Global Dimming

PAGE CONTENTS

GLOBAL DIMMING – “GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH” FALSE! – DISPROVING AGW – GONE NUTS (PLANET) – GRIDS – GUARDIAN (UK GOVT ADMITS “SPRAYING”) – (and Sequel) – GW Room 101 – GW Room 102 – GW Room 103 – Big Gun Fires – AGW DENIALIST FRAUD!

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

The 300 million tons of aviation kerosene burnt annually make up just 3% of the world total anthropogenic combustion, and hence makes up only a thirtieth part of global warming and dimming.

In general, it is CARBON DIOXIDE that contributes to global warming and PARTICULATES and WATER that contribute to global dimming.

So there is a risk that as we clean up our combustion activities we will INTENSIFY global warming.

But aviation plays only a THREE PER CENT part in all of this.

And maybe this is a solution to global warming:

 

  

“GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH” – FALSE!

No doubt you’ve seen “An Inconvenient Truth” and some of the MYTH counterclaim videos that have been out and about.

Well, perhaps it’s time you studied what the UK Meteorological Office has to say about it. You can spend your time at leisure over the graphs and charts and not be rushed onwards by a commentator inside a video. It’s a good idea to EXPAND EVERY IMAGE.

Or you could consider what wonderingmind42 has to say, here:

It is well worth reading the notes that accompany this, and following up many of his other videos.

Perhaps then you’ll agree that Global Warming is NOT myth. Or read on…

If you don’t, then maybe you have a religion with pseudo-scientific postulates – or dyslexia – or maybe you need to read on…

On the left is a photograph of Muir Glacier taken on August 13, 1941, by glaciologist William O. Field; on the right, a photograph taken from the same vantage on August 31, 2004, by geologist Bruce F. Molnia of the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

 

 Now you could say these glaciers are selected because they are receding. So here is a table of glacier lengths for sixteen more glaciers, showing in every case a dramatic shrinkage since the industrial revolution. “Sometimes they have increased” I hear you say. But what is the trend?

As they shrink, they are cooling the Earth, but once they have disappeared, they won’t be doing that, will they?

Not only that, but they had a high albedo, reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space. The low-albedo rock they reveal, on the other hand, will not reflect this radiation, which will add to Earth’s solar heating. It may be one of our many “tipping points”, NONE of which we should desire to test, for we are in this test tube.

 

Human-Induced Climate Change – a Load of Hot Air

Ian Plimer is currently Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He was previously a Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is also a prominent member of the Australian Skeptics. He was awarded the Clarke Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales in 2004. 

 

Yes. Yes, I go with this antipodean gentleman. And with the gent who finishes this chapter. GW is bullshat upon….

Charlton Heston died not long ago. Here is what he has to say about Man and the Earth.

And here is another viewpoint, “Life After People”:

http://moviealien.com/play.php?v=4939078184096254535&s=goo

DISPROVING AGW

The following is an article I’ve discovered which addresses ALL the main the main points of the AGW argument and demolishes them one-by-one. From:

 “Watts Up With That?”: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/#more-7993

Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem – Leonard Weinstein, ScD – April 25, 2009

(Leonard Weinstein received a B.Sc. in Physics in 1962 from Florida State University. He started work at NASA Langley Research Center in June 1962. While at Langley, Leonard obtained his Master and Doctor of Science degrees in Engineering from the George Washington University. He continued to work at NASA Langley until June 2007, ending as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein has had a career that is recognized for innovation. He has over 90 publications, including 11 patents. He has received numerous awards, commendations, and recognitions for innovative experimental research, including an Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal, an IR-100 award, the 1999 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Engineer of the year, the James Crowder Award, and over 40 other awards and recognitions for innovative experimental research. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.)

A theory has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature. The mechanism claimed is based on an increased greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic increases in CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, cement manufacture, and also from increases in CH4 from farm animals and other causes. The present versions of the theory also include a positive feedback effect due to the increased temperature causing an increase in water vapor, which amplifies the effect. The combined result are used to claim that unless the anthropogenic increases of CO2 are slowed down or even made to decrease, there will be a continuing rapid increase in global temperature, massive melting of ice caps, flooding, pestilence, etc.

In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his theory of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and supported his theory.

Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions. However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some suggested trends due to specific forcing factors, nevertheless, the long-term predicted result has not been shown to be valid. Like any respectable theory, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to reasonable validity.

The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the theory, it must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.

The main predictions from the AGW models are:

1. The average Earth’s temperature will increase at a rate of 0.20C to 0.60C per decade at least to 2100, and will continue to climb after that if the CO2 continues to be produced by human activity at current predicted rates.

2. The increasing temperature will cause increased water evaporation, which is the cause for the positive feedback needed to reach the high temperatures.

3. The temperature at lower latitudes (especially tropical regions) will increase more in the lower Troposphere at moderate altitudes than near the surface.

4. The greatest near surface temperature increases will occur at the higher latitudes.

5. The increasing temperature at higher latitudes will cause significant Antarctic and Greenland ice melt. These combined with ocean expansion due to warming will cause significant ocean rise and flooding.

6. A temperature drop in the lower Stratosphere will accompany the temperature increase near the surface. The shape of the trend down in the stratosphere should be close to a mirror reflection of the near surface trend up.

The present CO2 level is high and increasing (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). It should be fairly easy to show the consequences of AGW predictions if they are valid.

  

Figure 1. Global average temperature from 1850 through 2008. Annual series smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter by the Met Office.

(http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/)

It should be noted that the largest part of the last 150 year increase in CO2, which is blamed on human activity, did not occur until after 1940, so the largest temperature rise effects should have occurred in that time. The proponents of AGW have generally used the time period from 1970 to 2000 as the base line for an indicator of the rapid warming. In that base line period, the average temperature rose about 0.50C, which averages to 0.160C per decade. The claim was then made that this would accelerate due to continuing increases in CO2 level. However if we look at the temperature change from 1940 through 2008, the net increase is only 0.30C. This is due to a drop from 1940 to 1970 and a slight drop from 2000 through 2008. Now the average rise for that period is only 0.040C per decade. If the time period from 1850 through 2008 is used as a base, the net increase is just under 0.70C and the average rise is also 0.040C per decade! It is clear that choosing a short selected period of rising temperature gives a misleading result. It is also true that the present trend is down and expected to continue downward for several more years before reversing again. This certainly makes claim 1 questionable.

The drop in temperature from 1940 to 1970 was claimed to have been caused by “global dimming” caused by aerosols made by human activity. This was stated as dominating the AGW effects at that time. This was supposed to have been overcome by activity initiated by the clean air act. In fact, the “global dimming” continued into the mid 1990’s and then only reduced slightly before increasing more (probably due to China and other countries increased activity). If the global dimming was not significantly reduced, why did the temperature increase from 1970 to just past 2000?
A consequence of global dimming is reduced pan-evaporation level. This also implies that ocean evaporation is decreased, since the main cause ofocean evaporation is solar insolation, not air temperature. The decreased evaporation contradicts claim 2.

Claim 3 has been contradicted by a combination of satellite and air born sensor measurements. While the average lower Troposphere average temperature has risen along with near ground air temperature, and in some cases is slightly warmer, nevertheless the models predicted that the lower troposphere would be significantly warmer than near ground at the lower latitudes, especially in the tropics. This has not occurred!

The following is a statement from: Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1
Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research – April 2006 – “While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved”.

Claim 4 implies that the higher latitudes should heat up more than lower latitudes. This is supposed to be especially important for melting of glaciers and permafrost. In fact, the higher latitudes have warmed, but at a rate close to the rest of the world. In fact, Antarctica has overall cooled in the last 50 years except for the small tail that sticks out. See:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061013/20061013_02.html
Greenland and the arctic region are presently no warmer than they were in the late 1930’s, and are presently cooling! See:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/
The overall effect of Antarctic and Greenland are now resulting in net gain (or at least near zero change) of ice, not loss. While some small areas have recently lost and are some are still losing some ice, this is mostly sea ice and thus do not contribute to sea level rise. Glaciers in other locations such as Alaska have lost a significant amount of ice in the last 150 years, but much of the loss is from glaciers that formed or increased during the Little Ice Age, or from local variations, not global. Most of this little ice age ice is gone and some glaciers are actually starting to increase as the temperature is presently dropping. For more discussions on the sea level issue look at the following two sites:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dnc49xz_19cm8×67fj&hl=en
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

This indicates that claim 5 is clearly wrong. While sea level will rise a small amount, and has so since the start of the Holocene period, the rise is now only 10 to 15 cm per century, and is not significantly related to the recent recovery from the little ice age, including the present period of warming.
The claims in 6 are particularly interesting. Figure 2 below shows the Global Brightness Temperature Anomaly (0C) in the lower Troposphere and lower stratosphere made from space.
a) Channel TLT is the lower Troposphere from ground to about 5 km
b) Channel TLS is the lower Stratosphere from about 12 to 25 km

Figure 2. Global satellite data from RSS/MSU and AMSU data. Monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channels TLT, and TLS. Data from: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

The anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow troposphere warming for Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere). The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the 1997-98 being the largest. It also appears there is an aditional one at 2007. Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). In these, and other volcanic eruption cases, the increased absorption and reflectivity of the dust and aerosols at high altitudes lowered the surface Solar insolation, but since they absorbed more energy, they increased the high altitude temperature. After the large spikes dropped back down, the new levels were lower and nearly flat between large volcanic eruptions. It is also likely that the reflection or absorption due to particulates also dropped, so the surface solar insolation went back up. It appears that a secondary effect of the volcanic eruptions is present that is unknown in nature (but not CO2)!

One possible explanation is a modest but long-term drop in Ozone. It is also clear that the linear fit to the data shown is meaningless. In fact the level drop events seem additive if they overlap soon enough for at least the two cases shown. That is, after El Chicon dropped the level, then Pinatubo occurred and dropped the level even more. Two months after Pinatubo, another strong volcano, Cerro Hudson, also erupted, possibly amplifying the effect. It appears that the recovery time from whatever causes the very slow changing level shift has a recovery time constant of at least several decades.
The computational models that show that the increasing CO2 and CH4 cause most of the present global warming all require that the temperature of the stratosphere drops while the lower atmosphere and ground heat up. It appears from the above figures that the volcanic activity clearly caused the temperature to spike up in the Stratosphere, and that these spikes were immediately followed by a drop to a new nearly constant level in the temperature.

It is clear from the Mauna Loa CO2 data http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) that the input of CO2 (or CH4) from the volcanoes did not significantly increase the background level of this gas, and thus this cannot be the cause of the drop in the stratospheric temperature.

The ramp up of atmospheric CO2 also cannot explain the step down then level changes in high altitude temperature. Since the surface temperature rise is supposed to be related to the Stratosphere temperature drop, and since a significant surface rise above the 1940 temperature level did not occur until the early 1980’s, it may be that the combination of the two (or more) volcanoes, along with Solar variability and variations in ocean currents (i.e., PDO) may explain the major causes of recent surface temperature rises to about 2002.

In fact, the average Earth temperature stopped rising after 2002, and has been dropping for the last few years!

The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem.

There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate.
Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!

GONE NUTS (PLANET)

“for the real answers” – I’m talking about your poor science and you’re off about the NWO!

“THEIR plan/agenda is simply for nuts” – I’m with you.

“JAZZROC IS A PLANT BY THE US” – http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc

“GREAT SPIRIT—-CHARGE” – you left the planet here…

“you BELIEVE the OFFICIAL 911 COMMISSION report” – er, NO.

“unsuspecting masses” – I used to think that a bad thing, until I met the SUSPECTING MASSES.

“we been conditioned” – NO, UNEDUCATED and left in charge of a directionless mind…

“unravel this mess” – you couldn’t unravel a woolly jumper.

“Rise of the 4th Reich” – this would be a putsch by bankers (optional w).

“head these assholes off at the pass” – I had a sudden vision – never mind…

“Increased solar output” – NOT TRUE.

“The NWO” – probably YOUR b——-e.

“and don’t hand me that bullshite” – it’s all coming the other way.

“of course this is a perspective issue” – ain’t that the truth.

“they are formed right behind these craft” – I’ve never seen any AHEAD. (except for “black laser light” ones. 😀

“SNEAKY activity going on above” – make your mind, above, below, to one side, where? 

GRIDS

The STRATOSPHERE is a still and stable part of our atmosphere compared with the TROPOSPHERE, which is the part in which we live, and experience CUMULUS clouds, and rain and thunderstorms.

However there is such a thing as THE PREVAILING WIND which we experience at ground level. It is actually THE PREVAILING MOVEMENT OF THE COMPLETE ATMOSPHERE.

There are in the stratosphere layers of air with varying humidities which slither over each other with small relative motions and in so doing sometimes cause HIGH CIRRUS clouds, enabling you to see the relative motion. Otherwise YOU CANNOT SEE ANY MOTION OF THAT AIR BECAUSE ALL THESE LAYERS ARE TRANSPARENT. The motion relative to each other is technically LAMINAR motion – it is smooth and pretty frictionless, without turbulence, and quite unlike the troposphere beneath.

Anyway, imagine a SEQUENCE of aircraft flying (and throwing contrails) from A to B along the same overland line, which is NOT NECESSARILY in line with the prevailing atmospheric motion. Although they are flying THE SAME OVERLAND COURSE, what you’ll see is a SERIES OF LINES PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER as the atmosphere passes by.

Now imagine another contemporaneous SEQUENCE of aircraft flying (and throwing contrails) from C to D along another overland line at roughly RIGHT ANGLES to the first (they’d be assigned a different altitude) and you’ll get a RECTANGULAR GRID OF CONTRAILS IN THE SKY, as the prevailing movement of the atmosphere continues to bear them away. It’s easier to sketch this idea with a pencil than it is to describe it in words. You could imagine printing a letter X in the same spot, but the paper is being smoothly moved in one particular direction. You’ll always produce a grid.

There’s NO SPRAYING going on – just your regular passenger shuttle traffic, but on a day with a PARTICULARLY HUMID ATMOSPHERE.

Even on a clear blue sky day the air contains water. I looked out recently and it was such a sky, checked the Relative Humidity (65%) and in a minute or two had calculated that this CLEAR BLUE SKY contained within a radius of SIX miles and a height of FIVE miles THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TONS OF WATER. APPROXIMATELY!

 GUARDIAN

(UK GOVT ADMITS “SPRAYING”)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

This was research into the best means of defense against germ and toxic gas attack conducted in various parts of the south-west of England, in the light of a direct threat by the Soviet Union, immediately following the Second World War. The trials were conducted sporadically and secretly for twenty years (as far as released information tells us), involving up to ten small-scale experiments each year, under the auspices of Porton Down.

Atomized materials were dispersed from barges ten miles off-shore, vans travelling along country lanes, and a specially-converted Canberra twin-jet bomber flying at 2000ft.

The materials were water, killed and identifiable bacteria, and zinc cadmium sulfide powder.

Research has been carried out to determine whether there were  any identifiable cases of infection or poisoning occurring as a consequence of these trials, which may yet still be continuing. It found none.

It seems to me that there was (and is) a legitimate responsibility of any government to determine the best possible defense against attacks such as these, the risk of which has abated only little, since the breakup of the USSR.

Furthermore, the targeting of the Tube System in bomb attacks, and the Tokyo Subway System in a nerve gas attack, might well have increased such secret defensive activities of the British Government. A bloody good thing too…

Of course, a BETTER still defense approach might be to have BETTER relationships with the world’s peoples than that enjoyed at present.

We have failed to ensure this – it’s OUR responsibility.

SEQUEL

A conversation with ICEWHALE re the Guardian story Oct 1 2008

promote the falsehood that the bacteria were somehow ‘marked’.

Falsehood?

when faced with the possibility that you might be wrong

No chance.

you claim that such matters are irrelevant

I claimed your whole post was irrelevant, as this is.

you are in danger

Of dying of tedium only.

you are plain wrong

We’ll see… (yawns)

method of identification / radioactively-labelled antibody

Ah, the MARKER! A little titter runs across the room…

I must admit I have difficulty understanding this statement (inconsequential post hoc sophist) /  1949 – 1975

That’s because you ARE one. Inconsequential and mostly post hoc. 1975 being 33 years ago.

one scientist

That makes me wrong, then.

And your evidence for this claim is

The disappearance of the USSR, the Cold War, the Berlin Wall, er, HISTORICAL.

during a ‘crash programme’ corners are cut  / ‘old boys network’ / ethical concerns

Preparations for defence, war, deterrence? Best take a long time, eh? And lose like gentlemen coughing softly into our cravats…

It also occurred more recently / retrospectively

Tut, tut, such a rush…

the UK Government would

It would indeed. It has responsibilities.

puerile claims of ‘sophistry’ / harm to your case

You’re a lawyer? That could explain your sophistry. Not guilty m’lud.

exposed to appreciable doses

I’m sure the MARKER appreciated them.

their properties had been changed

Not sufficiently for the MARKER not to work, therefore not sufficiently for the body’s defences not to work, either.

capable of growth and causing disease

A property of many bacteria on your nose right now. Even as it lengthens…  (But not a property of the KILLED bacteria in question!)

pneumonias and sepsis in vulnerable people / capable of causing disease in immunocompromised people / human pathogen

Life’s a risky business, especially when it includes threatening enemies who make statements like “we will bury you”. That risk necessarily extends to the population when it enters the hideous equations of war. A finger hovered over the button on more than one occasion in the sixties.

But IN THIS CASE the KILLED BACTERIA would be NUTRITIOUS. Eat a piece of cheese, why don’t you?

massive bacterial aerosols in populated areas / significantly contaminated by an uncharacterised bacteria / refuse to rule out conducting future large-scale experiments / unable to confirm whether the public will receive prior warning

Yes. Tough aren’t they? WAR isn’t a tea-party, icewhale. If and when such a thing might begin, it might be considered practical to eliminate timewasting wiseacres like yourself, with a view to shortening the war.

But IN THIS CASE the KILLED BACTERIA would be NUTRITIOUS. Eat a piece of cheese, why don’t you?

The holding of such attitudes, icewhale, is a practical form of defence. It suggests to a putative enemy that it wouldn’t be nice to tangle with such a bunch of bastards. Nice guys get into wars which they then don’t win. I’m a pacifist myself, and I reckon Sun Tzu had it off pat when he suggested the same.

who can say that they weren’t involved in secretly spraying populated areas of the UK?

Who, indeed?

I hope you don’t waste any more of my time with paralogisms, casuistry, quibble, speciousness, and the meshes and cobwebs of sophistry…

 Global Warming Room 101

These are taken from the comments in the Daily Telegraph March 15th 2009, and reflects contention without facts, until the last…

Comments

How many other mainstream newspapers would print this. Good on you. All you have to do is listen to the remarks of the GW believers to expose it for what is really is – a Religion. Dissenters are silenced for example and any critisism is savaged as heresy. That’s not science, it’s religion.

The dream of an old man, who will die before he awakes.

 

In reality the scaremongers are wrong and we didn’t suffer a Katrina hurricane more often or every year as the scaremongers predicted. Algore predicted eleven years ago that “in ten years the levels of the ocean will rise enough to cover up small islands” but in reality no islands have been swallowed up and in fact because of volcanic activity there are more islands now than then.
I am all for doing what we can to stop pollution, real pollution. I believe in conservation and recycling. I don’t believe that global warming is a problem and I don’t believe that making CO2 a pollutant and trading it on the world market as a commodity will result in anything more than making a few rich people richer, like the oil speculators did last year. The oil speculators had to face reality when the price dropped off dramatically and many of them lost money which will stop them from doing it again, but there’s no reality check for this commodity called CO2 pollution.

“the most costly and economically-damaging package of measures ever imposed on mankind” – Whoa, just who is scaremongering here?

The really annoying thing about the whole debate is the Ecomentalists will always be right. Even if the Chris Bookers of the world are correct, and the world shows a net cooling trend, the Al Gore acolytes will claim that this is a result of their intervention.

The past two winters in Chicago have been among the coldest in the last 100 years. Where is Al Gore’s hot air when we need it?

We just enjoyed 8 feet of snow this winter. Last year we had the second highest snowfall since records have been kept. In the last two years it has snowed in Baghdad, Alabama, Georgia and other unlikely venues. All the while, the nattering nabobs continue to prattle on about “global warming” as if they don’t have access to the real world where the rest of us live. We can all agree that Al Gore is a true believer, as are most of Hollywood. Why then, have they not altered their behavior at all? Mr. Gore uses an astonishing amount of power. Hollywood has just finished its fourth or fifth major awards ceremony beamed to every household on the planet. Movies, sports, entertainment and the various other frivolities that make life enjoyable continue unabated, but we’re to believe there’s a crisis so immediate that if we don’t start sucking the CO2 from the atmosphere this instant we’re all going to stew in our own juices?

Simple reason. The Green Agenda is overwhelmingly dominated by Lefties. Since when has the Loony left ever embraced true scientific evidence, as opposed to populism and mass hysteria?

Why is the UK subject to social fads to the point of economic chaos. Is there a reason why global scaremongering has to be the politics of the 21st century?

I’m impressed with Steve’s withering sarcasm. After all, science gave us the atom bomb so if it’s ‘scientific’ it must be good, right? In my opinion there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the global warming theory. And are you people seriously proposing that we should all stop heating our homes in winter? Why not get worked up about real things like deforestation and dwindling fish stocks instead? If you really want to do something about the environment then campaign to change the insane ec regulations that currently cause thousands of tons of fish to be dumped at sea.

The irony of a climate change sceptic complaining about not being listened to, or an absence of serious debate is almost too funny for words. Perhaps Mr Booker might reflect on the thought that had there been less resistance and more serious debate 20 years ago we might not have reached the state of hysteria and scare-mongering we seem to be in now. People scream loudest just before the plane crashes!

Fascinating article, and worth reading in close detail.

Firstly the Heartland Institute is a lobbying group that fights any kind of regulation of big business, and plays pretty fast and loose with the truth. They are still claiming that evidence of harm from smoking is a conspiracy of doctors, campaigning that is well funded by tobacco companies, and that evidence for global warming doesn’t exist, again well funded by oil companies – all the time while claiming the scientific consensus is a conspiracy.
I’d like to know if they started the proceedings with an apology for last years “550 scientists who deny global warming”, which so completely misrepresented the real views of most of the scientists listed. A little masterpiece of dishonesty and misrepresentation – still being quoted by Charlie Booker.

Christopher, the reason that nobody in the media covered the Heartland Institutes conference, is that the “la la la, it’s not really happening” argument has been thoroughly discredited, and the institute is a rightwing thinktank wholly tainted by its vested interest in returning to the status quo and funding from interest groups like Exxon Mobile. Whereas Copenhagen was newsworthy as you have legitimate, qualified, impartial scientists at the top of their profession giving the latest updates and ideas. Hope this provides some (rather obvious) clarification.

Mr. Booker does a good job describing and distinguishing between the two conferences. Too bad that the discussion about the Heartland Institute meeting is on page 2 … at least a number of commenters read that far! I spent yesterday viewing the videos and reviewing the presentation material. Good food for thought. The reason the politicians have cranked up ‘Global warming’ is to stop the wealth transfer to Middle Eastern states. Pure & simple. The rise in Islamic banking and political influence has the west spooked, so we are now moving towards alternative energy. Expect BP and Shell to diversify in the coming years, probably buying banks or Energy utilities.

Christopher Booker: living in fantasy land. Luckily the shrill ravings of him and his ilk are being given less and less notice, as the rational majority favour evidence over conspiracy theories. He’s left telling us to ignore well-respected science academies from around the world while championing his pet free-market thinktank, the Heartland Institute.

Christopher, got one, even one, respected scientific institution that agrees with you? Of course not. Back to your shrill bleating and paranoia.

Whether Global warming is or isn’t true is pretty irrelevant. Surely the fundamental problem is the West’s reliance on oil. Scare mongering tactics are being used to reduce consumption/ encourage research into alternatives. Plus ca change.

Humans took all of history to reach a population level of around 2.5 billion just after WW2. Then in a mere 60 years or so since then that figure has almost tripled. There is the underlying reason for ALL our ecological and climatic problems. Anything we do will be a waste of effort against that stark fact.

It is so refreshing to be given a more balanced view on climate change after so much media and political hysteria.

Grateful American: “Americans are clearly no longer the worst-educated Westerners” – Overpaid, Oversexed, Over here! and now Over-educated, if you please!

Wow, a whole half-million dollars? That kinda pales into insignificance against the cost of the Copenhagen conference, doesn’t it? and didn’t Al Gore spend $4 million dollars on his waterside home in San Francisco [note the waterside bit]? That from his earnings from the “ludicrous and entirely inaccurate” [according to the High Court, not me] film and his carbon trading company, and just how much is made from carbon trading, and how much is “invested” in the various academics making a nice living thanks to this arrant nonsense. Do any of the supporters know how much [or rather how little] CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere ? No I thought not – they never do. Though I suspect Professor Lindzen does. Its about 0.035%.

This the same Heartland Institute who have received over half a million dollars funding from ExxonMobil? Not that I’d suggest that that has anything to do with their stance. Just like the money they receive from the tobacco industry has nothing to do with their stance against legislation on smoking.

In his book “Red Hot Lies” the author Christopher Horner describes how global warming alarmists use threats, fraud and deception to keep you misinformed. In this book the following is a quote made by Mr George Monbiot, that Environmental Guru: “Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned” (page 69). Mr Monbiot calls this irony.
The alarmists wish to stifle dissent. The question should be asked just what is it that they have got to hide. Keep on writing, Mr Booker.

I used to respect your views but since your highly questionable doubts regarding Darwin and evolution were publicised, I suspect that you are a wishful thinker rather than using verifiable facts based on strong evidence to support your case. You scoff, but remember the Millennium Bug! Planetary catastrophe was narrowly averted only by the co-ordinated efforts of thousands of IT experts, painstakingly and meticulously lining their pockets at taxpayers’ expense. The biggest problem the world faces today is over-population – that creates all the other problems of dwindling resources, etc.

