following up on the subject.
I see, a fresh accusation, and STILL no evidence!
In recent months, since our own sending in several letters on the subject, chemtrails in New Jersey have begun to take on a new form. Instead of stretching from one horizon to the other, chemtrails laid here have begun to take the form, only, of lines across part of the sky. It seems intended to give the impression that chemtrails do not really exist, since these go only partway across the sky. But this has only begun recently, so it cannot be a demonstration of something which existed before. But it seems related to the fact that we recently began sending letters to the editor from here on this subject.
This is covered by my answer as to “chaotic natural processes”, and “self-aggrandizement”.
In the end, the people must take it on themselves to see that their rights and interests are respected by government. They must involve themselves, deeply and determinedly, in government. It is up to them to see that it is their welfare that motivates government.
I can’t disagree with THAT.
However I find it worth mentioning that if you were better educated in the physics of your world’s atmosphere (and the combustion products of a modern jet engine) there would be at least three consequences:
a) You’d drop “chemtrails” like it was a poisonous snake.
b) You’d respect Science and scientists, and their published works, as valuable additions to human knowledge.
c) You’d begin to earn my respect – after your apology. Maybe.
SOME REAL SCIENCE
Supersymmetry, Extra Dimensions and the Origin of Mass
I don’t know about you, but “chemtrailers” always leave me with a nasty taste of the world in my mouth. Their inbuilt hatred of science is like a bad case of influenza – life-sapping and soul-destroying.
I can think of nothing better than what follows to restore my vitality and zeal – a dynamic lady with a keen mind leads us through the amazing engineering and breath-taking hardware and software design of – CERN, the Large Hadron Collider, in search of the Higgs Boson, amongst other things.
FLYING IS FUN
Written by JazzRoc
October 27, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with aerosol, air power, aircraft research association, aluminium, aluminum, aluminum.glass, analysis of trails, arthritis, avhrr, barium, barium oxide, baseless accusation, betrayers, bohr, breathing difficulties, breathing illness, carnicom, chaff, chem trail, chemically-inert, chemtrail, cirrus cloud, continuous strem, contrail, contrail forecast, contrail simulation, debunking, disappearing, disreputable, dissipate, enemy radar, ethylene dibromide, evidence, filaments, formation, government, heavy haze, horizon, humid air, humid stratosphere, ice-saturated, institute, ionosphere, jet plane, JP-4, JP-8, laboratory study, laws of science, lines in the sky, lung disease, metallic salts, morgellons, neils, no more blue skies, noaa, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, onslaught, penrod, perpetuity, persistence, professional authorities, pseudonomas aeruginosa, pseudonomas fluorescens, ptb, quisling, rense, saharan sand, scientific sampling, shill, skin disease, sophistry, southern and eastern asia, spraying, stabilized, stationary target, strange materials, symptom, tic-tac-toe, tornadoes, underhanded, unethical, unnatural cloud, unscrupulous, wake dynamics, webby material, whiteout, window