I note that the Prince of Wales has again added to the scaremongering, this time giving us a time-frame of fewer than 100 months. Has anyone noticed that the Earth is actually cooling and has been doing so for the last 11 years or more? The models and calculations have repeatedly been proved to be incorrect and those that are on the GW bandwagon spout their nonsense littered with “could”, “might”, “estimated” with nothing remotely accurate. It’s time these people took real jobs and left science fiction to those who entertain by doing so.

Thank you so much for publishing this article. Man-made CO2 as an engine for global warming is a great steaming pile of buffalo droppings, a hoax, bad science, Flat-Earth nonsense. I contributed to a thread on the Guardian website about global warming and was the object of furious invective from an outraged “global warmer”. I had suggested that the engine for warming and cooling of the planet was the state of activity of the sun. I further pointed out that the Sun is now in a quiescent phase, and the process of global cooling had now begun (the last winter was the coolest in a decade). I predicted that next winter would be even colder, and the winter beyond, colder yet. I also mentioned the interesting detail that the polar ice-caps on our sister planet, Mars, had been shrinking, along with those on earth. (This had been noted by an orbiting satellite and reported in the magazine “Nature”). All of this infuriated the “global warmer”, and our exchange ended when he uttered the classic big whopper of the CO2 brigade, that what I was trying to suggest ran against the collected wisdom of the “entire scientific community”.

The world of “science” has brought us many myths: “bacteria cause disease, “smoking is harmful to your health, “natural selection shaped the species of the earth, “the earth is round,” and so forth. And now science offers the myth of climate change. What rubbish! Bless Christopher Booker for exposing modern science for what it is: a wicked and evil obstacle to mindless superstition.

 

Yes, the climate change extremists can shut up. Global warming is a lie, and climate change is a big joke.

How is it that the Telegraph can print and deliver millions of printed papers to all corners of the country in less time than it takes them to post comments on blogs?

Did you notice the ice on Kilimanjaro in the comic relief film of the celebrity climb? Wonder if Gore did?

I feel so saddened to have read this article. I hope that he is right and that nobody does listen to the so-called ‘real’ climate change experts. I also hope that Christopher Booker will look back in shame and take responsibility for his damaging comments.

James Lovelock has said recently in Vanishing Face of Gaia that that the range of evidence from IPCC climate models is so wide and varied as to be not useful for politicos to base their policies on reliably, so it seems that Mr Booker isn’t so far wide of the mark. Me? I’m gonna buy me some shares in Vestas Wind Systems or Clipper Windpower or Suzlon Energy and ride the bubble and get a free holiday out of feeling pious. But, seriously folks, this recording of all your trips and holidays and journeys out of the UK that is being billed as a security measure will doubtless lead to more sanctimony and moralising about carbon footprints and subsequent taxation on your income/capital/ bin contents/ lifestyle/ etc., for the good of all… of course… Escape whilst you can ?

So Nick Griffin supports your arguments Mr Booker. Says it all. I only visited this website to see what the other side is up to, and my god it’s frightening.

Once again, Christopher Booker sheds light on the inside of this internationally-organised corrupt can of worms. Just like the ‘Natural England’ organisation – there is nothing natural or even honest in the ‘climate change’ itinerary. The whole concept is to control and to tax whilst simultaneously ensuring open debate or dissent is rigorously denied any opening. It must be fought – quite simple really – even in the face of the Grauniads who would make climate-change denial a similar crime to holocaust-denial (and even I grant that one of them did indeed occur – and it wasn’t the one warming the Earth!) We desperately need more honest journalists (and a few honest Editors) to publish the real “FACTS” behind the climate SCAM – before the world’s governments give all our money away to corrupt bankers who are providing the present wonderfully convenient smoke-screen for them.

Even if your complacency regarding the greenhouse gases and climate, was justified, which I don’t believe it is, we would still have to adopt identical policies to prevent ocean acidification. No doubt you believe this is all alarmist nonsense as well.

I am so glad that finally there are scientists out there who are finding the courage to question this so-called climate change. Al Gore has been making a very tidy packet from all this. Creating fear in young people is criminal, and he should be sued by parents everywhere.

I was delighted to run across this article and the accompanying comments. Americans are clearly no longer the worst-educated Westerners. A challenge for you who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Produce one recent college textbook that supports your position.

Discovery channel had a good idea recently, in order to reforest areas you parachute in saplings. To perform the experiment they used 8 helicopters and 2 medium-sized planes. The result, I have no idea… they never said what happened with the saplings. I suspect that the whole experiment cost half a million with a 20% success rate. Their other experiment wasn’t much better and used even more fuel than the choppers. A man with a horse and cart would have achieved a much better success rate (+90%) at a lot less cost, a lot less cost! But that doesn’t fit with the Enviro-Nazis’ or the bleeding-heart liberals’ agenda.

You’re seriously going to accept the findings of the Heartland Institute? Its really great to see tobacco and oil lobbiests calling themselves a scientific think tank. I seriously find it hard to take an organisation that defends the taxes charged on smokers seriously. Meanwhile 1 year of global cooling vs the more than 50 year upward trend that we are seeing doesn’t really match up, does it? But thats ok, your science teaches you that the Earth is flat and God will make everything OK as long as we kill terrorists and go to church on Sundays…

Follow the money – whose opinions are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel and other extractive industries? I look at pedigree: the pedigrees of those arguing calmly with science on their side, and those arguing ferociously from a political position that everything is hunky-dory and we have no need to worry about global climate change. I know which lot I would rather trust with my life and possessions.

Ricky. Some of the people posting here are paid by the oil companies. And others by the Sierra Club, Theresa Kerry and George Soros.

 

The global warming fraud is a deliberate ploy to wind back civilisation. It’s Nazism all over again – mass death. If you wipe out industrial civilisation, you wipe at least 5 billion people from the planet. We need more technology not less. Nuclear is clean, safe and necessary on a large scale – around 6000 power stations are needed worldwide to bring the world up to a decent standard of living, and to arrest the ongoing decline in living standards.

The modern environmental movement arose out of the wreckage of the New Left. They call themselves Green because they’re too yellow to admit they’re really Reds. Why do you think Lenin’s birthday was chosen to be the date of Earth Day? The only underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back. In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the “Club of Rome”, a Greenie panic outfit, we find the following statement: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Professor Lindzen is reported in www.logicalscience.com to have claimed that no one seems to be able to explain the growing Greenland ice sheet. Anyone living in northern climes – even Forrest Gump-like non-scientists – can tell you the heaviest snows take place in the ten degrees centigrade just below freezing. The colder it gets after that, the less snow falls because of the inability of very cold air to hold moisture. Living as I do in Anchorage, Alaska, I know that a clear sunny winter day usually means biting cold temperatures. It is warmer temperatures that explain the heavier snowfall in Greenland, leading to a buildup of the ice sheets. With even warmer temperatures those heavier snowfalls will be offset by melting in areas above freezing. This is just one example pointing out Lindzen’s cluelessness. Please check out the logicalscience website for more of the same.

The US, UK, and Israeli militaries needlessly produce huge amounts of CO2 and they are the greatest threat to human and planetary survival — a greater threat than Al Qaeda, Iran, China, and Russia combined. We must stop the Iraq and Afghanistan wars immediately if we want to save the planet. Why are we producing huge amounts of CO2 to get control of the Middle East oil when we shouldn’t even be using oil anyway?

Do politicians take any notice of these expressions of public opinion? How long do we wait for D. Cameron to make apologies about Tory climate fatuities? Or do we have to find other parties to vote for?

I thought that the earth was still coming out of the last ice age – how are we going to stop this happening.

I agree with you 100%, Mark Denny. Liberals want to scare, intimidate, and/or imprison anyone who doesn’t agree with their agenda. They are nothing more than modern-day Nazis.

This is nothing more than vile propaganda. I really believe climate change denial should be an imprisonable offense. Hundreds of millions of people will die if something isn’t done… I know this because my children are brainwashed/taught these very things in school. If they argue against the ‘facts’, they’ll come home with low grades. And schools (and indeed universities) are hardly the places to make political points now, are they?

Rush was right! I remember when radio-talk-conservative ripped Gore years ago. He said that the left would create a crisis and offer solutions to save us through government-controlled bureaucracy and (but of course) new taxes. In America Obama has already penciled in 700+ BILLION carbon taxes in the coming years. This has become a sad money game with insiders controlling the message and developing the self-benefitting solutions.

If you keep catching the prophets in lies, on facts which are easily verifiable, it becomes foolish to believe the unverifiable, like whether a computer model was programmed correctly. Al Gore lied or obfuscated repeatedly in his movie. He implied global warming caused the Aral Sea to dry up, when in fact the major sources of water, the Syr Darya and Amu Darya were dammed and diverted by the Soviets for irrigation. The Soviets dug a 1375 km canal diverting the water of the Amu Darya all the way across the Kara Kum desert to Ashgabat! The dam on the Syr Darya at Kairakkum holds back a freshwater reservoir the Tajiks tongue-in-cheek call the “Tajik Sea”. Al Gore showed pictures of glaciers melting since the 1940’s.

Well, I live near Chicago, and where I live used to be under a glacier a mile thick; glaciers have been melting continuously since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago! Al Gore showed us the Vostok ice core graphs. What he didn’t bother to mention is that if you download the data and study it closely, you see that temperature LEADS CO2 by 400 years on average. Governments have responded to this revelation. Two years ago it was easy to find this data and examine it closely.

Now you go to government web sites and they have scrunched up time scales and plotted with wider pen widths so that the pen width is wider than the 400 year antithesis. I saw one dot UK website that even had the chutzpah to compress the CO2 scale with respect to the temperature scale, shift the CO2 plot up, and then proclaim that yes, CO2 is almost always behind temperature, but look at the bottom of the chart, it is in front (it is actually above) temperature, so CO2 must start the heating! If countries are going to brazenly manipulate data to promote a fraud, they need to get their act together!

You must also keep in mind these are the same people who have made and continue to make perfectly safe and energy-efficient refrigerants illegal to manufacture, because of an ozone hole which mysteriously stays in one spot exactly coinciding with the flow of charged particles from the auroras. If refrigerant were causing ozone depletion, how would the refrigerant know what exact spot on earth to be over to cause a chemical reaction in cold thin freezing air moving hundreds of miles an hour, especially over a darkened pole, when sunlight is supposed to trigger the reaction? Compare in your mind how much energy is in an aurora, whose energy comes from solar flares and once caused so much DC charge to flow it caused a major blackout in Canada, versus a minuscule trace of completely inert molecules with fluorine-carbon-chlorine bonds. We have gone back to the unenlightened ages when religions dictated science.

Note: the “inert molecules” are actually CATALYTIC in function, and thus immediately “crack” another ozone molecule, and so on, until they are finally “cracked” themselves by high-energy atmospheric photons. It is the rate of fluorocarbon catalysis versus the rate of fluorocarbon breakdown which is the issue here. There are other issues with anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. AND there are 10,000 ACTIVE VOLCANOES.

.

What makes Professor Lindzen the most distinguished climatologist in the world? I do not see any reason other than the fact the he agrees with the author’s viewpoint. I hear that this Professor also believes that the relationship between smoking and lung cancer is highly exaggerated. Is he the most distinguished medical expert as well? The point is that Professor Lindzen discredits himself by commenting on areas where he does not have any expertise, thereby coming across as a naysayer, a contrarian. And by the way, he is also associated with organizations receiving money from ExxonMobil and the likes. That can amount to a conflict of interest too.

Perhaps this issue would be taken more seriously if less airtime was given to clowns like Prince Charles and more to real experts on the subject.

Well said once again CB. Why is no one willing to listen? Has anyone in Government the guts to open their ears & minds & query the copious self-serving drivel served up by Mr Gore etc.. ?

To Ricky and all the others who believe in man-made global warming known as AGW, I’m going to make this simple so even your group can understand it. Al Gore said the Earth was having a fever. To this I ask one simple question.
Can anyone, scientist or not, tell me what temperature the Earth SHOULD be? The answer is NO. Before you believe in this junk have someone answer this question. Because without knowing this answer you don’t know if the so called warming (man-made or not) is warming us to where we should be. After this it does get a little harder to follow so the greenies that just drink kool-aid might not be able to follow. Remember the ultimate assertion is AGW. If there is global warming, or as they now like to call it climate change, then it depends on if it is natural or caused by man. If it is natural then your own arguments say we need to do NOTHING as this interferes with the natural cycles.
The first problem is to determine if we are warming or cooling. This all depends on your time reference. For example, is the stock market going up or down? For a year and a half the answer is down. If we pick 1990 as a starting point then up. The reason most chicken littles pick 1850 is because that was a very cool point in history. If we pick 1998 or the 1930’s we have had cooling. What all this means is that we really aren’t warming or cooling, but the climate does change over time.
So the real bottom line question is: “Is this change is caused by man?” This is the AGW hypothesis. I’m going to use two words that many greenies will have trouble understanding. Correlation and causation.

Correlation is where observations show that one event is linked to another observation. For example there is a correlation on who wins the Super Bowl and how the stock market does for the rest of the year. But no one except a fool would think that the winner of the Super Bowl CAUSES the stock market to go up or down. Now all the so called AGW scientists claim that CO2 causes climate change.
First, let’s see if there is a correlation. In looking at the data and ice cores there is a correlation. The only problem is that CO2 trails (meaning “is after”) temperature increases by 800 years. Oops! Since they can’t show a leading correlation scientifically, they can’t show causation.
But let’s go one step further and claim that CO2 does impact climate change. How much of this is man made? We need to know how big CO2 is in relation to all greenhouse gases, what percentage of all CO2 is man-made and finally the proposed reductions. CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases and man contributes less than 20% of that. Finally they want to reduce (not eliminate) this amount by 20% at the most. Many are just reducing 5% or less. So 20% of 20% of 5% results in a total reduction of .2%. If the expected temperature increase is 3 degrees then we can expect all the money spent on CO2 reductions to result in .006 degrees of temperature reduction. WOW!
So now that I have explained all this for the greenies I don’t want to hear from them unless they answer these points. And stay off the 9 billion people thing. Unless you want to commit mass murder it has zero bearing on the AGW argument.

 

Global Warming Room 102

This I discovered at WIRED:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/humans-halfway-to-causing-dangerous-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comments

I frequently find the comments to be FAR more interesting than the articles!  🙂

 

2briang 04/30/09
@Synesius : “CO2 abundance was twice the current value during the Miocene epoch (7-23 million years ago) and the climate was temperate but cooling. It was ten times the current value at the beginning of the Eocene (56-37 million years ago)and the climate was tropical and cooling. Facts are stubborn things. The “Warmies” count on people not knowing any.”
Gee….how do you think the quality of life was for reality-based, fact-driven people such as yourself during those epochs ? I wonder if you think that it is a fact that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on earth ?
The “fact” is that the Earth will survive us all, and will prevail through all kinds of climatological events. The issue is, my children and grandchildren (and yours) will not.

SteveNordquist 04/30/09
2briang that’s awesome, just as long as we mate with actual well-adapted to 23m year old conditions dinosaurs the kids will be all right.
I’m gonna need some new parenting…theme park equipment.

RichardHead | 04/30/09
Lots of sharp people here. FYI Al Gore is subsidized by Exxon Mobil. When the CO2 is captured under his plan, Exxon Mobil will be the benefactor in 2 ways. They will be paid to dispose of the CO2, by injecting it into unused oil wells. When the CO2 enters the oil field, it will allow capture of oil by forcing it to flow to low production wells, increasing the ability to pump it to the surface, so more oil is available to burn.
Follow the money. Global warming is great for oil. Do you really believe Exxon Mobil is a stupid company?

Curly | 04/30/09
Why are we not told of the concentration of CO2 in the air now versus what it was each decade from 1970 to present? If the concentration is not increasing then CO2 is not the problem.
There is another problem. Many or even most in the environmental movement have brought lawsuits to prevent the building of nuclear power plants. How many thousands of tons of CO2 could have been prevented from being released into the atmosphere if the nuclear power plants had been built? It is very disingenuous of the ‘environmentalist’ today to now say we have to reduce the CO2 emissions.
If I remember global history correctly the northern hemisphere (at least) had large ice flows down to somewhere around Arizona area. My question is where are the ice flows now? They existed long before humanity had made an impact on the earth. Was there global warming before man? HUM, Maybe man is not making the impact that he is being accused of.

thisthinghere | 04/30/09
science ignorance – 1: the state of lacking knowledge or comprehension of what science is, how science is undertaken using the scientific method, and the actions and responsibilities of scientists 2: a state characterized by the mistaken belief that the scientific method is a “thing”, a device, an object or a law that only one side in a scientific debate is allowed to use, while the other side in that debate can only whine.
clinical examples of condition:
1: “when people disagree with something that science has said is proven, all they have to do is whine a lot. there’s no reason for them to do their homework, to use the scientific method to come up with a BETTER theory. No, they can just whine, and that will magically disprove decades of work by thousands of scientists”
2: Galileo, Copernicus, all those guys did was whine. They didn’t use science to show the church’s theories about the motion of the heavens and the Earth’s place in the solar system were ignorant and wrong. all they did was whine, and somehow people just felt like believing them.”
3: “All scientists do all day is sit around and come up with things they want to believe in. and then they force everyone to believe in it too. science is just about belief”
4: “A scientific law in science is a law because that’s just what a majority of people want to think. there’s no experimental basis or calculations to back it up”
5: “What’s so unfair about science is that once a scientist has proven a hypothesis, no one else can use the scientific method to come up with a better experiment to prove a better hypothesis. this is the tyranny of science. that the scientific method can only be used by special people, and is not a gift for all of humanity that anyone can use.”
6: “The reason why there are so many hypotheses and theories about dark matter, and strings, and god particles, etc., is just because all those scientists haven’t come up with something they all believe in, not because the experiments so far are coming up with different, contradictory results. it’s about all the scientists coming up with something to believe in, not about coming up with such a smart hypothesis and smart experiment that no matter how scientists test it, they always end up with the same result”
7: “When 90% of scientists agree on something, it’s not because they’ve reviewed the experiments and calculations and that 9 out 10 of them have independently arrived at the same conclusion, it’s because they’re all drinking and golfing buddies”
8: And the 10% of scientists who have reviewed the experiments and calculations and independently arrived at a different conclusion don’t have to use the scientific method to come up with a better experiment to prove a better hypothesis. all they have to do is whine and that makes all the experiments and calculations of the 90% automatically wrong”
9: “The burden is on scientists to prove other scientists wrong, to prove a negative. it is NOT to prove a BETTER, more accurate, or more elegant hypothesis, theory or law.”

samagon | 04/30/09
Sorry everyone, I’ve been really gassy lately, which is causing more global warming, and localized seat warming. I would also like to add that this man-bear-pig-flu thing that is going around may be a blessing, if it ever gets to india and china, assuming it kills off half of their populations. that would cut down on the CO2 production from that part of the world by a large margin.

joenz | 04/30/09
Astro posted: “None of you are likely scientists, so just shut the hell up. Most of you people are just some average schmoe who have no clue about anything.” Follow the money idiot. I am an electrical engineer and I currently have a job designing solar panels. I am employed partly because of global warming theories. Other “scientists” are getting paid to do global warming research. The people paying them EXPECT them to find results supporting global warming theories! Climatologists that publicly report data that does not agree with mainstream global warming theories are swiftly fired and called nutcases. Most people around the world that speak against global warming claims are not nut cases, but instead they are not comfortable being HEAVILY TAXED because the government says “Don’t worry, we have scientists saying we need your money.”

papajon0s1 | 04/30/09
No, I don’t buy this for one second. And no, I don’t have the time, talent, or treasure to do my own extensive Global Warming research. I don’t have time to go get my own ice core samples or determine levels of sea ice or measure how much CO2 is whereever. I also don’t buy into any computer modeling because computer models many times can’t predict the next days weather let alone conditions years ago or years into the future.
All I know is what I read and clearly there is plenty of “disputable evidence” because there are plenty of arguments on both sides. What angers me is being forced into environmental policy based on what may or may not be true. Once you start claiming that the data is not arguable I know it’s crap and in no way should you make policy based on that.
Don’t you ‘green’ folk realize when you get into your “we ALL have to do x or y or x” or “We all should get behind green technology this or greeen technology that” that you instantly turn off a huge portion of your audience? Once you sound like an elitist lefty uber-enviro-nazi you might as well be talking to a brick wall.
You need a new way of presenting your data without all the pretentious alarmist crap. That said, I’m all for things like alt-fuel vehicles where I can pay pennies per mile over dollars. I’m happy when there isn’t crap and litter all over the streets. No one likes a smog-filled city or a lake so polluted even the rats won’t go there. But seriously, there seems to be a reasonable environmentalism that is no longer here and it has been replaced with complete idiotic bunk.

phira360 | 04/30/09
If we are going to try to help climate change, then why are you spending so much time on the computer reading and typing this? This is a bit ironic.

zerocontrol | 04/30/09
If you have 9 minutes of your life to watch a video THIS IS ONE TO WATCH. No it’s not one of those annoying, stupid videos. It’s very down to earth straight forward and most important real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

BrianScience | 04/30/09
32,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, say that Global Warming/Climate Change is NOT caused by humans. See: http://bit.ly/qOmhr
Where is the science to prove humans are the cause of GW/CG?? Fact: CO2 levels rose AFTER Global Warming started, NOT before. FACT: The most prevalent “greenhouse gas” is WATER VAPOR, not CO2! This article did nothing to refute these facts.

AJ | 04/29/09
Oh noes! 1!! 11!! With all those tons of CO2 up in the air, it’s only a matter of time before great big chunks of the sky start falling on us! Good thing we have those stones in Georgia to tell us all what to do after the Ecopocalypse.
Do these climate change models also take into account the global disruptions that will be caused by the massive solar flares that previous modeling experts (i.e. Mayans) have predicted occurring in December, 2012?
I hate to quote Sarah Connor, but it is important to remember that future has not been written. While information like this is good to be aware of, its veracity can only be proven over time. It is important to note that these models are only theories (as in string theory where there’s a lot of doubt, as opposed to the theory of evolution where there is none [at least among intelligent & rational persons]).
Basing global economic policies on sketchy science that relies far too much on single variable, hockey stick-type graphs is not a good long term plan. What happens when the next crisis du jour crops up and all our efforts to reduce CO2 have created some other ecological nightmare? The only thing that can truly be relied upon is the Law of Unintended Consequences. No matter what we do to fix our present circumstances, it will have negative ramifications that will need to be dealt with in the future.
My recommendation is to plan and prepare for the worst, but avoid disrupting the entire world economy in attempt to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken.

 

mhungry | 04/29/09
There’s a real problem with these numbers and the concern over CO2. We seem to forget that some things on this planet breathe CO2. What about the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by these plants? I haven’t seen that taken into account very often in these studies.
This leads to my “best way to be green” tip: Plant more plants and cut down less trees. There you go. Simple and effective.

photoprinter | 04/29/09
I have never seen an article about CO2 that EVER mentions the atmospheres self-cleaning function. It’s called RAIN. And @mhungry, don’t worry about the cutting of trees. At least in this country, logging companies plant more trees than they cut down. If they did not, soon they would not have any product to sell.

Crashz | 04/29/09
ok so… AJ, let me ask you this, if you saw cracks slowly forming in a fish tank, would you fix it before or after the tank breaks and spill all of the fish on the floor, if we don’t start slowly fixing it now, later on it will probably be worse for us if we try a radical change (another analogy comes to mind of jumping into freezing water, but one analogy is my limit per rant)
mhungry, the plants you speak of cannot keep up with what we are putting out, in fact, we are eliminating the very plants that you speak of in our rain forests which produce most of our breathable air. So therefore the values that are removed by the plants are probably in there, it just doesn’t contribute to the reduction of the CO2 fast enough.
I’m not some green freak, I’m just a critical thinker.

lukelea | 04/29/09
I’m with Freeman Dyson on this one. Global warming, on balance, may be good for the human race and there is not much we can do about it anyway.

Angema | 04/29/09
“Don’t worry about cutting down trees.” Thats the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. “At least in this country . . .” Yeah. Its too bad this country doesn’t span the globe. “. . . logging companies plant more trees than they cut down.” Yeah. Its too bad all forested land isn’t owned by logging companies. Forested land even in the U.S. is decreasing. Most of this isn’t due to logging companies, true. Its due in large part to land fragmentation and conversion to feed our suburban lifestyle. That does not mean it isn’t a problem.

LandShark | 04/29/09
Huh… just halfway?

cspearow | 04/29/09
Climate change happens. We are going to deal with it, not prevent it.
Climate change is kind of like starving African children or the killing of baby Harp seals: nobody likes it, but just try to get anybody to spend their own money to stop it.

MentorMatt | 04/29/09
MHUNGRY, you are absolutely right, as is Freeman Dyson. The plants absorb humongous amounts of CO2.
Problem is, mhungry, you only wrote a small comment, while the article that cites bogus computer simulations actually has a big blue planet picture all over it…
Expose climate fearmongers for what they are… and they include Wired.

cirby | 04/29/09
That’s odd… Up until recently, five (or six, or seven) degrees Centigrade by 2100 was the “point of no return” for Global Warming. That was the amount we were going to see by the end of this century, according to Al Gore and the IPCC. Even now, the Weather Channel is pushing the “Six Degrees” meme.
All of a sudden, it’s TWO degrees by 2060 or so (well below the previous predicted curve – this would make 2100 about four degrees hotter than the 1980s, when Global Warming was first predicted).
Sounds like someone noticed that we’re not going to make the six (or five, or whatever the current worst-case scenario is) degrees, so they have to revamp their predictions. Again. So, instead of “parts per million” (which has been the measuring standard for the whole extent of the debate), they decided to move the goalposts to “total tons of carbon dioxide”.
Beware the “round number prediction.” When you see a scientific prediction that uses something like “one trillion tons,” it almost always means someone chose that amazing number for political reasons, not from any scientific one. It sounds scary, so they use it, and make the equations fit. They pick dates 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 years down the road, not because science actually predicts anything, but because people automatically accept long-term predictions divisible by ten.
If this were real science, it would be something like “in about 63 years, plus or minus five, the temperature will be X degrees, plus or minus Y.”
Remember the “several meters of sea level rise by 2100?” Which became, after some actual math, less than half a meter (or, possibly, a couple of inches)? Or the melting of all of the ice in 10 (or 100, or whatever) years? Which, as it turns out, is either not really happening (Greenland), is cyclical and reversing (the North Pole), or trending in the opposite direction (Antarctica).
Why is it that every time the GW catastrophists have to make revisions to their work, it’s always in the downward direction?

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
I think that global warming was created in one of Al Gore’s bad dreams. Look throughout history and you will find that there have been significant climate changes that have shaped the earth we call home. Like the stock market, I say that we should let the climate run its course and not try to manually change it.

VinsonDaly | 04/29/09
Well then after the pandemic we should expect some improvement.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
How is that?

derekris | 04/29/09
Whatever — the swine flu will kill all of us and then it won’t matter. The irony of scientific sensationalism is that no one will be around to celebrate when it finally predicts something with perfect accuracy.

damasterwc | 04/29/09
The ‘evidence’ is computer models. Very inaccurate computer models that scale 1 pixel to 200 square miles or so. WTF!@!!! they said financial derivatives would never blow out cuz their computer models told them so. take a lesson from the blood-sucking speculators: computer models are fine for modeling conditions within a computer, they do not, however, model reality.
fyi: world ocean temperatures have decreased in the last 5 years, and Antarctic ice cover is at the largest it’s been in 20 years. Why do you think there is the sudden push to pass these draconian bills? They know the warming of the 20th century is over and they’re trying to get their shit passed before enough of us realize it’s bullshit. wake the f*&# up!

Scriptable | 04/29/09
I’m with the vast majority of scientists and the evidence on this one — rapid and irreversable global climate change is caused by human activity. Pray to Jesus as much as you like, it aint gonna change the facts.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
The climate is volatile, and I believe that if we try and help, it will only make problems worse. It will cause problems that actually are irreversible.

johnsbrn | 04/29/09
mhungry: Do you really think climatologists are not aware of the existence of plants? Their effects are well known and have been studied extensively. The fact is, plants aren’t a carbon sink, they are just a temporary store. Throughout the year plants take in and release carbon dioxide. Most of the carbon is also released when they die or are burned.
photoprinter: exactly what is the mechanism by which rain scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere? Rain will mix with some carbon in the atmosphere (very minimal), which is they released back when the water evaporates.
Global warming is real, there is indisputable data to back that up, the only thing in question is how much of it (if any) is caused by us. At the end of the day, no one wants to suck on a cars tailpipe or live next to a coal power plant, so whether you think we are the cause or not let’s focus on cleaning up the air to improve our quality of life and create sustainable energy sources. If a by-product of that happens to be less global warming, then that’s great too.

tonygotskilz | 04/29/09
@ Crash – “ok so……. in fact, we are eliminating the very plants that you speak of in our rain forests which produce most of our breathable air. ….
You may be a critical thinker but not a critical reader obviously. The majority of our breathable air does not come from tree, or rainforests. It comes from algae.
And thats the problem with people who comment on the environment. They hear something thats in vogue, it sounds good so they repeat it, then the next idiot believes it cause he read it on the interwebs…
I challenge anyone who believes in global warming being affected by man to do some research into climate change written pre-1990’s. We have not been recording statistics on temperature and C02 emissions for long enough to have any clue what we are dealing and therefore I personally believe we should not go making changes to anything until we have at least enough facts to make an informed decision instead of just snap judgements… But I’ve beaten this horse many times and although it looks dead it’s still walking around.

nickbrooks | 04/29/09
I’m going to cancel my subscription to Nature (where this research is published). Why bother to read the science first hand in one of the world’s most respected peer-reviewed scientific journals when I can read such intelligent analysis by non-specialists who know better than the scientists on the comments pages of Wired? What was I thinking?

kflanagan | 04/29/09
What about sunspots and the extended solar minimum we are now in? 2008 and 2009 have proven to be the lowest sunspot activity in 100 years and the earth has been cooling since the last solar max in 2000.
To quote Harvard astrophysicist Dr Soon: “If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it’s very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion.”

designguybrown | 04/29/09
An interesting phrase that underlines the whole article: “… Reducing emissions steadily over 50 years is much cheaper and easier and less traumatic than allowing them to rise for 15 years and then reducing them violently for 35 years….” This may not necessarily be true with future full implementation of dramatic technological innovations, comprehensive change-over of energy sources, and firmly accepted take-hold of policy initiatives.
Which further brings up the idea of conservation -vs- technology when it comes to guiding consumers and companies with policy – it may not be possible to fully focus on both. It may be more successful to wait for technologies, thus staying wealthy in the meantime, (with easy adaptation and minimal sacrifice) that will allow a continual increase in living-standard so that we can afford consumables in the future that hide all the emission-increase and energy-usage in a great technology. Think of how far developed and widespread renewable energy sources will be by then. The costs of sacrificing now may not allow us to afford more potent technologies later on (i.e. 15 years from now). Just a thought.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
Well it doesn’t help that alternative energies are not very cost effective. Taking oil away from Americans is like taking away McDonald’s from an obese person.

rimshot515 | 04/29/09
Sure, global warming is occurring. Sure, the temperature of the planet may rise two degrees. Sure, carbon dioxide levels are rising.
But where is the research depicting specific, measurable, catastrophic events resulting from this? And don’t you dare say hurricanes, or I will have the British government slap you in the face with their bill to include the evidence that it is not the result of global warming.
Side point: CO2 levels follow temperature rises, not the other way around. Looking back at the Medieval periods, when there was a sh!tload of coal powered plants, global warming occurred, and CO2 subsequently rose. It’s a cycle.
Additionally, plants function best at higher concentrations of CO2. In fact, farmers use this technique to produce higher yields of crops. That, along with the opening of new shipping lanes in the North and revealing of mineral deposits and mammoth fossils, depict global warming as a good thing, not bad.
Finally, there have been several periods where global warming has stopped and even decreased, while we kept truckin’ along in our SUV’s. For example, global temperature has not risen for the past decade. Between 1940-1970, temperature actually decreased as we spat tons of CO2 into the air with the massive production of military equipment and inefficient cars.
So no cause for alarm. Enjoy the weather!

LouSkannen | 04/29/09
How can computer “projections,” basically hypotheses expressed in computer code, be taken as credible evidence of that which they posit? Only observed evidence, measurement, can scientifically support hypotheses. And the evidence supporting climate models so far is at best mixed, at worst, non-supportive in the short term and who knows for the long term. They predict the past well (often); the future…?
I’ve been reading on this issue for years and have yet to find credible evidence that recent climate change of whatever metric is significantly different globally because of our presence than is natural.
How utterly predictable that the UN body charged with determining how significantly man is changing climate has found that man IS changing climate – and the situation demands immediate government, nay, international, action! Duh…
At least the Nature article simplified things, kinda like a notorious algorithm recently described on this site simplified determining investment risk. That certainly turned out well.

plaasjaapie | 04/29/09
Repeat after me “Trofim Lysenko”.

Synesius | 04/29/09
“Climate Science” is to the Left what “Creation Science” is to the right: nonsense used to promote an agenda.
CO2 abundance was twice the current value during the Miocene epoch (7-23 million years ago) and the climate was temperate but cooling. It was ten times the current value at the beginning of the Eocene (56-37 million years ago)and the climate was tropical and cooling.
Facts are stubborn things. The “Warmies” count on people not knowing any.

mikesd | 04/29/09
Wow. I thought Wired was a magazine for smart people. Where did all the jr. scientist commenters come from. Planetary science has known CO2, methane, etc. are the gases that hold an atmosphere to a planet (and trap the sun’s energy) for over a hundred years.
Now, suddenly, all the Fox News viewers are pretending they can rewrite basic third grade science to suit their selfish brand of politics. Good luck.

nerevolution5 | 04/29/09
Like one of the brightest scientists on the planet, Michio Kaku said (on the topic of Global Climate Change) it seems it will take a catastrophe before humans react.
It’s natural for any species to change their habits only when something isn’t working *currently*. The economy broke again, everybody tries fix it. Swine flu suddenly starts killing people, so airports around the world cancel flights to/from Mexico. So far, climate change has had no immediate impact on human life. As I expected, the majority of the people commenting on this article don’t care about it.
Until coastal cities become flooded by melting polar caps, and farms can’t grow the crops they used to because of a lack of rain, or too much rain, chances are nothing will change.
It’s rather interesting that people say “why modify our climate, let it run its course!” when we’re *already* modifying it.
I think the important thing that humans will need to come to is that they need to learn how to prevent catastrophes before they happen. It seems a lot of people think everything will just work out on its own. The ones who say climate change isn’t “going to happen” probably also don’t believe the Earth will one day be sucked into a black hole. Just because we don’t see it happening doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen.
It’s unfortunate, but like I said, people will continue to deny Climate Change or shrug it off until something apocalyptic happens. Just like the sudden tight security at all airports since 9/11. Just like the sudden attention to bridges when the Minnesota bridge collapsed.
Humans will only reach a new level of intelligence when we take action *before* these things happen.

Scriptable | 04/29/09
The arguments presented here against climate change are reminiscent of the banna proof that God created use 6000 years ago, or the peanut butter jar proof against evolution. Simplistic and wrong, but appealing to those of below-average intellect.

Crystal_girl | 04/30/09
Excuse me Al Gore, I have a question. What about all of the CO2 emitted by the rapidly expanding number of mobile sources called human beings? Even if we discontinued use of all fossil fuels, our expanding human population is emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. Not to mention all other forms of animal life. So should we have a cap and trade system for babies too?? Why don’t we just start planting a lot more trees?
I for one am not ready to give up my car or my electricity, and it is the height of arrogance for us in the West to tell China and India that they may not industrialize in order to raise the standard of living of their peoples.

Synesius | 04/30/09
FYI Crystal_Girl, of the 30 billion tons of CO2 produced annually by humans, about 2 billion come from exhaling, as you rightly point out. You are also correct in assuming that the Warmies WILL use this issue to control who can have babies. Scratch a Leftist and you will almost always find a totalitarian.
BTW, termites produce around 55 billion tons of CO2, almost twice our output. People who advocate planting trees should think twice; trees are termite food. Do we really want to encourage those little CO2 emitters to multiply?

martinp | 04/30/09
@Crystal_girl – first of all, I don’t see any mention of Al Gore in the article, so why do you bring him up? Somehow I don’t think you actually even bothered reading the article before posting.
And to address your argument, humans breathing out CO2 do not contribute to climate change since that CO2 came from plants that absorbed it from the atmosphere a few months or years earlier. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades, so this kind of emission makes no net contribution. The problem is CO2 that has been locked away for a long time, ie fossil fuels.
Honestly the strongest argument in favor of AGW is the weakness of the alternative explanations. This comments thread is a perfect example.

dobermanmacleod | 04/30/09
I would like to correct the author of this article-one trillion tons (a teraton) is an overestimation: we now have evidence from the Earth’s history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a teraton of gaseous carbon compounds.
As a consequence the temperature in the Arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored.
We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die.” (The Revenge of Gaia.)
By the way, here is what Climate Code Red says:
–Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.
–There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to “thermal inertia”, or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.
–If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don’t increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).
–Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assum ing very optimistically that emissions don’t increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
Frankly, I don’t know where the author arrives at the conclusion that a teraton (one trillion tons) is what gets us to 2C. We are already in a “fool’s climate” where our sun-dimming pollution is cooling the Earth at least 1 degree C.

Astro | 04/30/09
None of you are likely scientists, so just shut the hell up. Most of you people are just some average schmoe who have no clue about anything. This is the real deal science, so all of you idiots just stay out and refrain from leaving idiotic comments. This is what happens when a bunch of ignorant and idiotic masses think that they could have a say on something they know nothing about.

dobermanmacleod | 04/30/09
By the way, it is too simplistic to judge global warming based upon the weight of carbon in the air, because all carbon is not created equal. For instance, compare CO2 and CH4. Each molecule has the same amount of carbon, but the methane is 100 times more powerful the first ten years as carbon dioxide (70 times more powerful the first twenty years, and 23 times more powerful overall).
In other words, the same amount of carbon can be vary in global warming strength by a factor of 100! I need to add that there is more carbon in CH4 contained in ice than all the oil, coal, and natural gas combined. Worse, the ice needs only to melt to release the carbon, whereas the oil, coal, and natural gas release the carbon into the air when burned.

memphisrambler | 04/30/09
If for some reason man’s pollution was causing global cooling, what would be the cry? Glaciers and antarctic sea ice is increasing, and the ocean levels are falling. Colder winters are causing humans to use too much energy for heating. Growing seasons are becoming shorter and crops are diminishing. Humans are freezing to death. People are migrating to warmer climates. Civil unrest everywhere. Frankly I would prefer global warming.

Kane | 04/30/09
Hey, I may be an ‘average schmoe’ but even I know all the evidence indicates global warming is total B.S. (according to the best Exxon Mobil PR research money can buy). Burn it, burn it all! bwaaahahahaha

iamconcerned | 04/30/09
Ok… however informative this article is… I’m sorry but I have to ask… what exactly should I as an individual do? After reading one of the previous comments, I just want to ask, what do you mean attempt to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken? Correct me if I’m wrong, but there are GIGANTIC HOLES in our ozone layer! How much more broken do you want us to get… before we start fixing?
Also… I don’t personally care much for organic chemistry and carbon molecules… but hiding the fact… which is… WE ARE A FEW DECADES AWAY FROM TOTAL MELTDOWN! – by talking about how heavy or light or what kind of chain a molecule forms is NOT helping anything.

Atlas_Rocket | 04/30/09
Astro, your articulate response clearly demonstrates the superior intellect of a true rocket scientist in our midst. Thank you for your words of enlightenment.

dkraft | 04/30/09
Not even an animal would debase itself thus. Wired just lost all credibility publishing this crap. Or maybe it’s April 1st…  No.  All credibility.

roncee | 04/30/09
Ok, you’re on to us. It’s a right wing conspiracy to flood S.F. off the map.

Scriptable | 04/29/09
I’m with the vast majority of scientists and the evidence on this one — rapid and irreversible global climate change is caused by human activity. Pray to Jesus as much as you like, it ain’t gonna change the facts………
The problem with your stance is that the majority of scientists do not support the global warming theories being put forth by Al Gore and his minions. In fact, it’s the other way around; more than twelve times the number of scientists dispute Al Gore and the UN panel’s junk science. Here’s a site that will help you understand that Al and company are full of it!……..
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

BigEarlXXX | 04/30/09
What about the thousands of tons of CO2 that are emitted by plants everyday while they undergo photosynthesis? I say we kill all the plant life on the earth. It is the ONLY way we can reduce the carbon footprint.

Highlowsel | 04/30/09
OMG the Earth is WARMING! OMG the Earth is COOLING! OMG We’re impacting the PLANET! OMG We’re NOT! Back and forth and all around the argument goes; meanwhile all the evidence piles up. Don’t’cha just feel this must have been what it was like in the early moments on the Titantic?
Anyway; for me it comes to this. I’m a simple man. I tend to think simply. There are over 6 Billion of us on this planet. It’s really a very small, enclosed, room. And we’re ALL smoking big fat cigars. Chain-smoking them in fact. I don’t know about you but the last time I was in such a setting the air got real stale, real quick. This analogy works be it an enclosed room, or (in effect) an enclosed planet. At least it works for me.
Or think of it this way. Why is it people can accept the logic of our current atmosphere, the one we all so blithely live in and breathe, ultimately stemming from planetary BIOLOGICAL forces and functions and yet go on to argue that the human species in all its manifestations as a biological entity is not be having an impact? Is that logical? To paraphrase Ripley (Aliens II), have IQ’s just dropped 20 points in the last generation or two around here?
Anyway…to go along with this simple thinking I’ve a simple conclusion. The impact stems from too many humans in too small a space. We will have to learn to control our numbers as well as our actions or, ultimately, Mother Nature (the final arbitrature so long as this is our sole home) will do it for us.

Morisato | 04/30/09
Thing is the economy is already broken and the way we’re dealing with CO2 emissions and such isn’t really getting us any cleaner by far. In the end, we’ll only actually do something once it happens. Human nature teaches us to act when it is a high state of alert. Only then will people actually come together and do something as a species. Other than that, we could be careless about the environment and others since that is what most of the majority of who we are. Remember, most, not all… but still a majority.
So yes, let us prepare for the worst or enjoy its end and go out with a BANG!

SteveNordquist | 04/30/09
Someone whack AJ with the revised Keynes and point out that that’s an economics science, and that the CO2 graphs are not the same as the original hockey-stick graphs. Thanks.
Then tell them plot coupons for actual burning things are not available at mere hollywood film rates. And reduce AJ’s credit rating to 200 and take away AJ’s FRB TAF access, because of failure to understand consequences or even RTFA.
Oh yeah…is this like, a bad time to disrupt the entire world economy? Because you know, it’s on.
That one is the major one; the idiot who thinks rain cleans atmospheric hydrocarbons, please step up.
Atmospheric cleansing is a temperature-sensitive hydroxy mechanism which is not rain. Rain does nothing special to CO2 gas and only happens below a mile in altitude (a bit higher in Eugene, OR); the atmosphere runs on appreciably to 14km up.
Look up the details and check out the TiO2 self-cleaning megatrend going on. Know that NorthAmerican forestry is bupkiss in actual CO2 management except in its own locale; it’s a net carbon source, especially with the west drying out and sometimes flaring a bit.
See the nice free book boingboing cited, _Sustainable Energy without the hot air.
Cirby, get out on your planet and tell me the ice is all there. Get me some nice thick core samples from this decade that aren’t fishery exhaust. Take at least 2 of your senses with you.
Everyone else, learn to critically read scientific articles. They called the easy journals _Science_ and _Nature_ so it’s easy to spot ‘em and practise. If you do not want to practise, we will not be taking your analysis on any computer models or who manages them. It’s OK, you just won’t be paid.
So I’m coming to Alexis here. You picked the understated quote in isolation and didn’t say 2 degrees warmer from -when-; that made it hard to follow. That ‘the numbers presented in their research are probabilistic’ could not have helped less (and you can find longer terms around, even.) If you rummage in a hydrogen atom, you will hardly ever find that electron or some nucleus, much less a Fermi Surface, but you should still rely on them. What these studies do is pull the trigger on diverse action managing seed stock (in case we get tired of Soylent products) and industrial processes so investments can actually last long enough to make profit. It’s been done! Yeah, I know, DRAM is made out of love and rainbows in oversupply, but try it sometime.

AntonioSosa | 04/30/09
An increasing number of scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states: ”There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Progressive (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us.

ElizabethM | 04/30/09
Great article, frightening though it is.

iamconcerned | 05/1/09
Mr. Samagon…….who the hell do you think you are? I have to agree India and China are countries with large populations….but that does NOT mean we emit the most amount of greenhouse gases in the air…
In fact the more the developed countries the more their fuel usage…. I would think that this fact is pretty DUH! Besides this, global powers (I do not wish to mention names, unlike some people here) have indicated the most emissions of carbon levels….so please check your facts.
I would think this is a forum to discuss solutions to problems like these or at least if not productive advice then sensitive consultations. So bickering like this and pointing fingers will not in anyway help. I am also sorry to have done the above myself….but really some people can just get on your nerves!

WHODUNNIT | 05/1/09
Current global warming started about twelve thousand years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene ice age. In Utah, the Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake and the Bonneville Salt Flat were a single Bonneville Lake, twenty-six thousand square miles.
If you look at the edges of this basin, you see “bathtub rings” called wave terraces. As global warming continued, the glaciers melted, leaving dry desert across the North American Southwest.
The Deep Sea Drilling Project found that the Mediterranean Basin has been like the Great Salt Lake four times, as ice ages have lowered Earth’s oceans below the Gibraltar to Morocco “valley”, and villeges lie under considerable sediment due to Man’s burning and harvesting of former jungle and forest from Europe to Iran, leaving rock and subsoil.
The melting of the vast glaciers had absolutely nothing to do with Man, and future ice ages will move over the continents again, as they have many times before.
If Al Gore really cared about global warming, he would scrap his Gulfstream Jet (carbon credits do not suck carbon out of the air, they just make Al millions in unearned profit from those stupid enough to try to manufacture something under “cap and trade”).

snowmaneasy | 05/3/09
RE:Zerocontrol suggests we view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
This is the most pathetic attempt to justify the spending to date in the name of Global Warming of approx $50 billion….
It is almost as bad as putting the polar bear on the endangered list because a computer model predicts that the ice in the arctic will be gone by 2100….
My take on all of this is that we have lost the plot…

GW Room 103

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps” – from New Zealand Climate Science

Professor Geoffrey G Duffy
DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University  of Auckland, NZ. Duffy received the New Zealand Science and Technology Silver Medal, in 2003 from The Royal Society of New Zealand.  And has published 218 journal, peer-reviewed papers and conference papers including 10 patents and 62 technical reports.

Duffy’s full bio is here: http://www.ecm.auckland.ac.nz/staff/ggd

Climate is always changing, and always will.  There are seasons.  There are day-night (diurnal) cycles.  At any one location, heat energy from the sun varies during the day.   Energy from the sun is affected by local conditions and clouds.   Heat absorption depends on whether it impacts water or land … and even then, the type of land (desert, forest, snow covered land), or the layout of the land (continental masses, or islands surrounded by seas).  In some parts of the world temperatures are climbing on average, and in some areas they are dropping.  Warming is not occurring everywhere at once and hence ‘global warming’ is a misnomer.

So what are the key players in ‘Climate Change’?  The major driver is the sun. 

 

Warming depends on the sun.  Cooling is due to the lack of sun’s energy.  Radiant energy enters the earth’s atmosphere.  Air (on a dry basis) consists mainly of nitrogen 78.08% and oxygen 20.94%.  Of the 0.98% remaining, 95% of that (ie 0.934%, or almost all) is the inert gas argon.  Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace.  It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis).  Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.

The atmosphere however is not dry!  The next major constituent of air apart from oxygen and nitrogen is water, as a vapour and a condensed liquid. The atmosphere is comprised of about 1-3% water vapour [At 20°C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air or 1.5%: at 50% Humidity, 0.008kg water/kg air or 0.8%: and in warmer climate at say 30°C, 100% humidity, 0.028kg water/kg air or 2.8%].  Water vapour condenses to form clouds and it is by far the most abundant and significant of the greenhouse gases.  Water accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect.  The main atmospheric ‘intermediary’ between the sun and earth is water, and thus it dictates the behaviour of the earth’s climate. Without water vapour in particular and other greenhouse gases in the air in general, the surface air temperatures worldwide would be well below freezing.  The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases, even water and CO2.  Carbon dioxide is about 1/60 of water in air!!   It clearly is not the major player even though it is wise to minimise man-made emissions like particulate emissions, and CO2 and other gases where practically possible.

Variable and unstable weather conditions are caused by local as well as large-scale differences in conditions (wind, rain, evaporation, topography etc).  They naturally induce either warming or cooling locally, regionally, or worldwide.  We all have experienced how on a cloudy/sunny day that clouds strongly affect our sensations of both heat and light (infrared energy and visible light).  Clouds do several things!   The atmosphere may be heated by clouds by emitting latent heat of condensation as water vapour condenses.  But clouds can both heat the atmosphere by reducing the amount of radiation transmitted, or cool the atmosphere by reflecting radiation.  So of all the affects that can influence heating and cooling in the atmosphere and on earth, clearly water is the main greenhouse ‘gas’.  Other greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide CO2, methane CH4, oxides of nitrogen etc) are 1/60 to 1/30 smaller in both quantity and effect.  So with all ‘greenhouse gases’ including water, human activity accounts for only minute amounts, just 0.28% of the total greenhouse gases.  If we exclude the key one, water, then human activity would only account for about 5.53% of the total greenhouse effect.  This is minute in the total picture whatever way we look at it.

Unfortunately a lot of estimates and predictions are strongly based on theoretical computer models. Many now even trust models and their ‘theoretical results’ more than actual measurements and facts from reality. Computer analysis requires that the earth be ‘cut’ into small, separate areas (actually volumes), each being analysed for heat input/outputs and other gas/vapour fluxes.  Even so the computational analysis domain size (basic computer grid elements) is huge, 150km x 150km by 1km high, with the current computer power.  It is so large that the effects of even the very large clouds are not individually included; and that includes clouds in our visual horizon.  The spatial resolution is therefore very poor.  Supercomputers cannot give us the accuracy we need.   Modellers therefore use parameters: ‘one factor fits’ all, for each of the domains (a kind of a ‘fudge factor’).  This is sad, as water as vapour in clouds is 30 to 60 times more significant than other minute amounts of other greenhouse gases.  Clearly climate simulations and thus predictions can be in serious error unless the actual cloud effects are well defined in the models.  It is not only the number and spacing of the clouds in that 150 square kilometre area, but also cloud height effects, and cloud structure.  These factors are not accounted for at all.  Typhoons are still not represented in most models.  Many tropical storms and local intense rain downfalls say in a 50km radius cannot be ‘seen’ by the models. Volcanic eruptions and large forest fires are extremely difficult to model. These emit enormous tonnages of small particulate matter that have immense shielding effects and interactions in the atmosphere. The slow diffusion of the smoke on windless days, and the more rapid turbulent dissipation on windy days are both very difficult to model or predict.   We are simply ‘not there yet’ in the simplest events.

The inter-zonal effects of such larger-scale movements like the Gulf stream, or the El Nino–El Nina patterns, are not really greatly understood, and virtually impossible to model.  The ‘noise’ (random fluctuations) in the results from the computer models is often greater than the magnitude of the computer readout results themselves!  It is really surprising why model computer-forecasts are trusted for periods of say 30 – 50 or so years, yet weather forecasts are often very inaccurate even over a 2 or 3 week period.  A good model should be able to ‘predict even the recent past’.  The fact that these models cannot, clearly shows that we should shift our thinking and trust away from computer models to longer-term analysis of actual data, and to understanding the real physical mechanisms and processes (the ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ factors).  Someone has said; “if tomorrow’s weather is inaccurately modelled and predicted, how can we pretend to predict long-term climate changes?”

Linearising short-term, random fluctuations in weather changes and temperature changes is scientifically untenable (weather and climate changes should be studied over very long periods if reliable trends are to be discerned).  Much credence is given to the ‘hockey-stick effect’ of temperature data (upward swing in mean temperature over just the last decade or so) proposed and adopted by the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).  Nations have grabbed this and are using this to base their policies for actions on global warming effects, and the implementation of controls on carbon-based emissions by carbon taxing.  The very computer programme that gave IPPC those results was recently rigorously tested by inputing random numbers, and the computer-generated readout gave the same upward data trend with this meaningless input.  This makes a mockery out the IPPC report and subsequent actions.  Of course IPPC cannot admit to that now, as their report has been regarded as ‘gospel’ by many nations.  In stunning direct contrast, actual data (not idealistic models) from remote sensors in satellites have continuously measured the world’s temperature and have shown that the trend in the warming period ended in 2001.  Actual satellite measurements show that the temperature has dropped about 0.60°C in the past year, when compared to the mean recorded 1980 temperature.  Observations from the Hadley Centre show that global temperature has changed by less than 0.050°C over the past decade!  Also 1998 was distinctly warmer than 2006 because of the El Nino event.  Why can’t we believe actual accurate data?

A man-made ‘greenhouse’ does not create new heat.   A man-made ‘greenhouse’ can only increase the residence time or hold-up time of heat just like a blanket.  Likewise in the atmosphere, the ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature (that is advantageous).  It is a dampener!  It cannot be a dominant factor for global temperature change.  It is the sun that gives the heat energy and drives temperature change.  Simply, if the sun’s energy decreases, then the ‘global’ temperature will fall; with or without any greenhouse effect (and vice-versa).

But we must also consider the location of the effects.  The surface of Earth is 70 % water.  Water has a far greater heat carrying capacity than land; or even the atmosphere itself.  Most of the incoming heat from the sun is absorbed by the seas and lakes (simply because they occupy 70% of the world’s surface area).  When we compare that with land masses, a lower proportion of heat is reflected from watery zones to participate in the greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere because land masses lose most of the heat they receive during the day by the action of overnight radiation.  To multiply that effect, the atmosphere loses heat rapidly out into space by rainfall, convection and radiation, despite the greenhouse effect.  So the large surface area of water over the world and the heat storage of water, are far more significant than any atmospheric greenhouse effect.   The oceans really control the transport of water vapour and latent heat changes into the atmosphere (latent heat is heat needed to convert water-to-vapour, or conversely is given up when vapour goes to water), and this is far more significant than sensible heat changes alone (non changes in the state of water).

The seas take a long time to warm up or cool down when compared to land.  This means the storage of total heat by the oceans is immense.   As mentioned, heat energy reaching the land by day is soon radiated back out into space at night.  But there are also zonal differences!  The sun’s energy at the equator is consistent all year round, and in this region the larger proportion of surface area happens to be the ocean water.  The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat.  As a result there are severe cyclical variations in temperature with the seas and ice caps having the dominant effects in energy changes and hence temperature effects. If the erroneously-called, ‘global warming’ was occurring now we should see it now.  Oceans would be expanding and rising; in fact over the past two years, the global sea level has decreased not increased.  Satellites orbiting the planet every 10 days have measured the global sea level to an accuracy of 3-4 millimeters (2/10 inch inches) [see sealevel.colorado.edu].  Many glaciers are receding but some are increasing.  Glacial shelves at the poles melt and reform every year because there are periodic seasonal changes; these alone show dramatically just what changes can occur from summer-to-winter-to-summer again and again.  Dramatic changes?  Yes; but they are perfectly normal and to be expected.

It is also important to highlight that CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is vital for plant, tree, and food-crop growth.  The basic principle of equilibria shows that when A and B make C and D, then C and D will react to form more A and B.  Hence, as CO2 is produced, it will ‘react’ to produce more oxygen and cellulosic carbon through the well-known chlorophyllic process. Tree, plant, and food-crop production goes up markedly.  With low amounts of CO2 in the air we would have severe food crop deficiencies.  This process occurs with plankton too.  But over and above this chemical-biochemical reaction is the simple physical equilibrium process of solubility.  As the seas cool, more CO2 dissolves in the water, and CO2 in the air reduces (and vice-versa).

Other extremely important insights can be gleaned from the ice-core record.  If CO2 was the main contributor to climate change, then history would reveal that the levels of CO2 would precede the mean temperature rise around the globe.  In fact it is the opposite!  Increases in CO2 have always lagged behind temperature rises and the lag involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years. The core samples show that there has never been a period when CO2 increases have come before a global temperature increase.  Any recent apparent temperature upward trend cannot be linked to CO2 increases.  There is no physical evidence to support that.  In fact there is the high probability that the more likely explanation of an overall warming trend is that we follow the ‘recent’ Little Ice Age, 400-600 years ago. There was also a Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) that preceded that too!

The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years).  The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun.  In fact, there is an excellent correspondence in general warming on earth with increased sun spot activity.  The graphical correlation of sun-spot activity and the earth’s mean temperature changes is quite amazing.   It appears that the activity of the dominant ‘heat supplier’ (the sun) has a far greater affect on weather (and therefore climate change) than any traces of atmospheric gases.

It is also interesting to note that NASA’s Aqua satellite system has shown that the earth has been cooling since 1998.   This corresponds with measurements from the Argos sub-ocean probes that the ocean is cooling.  This is in stark contrast with the proposals from many ‘climate alarmists’.  The solar effect is huge and overwhelming and there must be time delays in absorbance and build up in energy received by earth and ocean masses.  But the warmer the Earth gets, the faster it radiates heat out into space. This is a self-correcting, self-healing process.

The sun directly drives the El Nino–El Nina current motions that drive temperature changes world-wide.   The sun sets up evaporative cycles, drives larger air and water currents or cycles, and changes weather patterns and therefore climate change.  The varying degrees of lag and out-of-phase changes cause periodic oceanic oscillations.  The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun. This occurs quite rapidly.  From about 1975 to 2000 there was a strong El Nino warming period (a positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Now there is a La Nina period, and this has a cooling or decrease in warming (negative PDO).  In essence the ENSO and PDO switching is caused directly by the sun. Also there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans (Atlantic and the Arctic oceans).

The panic to do something about climate change has led to some unrealistic and unsustainable actions.  For example, Bio-fuels from grain will greatly increase food prices and roughly 30 million people are expected to be severely deprived.  The USA will use up to 30% of the annual corn crop for alcohol production for vehicles alone.  Ethanol production requires too much energy to be economical.  The actual cost/liter is much the same as other liquid fuels, but the liters/kilometer consumed by vehicles is much higher than petrol, and well-meaning motorists will have to use far more ethanol.  Just one tankful of ethanol for a SUV is obtained from enough corn to feed one African for a year. Worldwide the ethanol plant subsidies in 2008 will total $15 billion.  A 2008 study on bio-fuels has shown that the CO2 emissions will actually double if carbon-rich forests are cut down.

Well, what about all the latest pictures, videos and TV programmes on climate change?   Yes, there is a lot happening!  Weather patterns are changing in many parts of the world and some catastrophic events seem to point to the earth warming.  Even over our lifetime we have observed many weather pattern changes where we live.  But what we observe (the ‘effect’) in a relatively small time-span cannot honestly be connected directly to any supposed ‘cause’ without investigating all the mechanisms that cause change.  It is so easy to grab onto the notion that the increase in fossil-fuel burning and subsequent growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly the major cause.  Even from season to season we see snow and ice-covered mountains thaw, and massive areas of the Antarctic ice shelf melt, but in just 6 or so months they are restored.  We are not alarmed at these annual changes!  So why can’t we see that climate changes occurring all over the world now (not as big as these dramatic annual changes) are simply similar but on a larger time-scale.  We have the ice-core and sea-bed core evidence at least to show us that this has happened in recent centuries.  These are in harmony as to changes in CO2 with time and variations in temperature over time.  There is no indication that one causes the other!   History also tells us that there have been significant cooling periods over the last 1,000 years.

Climate and local weather are forever changing.  Sure, we must minimise pollution of our air and water systems with obnoxious chemical and particulates, and not treat them as ‘sewers’.  But even doubling or trebling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.

CARBON DIOXIDE CO2
BEST ESTIMATES OF THE LOCATION of CO2  as carbon (C)

Giga tonnes Gt (BILLION tonnes)
Atmosphere                                                   750 Gt
Oceans – surface                                       1,000 Gt
Oceans –  intermediate / deep                  38,000 Gt
Vegetation (soil, detritus)                             2,200 Gt
41,950 Gt

Annual EXCHANGE of CO2

Ocean surface – Atmosphere                              90 Gt
Vegetation – atmosphere                                     60 Gt
Between Marine biota and Ocean Surface          50 Gt
Oceans( surface-to-deep)                                  100 Gt
Human emissions* (coal, oil, nat. gas)        6 Gt  <2% 306 Gt

bucko36:
“Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace. It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis). Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.”
Imagine that!!!

Richard deSousa:
Were Dr. Duffy and George Bush separated at birth? 😉 Seriously, Dr. Duffy’s post is quite impressive. There has been studies by other scientists relating to the saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere but the AGWers seem to rely on their computers to predict that CO2 drives the ever increasing temperatures up. I can’t quite believe their virtual reality scenario.

Andy Schlei:
This is a great article. I’m sending it to many, many friends.

Richard deSousa:
Actually, I wasn’t commenting about ears but the striking facial resemblance.

Steven Hill:
Well, that about covers what I have read and think about Man Made Climate Change….
There is no climate change that man has caused.
It’s that big large orange ball in the sky.

David Segesta:
Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
Where is it 200C or 300C ?
BTW OT But here’s an article from Patrick Michaels on the “United States’ Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9619

Bern Bray:
“less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total)”
Go into your favorite text editor and type a period, then print the page. That’s about .008% percent of the total (depending on font size).
Please explain to me how that little dot is going to cause the rest of the page to burst into flames.

deadwood:
I admire the courage of Dr. Duffy. I hope he has tenure. I expect that the usual crowd of AGW promoters will be writing off his article as another Exxon-financed denier/delayer piece written by a non-climate scientist.
Since I do not expect the major media to carry this article, I thank you Anthony for doing your part in making the truth available through your blog.

David L:
I think it should read 200 or 300 degrees K. Actually, degrees K doesn’t make sense either, I think it’s simply a missing decimal point.
REPLY: degree symbols ° got transmogrified somehow, fixed now – Anthony

Leif Svalgaard:
(Duffy) – The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years). The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun. In fact, there is an excellent correspondence in general warming on earth with increased sun spot activity.
We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun. This is bad science [not even that, actually, pseudo-science, rather], and detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have.

Steve:
Off topic – first upturn in Arctic sea ice extent http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv Site here http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Alan S. Blue:
With 218 publications under his belt, he’s well past any concerns about getting tenure.

John F. Pittman:
I think it is 20 degrees (symbol) C. That is standard atmosphere, standard temperature pressure. With his education, one the first things you have to learn is 20 C dry and wet, which is which, and what it means when you solve engineering problems.

Austin:
How much heat loss do the Ice Age Glaciers at their hight represent?
If the Oceans dropped 200 feet and all that water was water vapor before it was precipitated out into SNOW ( not just water – you have to add both the heat of vaporization and the heat of fusion ) – then what is that heat loss?
Has anyone noticed that on a cold winter day you are cold indoors, despite the room being the same temp as in the summer? What is the effect of cooling off the upper atmosphere to its ability to transmit heat into space more efficiently?
I like his point about typhoons – they move enormous amounts of heat into space – and they are not modelled.

Mark Nodine:
David Segesta (13:41:55) : Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
I think the “0? before the “C” was supposed to be a degree symbol.
REPLY: Fixed thanks, pasting somehow killed the ° symbols. -Anthony

Craig D. Lattig:
As Leif points out, there is a “Hmmmm” moment in this article… but short of sending out multiple copies of Roy Spencers book, this is the best primer on climate I’ve seen to send out to my liberal arts friends who walk around clutching Al Gore’s book to their chests while hinting that I am an uninformed fossil… or worse. I’m passing it around with an evil grin attached….. cdl

Ric Werme:
David Segesta: Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
Where is it 200C or 300C ?
It should read 20°C or 30°C, assuming I got the degree symbol right, &deg;, assuming I got the ampersand symbol right.
Oh, there’s one I can cut & paste, 20°C or 30°C
Then there is the text where they use lower-case o , e.g. 20oC. Argh. I generally just say 20C or 293K or 68F and that seems to work okay.

Chris H:
I guess it’s just me, but this article just sounds like a regurgitation of everything us AGW skeptics have been saying – he’s not adding anything new, not even a new perspective (at least from my super skimming of it).

Alex Llewelyn:
Off topic, but interesting BBC article about Carbon capture & storage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7584151.stm
You won’t be able to read most of the article if you haven’t got a subscription, but here’s a New Scientist article saying Stone Age man held off an ice age by releasing greenhouse gases from farming and land use change.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19926721.600-the-ice-age-that-never-was.html?feedId=climate-change_rss20
Absolute nonsense of course.

DennisA:
Another typo: IPPC instead of IPCC, but a good summary, useful for forwarding to politicians.

Stephen Wilde:
Hmmm. Some of the phrases are remarkably similar to phrases in my series of articles at http://co2sceptics.com/
I’m gratified that he seems to agree with me on those points.

Neil Fisher:
Hi Leif, you said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun.”
I wouldn’t doubt you on anything solar related, but this seems disingenuous to me in face of SIM correlations and (correct) predictions WRT sunspot numbers, ENSO events etc. I watched these unfold and they are spookily accurate to date. I guess that it could be a coincidence, but it sure seems to me that such analyses have predictive power. We shall no doubt have to wait and see, but I am curious to know what it would take for you (and others) to accept that there may be something to this after all. To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?

Dennis:
Hmmmm, Stephen Wilde, I visit your Site constantly and I think you are right!
But this is what it’s all about….getting the PROPER, ACCURATE, stories out there to inform and explain how much of a Hoax AWG is….A number of People here stated that they were going to tell their Friends…Yes, and tell the One’s especially on the Fence. You will not convince the True Lieberals…They are TOTALLY on Emotions, no common sense!! Al Gore and Consensis need to be knocked down..

Michael Hauber:
Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..

jeez:
Good counterpunch Michael H, even if I don’t agree with your point of view.

Leif Svalgaard:
Neil Fisher: “To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?”
The problem is that the Barycenter/Tides/SIMS, etc [I will call them BTSs from now on] are not unique in their predictions. There are many other ’solar’ mechanisms that their adherents claim have predictive power and many have predicted that with a less active sun, we should get some cooling. Since BTSs are unphysical [the energy is not there, there are no forces, the tides are 1 millimeter high, etc] one would prudently go with one of the physically plausible models if one were to entertain the solar influence idea.
It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.

H:
Having lived in Auckland, NZ for a couple of years I am absolutely amazed that a Kiwi has come out and relied on science and observation in this debate. Generally Kiwis are all about feelgood symbols and looney left wing politics. It all about the “vibe”, even more so than Canadians. (Gross generalisation but fun!)
Leif Svalgaard has identified a weakness in the article and there were other typos (eg. “IPPC”). They do detract, but having said that it was a good summation of many issues in terms lay people, like me, can understand.

Robert Wood:
In all the Anglosphere countries, except India, global warming is becoming a hot political issue – amongst the political class, not the people. New Zealand is most advanced, with the labour government trying to push through parliament an ugly climate control bill, or whatever it is called.
But, as in Britain and Australia, the people are saying: “Hang on, you want energy to be even more expensive?”.
We have a federal election coming up in Canada where the opposition “Liberal” party is running on a $14 billion tax grab under the excuse of saving the planet. They call it the Greenshift, whereby good honest hard-earned green money is shifted from your pocket to the state coffers.

Glenn:
Leif said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun. This is bad science [not even that, actually, pseudo-science, rather], and detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have.”
If by before you mean the “Astronomical Society of Australia” post, then you haven’t shown this is pseudo-science, only that you disagree. Others, including Ian Wilson, held positions that this is science. Maybe not a well established theory, but it seems there is either a correlation of multiple events, or the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying.
“We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun.” http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm
Professor Duffy pointed out some bad science, and it is curious you didn’t comment on that, on a blog that is concerned with AGW. You don’t even say whether there is any merit at all in this post’s article at all. Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is your comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?
“The big [cycles], they start out with a bang. One month, there may be none, the next month they may be all over the place,” Svalgaard told New Scientist.” http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14652-suns-face-virtually-spotfree-for-months.html
Leif: “It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.”
If that really is a good anecdote, then replace the beating of the tam-tams with an unintelligent source or force, and explain the correlation.

Kip:
Michael Hauber: “Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..”
I suppose if one were to throw out the distinction of radiative heat produced by .001% of empty sky versus .001% of thermonuclear sky (the sun) that would be a relevant point. I don’t think anyone would disagree that it gets colder when the sun is down or covered.
Also, what is the capacity for CO2 to store heat versus water vapor versus the other common elements and compounds in the atmosphere?

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying.
Peer-review seems to have failed for many AGW-papers too, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe the peers also have an agenda… Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is you comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?”
The straw man you trot out is easy to deal with [you could have done it yourself]. Here is the argument:
Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper].
Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.

Leon Brozyna:
A fine Executive Summary for “the science is not settled” position. Now if someone would just present a copy to Senator McCain…

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “If that really is a good anecdote, then replace the beating of the tam-tams with an unintelligent source or force, and explain the correlation.”
[sigh] Correlations don’t need to be explained as they are not necessarily causations.

Ric Werme:
Craig D. Lattig: “As Leif points out, there is a “Hmmmm” moment in this article….but short of sending out multiple copies of Roy Spencers book, this is the best primer on climate I’ve seen to send out to my liberal arts friends who walk around clutching Al Gore’s book to their chests while hinting that I am an uninformed fossil… or worse. I’m passing it around with an evil grin attached…”
I think Lucy’s http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm is a much better thing to give to environmentalists. It covers more terrain, has good links, and is written by an environmentalist.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Professor Duffy pointed out some bad science, and it is curious you didn’t comment on that, on a blog that is concerned with AGW. You don’t even say whether there is any merit at all in this post’s article at all.”
That is because the question whether on physical grounds the BTSs make sense have nothing at all to do with AGW. I speak of what I [think I] know and leave the rest to whomever has an interest in that.

DAV:
Leif Svalgaard: “It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.”
Yet science also proceeds using similar logic. Don’t want to get all meta here but I doubt there are many models that haven’t been “proven” by statistical correlation to experiment. Until a better explanation is provided the tribe is behaving and believing reasonably.
I tend to agree that small effects (like BTSs, as you call them) are unlikely causes but any correlation to surface features still tickles curiosity and until it can be shown to be purely coincidence, they can’t be ruled out.
By “better” explanation, I of course mean something that can be demonstrated to work as well as the drum beating method vs. a purely logical argument.

Glenn:
Leif: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying. Peer-review seems to have failed for many AGW-papers too, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe the peers also have an agenda…”
I haven’t seen any AGW papers from the AU journal, so I couldn’t comment on whether peer-review has failed or they are following an agenda. However, I see no correlation in the IPCC models and reality, other than their drawing a target around the arrow in the side of the barn and calling it prediction.
Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is you comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?
“The straw man you trot out is easy to deal with [you could have done it yourself]. Here is the argument:”
I don’t see where I provided a strawman. I simply asked you about what you were quoted as saying. A strawman is an attack on a false position of your opponent. You either said what NewScientist claimed or you didn’t. If you didn’t, it’s not my fault. Seems you have no problem with it, though. So did you answer my question about mechanism below?
“Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper]. ”
I’m not going to assume anything, especially that cycles all have the same length. And an average certainly can not be used to determine whether a cycle “comes out with a bang”. Perhaps you have a different perception of what that phrase means, though. Rate can change during an ascending cycle and still be a big or mediocre cycle. This depends on cycle length, which I’m sure you are aware. I asked you for the cause of your claim, and this ain’t it.
Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].
So are these models based on a known and understood mechanism?
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.
I didn’t see the argument. I saw a theoretical cycle of a certain length and a certain amount of spots, an unsupported claim of models, and a “it’s always happened that way in the past” correlation.
The next cycle could start out with a bang (say your 40 spots a year), you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong. Is that not possible? If not, why not? What is the mechanism?
Looking at these cycles, I don’t see where one could predict the peak (big one) based on the upslope.
http://blog.ltc.arizona.edu/azmasternaturalist/Sunspot%20cycle.JPG

Glenn:
Leif: “[sigh] Correlations don’t need to be explained as they are not necessarily causations,”
Double sigh. Science progresses by observing correlations. You’ve done it yourself: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.”

Leif Svalgaard:
Ric Werme: “I think Lucy’s http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm is a much better thing to give to environmentalists. It covers more terrain, has good links, and is written by an environmentalist.”
As long as she doesn’t pollute it with BTS [as she was considering].

DAV:
Yet science also proceeds using similar logic. Don’t want to get all meta here but I doubt there are many models that haven’t been “proven” by statistical correlation to experiment. Until a better explanation is provided the tribe is behaving and believing reasonably.
Granted that much science is done in order to explain some new phenomenon that has been observed, but some of the grandest theories were not. Einstein’s General Relativity [and even Special Relativity, as he claims that he did not know about the Michelson-Morley experiment] and Dirac’s relativistic quantum mechanics were not, but on the other hand predicted brand-new stuff, never dreamed off before.
I tend to agree that small effects (like BTSs, as you call them) are unlikely causes but any correlation to surface features still tickles curiosity and until it can be shown to be purely coincidence, they can’t be ruled out.
‘Scientific Relativism’ – that every theory is good as any other – is false. And in science, nothing can be ruled out, but to be ‘ruled in’, theories have to mesh with the existing corpus of existing theories or uniquely explain something observed that has no explanation within existing paradigms. [I don’t want to go too Meta, either; so, perhaps, enough about the philosophy…]

kum dollison:
Until I see some Proof that this is anything more than opinion, I’ll have to assume that everything, else, he said was just opinion, also.
What makes is worse is, after several years of studying this I’m 99.9% convinced that the above statement is NOT true.
Yikes, the part that I need to see the proof on is this: For example, Bio-fuels from grain will greatly increase food prices and roughly 30 million people are expected to be severely deprived.

Traciatim:
Robert Wood, I believe you have misread the Canadian Liberal ‘The Green Shift’ (not to be confused with Green Shift Inc, who is suing the Liberal Party over use of the name) plan.
The Green Shift is a plan to tax fuel use in combination with wide reaching income tax cuts that should help lessen the impact to citizens.
Their plan seems pretty sound, you increase taxes on fuel use, you send rebates to income earners and seniors, you destroy the manufacturing and energy sectors and they move all their jobs off shore, price of good increase causing the central bank to increase rates widening the unemployment fall out as people lose their businesses and homes, and when nobody can afford anything . . . voila . . . no more CO2 problem.
As you can tell, I won’t be voting Liberal thanks to ‘The Green Shift’.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Maybe it is just because English is not my mother tongue, but since you wrote: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” I interpreted that to mean peer-review in general, otherwise I would have expected: “the AU journal and its peer-review process…” On the other hand the “isn’t” is maybe a sign that could be interpreted to mean that its wasn’t intended.
I don’t see where I provided a straw man. Since the question did not start a new paragraph, I interpreted it as being a continuation of the general criticism of me within the first half of the paragraph. A straw man is an attack on a false position of your opponent.
I interpreted your question [and the use of “Well, ..” as an attempt to cast doubt on my statement of our understanding of the growth of the cycle, relegating it to the same status of the correlations that I don’t support. So did you answer my question about mechanism below? I’m not going to assume anything.”
This sounds very nice, but seems to be intended to cast doubt on somebody that does make simplifying assumptions to illustrate the point [the physicist who starts out “assume a spherical cow of uniform density” when trying to explain something to farmer Jones…]
Rate can change during an ascending cycle and it may still be a big or mediocre cycle. This depends on cycle length, which I’m sure you are aware. I asked you for the cause of your claim, and this ain’t it.
Just after the calculation of the average rate, I, of course, relaxed the assumptions and pointed out that a more sophisticated treatment is possible.
So are these models based on a known and understood mechanism? A ‘model’ in my use of the word is an encoding of our understanding of a physical process [‘known’ is too big a word] so my answer here is a qualified yes.
I didn’t see the argument. I saw a theoretical cycle of a certain length and a certain amount of spots, an unsupported claim of models, and a “it’s always happened that way in the past” correlation.
See, it is as I suspected, an attempt to show that I too just rely on past correlations.
The next cycle could start out with a bang (say your 40 spots a year), you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong. Is that not possible? If not, why not? What is the mechanism?
[sigh] almost anything is “possible” [is it possible that the lottery ticket I just bought will bring me untold riches? – certainly, but I’ll not bank on it, or rather: my creditors won’t]. The question is: “it is plausible?”.
The following paper may give you a feeling for the answer to that question: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 381, Issue 4, pp. 1527-1542, 2007 [also at http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2258]  Solar activity forecast with a dynamo model  Jie Jiang, Piyali Chatterjee and Arnab Rai Choudhuri1  ABSTRACT  Although systematic measurements of the Sun’s polar magnetic field exist only from mid-1970s, other proxies can be used to infer the polar field at earlier times. The observational data indicate a strong correlation between the polar field at a sunspot minimum and the strength of the next cycle, although the strength of the cycle is not correlated well with the polar field produced at its end. This suggests that the Babcock-Leighton mechanism of poloidal field generation from decaying sunspots involves randomness, whereas the other aspects of the dynamo process must be reasonably ordered and deterministic. Only if the magnetic diffusivity within the convection zone is assumed to be high (of order 10^12 cm2/s), can we can explain the correlation between the polar field at a minimum and the next cycle. We give several independent arguments that the diffusivity must be of this order. In a dynamo model with diffusivity like this, the poloidal field generated at the mid-latitudes is advected toward the poles by the meridional circulation and simultaneously diffuses towards the tachocline, where the toroidal field for the next cycle is produced. To model actual solar cycles with a dynamo model having such high diffusivity, we have to feed the observational data of the poloidal field at the minimum into the theoretical model. We develop a method of doing this in a systematic way. Our model predicts that cycle 24 will be a very weak cycle…
The important sentence is this one:“the Babcock-Leighton mechanism of poloidal field generation from decaying sunspots involves randomness, whereas the other aspects of the dynamo process must be reasonably ordered and deterministic”. Namely that the start of a cycle must be reasonably ordered and deterministic. This bears on your “you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong”, in the sense that the orderly and deterministic start of the cycle would make that unlikely [and that is all we can say].
Looking at these cycles, I don’t see where one could predict the peak (big one) based on the upslope.
If you look at the red curve, maybe you can see it better. The first two cycles are, perhaps, easier.
Or compare a really small cycle http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl12.html with a large cycle http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl19.html
Some of the ‘jitter’ you see that looks like ‘false starts’ that fizzle are just left-over stuff from the previous cycle. We can tell from the magnetic polarities if a ’spurt’ is really new-cycle spots or old-cycle remnants.
The main point is that we think we know why there is such a difference in slope [e.g. see the paper that I cited] and why we think that we can use the slope in predicting the next cycle. Do I have to say that this is a difficult business and that prediction is hard? On the other hand, we are not stumbling in the dark either, and there are good physical reasons for why we think as we do, and that it is not based on just coincidences and not-understood correlations.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Double sigh. Science progresses by observing correlations. You’ve done it yourself: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.”
No, you misunderstand how science works. What I cited was the observation of a prediction coming from our understanding of the process.

Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » “Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps”
[…] Interesting, but fairly long article by Professor Geoffrey G Duffy. […]

Mark Nodine:
From the original article: It is really surprising why model computer-forecasts are trusted for periods of say 30 – 50 or so years, yet weather forecasts are often very inaccurate even over a 2 or 3 week period. This is something that was one of my primary beefs about the global circulation models when I first started studying up on AGW in January.
It seemed completely unreasonable to me to expect that solving the Navier-Stokes equation from unknown boundary conditions on a fixed-size grid that’s obviously too large to deal with turbulence could produce any kind of non-garbage answer.
However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.
Mind you, I’m still not sold on the validity of the GCMs, especially given our limited knowledge of how to model water vapor, but the possibility of developing a reasonable long-term model does not seem as far-fetched as it once did.

Graeme Rodaughan:
Hi Kum, Re Bio-Fuels impact on food prices. Check out:
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-346-W.pdf
http://www.fao.org/righttofood/publi08/Right_to_Food_and_Biofuels.pdf
http://www.bioenergy-business.com/index.cfm?section=lead&action=view&id=11236
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0RVoVwPFlD8MXLYyQbxHamr9NYw
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7331921.stm
Obviously if Governments direct TAX subsidies to create an industry that inefficiently turns food into fuel – there will be those who suffer.
IMO, without tax subsidies the scale of bio-fuels would be very much reduced.

Neil Fisher:
Leif: “Since BTSs are unphysical [the energy is not there, there are no forces, the tides are 1 millimeter high, etc] one would prudently go with one of the physically plausible models if one were to entertain the solar influence idea.”
OK, thanks for replying – I wish there were more such as yourself willing to edu-macate us plebs. 😉 I shall continue to keep an eye on this, as I have for the last decade or so – it’s nothing if not interesting (to me, anyway)!

Leif Svalgaard:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
I would strongly agree with Mark. We have the same problem in Astro- and Solar physics. A good example is the evolutionary track in the Hertzprung-Russell diagram of a star. We can calculate the variations over millions, even billions of years of the size, temperature, and luminosity of stars from their mass and chemical composition. Or at the other end of the time-scale, simulate the explosion and implosion of supernovae.
For all this to work, we need to know the physics and the boundary conditions. It should, of course, be granted that an evolving star or an exploding supernova is actually a much simpler system than the Earth’s climate. But the task does not seem impossible.

Graeme Rodaughan:
OT: “Also a quote: “Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Director General Jacques Diouf agrees. He says it is incomprehensible that “$11bn-$12bn (£5.6bn-£6.1bn) a year in subsidies and protective tariff policies have the effect of diverting 100 million tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for vehicles”. link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7435439.stm.”
I wonder if James Henson will call for the “CEOs of Bio-Fuel Companies” to be tried for “crimes against Humanity” refer to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
The un-intended consequences of poorly thought out AGW based policies are coming home to roost.
Is this the Precautionary Principle at work? Act without evidence in case something bad happens.
Doctors have a principle “First do no harm” that I wish that our politicians would adopt.

Glenn:
Leif: “No, you misunderstand how science works. What I cited was the observation of a prediction coming from our understanding of the process.”
I believe I understand how science works well enough. You cited nothing, Leif. Nor was prediction in what you claimed: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.” That is not a reference to a prediction come true.
Cite some predictions, and let’s see them come true. If they don’t, according to scientific methodology, your theory is falsified, or at least on very shaky ground. The NASA guy has made two or three, and they haven’t come to pass yet. In the meantime, why haven’t you simply provided the cause for your claim of “big cycles start with a bang”?

David VK2IDM:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis  Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Having read the above summation, a maunder minimum would seem to be the best thing that could happen right now. Not because it might cool the earth but simply for the timely testing of the GISS model and the settling of many arguments.
FTR, I find the above summary a bit contradicting WRT the stated almost nil forcing of SI compared to GHG and yet they still include SI as an input to their short term climate forecast.

Pamela Gray:
Leif, would you speak to coronal holes? The k-index indicated stuff from a recurring coronal hole put a ding in Earth’s magnetosphere Wednesday night enough to open up some radio frequencies and create some northern lights. In fact, its been dinging us everytime the hole rotates into view. This time the ding was greater. It takes about 36 hours for a coronal hole event to reach us. With solar wind up, would we be getting some cosmic ray hits that would result in higher counts here on Earth? Also, where is this coronal hole? Aren’t they supposed to be near the poles during minimums? Does the stuff that comes out of them bend around to give us a direct hit? And finally, how are holes different from CME’s?

Glenn:
Leif: “On the other hand, we are not stumbling in the dark either, and there are good physical reasons for why we think as we do, and that it is not based on just coincidences and not-understood correlations.”
Fine, but that doesn’t mean that correlations alone are pseudo-scientific.
Your good physical reasons do not seem to be ironclad, either. A model or a theory explains and predicts the actions of what you call good physical reasons. There is no “I think” in science, there is either support or falsification. So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Sun, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism, as does Ian Wilson’s AU paper. He didn’t identify a mechanism for example as “planetary tides”, you did. At least the abstract reads “However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling.”
But I see nothing pseudo-scientific in “We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System”, assuming that this evidence is observable. What I would call pseudo-science is to make claims about cause or mechanism and predictions or models from that knowledge which are wrong.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Why haven’t you simply provided the cause for your claim of “big cycles start with a bang”?”
I think I did that.

J. Hansford:
Michael Hauber: “Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..” Which is a perfect example of perception as opposed to reality…. The sun is percieved to be small… But it is actually huge… Thus its effects are substantial.
Now what he is trying to parallel, is the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere versus its effect…. However, CO2 is a small portion of the atmosphere… Not an apparent smallness of effect because of distance. But a real difference…. CO2 is at small percentages and is insignificant.
The next argument he would introduce would be that cyanide is poisonous at minute quantities… Wrong again as per the explanation above… This goes to toxicity. Cyanide in reality has certain physiological properties that are real, known and has a huge actual metabolic effect… So it isn’t a small effect but instead a large effect.
CO2 has no large and measurable effect….. Otherwise the empirical evidence would support it without a doubt with overwhelming observations of effect. CO2’s effect on climate must be modeled in order for the Flawed Hypothesis of AGW to continue its shambling existence…. Cyanide needs no modeling to prove its toxicity. You gasp, turn blue and fall down.
Just thought I’d reiterate, the actual from the apparent, the real from the fantasy.

Leif Svalgaard:
Pamela Gray: “It takes about 36 hours for a coronal hole event to reach us. With solar wind up, would we be getting some cosmic ray hits that would result in higher counts here on Earth?” – Because the solar wind speed is higher in the hole than next to it, as the sun rotates, wind of different speeds are emitted in the same direction, where the fast wind then runs into the slow wind and compresses the material [and tangles up its magnetic field]. It are those compression regions that turn away cosmic rays, so a strong recurrent hole will result in a [small, a few percent] recurrent variation of the cosmic ray flux. You see that here: http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/COSRAY/days.htm
“Also, where is this coronal hole? Aren’t they supposed to be near the poles during minimums? Does the stuff that comes out of them bend around to give us a direct hit?” – Here you can see both the polar coronal hole [the North pole is tipped towards up, so we see that one better]: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_195/512/
“The high-speed stream does not come out the polar hole [although there is some ‘bending down’].” – It comes from the dark area near the equator [a little bit south] and a bit to the right of the center.
“And finally, how are holes different from CME’s?” – Yes, very much so. A CME is kind of the opposite of a coronal hole. coronal holes are areas in the corona where the density is very low [hence their darkness] basically because the stuff that was in the middle of the coronal holes has left the Sun.
A CME cmoes from a region of high-density coronal matter tied up and trapped in a sort of magnetic ‘hang-mat’. If the magnetic field that holds up the matter becomes perturbed it may ’snap’ and expel the matter. This can be directly seen: the trapped stuff [called a ‘filament’] begins to vibrate and shake for minutes or even hours before ‘blowing’. The stuff is connected magnetically to the sun and as a long ‘tongue’ intrudes into the ambient solar wind and further compresses it. The end effect of this hitting the Earth is almost the same as that from a normal solar wind compression region I talked about first: magnetic storms, aurorae, cosmic rays variations, energetic particles, etc.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “but that doesn’t mean that correlations alone are pseudo-scientific.” – Yes if the correlations have an unphysical component. The sun feels no forces in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System [except for the insignificant tidal forces] and can thus not be coupled to anything, so correlating with what it cannot be coupled with is pseudo-science.
“Your good physical reasons do not seem to be ironclad, either.” – ‘Seem” ? I would like you to give a detailed critique of Jiang et al.’s paper before making such a statement. And, again, there is nothing ‘ironclad’ in science.
“There is no “I think” in science, there is either support or falsification.” – Complete bunk! I have been a scientist for 40 years and know hundreds of scientists personally. Science is a lot less objective than you think [no pun]. Each scientist forms his/hers own view of the evidence and forms a personal opinion which governs what he/she believes or thinks [or whatever equivalent word you want to use – cogitate, perhaps] about the subject. Things are not black and white. Even after, what some would consider falsification, others still cling to their beliefs.
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the climate, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism.
“We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System” – to my knowledge, no such evidence exists. I have been studying solar rotation for decades and no such variations have been observed. I also recognize that no arguments of any kind can rock the faith of a true believer [in scientific relativism], but it is my nature to try anyway.

kum dollison:
Graham, let’s fact check him. 100 million tonnes would be 3 Billion, 928 Million bushels. That’s bushels of cattle feed. People, poor or otherwise, don’t eat Field Corn. Cattle eat field corn. They are, in turn, eaten by rich Americans, Europeans, and Asians. In fact, we don’t really export corn to Africa. We didn’t when corn was $.04/lb; and, we don’t now that corn is $0.10/lb. That’s the main reasons I can’t see poor Africans harmed.
If, however, we wanted to we could always plant the 34 million acres that we’re currently paying farmers not to plant. Anyhow, when we reach our goal of fifteen billion gallons of ethanol from corn we will be using about 5 billion bushels (out of a crop of about 13 billion bushels. However, we will get back the feeding ability of about 2 Billion bushels in the form of distillers grains, a cattle feed that is superior to corn.
So, here’s the deal. We’ll use about 23% of a crop that we don’t export to Africa, anyway; and, we’ll retain the ability to produce much more than that if the market desires, just by planting the land that we’re currently paying farmers NOT to plant. I could say a lot more, but it’s getting late and I’ll spare you, other than to say I have a hard time trusting someone’s opinion on a subject I know little about when they pontificate authoritatively (and incorrectly) on something I do know a little about.

Leif Svalgaard:
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Sun, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism.
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Climate, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism was what was intended. That one cannot do something perfectly does not in itself validate any old other idea. If I postulate that CO2 ’seems’ to be the course of all evils, you would not come down hard on me if I admitted to not knowing the underlying mechanism unless you were able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of Climate, right? That is at least how I read your statement.

Glenn: “Cite some predictions, and let’s see them come true. If they don’t, according to scientific methodology, your theory is falsified, or at least on very shaky ground. The NASA guy has made two or three, and they haven’t come to pass yet.”
Here is a citation of my prediction:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L01104, doi:10.1029/2004GL021664, 2005. Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years? Abstract: Predicting the peak amplitude of the sunspot cycle is a key goal of solar-terrestrial physics. The precursor method currently favored for such predictions is based on the dynamo model in which large-scale polar fields on the decline of the 11-year solar cycle are converted to toroidal (sunspot) fields during the subsequent cycle. The strength of the polar fields during the decay of one cycle is assumed to be an indicator of peak sunspot activity for the following cycle. Polar fields reach their peak amplitude several years after sunspot maximum; the time of peak strength is signaled by the onset of a strong annual modulation of polar fields due to the 7.25 degree
tilt of the solar equator to the ecliptic plane. Using direct polar field measurements, now available for four solar cycles, we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (
2011 maximum – we are probably off by a year here) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years.
So far, that prediction looks pretty good, in contrast to that of the NASA ‘guys’ you mentioned. We shall see shortly, if I know what I’m talking about.

Richard Patton:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
I think this depends on whether climate is chaotic just like weather. Mandelbrot seems to have shown this: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=396
I think the fact that many aspects of climate tend to display LTP / scale-free behavior is also indicative of it being fundamentally chaotic and thus not predictable.

Leif Svalgaard:
You can read the prediction paper at: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

Julian:
Leif, I know you are at odds with Tilmari at http://solarcycle24.com/ global warming exchanges, but is it quite out of the question that magnetic/electrical influences from the giant planets rather than gravitational are the cause of coincidences with Jovian cycles and climate variations/cycles that he records over millenniums?

Tim Lindt:
Leif Svalgaard: “Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper]. Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].”
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it. Well if we have but 10 years to a cycle and 5 are turned “on” – assuming 100 to 200 spots…  this is a bang… if we have 5 spots for the 5 years “on” this is a whimper… you don’t have to graft it or be a PHD to get that.
Hey the sun is a burning device built to power up this earth and works like one that goes into low off times by flickering out like a candle at the end of the wick/wax, then starts back up like a cold engine detuned.
It’s there in the sun spot numbers from 1749 till now. I couldn’t believe my eyes as I looked at the minima (Dalton). One predictor that is not talked about here is the holy bible. It says ”They will flee the cold north”. Well maybe it is here and now, that this will come to pass. Jetzt und hier!!!!!
Leif keep up the good work and keep an open mind too. passing the word … warn thy people!

Mike Borgelt:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
The kicker is “may”. I’d like some mathematical proof that even though the GCMs produce things that look like real weather patterns, that the averages of these are in fact representative of future climate and will correspond with the real climate.
At first glance this seems reasonable but is it really? I suspect this should be amenable to a mathematical proof but I’ve not seen any discussion on this. Is this assumption just lightly made because it sounds so reasonable?
This also raises the possibility that it may be possible to model the macroscopic trends without going in to the microscopic details(GCMs) which perhaps may be more fruitful, along the lines of the thermodynamics example.
One other point: AFAIK the GCMs do model hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. I once heard Manabe give a seminar on GCMs in 1971during my meteorology course and he said his model was giving trouble in that it generated too many hurricanes and not enough typhoons. When asked about this (we all were puzzled by this as they are the same weather phenomena) he clarified by saying that they were occurring at the wrong frequencies in different places.

Dr. M.A. Rose:
Anthony, an excellent paper/presentation on the whole concept of greenhouse gas effects, strong on logic, common sense. Why not send it to the major media outlets and see if any of them pick it up. Test how much control the climate warming lobby exerts.

RobJM:
Can someone tell me why a small force (like CO2) can have a large effect in climate science, while the rest of the universe has to obey the laws of thermodynamic, ie 1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, aka every action has an equal and opposite reaction. therefor a small force like CO2 cannot create a large effect.
2nd law: entropy must always increase, ie law of diminishing returns. for instance climate scientists think that the system is dominated by positive feedbacks. This is the same as saying I made a perpetual motion device, it cannot exist.
Le Chatelier’s principle: a system at equilibrium will resist any forcing, aka any system at equilibrium must produce negative feedback.
Positive feedback can only occur when something snaps back to equilibrium after the system resisted a force. for instance the energy that produces a nuclear explosion (the classic positive feedback) was stored as a form of negative feedback during a supernova.

Ranting Stan:
I’m always a little reticent to post on here as I am not a scientist and a little slow on the uptake generally, but one of the things I often see quoted is that correlation does not imply causation. Can anyone tell me if it works the other way around – i.e. does non-correlation prove non-causation?
I’m sure the answer will be “not necessarily” but I thought I’d ask anyway.
Also, given that man’s contribution to CO2 levels is relatively small compared to the natural and has varied considerably over time – from none at all to around 3% now (possibly more during the period 1940-1970?) could someone explain why it is that whenever I see a plot of temperature against CO2 it is always the temperature anomaly against total CO2? Should it not be temperature anomaly against CO2 anomaly? Would it not make sense to strip out the naturally occuring element before we plot temperature rise against CO2 rise? I’d be interested to see how such a graph pans out given that man’s CO2 emissions rose fastest during a period when temperature fell (1940-1970), but temperature appears to rise fastest at a time when the increase in mans emissions slowed.
Or maybe we should strip out mans contribution to CO2 and see how temperature increase pans out against naturally occuring CO2 levels?

Simon Turnbull:
I never could believe that a mouse’s f*rt in the middle of a ten acre field would ruin the crop. (A first class article in an excellent website!)

Steve:
That bloke who reckons he’s going to kayak to the North Pole (hee, hee). His blog is removing ALL comments that are not supportive. Steven Goddard, yours has gone, and so have all three of mine. Just posted one now asking this question – invite others to do the same.
http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/

Leif Svalgaard:
Julian: “but is it quite out of the question that magnetic/electrical influences from the giant planets rather than gravitational are the cause of coincidences with Jovian cycles and climate variations/cycles that he records over millenniums?”
In a conducting plasma magnetic/electrical changes propagate with the Alfven speed, somewhat analogous to the sound speed in air. The solar wind is ’supersonic’ in the sense that it moves away from the sun 11 times faster than the Alfven speed, i.e. 11 times faster than magnetic/electrical changes can propagate towards to sun. It is like swimming upstream at 1 mph in a river flowing downstream at 11 mph: you’ll never get upstream.

Tim Lindt:
If we have but 10 years to a cycle and 5 are turned “on”, assuming 100 to 200 spots… this is a bang… if we have 5 spots for the 5 years “on” this is a whimper… you don’t have to graph it or be a PHD to get that.
Apparently Glenn doesn’t get it, as he claims I have not made my case and explained this so he can understand it. One predictor that is not talked about here is the holy bible. Matthew 7:7 says it well.

TonyB:
Maybe the BBC is softening its attitude too! http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml

Stephen Wilde:
The basic mechanism described by Mr Duffy was previously set out in my article: http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041 which has appeared worldwide and has had over 10,000 readings on the Co2sceptics site alone. Various sentences are virtually identical save for a few cosmetic changes and his title: “Climate Change – The Real Causes” appears to be just a rewording of my title: “Global Warming and Cooling – The Reality”.
Whilst I am happy that anyone might wish to use my material I do think there should be proper attribution.

jmrSudbury:
I just heard on the radio news that they are now trying to say that smog contributes to global warming and has been largely overlooked as a forcing.
Oi! — John M Reynolds

Dee Norris:
What kum dollison is not saying is that as the price for corn goes up, farmers are switching crops to the more profitable corn feed stocks for the biofuels. Then the supply of these other grains and cereals goes down, so the price goes up.
Furthermore I disagree with his calculation as he does not account for the fuel needed to harvest the feed stock for biofuel, further increasing the total amount of feed stock needed be grown to break even nor is he allowing for crop rotation and other good farming practices.
I did an analysis of several of the alternative fuels as part of a local effort to stop the construction of industrial wind-turbines here in the Catskills and will try to dig up the article I wrote for the local paper. Note: I apologize if I got your gender incorrect.

MarkW:
I guess it’s just me, but this article just sounds like a regurgitation of everything us AGW skeptics have been saying – he’s not adding anything new, not even a new perspective (at least from my super skimming of it).
The important thing is that he’s saying it. Nobody pays attention to us. Him, they might. Just because correlation does not prove causation is not evidence that correlation is never indicative of something deeper.

Ric Werme:
Neil Fisher: “Hi Leif, you said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun.”
I wouldn’t doubt you on anything solar related, but this seems disingeneous to me in face of SIM correlations and (correct) predictions WRT sunspot numbers, ENSO events etc. I watched these unfold and they are spookily accurate to date. I guess that it could be a coincidence, but it sure seems to me that such analyses have predictive power. We shall no doubt have to wait and see, but I am curious to know what it would take for you (and others) to accept that there may be something to this after all. To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?”
My problem with BTSs include:
1) We’ve beaten this to death once before. It’s a mass of fetid flesh.
2) Objects orbit others based on gravitational attraction (and various relativistic complications). That’s dependent on mass and distance.
3) Well layered spherical masses can be modeled as points.
4) Objects distorted by tides cannot be modeled as points. This is used to good effect in near polar Earth orbits.
5) Barycenters do not have mass.
6) I’m rather fond of the statistical links between sunspot cycles and Jupiter, even though articles like http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html have to abuse the data to come up with the links.
Barycenters are just a mathematical convenience and are probably quite useful if you are dealing with point-like objects and keep in mind that a barycenter is not a physical object. They are not necessary for any orbital calculations and I’m sure they fall apart when used with anything that looks like a tide.
Still, if barycentric hypotheses can be used successfully for predictions, they’re useful. Instead of arguing here with WordPress’s abysmal search technology, your time would be better spent coming up with a prediction for the next 20-100 years and putting it on a web page for all to see. I’d be glad to add it to http://wermenh.com/climate/ . While orbital dynamics are chaotic in all but a few trivial systems, the Solar System can be predicted with great accuracy for the several thousands or millions of years, so 20-100 is easy. Then we could get back to sitting back and enjoying watching the show.

Stephen Wilde:
Some evidence to support my earlier posts, then I’ll give it a rest:
Global Warming and Cooling- The Reality (Wilde)
Climate Change-The Real Causes (Duffy)
The presence of the sun must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than the greenhouse characteristics of CO2 on its own. (Wilde)
The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect, as a whole, may smooth out rises and falls in temperature from other causes. (Wilde)
The ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere. (Wilde)
The strongest sunlight reaching the Earth is around the Equator that is primarily oceanic. The equatorial sun puts heat into the system year in year out whereas loss of heat is primarily via the poles with each alternating as the main heat loser depending on time of year. (Wilde)
The sun’s energy at the equator is consistent all year round, and in this region the larger proportion of surface area happens to be the ocean water. The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat. (Duffy)
I believe that ENSO switches from warming to cooling mode depending on whether the sun is having a net warming or net cooling effect on the Earth. Thus the sun directly drives the ENSO cycle and the ENSO cycle directly drives global temperature changes. Indeed, the effect appears to be much more rapid than anyone has previously believed. (Wilde)
The sun directly drives the El Nino–El Nina current motions that drive temperature changes world-wide. (Duffy)
The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun. This occurs quite rapidly. (Duffy)
there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans such as the Atlantic and the Arctic (Wilde)
Also there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans (Atlantic and the Arctic oceans). (Duffy)
When we compare that with land masses, a lower proportion of heat is reflected from watery zones to participate in the greenhouse effect. (Duffy)
more of the incoming heat is absorbed by water as compared to land and a lower proportion is reflected to participate in the greenhouse effect. (Wilde)
The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years). The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun. (Duffy)
The heat from the sun varies over a number of interlinked and overlapping cycles but the main one is the cycle of 11 years or so. That solar cycle can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years and appears to be linked to the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system combining to affect the sun’s magnetic field which seems then to influence the amount of heat generated and incidentally affects the number of sunspots. (Wilde)

Erl Happ:
Professor Duffy has logically and methodically covered the big picture. The notion that CO2 content of the atmosphere might be responsible for the pattern of temperature decrease and then equally strong increase that has been seen at high latitudes in both hemispheres, in winter, since 1948, does not add up. There has been little change in temperature at mid latitudes and a slight increase in the tropics in summer. He points to the importance of warming and cooling events and the tropical ocean in these words:
Let us recognize common sense when we see it. Lets look at the data for the different latitudes and hemispheres and be a little analytical. ‘Global temperature’ is a big distraction. Polewards of 40° latitude radiation exceeds insolation. Between 40°N and 40°S energy gain from the sun exceeds that radiated. Energy is picked up by the tropical ocean and moved to high latitudes. If there is a gain in th energy absorbed in the tropical ocean it shows up as an increase in temperature at high latitudes.
Here is the model that explains the variation. Imagine yourself standing out in a blizzard with an electric blanket wrapped around your middle and you will get the general idea. What we have to do is to explain the fluctuation in energy supply to the part of the body inside the blanket. A moments reflection will reveal that the answer must have something to do with changing cloud cover, i.e. albedo.
The link between the sun and changing albedo in the tropics must be explained if we are to rid ourselves of this monkey on the back. Outgoing long wave radiation varies directly with the Southern Oscillation index. El Nino events involve a fall in OLR as the tropical oceans absorb energy while La Nina events involve a loss of stored energy and a fall in sea surface temperature. These warming and cooling events are experienced right across the tropics. The Pacific happens to be the most dramatic manifestation because it is a very large ocean and the effect of the near conjunction of Tierra Del Fuego and the Antarctic Peninsula.
Let’s focus on the big picture and not get distracted in argument about peripheral details, The barycentre notion is one of these.
La Nina’s commonly occur at sunspot maximum. This overwhelms any effect from changing irradiance. Irradiance changes very little over long periods of time. the two aspects of solar activity that change strongly over time are ultraviolet radiation and the solar wind.
The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.

Here’s the Duffy quote that did not appear on cue: “The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun.The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat. As a result there are severe cyclical variations in temperature with the seas and ice caps having the dominant effects in energy changes and hence temperature effects.”

kum dollison:
Dee, any corn farmer will tell you that total fuel used for planting, cultivation, harvesting, etc. is less than 8 gal/acre. In as much as, an acre, after accounting for distillers grains, yields about 700 gallons of ethanol the ” energy needed to grow” argument loses a lot of steam.
And, again, we only row-crop 250 million acres (out of 1.2 billion arable acres. – We used to rowcrop 400 million acres in the U.S.) That means we have 150 million acres formerly row-cropped land lying fallow, or used for light grazing.
Dee, 70% of the most poverty-stricken in the world are subsistence farmers. These are the people that have suffered the most from the subsidized crops grown in the U.S. and Europe. Five Dollar Corn, if their governments will allow them to sell it, and export it, might cure more malnourishment in the 3rd world than all the “poverty programs, combined.
Bottom line: Field Corn has gone up a nickel/lb. and there is, according to a recent stufy from Stanford University, between 1.0, and 1.2 Billion Acres of Abandoned Farmland in the World.
Dee, there are Tremendous amounts of money involved in outcome of this. It is really not all that hard to get articles published, even in the “prestigious” journals if the money is right. One needs to be Very careful in choosing the “heroes” in this particular case.

Leif Svalgaard:
At http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2833 Schüssler explains why the correlation between growth rate and solar cycle size works: A robust correlation between growth rate and amplitude of solar cycles: consequences for prediction methods  Authors: Schüssler, R. Cameron M.  Publication Date: 06/2008, ApJ accepted Abstract
We consider the statistical relationship between the growth rate of activity in the early phase of a solar cycle with its subsequent amplitude on the basis of four datasets of global activity indices (Wolf sunspot number, group sunspot number, sunspot area, and 10.7-cm radio flux). In all cases, a significant correlation is found: stronger cycles tend to rise faster. Owing to the overlapping of sunspot cycles, this correlation leads to an amplitude-dependent shift of the solar minimum epoch. We show that this effect explains the correlations underlying various so-called precursor methods for the prediction of solar cycle amplitudes and also affects the prediction tool of Dikpati et al. (2006) based upon a dynamo model. Inferences as to the nature of the solar dynamo mechanism resulting from predictive schemes which (directly or indirectly) use the timing of solar minima should therefore be treated with caution.

Dee Norris:
@Kum – I didn’t disagree with your conclusions regarding Africa. I don’t disagree with your statements on abandoned farm land.
The fuel usage per acre which you quote is for pure petro-diesel, not bio-diesel blend. Forget trying to harvest corn using ethanol. I hear the farmers at the local Mom’s Diner grumble about fuel per acre all the time and I buy a great deal of hay for my own horse.
Crop derived bio-fuels would not be cost competitive without the massive government subsidies. There may be better solutions in the pipe, but it always comes down to energy out < energy in. In a cooling world, the energy needed to grow the feeder stocks will get higher (or more likely the return will get lower and lower).
The technology exists to feed the world, provide clean water, what is missing is the funding. Another reason NOT to support AGW is the money spent on trying to prevent it is basically thrown away when it can be used to for better, nobler purposes.

Hessischer:
Ranting Stan: “Non-correlation does not prove non-causation.”
You are unlikely to observe linear correlation between weight and radius of ballbearings but you’ll see it if you test with radius cubed. But radius and weight are certainly related. More subtle relationships will be less easily revealed.
If naturally occurring CO2 can be assumed constant its presence or absence will not affect an estimate of correlation. The appearances of plots are just that, presentational matters.

Gary Gulrud:
“The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.” Money quote.

Leif Svalgaard:
Gary Gulrud: “The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.” Money quote.
Except that two factors play a role:
1) the reaction [if any] is at or below the noise-level and is therefore not of practical significance
2) the Sun varies less than thought only a few years ago
So, the answer lies not in knowing more about the sun or of how little the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output, but in understanding the internal oscillations of the system and the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, lithosphere, and biosphere [including man]. Using ’solar influence’ as a dumping ground for what we can’t ascribe yet to something else [as has been done ever since Giovanni Battista Riccioli first did this is 1651] has not proven very fruitful.

Here is some information about the ‘global cooling crisis’ in the mid 1600s: http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/currentunder/honours/history/general/9resources/parker_2.pdf
and the search for causes: In search of causes: Opinions of Hermann of Hesse (stars), Increase Mather (comets), Raymundo Magisa (volcanoes), Giovanni Battista Riccioli (sunspots)  Observations of Christopher Scheiner (1626) and Johannes Hevelius (1642-4) and the ‘Sunspot Minimum’ (1643-1715). The fatal cycle: volcanoes plus sunspot minimum -> solar cooling -> more ‘El Niño’ events (1640, 1641, 1647, 1650) -> more volcanic eruptions.
We have not progressed a lot in the intervening 350 years…

Gary Gulrud:
“Five Dollar Corn, if their governments will allow them to sell it, and export it, might cure more malnourishment in the 3rd world than all the “poverty programs, combined.” Last year’s $5 dollar corn is a significant cost for a family living on $1 per day. They have to have something to sell in return at comparative advantage. This year corn planted was down 6% because more acreage went into wheat and soy (acreage available for more rice is limited) as their prices have skyrocketed with worldwide shortages (rice as well). These, along with rice are superior foodstuffs in terms of calories, nutrients and variety of preparations. This year corn is already over $7 and should soon turn higher as cool weather lowers yields on the remaining fields not destroyed by flooding.
Meanwhile, here in the cornbelt, gas extended with ethanol remains 10% more expensive per mile than petrol at the pump. Just this year two ethanol plants preparing to go online suspended operation in ND. They would have lost money and their investors saw no end to that prospect. Ethanol is crashing due to market forces and government can only exacerbate the trend.

Bob Tisdale:
Ranting Stan: “I always enjoyed looking at the long-term graph of the monthly change in CO2. It clearly resembles the NINO3.4 anomaly curve (and most other variables impacted by ENSO) in its rises and falls.”
There are lots of studies that discuss the link between ENSO and CO2. Just so happens I’m finishing up a post on it. I’ll throw up a link when I’m done. Might not be till this evening.

kum dollison:
Dee, the difference between petro-diesel, and bio-diesel is somewhere between 0%, and 10% fuel efficiency, depending on the engine, and circumstances. In other words, as regards EROEI of biofuels, it’s insignificant. And, yes, ethanol-powered farm equipment would work just fine. An ethanol-optimized tractor will give comparable (if not better) performance to a diesel tractor.
As for profitability, even at today’s corn prices the ethanol refineries are making a profit selling ethanol at $2.20/gal. The price of Wholesale Unleaded, today, is $2.70. BTW, it looks like Bluefire, and the other “Municipal Waste to Ethanol” technologies will come in at less than $1.50/gal.
Also, you might ask yourself this question. “What would the price of gasoline be if we weren’t using over 600,000 Barrels/Day of Ethanol. At least one major Wall Street Firm thinks you would be looking at an Extra $.50/gal. What would that add to the cost of a box of cornflakes?

Bill Marsh:
Leif, I agree with your comments about the planetary gravitic effects. Don’t those gravitic tides affect earths orbit though, adding some more eccentricity to the orbit and thus affecting solar irradiance?

Stephen Wilde:
Professor Duffy has expressed regret at his inadvertent failure to attribute so I’ve agreed that his article is unobjectionable on the basis that he acknowledges my input.

kum dollison:
Gary, I’m not going to use up any more of Anthony’s bandwidth arguing biofuels. I did want to point out that the part of the author’s article that dealt with something I was familiar with was very suspect.
As for your comment; you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Corn, today, is about $5.25 bu at the elevator: http://ncga.ncgapremium.com/index.aspx?mid=28566
As for “mileage,” it’s very complex. Most cars will get Better mileage on a twenty, or thirty percent blend of Ethanol than on a ten percent blend. Having said that, the “average” car will give up about 1.5% mileage on e10 vs gasoline, but straight gasoline will cost about 3% more. Ethano isn’t “crashing.” We’re using more every day, despite the fact that Big Oil, and the Meat Industry is trying hard to kill it every day.

Mark Nodine:
Ranting Stan: “could someone explain why it is that whenever I see a plot of temperature against CO2 it is always the temperature anomaly against total CO2? Should it not be temperature anomaly against CO2 anomaly?”
An anomaly is simply the value of a series after subtracting out a constant representing some reference period. From a graphical standpoint, it results in shifting the graph up and down, or alternatively, in changing the labels on the y-axis while leaving the shape of the curve the same. So graphing an anomaly against a total is pretty much the same thing from the standpoint of eyeballing the data as using two anomalies or two totals.
In practice, people use the temperature anomaly because it’s readily available and gives some sense of how unusual the current temperatures. The four different temperature series use different reference periods, so their anomalies have different magnitudes even if the actual temperatures are identical.

Mike Bryant:
Bob Tisdale, just wondering if the satellite temperature data could be graphed showing the earth in three separate regions, north, south and central? I have a feeling that such a graph might show something unexpected. Thanks, Mike Bryant

Leif Svalgaard:
Bill Marsh: “I agree with your comments about the planetary gravitic effects. Don’t those gravitic tides affect earths orbit though, adding some more eccentricity to the orbit and thus affecting solar irradiance?”
No, they do not, as it is the barycenter that moves around. Here is a plot [from Alexander’s paper] showing what the distance [and also the TSI] between the sun and the Earth should be according to BTS: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png and here is what is actually observed [in terms of TSI: the black curve]: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png with the data points from the previous figure added in [the red dots]. As you can see, the observed TSI does not match the BTS prediction. BTW, you might be able to discern some VERY small wiggles in the black curve [e.g. one near the top in 1993]. Those are the variations caused by solar activity. Note how utterly insignificant [like 50-100 times smaller] they are compared to the regular march of the sine-wave due to the smoothly varying sun-earth distance.

Jack Linard:
I for one have had enough of the the smug, arrogant, condescending and boorish Lief Svalgaard. Lief is always right. Nobody may question his right to be right. Lief knows the sun and the sun knows Lief. Lief adds nothing to any discussion, except to ensure that Lief’s right to be right is respected. Proof, justification, implications, explanations, etc, are nowhere to be found. As an engineer, I find it difficult to tolerate this degree of sanctimonious science.

claire:
Can’t we just admit that, as humans, we don’t really know everything about our impact on the environment? Maybe we can just play it safe and drive a little less, in case all the paid-off scientists are wrong (cough.. cough… bogus science reports saying that cigarettes are “healthy” half a century ago)

jmrSudbury:
NOAA released their Sept sunspot graph. They truncated the left side of the red curves slightly, but those prediction high and low lines are unchanged otherwise that I can see. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif – John M Reynolds

Gary Gulrud:
Leif, please, how does the author’s point morph into your own? Because he didn’t provide the itemized list? “So, the answer lies not in knowing more about the sun or of how little the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output, but in understanding the internal oscillations of the system and the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, lithosphere, and biosphere [including man].” BTW, I am on a Palin binge and can’t get back.

Leif Svalgaard:
jmrSudbury: “NOAA released their Sept sunspot graph. They truncated the left side of the red curves slightly, but those prediction high and low lines are unchanged otherwise that I can see.”
They, of course, need to move the red curves to the right, but since it is an official product, they cannot do that without excessive bureaucratic hassle. so expect the curves to be more and more silly in the future until the Panel makes another prediction [if ever].

Gary Gulrud: “Please, how does the author’s point morph into your own? Because he didn’t provide the itemized list?”
I don’t know what you mean and why it matters. I used his phraseology and added what I consider important. Namely that the Sun is not a player, no matter how badly we want him to be [for many disparate reasons].

Bruce Cobb:
Namely that the Sun is not a player, no matter how badly we want him to be [for many disparate reasons].There you go again, Leif, with your anti-sun ideology. Sorry, not buying it. You sure talk a good game, though.

Jack Simmons:
Here are some correlations I’ve noticed: In the fall, bears go into hibernation. Winter follows. When bears come out of hibernation, winter ends. Therefore, bears hibernating causes winter. First cell phones went into use in 1977. Each cell phone generates heat. Cell phone usage has gone up with global temperatures. Therefore, cell phone usage is the cause of global warming. Isn’t science wonderful? With such a small investment in facts, one can reap a rich reward. And on small things having a big impact: I don’t have to worry about that little train down the track. It is really, really tiny so I can just take my time moving my car off the track…

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Cobb: “There you go again, Leif, with your anti-sun ideology. Sorry, not buying it. You sure talk a good game, though.”
It is not fair to call it ideology. It is the result of 40+ years of study of this and of familiarity with hundreds of scientific papers purporting this or that [or no] claim. Now, tell me why you don’t buy it.

Leif Svalgaard:
Jack Simmons: “I don’t have to worry about that little train down the track. It is really, really tiny so I can just take my time moving my car off the track…”
Naaw, just stay put and let the train pass under your car…

Tamara:
Kum, just one little thought about those poor subsistence farmers in Africa who would benefit from $5/bu corn: what do you think subsistence farming means?
These are not people with the infrastructure, technology, water resources or capability of producing exportable crops. As it is, their farming/land-clearing methods are resulting in desertification of the environment. If $5/bu corn would save them, they’d already be selling it to us (though I’m sure their governments would reap the rewards, rather than the actual farmers).
It isn’t global warming or fat Westerners that are causing the poverty that afflicts these people, it is a complex mix of regional conflicts, corrupt governments, and the chaos left over from Imperialism.
If the Africans want to sell me some nice thick, juicy wildebeest steaks, I’ll be happy to lift them out of poverty.

mcauleysworld:
What a wonderful site! There is intelligent life out there after all. Thank you.

kum dollison:
Tamara, I will agree that those African farmers have many problems, starting with terrible governance in many cases. I was just trying to make the point that whether we feed corn to cattle and sell the beef to rich Koreans, or whether we extract some of the starch for ethanol before we feed the protein to the cattle, and then sell the beef is not one of them.

Jack Linard:
Oh dear. I had the bad taste to question the beLiefs of those who believe that the sun has no influence on climate. Sorry, Anthony – I was a fan. I’m an AGW skeptic (with qualifications to justify my position).

Tamara:
True, that isn’t the problem. And, it may be that $5/bu corn isn’t really a problem, at least not in the U.S. Corn already has industrial uses other than ethanol, so it’s really just a matter of expanding corn’s utility. But, people (a.k.a. the marketplace) should have the ability to choose, to some extent, how they spend their hard earned money. My choice is to be able to purchase meat and chicken to put on my family’s table. If the two choices are: 1) Eat meat, or 2) the salvation of the planet, I will take the salvation of the planet. Most rational people would. The ethanol debate isn’t about just finding another use for corn. It is about government (and world government) mandated and subsidized use of food stuffs to produce biofuels in a misguided bid to save us from ourselves. I am paying my government to increase the price of the meat on my table in order to save me from a trace gas that may or may not be warming the planet by a degree or so (which is consistent with the post-ice age warming rate). Frankly, that chaps my hide.
Also, you have mentioned that the people in developing countries are not affected by our use of corn for ethanol, because we don’t export corn to them. But what about the foodstuffs that they are using in their own countries to produce biofuels (soybeans, beets, sugarcane, etc.)? Do you also argue that this does not affect food prices in developing countries (serious question. If there is a reason, I’d like to know it.)? Was it just ignorance that has led to rioting? Is it a concern that there are regimes who would deem it much more satisfying to sell ethanol to Western nations rather than feed their own people?

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, I share your view that gravitational influences would have no direct effect on the Earth’s climate systems. However I have seen it suggested that the combined gravitational effects of the planets in the solar system will move the barycentre of the solar system around and that the position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles. Would you go along with that ?

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “the position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles. Would you go along with that?”
No, I would not, for reasons that I have stated here several times [the main one being that the sun is following a geodesic in a curved space and feeling no forces]. IMHO, hitching your writings [and Duffy’s by extension] to BTS effects diminishes the paper.

Stephen Wilde:
“Outgoing long wave radiation varies directly with the Southern Oscillation index. El Nino events involve a fall in OLR as the tropical oceans absorb energy while La Nina events involve a loss of stored energy and a fall in sea surface temperature”
Erl, I was puzzled by the above and wonder whether it is the right way round. El Nino releases energy stored in the ocean to the atmosphere so there should be a rise in OLR and a decrease in stored energy (unless the sun is in an active phase and still adding energy faster than it is being released). Vice versa for La Nina which holds energy back from the atmosphere with a fall in OLR and an increase in stored energy (unless the sun is in a quiet phase and unable to add energy faster than it is still being released.
It is quite correct that it is a matter of overall system balance as Leif has said rather than any necessary substantial solar variation but in a highly sensitive ocean regulated system very small solar changes could indeed have a significant effect over enough time. Each phase of the PDO is 30 years so 60 years or nearly six solar cycles for a full PDO cycle which could throw up sizeable variability from small slow solar changes.
Remember too that there are a lot of square metres on Earth’s surface so even a change in irradiance of one unit or less per square metre will multiply up to a sizeable amount of energy.

“The position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles.”

Would you go along with that ?

Leif Svalgaard:
No, I would not, for reasons that I have stated here several times [the main one being that the sun is following a geodesic in a curved space and feeling no forces]. IMHO, hitching your writings [and Duffy’s by extension] to BTS effects diminishes the paper.”
My wording differs from Duffy’s to the extent that my article does not rely on any particular cause for the solar cycles. All my article requires is that there are solar cycles and historically there have been observed real world correlations over several centuries.
My curiosity on the point arises from this item which seems able to make reasonable predictions on the basis of planetary influences on solar behaviour. I dont pretend to know the definitive position myself. http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro

RobJM:
If two patterns are in harmony then there is a very high likelihood of a physical connection, since without a connection the two waves will move out of phase. So if A and B are in harmony then either A causes B or B cause A or C cause A & B. If a pattern on the sun is in harmony with a pattern on the earth then there must be a physical connection.
By the way, is there any comments on why a small CO2 forcing can have a large effect in clear violation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics? Or why a system driven by positive feedbacks (as climate is often described) is actually a description of a perpetual motion device, clearly impossible. Cheers

Bob Tisdale:
Mike Bryant, sorry, but I don’t have time today to create graphs that I won’t be using at my blog. But here’s a link to the RSS MSU data broken down by latitude: http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_1.txt
And here’s a link to the UAH MSU data that’s also broken down by latitude: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
I’m surprised you haven’t been able to find the comparison graphs by doing a google image search. They should be out there. I know I’ve seen them.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “My curiosity on the point arises from this item which seems able to make reasonable predictions on the basis of planetary influences on solar behaviour. I dont pretend to know the definitive position myself. http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro”
I do not see a table with “post-dictions’ of past cycles and their errors or skill score [maybe I just missed it in the mass of numbers] and the only real prediction I can find is for cycle 24 to be 30-60 with maximum in 2014. As I have said before, there are other theories [e.g Cliverd et al. based on different ‘cyclomania’:
Predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond  Authors: Clilverd, Mark A.; Clarke, Ellen; Ulich, Thomas; Rishbeth, Henry; Jarvis, Martin J.  (British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK); Publication: Space Weather, Volume 4, Issue 9, CiteID S09005  Publication Date: 09/2006  Origin: DOI: 10.1029/2005SW000207 Abstract
We use a model for sunspot number using low-frequency solar oscillations, with periods 22, 53, 88, 106, 213, and 420 years modulating the 11-year Schwabe cycle, to predict the peak sunspot number of cycle 24 and for future cycles, including the period around 2100 A.D. We extend the earlier work of Damon and Jirikowic (1992) by adding a further long-period component of 420 years.
Typically, the standard deviation between the model and the peak sunspot number in each solar cycle from 1750 to 1970 is +/-34. The peak sunspot prediction for cycles 21, 22, and 23 agree with the observed sunspot activity levels within the error estimate. Our peak sunspot prediction for cycle 24 is significantly smaller than cycle 23, with peak sunspot numbers predicted to be 42 +/- 34. […] or a maximum in the [wide] range 8-76.] that predict similar numbers, therefore a ‘hit’ cannot be taken as unique support for any of these.
At any rate, I missed the skill score statistics that shows that this method works. All ‘prediction’ methods claim a high success rate, otherwise they would not have been brought forward, but clearly they cannot all be correct, so a mere claim that it works cannot be taken as evidence that ‘this is it!’.

Leif Svalgaard:
RobJM: “If two patterns are in harmony then there is a very high likely hood of a physical connection, since without a connection the two waves will move out of phase. So if A and B are in harmony then either A causes B or B cause A or C cause A & B. If a pattern on the sun is in harmony with a pattern on the earth then there must be a physical connection.”
Absolutely. This was the [correct] argument a hundred years ago for a connection between sunspots and geomagnetic storms. But show me the pattern in the climate that is in harmony with a pattern in the Sun.
Now, there is a little twist. There are LOTS of such patterns and LOTS of people that claim them. The problem is that these people do not agree as to what and when. If they all did [as they now agree on the harmony patterns of sunspots and magnetic storms – there is no debate any more] then we would not have this discussion.
So, you will have to show why your patterns are superior to anybody else’s patterns.

John F. Pittman:
Leif, I am sure that you have explained this before. Although in general, I agree with your statement >> BTW, you might be able to discern some VERY small wiggles in the black curve [e.g. one near the top in 1993]. Those are the variations caused by solar activity. Note how utterly insignificant [like 50-100 times smaller] they are compared to the regular march of the sine-wave due to the smoothly varying sun-earth distance.<< However, the other problem is that I thought that TSI was greater in the time when the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, as indiacted by your graph where December is greater than June.
In that CO2 is well mixed, then shouldn’t global warming in the southern hemisphere be greater than northern hemisphere? The IPCC indicate such a small portion of the W/m^2 proves manmade global warming. That difference, in your graph, is so small, and yet, it is the actual and proven cause of recent global warming per IPCC. After all, the GCM’s which also prove global warming, in description, have a thermal barrier at the tropics. However, CO2, being nearly an ideal gas, is dispersed through atmosphere relatively evenly; except; it is noted, and accepted, that it is somewhat less concentrated in the polar regions, due to the known temperature relationship for water and gas phases.
Could you provide the same insights to this difference of TSI in the cycle you graphed, and the IPCC claims for southern versus northern hemispheres? I mean, after all if the sine wave is smoothly varying and the southerm hemisphere receives such an appreciable amount more than the northern, what explanation will explain the difference that the southern is cooler than the northern? I would say that it is the difference between the amount of land versus ocean in the respective hemispheres. However, with evaporation, the thermal capacity of water is much greater than soils, due to the fact that the triple point of water is 0C at standard temperature and pressure. I wonder how one can use W/m^2 as a standard in a system where the main GHG is water which has a 1:273 ratio for comparing actual heat of water (ocean) versus water vapor (GHG). Yet one of the admitted weaknesses, therefore one of the weaknesses of the proof, is that GCM’s either do not do water cycles ( a single lumped parameter) or cannot model water cycles if they try.
Further, these same models are promoted as being able to do regions, less that their grid size, and determine whether it will be drought or flodd up to 100 years in the future. With what you have posted on TSI, what would it take to accept/prove the claims stated above? If the claim is that the southern hemisphere has more water, and yet shows less temperature increase than the northern hemisphere, is this not proof, at least indirect proof, that water is actually a negative feedback, rather than a positive one?
Further, one the principle reactions is that mass that heats, expands; and for air systems, this means that the tendency on the atomic and molecular level is to rise, taking heat and mass upwards where it can release the energy in our system. This is a conservative approach. Also, in that air under conditions of boundary, the most energetic atoms/molecules, on a empirical basis, are the ones that tend to rise upward (outward in a compressed cylinder), which means that the atoms/molecules that exit are in a state of higher energy than those remaining in that state. That temperature, all things being equal as the IPCC have claimed, is a good measurement of heat/energy in the earth system means this approach is an even more conservative approach..this is based on how the IPCC justify their computation and recognition of climate sensitivity.
Yet, this claim by the IPCC appears to fail a most cursory examination. Could you provide some insight with respect to TSI?

kum dollison:
Tamara, the other Major Ethanol-producing country is Brazil. They make ethanol from sugar cane grown in the southern/central parts of the country. The Cerrano where they grow soybeans has, according to their government, 150 Million Acres of fertile land lying fallow. Their government has stated that they could replace every drop of gasoline in the U.S. and never cut down a tree, or fail to feed a single Brazilian.
Stanford Univ. states that their are 1.2 Billion Acres of Abandoned Farmland in the World.
With all the noise of Gas Prices going up, and Down, and Speculation, etc. etc. keep one thing in mind. Many really smart oil analysts think that around 2011 the world is going to start running very short on Oil. Even now, Exports from Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Nigeria, among others, are Declining. Add to that the fact that production from our own North Slope, and Gulf of Mexico is Declining, and that the U.K., China, and Indonesia are now Importers rather than exporters, and you might get a glimpse of the problem developing.
In short, Tamara, the main argument for forcing the Energy companies to develop biofuels is not grounded in Climate. If it was, believe me, I’d feel the same as you.

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “Could you provide some insight with respect to TSI?”
Most of your long comment on the difference between the Northern/southern Hemisphere I do not know any good answers to. My hunch [like yours] is that the different distributions of Land/Sea is crucial. When we try to evaluate the impact of TSI, we must remember that what actually matters is not TSI, but what is left after the albedo has taken its cut. And the albedo over Sea and Land [and the cloud cover] is different. This all is taken into account, or so the modelers tell us, so I guess there should be no mysteries. Perhaps somebody more qualified that I on this, could take it from here…

Bob Tisdale:
Ranting Stan: “Here’s the link to the graph of the month-to-month changes in CO2 that bears a striking resemblance to the NINO3.4 anomaly curve.
http://i34.tinypic.com/2sb0k6g.jpg”
And here’s the link to the post that compares it to NINO3.4 and other SST data sets: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/atmospheric-co2-concentration-versus.html

John F. Pittman:
Though you do not know a good answer, perhaps as I do when looking at phenomena, you could comment on the orders of magnitude as you did for TSI. After all, with a 1:273 lever against and using temperature for climate sensitivity and the very physical reaction of gas to excitement by an energy source (sun or CO2 enhancement), how can one take these account and say there is a positive feedback?
When I showed using a twice conservative approach even ignoring this 1:273 ratio, that the feedback is negative you would reply >> we must remember that what actually matters is not TSI, but what is left after the albedo has taken its cut. And the albedo over Sea and Land [and the cloud cover] is different. This all is taken into account, or so the modelers tell us, so I guess there should be no mysteries<< So I show that it is about 1000 times (273 x 4, if not 273 x 2 x 4 = 2000 times more), 3 orders of magnitude unlikely, very much like your TSI.
You reply with a albedo that has been measured IIRC varying about +/-10% for +/- 3 SD for all changes from frigid to much warmer than present. However, using your graph where it is 110 units of 1365 (average) which is a 8% and we compare 10% x .3 (land/ocean ratio) we get 3% with a relative linear trend since the IPCC used delta Temperature to compute sensitivity, and an 8% that has land and water. But since I like conservative approaches, soil has a typical water content of 30%. Now our value goes to 1% with this linear IPCC delta. But it does not stop there. Soil, and especially soil with water has a good insulating affect of about 2.6. My favorite example of this, is that where I live, dogs dig under bushes into the dirt to cool themselves; you could look up insulating properites od common elements.
Anyway, 1%/2.6 = 0.4%. So now we are about an order of magnitude less for the albedo effect. Note that this effect also is coupled with the 1:273, and transpiration is noted by the IPCC. So the effect of water, regardless of the IPCC assumptions decrease this 0.4% versus 8%. So that it approaches two orders of magnitude, if the change in water vapor is significant. It is, as can be determined from physcometric charts when you compare say desert versus the USA south east. As this approaches 2 orders of magnitude less, does it not approach the difference in TSI that you corrected (or took them to task, as they may believe)??

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “does it not approach the difference in TSI that you corrected (or took them to task, as they may believe)?”
John, I cannot follow you. What is your point? Instead of guessing, I’ll try to describe my point of view [which is what I know].
Currently, there is a large difference [~100 W/m2] between TSI in January [when we are closest to the sun] and July [farthest away]. The climate system adjusts to this recurring disparity in ways that depend on the distribution of Sea and Land. Complex systems don’t adjust instantaneously and perfectly everywhere, although on the average things will balance out quite well. If you add very small perturbations [solar activity] to the signal, the effect of these will be hard to distinguish from the imperfections of the adjustment. That is why we don’t see a big solar cycle effect. Over long periods of time, the Earth’s orbit changes and the annual wave in TSI changes accordingly [the Sea/Land distribution also changes, perhaps on even longer time scales] giving rise to glaciations or other major climate changes because the changes in TSI are much larger than those associated with the solar cycles (~1 W/m2).
The players in the adjustment process are the Land/Sea distribution, oceans currents, salinity changes, volcanoes, and the biosphere [I may have left a few out].
This process has gone on for eons, and will continue for eons. Sometimes these adjustments takes just decades and at all times the system is in continuous flux around its equilibrium.
I mentioned that TSI changes are built in to the climate models, but as far as I know, just as fixed boundary conditions [using a ‘typical’ average TSI]. I don’t know if this makes sense, but I do also don’t know that it does not. One thing I have asked the modelers [e.g. Gavin Smith] to do is to ‘crank up’ the TSI and/or its annual variation and/or the superposed solar variation and in this way run some ’sensitivity’ test runs, but to no avail.
I have in general a low opinion of IPCC because of its political control and [perhaps] goals, but I don’t really have an opinion on the AGW issue, except perhaps that [coming from a cold country] I think warm is better than cold.

Hans:
Excellent story, thank you.

Erl Happ:
Stephen Wilde: “I was puzzled by the above and wonder whether it is the right way round.”
Thanks for the question. Can I ask you to look at my admittedly unorthodox explanation of the phenomena in post of today on the Svalgaard 8 thread on Climate Audit.
Alternatively look at: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/bulletin_tmp/figt1.shtml
There is nothing internal about the ENSO oscillation. Tropical warming events are generalized and not confined to the Pacific and they involve a fall in outgoing long wave radiation. The energy is absorbed by the ocean where it raises temperatures. It can not be both absorbed and emitted. A warming event is the result of a fall in albedo. Density and spread of cirrus cloud in the tropics varies inversely with 200hPa temperature. Temperature at 10-11km altitude is driven directly by the sun with an amplitude of variation much greater than at the surface. There is appreciable ozone at 200hPa and enough water vapour to form multi branching microscopic ice crystals that have a high reflectivity value. Both ozone and ice will heat with an increase in incoming solar radiation. There is a much greater variation in ultraviolet light than total solar irradiance.
So, cirrus cloud comes and goes with the change in relative humidity at 200hPa. Tropical albedo is about 24% with about a 6% decrease over south east Asia during an El Nino event. Of course, ‘an El Nino event’ is a parcel of variable proportion and so too will be the change in albedo.

John F. Pittman:
I have the essentially same POV, as far as I can tell. However, I do not assume that GCM’s are correct. Rather the opposite. My point above that you did not follow was that the average +50 W/m^2 occurred in the southern hemisphere, with the northern hemisphere at an average of -50 W/m^2 with respect to each other for the 100 W/m^2 difference. A quick estimate from the IPCC is 7.5 W/m^2/degree K for the current temperature difference of the average temperature versus the black body earth which translates to 2.3 K difference between the Northern and Southern hemisphere. I agree with that there are sea land distributions. My point is that: in that models are said by the modellers do a poor job of the water cycle; and from the known physics +50 W/m^2 and a delta T of about .3K (NH average – SH average), when it should be opposite sign and larger; these indicate that assuming the GCM’s are correct is shown to be a bad assumption, based on the TSI data you provided, the known differences of the SH versus the NH, and what the modellers themselves say.

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “I have the essentially same POV, as far as I can tell. However, I do not assume that GCM’s are correct.”
I must be singularly inept in explaining my view. I have made no assumption about GCMs being correct. What I was suggesting was a stringent test of their ability to model the impact of TSI correctly. And I suspect they will fail.
The average +50 W/m^2 occurred in the southern hemisphere, with the northern hemisphere at an average of -50 W/m^2 with respect to each other for the 100 W/m^2 difference. But six months later, it is the other way around, so whatever difference it made would be reversed six months later and symmetry would be restored, no?

John F. Pittman:
No, you were not inept. I misunderstood.
Yes, it will. But that is the time when albedo changes should be greatest. I agree about the restoration by the cycle. Thanks for helping clarify my thinking.

Stephen Wilde:
Erl, Thanks for your reply. There seems to be an important issue here regarding the ENSO mechanism which may impact on my ideas. Would you agree to an exchange of private emails so that I can decide whether what you say should affect my pronouncements?
I can be contacted on wilde.co@btconnect.com – Stephen

statePoet1775:
Leif, I will avoid the B word but wouldn’t the sun’s motion on its geodesic distort the magnetic field far from the sun versus the field near the geodesic? TIA  P.S. I learned geodesic from an another poster but can’t spell his name yet.

Leif Svalgaard:
statePoet1775: “wouldn’t the sun’s motion on its geodesic distort the magnetic field far from the sun versus the field near the geodesic?”
The geodesic has to do with gravity not magnetic fields, so the answer is “no”, and distorting a magnetic field far from the sun does not seem to be an efficient way of making spots on the sun…

statePoet1775:
Leif, Thanks. I guess I should ask a neutron star expert about how a magnetic field behaves in differently warped space.

Glenn:
More on Ian WIlson’s article from ABC, for those who haven’t read the full article: “For many years scientists have recognised an apparent connection between the strength of sunspot activity and the movement of the sun in relation to solar system’s barycentre, which is driven by the combined gravitational forces of Jupiter and Saturn. But no one has been able to explain the connection.
“There are really only two possible interactions, and neither of them is feasible,” Wilson says.
Read more at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/07/02/2292281.htm?site=science&topic=energy

Leif Svalgaard:
statePoet1775: I guess I should ask a neutron star expert about how a magnetic field behaves in differently warped space.
Whatever her answer, it would hardly have application to the weak gravitational fields found in the solar system which is the case I was referring to.

Glenn: from the blurb: “They say that when the sun’s orbital motion changes, so too does its equatorial rotation rate, which provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between Jupiter and Saturn and the sun.”
Except that no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated. I would be glad to comment on any claim to the contrary if provided with a link.

Ric Werme: Leif Svalgaard: Glenn: from the blurb: “They say that when the sun’s orbital motion changes, so too does its equatorial rotation rate, which provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between Jupiter and Saturn and the sun.”
How can the equatorial rotation rate change? For that to happen, you need a torque, and in a gravitational system, the best way to do that is with a difference in the gravitational attraction between the “left” and “right” sides. As far as I know, stars aren’t lumpy enough for that.

statePoet1775:
Leif Svalgaard: … whatever her answer, it would hardly have application to the weak gravitational fields found in the solar system which is the case I was referring to.  Well, I guess my half baked thought was that the magnetic lines of force might get wrapped around the sun or twisted because of the different geodesics they propagate through. I was not thinking of sunspots. Reminds me of my adolescence too much. Thanks for your patience, Leif.

Glenn:
Leif: “Except that no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated. I would be glad to comment on any claim to the contrary if provided with a link.”
Don’t know what weight “clearly” demonstrated has here, I’m just going on Ian WIlson’s AU article that assumes the equatorial rate is not constant.
“The Role of the Sun in Climate Change By Douglas V. Hoyt, Kenneth H. Schatten” on page 193 graphs “faster” and “slower” rates.
Another, “We have found the existence of a statistically significant 17-yr periodicity in the solar equatorial rotation rate.”
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17116387
I’m sure you are aware of more than this, but my opinion is that not much of anything about the Sun has been “clearly demonstrated”.

Leif Svalgaard:
A paper [by usually reputable people whom I know personally] that may come closest to ‘demonstrating’ a long-term variation is: Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity  J Javaraiah  L Bertello  R K. Ulrich
ABSTRACT: The solar equatorial rotation rate, determined from sunspot group data during the period 1879-2004, decreased over the last century, whereas the level of activity has increased considerably. The latitude gradient term of the solar rotation shows a significant modulation of about 79 year, which is consistent with what is expected for the existence of the Gleissberg cycle. Our analysis indicates that the level of activity will remain almost the same as the present cycle during the next few solar cycles (i.e., during the current double Hale cycle), while the length of the next double Hale cycle in Sunspot activity is predicted to be longer than the Current one. We find evidence for the existence of a weak linear relationship between the equatorial rotation rate and the length of sunspot cycle. Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22, indicating that the present Hale cycle may be a combination of two shorter cycles.
SUGGESTED CITATION: J Javaraiah, L Bertello, and R K. Ulrich, “Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity” (2005). Solar Physics. 232 (1-2), pp. 25-40.
You can see it at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4114&context=postprints
You can also link to their figure that shows how the equatorial rotation supposedly has varied: http://www.leif.org/research/SolarRotRate.png
You will, I’m sure, agree that this is pretty flimsy. Not the ’strong evidence’ that I at least would require in order to overthrow Einstein’s Equivalence Principle.
Just like with sun/weather-climate relations there are scores of such papers all showing flimsy ‘evidence’ with all kind of periods from day-to-day, 154 days, 1.3 years, 7 years, 11 and 22 years, etc. None of them convincing. I’ll certainly agree with you when you say that “my opinion is that not much of anything about the Sun has been “clearly demonstrated”” and therefore I cannot accept the ‘evidence’ of Wilson et al.

I forgot to draw attention to the final statement of their abstract: “Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22, indicating that the present Hale cycle may be a combination of two shorter cycles, sort of indicative of the uncertainty of the whole thing.”

Glenn:
Leif, Wouldn’t this be a clear demonstration of rotation rate variation?
“The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. Although quite small, the variation of solar differential rotation with respect to Zürich sunspot type was found. ”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u0q85tv07532q253/

Leif Svalgaard:
another flimsy paper on solar rotation and activity is one where I am a co-author: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
one of its conclusions is: the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation.

Glenn:Wouldn’t this be a clear demonstration of rotation rate variation?
“The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. Although quite small, the variation of solar differential rotation with respect to Zürich sunspot type was found. ”
No, not IMHO. First, only three cycles were studied [=low statistical significance]. Second, the small changes they find are not of the kind that Wilson needs, namely a 179-year cycle, if I understand him correctly. Over the 11.86 year period of Jupiter, Saturn can be all over the place. He can not take any old variation as evidence. It has to be a specific and unique kind. I have to admit that I have only seen his abstract: I’m not going to pay $35 to read a paper that is in conflict with General Relativity. When Wilson came out with the paper, he was saying “I have irrefutable evidence that blah blah blah, but because of Intellectual Property Issues I cannot show it to you”. That kind of put me off, right there. If you have his paper, maybe send it to me.
The ‘finding’ also conflicts with our flimsy finding in http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf [Figure 1 does not show any such jump at the start of each cycle]. Typical of relationships that are on unsure ground and not generally accepted. If you continue your search you can find scores of such papers. I have read most of them over time as they came out. We have measured the solar rotation rate very carefully at Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) at Stanford since 1976 and see no systematic variation. I was one the builders of WSO and a preliminary paper describing the instrument, the data, and the results can be found at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980ApJ…241..811S
Subsequent data up to the present fully corroborate the early results. It just so happens that I am kind of an expert on this 🙂

Glenn:
Leif, you said that “no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated.”
I believe that my refs and yours show that rotation rate has been observed to vary. Here’s a couple more: “The degree of the equatorial acceleration of the surface differential rotation is also found to have undergone the same 100 year periodic modulation during the same interval, reaching a minimum at cycle 14, a maximum at cycle 17, and a minimum at cycle 21 in antiphase with the modulation of M.”
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112447180/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
“The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.”
http://www.noao.edu/staff/rhowe/disk2k8b/data/2008/agu08/rk.pdf

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: Leif, you said that “no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated.”
I thought if was evident that the meaning was the no variation of the kind needed to explain the effect has been clearly observed. I elaborated on that like this: ”Second, the small changes they find are not of the kind that Wilson needs, namely a 179-year cycle, if I understand him correctly. Over the 11.86 year period of Jupiter, Saturn can be all over the place. He can not take any old variation as evidence. It has to be a specific and unique kind.”
A offered a link to the claimed variation at http://www.leif.org/research/SolarRotRate.png to show how poor the correlation was.
One of your examples claimed: “The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. ”
The new one from Howe says: “The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.”
Can’t you see that these are contradictory? and that therefore no “clear demonstration” has been made?
I’m sure you can find many more such contradictory claims and, perhaps, with judicious selection further your case…Which specific variation does Wilson advocate as evidence for his claim?

Thomas J. Arnold:
European politicians running round like headless chickens claiming that the end of the world is nigh!! – should be forcibly sat down and made to read this article.
Man-made global warming the new ‘orthodoxy’ replacing conventional belief. So many more immediate and pressing problems to address, but therein is the reason. Like Putin’s adventures in Georgia to deflect the populace away from economic and social inertia at home. So we Europeans are led down the garden path, towards global warming hysteria, leading our thoughts away from the real issues.
The End of the World barring a super volcano or a massive meteorite, or total Armageddon is not nigh! (maybe)

Stephen Wilde:
As I see it:
1) There is a clear correlation between climate and solar cycle activity and length over centuries
2) Statistically a relationship appears to exist between the planets and the sun which enables solar cycle lengths to be estimated some time in advance.
3) Leif has kindly indicated which mechanisms cannot cause the observed link
4) It would be wrong to ignore the connection just because we have not yet nailed the cause.
5) We can make rough and ready climate predictions from observing solar behaviour even if the cause of the link is not known especially if we combine solar behaviour wiuth multidecadal oceanic oscillations as per my various articles at CO2sceptics.com

Stephen Wilde:
1) There is a clear correlation between climate and solar cycle activity and length over centuries
If this first point does not hold, then the other ones don’t matter. So, let’s start with this one. About 150 years before the Maunder minimum, there was another solar Grand Minimum, the Spoerer minimum [named after Gustav Spoerer, who is the real discoverer of the Maunder minimum]. The Spoerer minimum was even ‘deeper’ than the Maunder minimum, yet there was no Little Ice Age then. If anything, the temperature had a local maximum during the Spoerer minimum. So, I’m not so hot on the ‘clear correlation’.
There are different ways you can try to ‘rescue’ the correlation:
like time delays, bad data, Government cover-up, etc, but then it ceases to be ‘clear’.
2) Statistically a relationship appears to exist between the planets and the sun which enables solar cycle lengths to be estimated some time in advance.
If this weren’t true then the rest of the points don’t matter. So, once again, show me the relationship. The weasel word ‘appears’ may be indicative. Either there exists a statistically significant relationship based on solid data or it is just smokes and mirrors that give the appearance of a relationship. In science we often use a different weasel word when we are not sure. We would say: “the data suggest a relationship”, or “we suggest that blah, blah, blah”. This leaves the door open for a graceful exit, should it be needed, but also means that the jury is still out.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde : “Dropping points 1) and 2) is AGW neutral.” The ‘correlations’ and their statistical ’significance’ are independent [or should be(!) if we want to be scientifically honest] of whether one adheres to AGW or not [if not, then one is not honest about it as ideology becomes the driver]. Now, it is perfectly OK to state “I believe that the Sun is doing it”. The problem comes when one tries to use one’s belief to determine policy and thereby impact on others. Or, rather, that changes the issue from a scientific one to a political one. There is nothing wrong in letting political ideology drive policy, as long as one realizes that that is what it is and not is not trying to hide behind science.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point. As you say there is the issue of lag, inadequate records then and length of that minimum and overall I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. As regards the planets and the sun the jury is indeed out from my viewpoint since I don’t really need it for my ideas. I was curious about your view on the link that I provided. It seems that the chap concerned has been predicting a 13 year cycle 23 for some time on the basis of statistics from solar and planetary movements. Even he accepts that his ideas are tentative and that he is not sure why there seems to be a connection. I note your views and your knowledge base but even you cannot know more science than has yet been discovered or ascertained. If the statistical correlation continues to be useful then it should be taken seriously. Observations always trump models and theories, even mine.

Glenn:
Leif: “One of your examples claimed: “The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently.” The new one from Howe says: “The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.” Can’t you see that these are contradictory? and that therefore no “clear demonstration” has been made?” No, each article relates to behavior associated with specific solar cycles. The variations in rotation rate observed to occur *in relation to* cycles may seem contradictory, but it isn’t at all clear that is the case. Regardless, we are not talking about a simple association between rotation rate and solar cycle, but only whether solar equatorial rotation rate varies. Whether or not you don’t think observed variations are “of the kind necessary” or that the planetary orbits are “all over the place”, doesn’t mean that there is no association. Many things are all over the place, and often there is no simple correlation of associated events, especially when multiple variable factors are involved. Take the weather for instance. Leif, that the physical reasons have not been found doesn’t mean that the association found is wrong or violates relativity or standard models. If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point.” I don’t do ‘debating points’. There are not ’subsequent correlations’, there should be only one correlation which should include whatever data we have. There was a Spoerer minimum, temperature was higher then, there was a Maunder minimum, temperature was lower then, there was a Modern maximum (1940s), temperatures were higher then, there is a Modern decline [the last 30 years], temperatures has been higher [and the last couple of years can’t be called ‘climate’ yet]. On top of all that there is volcanic activity [e.g. Tambora]. I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. I call that cherry picking. So, you would believe that the higher temperatures since the 1980s are due to the [unquestionable] decline in solar activity that we have had? solar activity didn’t start declining yesterday. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. Not at all. If the PDO etc are due to internal oscillations that are now going towards a cooler regime, the fact that the Sun is also quiet is just a coincidence. There is no test here. Even if it goes the other way and temperatures jump up, you could still say “Oh that is just AGW overwhelming the Sun”, again no test. It is all belief. Correlations are not causation, so without mechanisms there can be no test. If a correlation persists long enough and its statistical significance thereby is strengthened enough one might at some point be forced to accept the correlation as a sign of an underlying mechanism [that we just don’t understand yet], but the correlations are poor and have only a few degrees of freedom [like 5 or 6 data points]. This is due to something that used to be called ‘positive conservation’ and now more often is referred to as ‘autocorrelation’. A classic example is the sunspot cycle. If you observe the Sun every day, then in the course of a cycle you accumulate 4000 data points. How many of these are independent? Or equivalently, what is the ‘number of degrees of freedom’? The answer is 20, and the reason is that if the sunspot number today is high it was also high yesterday and will be high tomorrow, too. As regards the planets and the sun the jury is indeed out from my viewpoint since I don’t really need it for my ideas. That was my original point. To hitch your ideas to the planetary influences weakens your paper [or was it Duffy’s 🙂 ] and ideas. All I said was that it “detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have”, without commenting negatively on those other merits. If you want to combat AGW, the Sun is a poor co-combatant. There are much better arguments against [or for, as your belief goes] AGW, rooted in physics [some even mentioned in your/Duffy’s article].

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn, we are not talking about a simple association between rotation rate and solar cycle, but only whether solar equatorial rotation rate varies.
No, it has to vary the right way. Suppose it varied from day to day would you call that strong empirical support for spin-orbit coupling? Actually, solar physicists once thought [Howard and Harvey, 1970] that there were such very large day-to-day variations. Our research at Stanford [that I referred to earlier] showed that those variations were spurious [cause by scattered light and other instrumental defects] BTW, the ’solar equatorial rotation rate’ is a misnomer. What is measured is not solar rotation, but winds in the solar atmosphere. One of your references [by Howe] uses the correct term: ‘zonal flows’. There are flows in the solar atmosphere just like there are the ‘trade winds’ in the Earth’s. These flows have little to do with the rotation of the Sun, and at any rate are found far from the places where solar activity is generated. If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation. And yet Wilson calls it “strong circumstantial evidence”, and that is my problem with the whole thing. I will grant all kinds of subtle, negligible, hard-to-observe effects, but I object to foist those upon the public as ’strong evidence’. The public deserves better.

I wish our moderator could be persuaded to correct on the spot trivial typos when urged to do so by the poster. Howard and Harvey 1070 should be Howard and Harvey 1970, of course. This would conserve bandwidth.
[Reply by John Goetz: Your comment above seems mildly irritated, as if the several moderators on this site just aren’t moving fast enough for you. However, I would like to point out that your post with the typo had not yet been seen by a moderator (probably because it is Sunday afternoon and most of us are busy doing other things) and had yet to even be approved. That said and speaking for myself, I don’t as a matter of practice correct any typos unless specifically asked in a comment awaiting moderation. Then, when I do correct the typo, I delete the comment asking for the correction, thus saving a minuscule amount of bandwidth.]

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Solar activity hit a peak at the top of cycle 19. Since then there has been a slow decline which is now accelerating. Throughout the 30 years you refer to the sun was historically very active. Throughout that period there was warming. In my view it was adding heat throughout and cannot be ignored. Since we take different views on that 30 year period there is nothing more either of us can say to persuade the other. Only time and research will resolve the issue.

Leif Svalgaard:
[Reply by John Goetz: Your comment above seems mildly irritated, as if the several moderators on this site just aren’t moving fast enough for you….]
Not irritated at all [and thanks for correcting the typo]. It is just that in the past, i had been told that it was the policy of the blog not to correct anything even if asked for immediately by the author, and I just went by that assumption [the first three letters of that word are appropriate for that]. Good to know that the policy has changed. Keep it up. Thanks.
[Reply by John Goetz: It may still be Anthony’s policy, and this is where the moderators may exhibit some inconsistency. When a correction is requested, it does take some time – not a huge amount – to locate the comment needing modification. Then the change must be made in the editor and the comment updated. When Anthony was moderating this site on his own, I can understand why he did not want to spend any more time than necessary on that type of activity. Now that there are other moderators helping him out, you are sure to see some inconsistency in how each of us deal with comments. We do our best, but it is going to happen.]

jeez:
It is usually a judgment call on the part of the moderator. Not all procedures are so granually quantified. ~ charles the moderator.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, Solar activity hit a peak at the top of cycle 19. Since then there has been a slow decline which is now accelerating. Throughout the 30 years you refer to the sun was historically very active. Throughout that period there was warming. In my view it was adding heat throughout and cannot be ignored. Did I ignore that? What is problematic is that the Sun was not extraordinarily active the last 30 years. Cycles 11 and 10 were as active as the most recent cycles 22 and 23, and even cycle 19 was probably less active than cycle 4 [in the 1780s]. See, e.g. Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045; Climate: How unusual is today’s solar activity? Raimund Muescheler Fortunat Joos2, Simon A. Mueller & Ian Snowball
So the activity-declining sun can hardly be blamed for the 30 years of heat as that kind of heat should have been present during cycle 10-11 and 4-5 as well [which it was not]. This is what I meant by saying that the correlations are lousy. But surely, the Sun is not the only source of climate variability, as more research and data will eventually show.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, If you read my articles you will see that I postulate that increased or decreased solar activity will normally only have a global temperature effect if it is sufficiently in phase with the average global state of all the oceanic oscillations whether negative or positive globally. I tend to the view that such a combination would swamp all the multitude of other potential variables because most of those other variables operate to counteract one another. It would be useful to know what the state of those oscillations was during those other cycles you mention but since that is not realistic we can only observe what happens from now and see whether my description of the solar/oceanic combination continues to fit developments as they occur. My articles also take the view that solar cycle length is the main factor as regards solar variation and this link suggests a reason for the Spoerer and Maunder minima having different outcomes: http://www.lund.irf.se/workshop/abstracts/abstract_poster_miyahara.pdf  Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, If you read my articles you will see that I postulate that increased or decreased solar activity will normally only have a global temperature effect if it is sufficiently in phase with the average global state of all the oceanic oscillations whether negative or positive globally. My articles also take the view that solar cycle length is the main factor as regards solar variation […] Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum. In view of the uncertainties and poor data involved, it is quite reasonable to speculate on different causes and interactions. We do it all the time, that is how fresh ideas get injected into the mix, but what is quite wrong to do is to play down [or simply omit] that these are just speculations or postulations [or ‘views’]. Neither Duffy’s nor your [I take it – as Duffy’s apparently is just a slight rewording of yours 🙂 ] articles are honest about the speculative aspects. Instead it is claimed in no uncertain terms that The major driver is the sun and The solar effect is huge and overwhelming, and THAT is my problem with them. And it ought to be clear that we are not talking about the effect of turning off the Sun and all the silly comments related to that, but about minute variations of solar output convolved with natural oscillations of the system, etc. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard people say “so, you don’t think it is the sun! try to turn it off and see what you get! you d*** f***!”.

Glenn:
Leif: If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation. “And yet Wilson calls it “strong circumstantial evidence”, and that is my problem with the whole thing.” You seem intent on creating the appearance that Wilson has proposed a mechanism, a physical reason(s) for the observed associations. He didn’t in the abstract of his AU paper, “However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling”, nor did he in the ABC news article, “”It is one thing to show an association and quite another to show cause and effect. We have to be very careful, but we will know in a few years,” he says.” Again, observing, testing and making predictions based on associations is not pseudo-scientific. The association can be falsified, just as a theory that includes physical mechanisms can be falsified. Your problem with this has been with the physics (violates relativity), with the science (pseudo-science without mechanism) and with the lack of “clear demonstration” of the observations and the association itself. Sounds like you just don’t like it. But can this paper have been this bad and ever passed peer-review? Or as I suspect, what Wilson says is true, that researchers have seen connections before and that he did show evidence of a correlation and is looking for the reason, and that in my book is science being practiced. You seem to want more “clear” evidence, but again I have no idea how to quantify that. Is there clear evidence that CO2 increases in the atmosphere leads to a warming planet?

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum. Adding in more variables just further decreases the number of degrees of freedom. This is irrespective of if the new conditions are correct or not, but as long as all we have to go by are correlations without mechanisms, the thing that matters is the ‘number of degrees of freedom’. If that number drops too low [say below 10] the whole thing could well be spurious. Anyway, you don’t see these considerations in the media, so perhaps a blog like this might be useful as a counterweight against the ’science is settled’ mentally [which is equally prevalent in declaring “the sun is the driver of climate”].

Glenn, Sounds like you just don’t like it. But can this paper have been this bad and ever passed peer-review? In my book there is no such thing as ‘not liking it’. What the data demonstrates and theory explains is what you go with. One without the other is just speculation [which may or may not be true]. And, yes, bad papers often pass peer review. Weren’t Mann’s hockey stick papers peer reviewed? Is there clear evidence that CO2 increases in the atmosphere leads to a warming planet? Many peer reviewed papers say so. Nobel prize winners say so. But none of those make it therefore true. What is true, IMHO, is that CO2 does heat the planet. The only question is how much? A temperature increase of +0.000001 degrees is also a heating of the planet, so your question is ill-posed. A better question would be if there is evidence that increasing CO2 will put the Earth in peril? I don’t think so, but you are welcome to disagree, because at this point it is politics and not science.

He [Wilson] did show evidence of a correlation…  Have you seen his evidence? As I have confessed before, I haven’t, because he wouldn’t send it to me unless I paid $35. If you have seen his evidence and have his paper, would you please send it to me at leif@leif.org . If you haven’t seen the paper and his evidence, how can you say that he did show such evidence … that is just hearsay, then.

Stephen Wilde:
Lief, My articles are clear that I am expressing an opinion even if one can extract emphatic sentences and quote them out of context. Not much point putting forward an opinion so cautiouly that no one considers it seriously. Wasn’t it Hansen himself who justified his approach by pointing out that no one would have taken him seriously unless he had got down from the fence? Sauce for the Goose etc. At least I also provide suggestions as to how my ideas could be shown to be wrong by future real world changes. I am content to agree with you that the science is certainly not settled and given time I am sure the competing assertions will be whittled down by real world data. It’s a shame that new thought on the subject is more often appearing in blogs such as this rather than amongst the members of the scientific establishment but I think that is now changing.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, My articles are clear that I am expressing an opinion even if one can extract emphatic sentences and quote them out of context. Not much point putting forward an opinion so cautiously that no one considers it seriously. So said Chicken Little 🙂 Then Duffy did add something to his plagiarism of your articles: there is not a single ounce of caution about what is the driver of climate in ‘his’ article, and that is really what I was commenting on. Not really on yours. Shame on me, I took your word for Duffy’s just being essentially yours (so didn’t go to the trouble of checking you on this)

Ric Werme:
Stephen Wilde, Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point. As you say there is the issue of lag, inadequate records then and length of that minimum and overall I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. Perhaps. Don’t forget the correlation with the PDO, especially in the last year or so. I’m pretty content with a link between solar activity and climate, but when Leif points out how weak the potential links are I remember how little I know. As for the upcoming test, be sure to include the PDO, all other known and plausible links, and most of all include the unknown links, especially the real ones. 🙂

Bruce Sanson:
Dear Dr Watts – I have recently sent out letters outlining my ideas on climatology. This might even be considered a theory. Have you a postal address so I could send you a copy, if you are interested? Dr B.A.Sanson dental surgeon Whangarei New Zealand
REPLY: If it is review you seek, why not outline it here first. The group of people that frequent this forum can tell you right away if the ideas have merit. – Anthony

Bruce Sanson:
Basically, climate is controlled by the solar wind which varies over the surface of the sun. Strong solar winds impact the earth’s atmosphere, closing over the polar atmosphere, limiting heat escape in the winter, and to a less extent limiting solar irradiance in summer, hence creating a smaller ice melt. Total yearly ice melt drives sst either warmer or cooler depending on its size. Sst drives the global climate. Hemispheric bias occurs because of the earths orbital inclination to the solar systems invariant plane. The earth tends summer in the suns northern hemispheres solar wind and winter in the in the suns southern hemispheres solar wind. Since about 1975 the solar southern hemisphere has dominated, the a positive phase of pdo. this is a brief outline without the supporting graphs etc. sincerely bruce.

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Sanson, The earth tends to summer in the sun’s northern hemisphere’s solar wind and to winter in the sun’s southern hemisphere’s solar wind. Apart from summer/winter reversed in NZ from Calif., there is a factual error in your statement. The Earth is South of the solar equator from December 7 to June 7 and North of the solar equator from June 7 to December 7. In fact, just today, the Earth is as far North as it can go (all of 7 degrees). You may ponder if that does something to your idea.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Thanks for that. However, since I’m not expecting disaster from human causation I don’t think the Chicken Little comment is valid in relation to me. Could well have problems from natural causation though.
Ric, Point taken but if you read what I say you will see that I say that PDO and ALL the oceanic oscillations globally at any point in time need to be averaged out and combined with any variation in the solar signal to ascertain what the global temperature trend is likely to be. The diagnostic indicator of warming or cooling at any particular time is the position of the jet streams and the relative dominance of the high pressure systems either side of the jet streams. My view is that the scale of the combined solar/oceanic driver swamps all other influences over time but that there are many other global and local processes that work to stabilise the changes in either direction caused by the solar/oceanic driver. Furthermore I believe that it is the oceanic oscillations that amplify and suppress over multidecadal time periods the relatively small but often cumulative solar variations. Time will tell.

Stephen Wilde:
Bruce, I’m not sure that ice melt could be a cause rather than a consequence of SST variations. After all it is warm sourthern water flowing into the Arctic Circle that keeps open water at or around the North Pole in varying amounts. The Antarctic melt is much less variable because the south pole is on a continental land mass. To my mind the elephant in the room is the past solar insolation stored in the oceans and being released only intermittently via the positive and negative phases of the multidecadal oceanic oscillations. You have correctly noted the power of SST in changing the temperature of the atmosphere up or down but personally I think you have placed the cart before the horse.

Bruce Sanson:
Leif, I appreciate that the the hemispheric variation is only a couple of weeks but I don’t need palm trees in Greenland. The hemispheric temperature difference over 33 yrs is only approx. 0.25 degrees C. I did talk from the northern hemisphere perspective on an American site-sorry. As for ice melt being an affect, I charted melt from the cryosphere today site and it looks far more like a driver than a recipient of temperature.

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Sanson, I appreciate that the hemispheric variation is only a couple of weeks. I do not understand what you mean by that, but if you are happy with it …

Rob:
Just one question for the brilliant minds on this blog, The Little Ice Age ended abruptly about 1850, what started the warming?

Leif Svalgaard:
Rob : The Little Ice Age ended abruptly about 1850, what started the warming. I’m not so sure that it ended ‘abruptly’, see e.g. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html
 
Stephen Wilde:
Rob, It might have been something to do with this but Leif disagrees: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif  I do agree with Leif to the extent that TSI may well not be an adequate explanation on it’s own but it looks pretty suspicious even if the historical variance has been overstated.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – It might have been something to do with this but Leif disagrees: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
I do agree with Leif to the extent that TSI may well not be an adequate explanation on it’s own but it looks pretty suspicious even if the historical variance has been overstated. This is indeed ‘junk science’. Keep showing old, outdated plots. Not even Judith Lean believes that old plot anymore. She even agrees that no long-term variation has been detected. See her slide on page of her presentation at SORCE in 2008: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_02_Lean.pdf
Her conclusion about the contributions of the different sources of TSI: 5-min oscillation ~ 0.003% – 27-day solar rotation ~ 0.2% – 11-year solar cycle ~ 0.1% – longer-term variations not yet detectable – ……do they occur? Thus, bottom line: The variations that we thought [10-20 years ago] were present are no longer thought to be so. Lean [with Wang] updated the old useless 2000 reconstruction in 2005, and now she even acknowledges that THAT one is not correct. You can see the evolution of the thinking about TSI over the last 20 years here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf and here: http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-LMSAL.pdf [page 20].

Stephen Wilde:
According to page 20 all the reconstructions bear a similar shape and all appear to show greatest activity during the recent warming. The only difference is in the amount of variation. Who is to say that the current estimates are any more accurate than those of 20 years ago? All are based on a collection of assumptions. It’s simply a matter of climate sensitivity not a complete absence of a solar signal. As I’ve already said the oceans could achieve the necessary amplification or suppression of even a small solar signal over periods of 60 years covering a full positive and negative PDO cycle spread across nearly six solar cycles. Additionally there are also a lot of square metres on the planet surface let alone around the outside of the atmosphere. An apparently small solar signal can be partly a result of choosing such a small area subdivision. Multiply it up to planet size and there’s a sizeable amount of heat energy involved however much one tries to minimise any solar signal. I think one has to start from observations and subject to lags due to say oceanic reactions to solar changes there is enough correlation between solar cycle behaviour and changes in global temperatures to persuade me that the issue must be recognised and given due weight. Of course others may disagree.

Bruce Sanson:
I am sorry for not making myself clear. The southern hemisphere ice form period is approx. march 22 – september 22 making it inside the solar S.H. march 22 -june 7, then the solar N.H. june 7 – september 22. This makes it 2 weeks longer in the solar N.H. But the period of maximum variability of ice form is at the end of the ice form cycle – firmly within the solar N.H. time frame. Please check the “spaceweather.com” site to check the coronal hole induced high velocity solar winds which occurred august 10 and 18 2008 then compare dates to their effects on ice formation (S.H.) at this time at the “cryosphere today” site. Interestingly shortly afterwards the induced early ice melt appeared to effect a change in the daily SOI viewed at the Australian site ENSO WRAP UP.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, according to page 20 all the reconstructions bear a similar shape and all appear to show greatest activity during the recent warming. First of all, the old reconstruction should be discarded. It does not matter what they show. The recent reconstruction shows about equal activity during intervals around 1780s, 1850s, and 1990s. The only difference is in the amount of variation. But isn’t that the all-important difference? Does it not matter if the amount is 0.0000000000000000001% versus 10%? Who is to say that the current estimates are any more accurate than those of 20 years ago? All are based on a collection of assumptions. The people making the estimates say so. They [we] carefully update the ‘assumptions’ all the time in view of what we learn. The recent ones are really better than the old ones. This is not just assumptions. Turning this around, if all are based on a collection of assumptions, then they cannot be taken as strong evidence that the sun has changed its output, so your observational support falls away. Multiply it up to planet size and there’s a sizeable amount of heat energy involved however much one tries to minimise any solar signal. One is not trying to ‘minimise any solar signal’. One is trying to assess how big it is, without the built-in bias that lies in the phrase ‘trying to minimise’. Trust me, solar physicists would be motivated to maximise [if anything] the solar signal, as it will make their field all that more important, with funding, prestige, etc. And, multiplying up does not change the relative proportions of the change wrt the total, it is still only 0.1%, here is enough correlation between solar cycle behaviour and changes in global temperatures. This is precisely the point. What correlation? and with what significance? Oh, I’m well aware of the hundreds of correlations that are claimed, but select from all those, the ONE that you think is compelling enough for you to make the above statement. and we can discuss that one in detail.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, You ignore my point about the amplifying/suppressing role of the oceans over nearly six solar cycles. Even longer time scales could be involved due to the time it takes for an initial change in trend to work through all the oceans. If climate sensitivity is high as a result of oceanic amplification or suppression then a small solar variation is not a problem. There is no other source of energy other than the sun unless one includes geothermal flux or undersea volcanic activity (which I don’t). I have mentioned elsewhere that going back to 1960 all the changes in global temperature change correlate with a combination of long or short solar cycles as modulated by the prevailing positive or negative oceanic oscillations at the time. I have seen data that takes the correlation back to 1900 but cannot recall where. I do not seek to try and persuade at this point. I am content to wait for more changes in trend to see whether the correlation continues to hold.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “You ignore my point about the amplifying/suppressing role of the oceans over nearly six solar cycles. Even longer time scales could be involved due to the time it takes for an initial change in trend to work through all the oceans.”
No, I’m not ignoring that point. It means that the swings in climate are really controlled by the oceans [which I have no problem]. The article at the very top of this post, does not mention that driving role of the oceans at all, but treats the oceans just as a passive recipient of solar heat, moving it around a bit. All this is a far cry from “The solar effect is huge and overwhelming “. I’m confident that several hundred of years from now when we have amassed enough data, that we can finally beat down the noise and prove that the tiny solar variations do have a minuscule effect after all.

Stephen Wilde:
Thanks Leif, we are not far apart. It’s a shame that Duffy confused the issue. The reason I insist on including the sun as well as the oceans is that the sun is the initial source of the energy so solar variations over time should have a significant role in dictating the power or weakness of the oceanic component. I think it may turn out that solar variations alone are of greater influence than you currently believe but that is only intuition on my part and we will have to wait and see.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “I think it may turn out that solar variations alone are of greater influence than you currently believe but that is only intuition on my part and we will have to wait and see.”
We cannot base policy and the teaching of children on ‘intuition’; this is where we part ways.

Stephen Wilde:
All scientific propositions start from observations interpreted by intuition which directs the initial investigations. Open mindedness as to the outcome is, however, essential. There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher. If your mind is closed then indeed we must part ways.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “All scientific propositions start from observations interpreted by intuition which directs the initial investigations. Open mindedness as to the outcome is, however, essential.”
This is not how science works. The outcome must fit into the current mainstream paradigm to be generally accepted. Open mindedness has nothing to do with it. Now and then [but very rarely] does the outcome trump the paradigm and a scientific revolution takes place and the paradigm is replaced by a new paradigm, which serves as dogma until the next revolution. 99.9% of what scientists do is within the current dogma [paradigm] as is proper. There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher. See the discussion about solar influence on this thread: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/an-inconvenient-youth/

moderators – I’m misusing your generosity but I did it again: There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher.

Flanagan:
Leif: unfortunately for you, the bulk of climate models developed in the 50s and the 60s where I do not think there was such a large ecological lobby, as you call it. They didn’t change physics since then, and the predictions are still of the same type: warming. stephen: there have been numerous studies about the effect of the sun. Thay all conclude that solar activity can explain fluctuation around the increase of temps observed today, but not the increase itself!

Stephen Wilde:
Flanagan, I’m not aware of any convincing assessment of the quantitative difference between fluctuation around the increase in temperature observed (until recently) and the increase itself. Over time, fluctuations up or down combine to become any underlying trend whether it be warming or cooling. It is the scale of the contributing factors that is important and I take the view that human CO2 is an insignificant player for reasons set out extensively in my articles at CO2sceptics.com. In comparison ocean and sun are hugely powerful with all other variables being minor though numerous and having the overall effect of approximately cancelling each other out.

Bruce Sanson:
Anthony, you never said what you thought of my ideas?

Tony:
Interesting points. Can you provide references to the above statements so I can investigate further? Thanks in advance.

Big Gun FIRES

AGW Denialists FRAUD

What was I thinking? Thanks, Greenman, for putting me straight…

It has become quite obvious to me that the AGW denialist case has been gravely damaged by their palpable fraud and misrepresentation.

I’m all in favor of scientific argument and debate about such a massive topic as the Earth’s climate. Controversy and even invective have their place. But there’s no place for fraud whatsoever.

One the bad things that fraud does is weaken its surrounding arguments – even when they might be correct. As a consequence the whole debate loses an important degree of intensity.

The Global Warming deniers, exactly like Creationists and Chemtrailers, use downright fraud, cherry-picking, quote-mining, straw men arguments in their desperate need to sway opinion in their direction. It’s hard to tell between them. Spits.

The Earth warms, and warms by processes pretty well accounted for by science.

Anthropogenic warming IS occurring and it is definitely time right now to do something about it.

I don’t think that CARBON taxes will do anything useful at this stage. The sensible thing to do is to prepare the world for the inevitable MIGRATIONS of both Man, animals and plants which will become necessary to avoid chaos and disaster. I see no sign of this. This “preparation of the world” is the unique property of Mankind, and we should exercise it NOW.

Meanwhile, I’m going to be amending my comments about volcanoes throughout my blog (which I admit are grossly incorrect) and commend to you these videos:

  

 

 

James Randi - debunker par excellence...

Not Coming

This is a lenticular cloud - and not an Adamski Scoutship

PAGE CONTENTS

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…

NOMEANSNO

People queuing up to be poisoned by a sprayer whose pilot was just too lazy to switch the spray off

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?:
/watch?v=E0AzCIzDf6I&NR=1
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.

wobbly moment as spray pilot misses the switch in the gloom

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.

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
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.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V95-3V5YS7F-1C&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1186771367&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4c14e8bcc11a5d4214e1afea2634d331
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.'”

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
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:
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html#Twenty-Five_Rules_of_Disinformation__

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.

ISS and Shuttle before the Sun

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 :originating in or based on observation or experience. Does this mean something else to you?
Hard evidence.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

That’s all very stupid. Perhaps I should apply, eh? There’s enough STUPID as there is.

NOT COMING

“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.

NOT HEALTHY

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?

NOTHING

(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…

altocumulus

“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.

NOTRAILS

Hi notrails,

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…

OFFICIAL (VERSION)

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.

OGRISH

“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…..

OUTSIDE IN

PAINT

“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!

PASSION

“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)

SweetiePie
Informative hub. I learned something new.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for responding, SweetiePie!

randomlight
Nice summation; well done.

Fabrizio
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!

Darol (cd4sunshine)
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!

shipsuperstore
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!

Madhavi Bhatia
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!

Life_of_Purpose1
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.

Karen Ellis
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!

The Bull
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.

rmr
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!

Lou Purplefairy
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!

JazzRoc
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 https://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!

JazzRoc
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!

JazzRoc
“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!

Eric Graudins
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!

JazzRoc
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 https://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.

Eric Graudins
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.

JazzRoc
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!

JazzRoc
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?

JazzRoc
“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!

JazzRoc
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!

JazzRoc
“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.

JazzRoc
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.

unknown
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?

JazzRoc
“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…

unknown
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.

JazzRoc
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.

steve
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.

lynette
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.

MD FREE
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!

MD FREE
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.

MD FREE
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.

MD FREE
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!

toxicpolarbear
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.

Sean
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.

bozena
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.

Robert

PAGE CONTENTS 

ROBERT – ROCKETAGENCY – RUSHFAN’S MASSIVE FRAUD – SAME POSTS – SCALAR (“WEAPONS”) – SCALE – SCATTERING

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

lol, well you’re nuts but at least you concede that there’s something up there that shouldn’t be. we get lots of these over Toronto as well. 100+ chemicals including berium…very poisonous. ,,.also weather maniuplation.”
“you concede” – WATER. Not exactly harmful.
“shouldn’t be” – SHOULD BE, if you wish to travel.
“we get lots as well” – You have a LARGE AIRPORT.
“100+ chemicals” – have been picked up at GROUND LEVEL. The WORLD is a DUSTY place, and you have COUNTLESS MILLIONS of BACTERIA ALL OVER YOU.
“berium” – BARIUM – “very poisonous” – so is CALCIUM (OXIDE) if you swallow it. Yet your BONES and TEETH are made of it.
“weather manipulation” – The induction of rainfall needs SILVER iodide crystals. The STATES have FLOGGED their FAMILY SILVER.
Weather has NEVER been manipulated.
And so your reply becomes MEANINGLESS DRIVEL. 

ROCKETAGENCY 

Actually, I believe your data. It contained a few missing pieces of info I had been hoping someone could articulate for a while now.
The most profound fallacies I’ve noticed are that:
1) If you can see a trail, it MUST be dangerous.
2) If you can’t see a trail, no danger exists.
Ha. Not so very funny.
I hope you read up more on DILUTION FACTORS. In general, apart from molecules of  plutonium or other radioactive element isotopes, EVERYTHING ELSE sprayed from a height of seven miles would land the day after tomorrow, at least two hundred miles away, and DILUTED BEYOND ANY DANGER – unless you believe in that branch of alternative medicine, er, whatsitsname… homeopathic…
And I hope you watched George Carlin too…
I agree with him: you’re all pussies that have NO IDEA of the dangers that existed all around you throughout existence – before you were born – creeping up on you as you’re standing outside (looking up!) – and raining down on the pussies that will still be in existence after you’re dead.
You don’t want to be a pussy? Then LEARN about Evolution, LEARN about your body’s biochemistry, Learn about pathogens and poisons, LEARN about the atmosphere, LEARN about the REAL dangers of EM radiation from CELLPHONES and city centres, LEARN about the Federal Reserve Bank, LEARN how to be self-sufficient, LEARN how to build an autonomous house, LEARN about PERMACULTURE and Ecology.
Don’t waste your time with Chemtrailer-trash bunkum… 

RUSHFAN’S MASSIVE FRAUD

Myself
Look up the Boeing 777 Long Range prototype in Airliners dot net. You’ll find this picture without the photoshopping.
The barrels are for varying the plane’s centre of gravity – a nifty thing to do when you’re prototype-testing.
Sciechimiche are a crowd of fraudsters and YOU are the dupe.
“Chemtrails” are a form of mind-terrorism practised by people who don’t understand anything to do with science and engineering.
The damage they do is worse than Chicken Little.
You are a throwback.

Rushfan
There are plenty of US patents related to many of the topics brought to light by those you call ‘fraudsters’. I have spent many hours reviewing numerous aerosol methods and devices.
One thing that is fact, is the baldfaced lies our government will tell the public to justify any agenda. So given that lies can come from both sides, truth usually falls somewhere in the middle and usually in plain sight. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
After absolutely stumping my Earth Science professor one day a few years ago (who happens to be a career military weatherman), I’ll keep on watching.
What’s most interesting is why anyone would bother wasting time on people who are supposedly discussing something that is not accurate. One would think there are better things to do with your time than spending it following such dialogue.

Myself
There are plenty of patents about everything.
I am an anarchist with a natural distaste of governments.
“Truth” only falls at the centre by default in such debates – and, as such, ISN’T truth.
There’s no harm in “keeping on watching” only if you keep your scientific understanding up to snuff.
You have failed to do so – and so you do harm. Without sufficient understanding you will fail to interpret events accurately, and then proceed inexorably to jump to wrong conclusions.
Reminding harmful members of our society of the harm they are committing seems quite a reasonable thing to do to me. It’s not the only thing I do with my time.

Rushfan
To an extent, you seem to have some sense of concern. Since we as a public have been lied to on numerous occasions, putting faith into the corrupt is not always wise. Those entrusted to keep the faith are many times part of the problem.
In an ideal scenario, one would prefer to be able to not have to be concerned. Does one sit back and do nothing or do something? Regardless of 100% accuracy or ability to provide certain proof, the act of, in and of itself, generating any awareness at all is to everyone’s benefit.
I know that when presented with conditions he could not explain, my “career military weatherman” professor was stumped and would not comment further. One problem with “Science” is that some in Science are just as corrupt. Controversy is just as plentiful and placing faith is getting more and more difficult. I would surely hope that nothing is going on to our atmosphere and that there would be nothing to be concerned about.
One thing is also certain, all actions are not being conducted for your and my best interests. To think that whatever is going on is on the up and up all the time is not a good approach…

Myself
The same could be said of you, re concern. You may be not completely cynical yourself.
The “visual evidence” you so much believe in has led you astray.
Were it not for science would you KNOW that the Sun does NOT go round the Earth? Be honest – you wouldn’t. You would INTERPRET what you see as the Sun (a SMALLER body) passing over the sky to set on the opposite compass axis.
In a similar manner you INTERPRET the occasional trail which expands HUGELY as a HUMAN act, when it is in fact a NATURAL occurrence.
When passing through cold (-40) humid (more than100% saturated) stratospheric air (a completely different STABLE and LAYERED section of Earth’s atmosphere) the trail ice can SEED the NUCLEATION of the excess water in the layer by a factor of up to TEN THOUSAND TIMES.
It is therefore not impossible for a trans-continental jumbo flight to create a trail containing EIGHTY THOUSAND TONS of ICE.
You will appreciate that this trail WILL cover the sky with a stripe of suspended ice crystals which may be up to 10 kilometres wide by 2 kilometres deep. With stratospheric interlayer SHEAR this may get WIDER STILL.
There are hundreds of atmospheric research papers to choose from, but I’ll quote you only one:
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
READ IT. This research was done using the finest minds and scientific techniques.
With this fact NOTHING REMAINS OF YOUR THEORY. Without the visual misperception you have made, you are left merely with hatred of the extant power structure – which is my position also.
If you go down the route that such reports are mere constructs of the PTB, then you have to assume that ALL information has been back-edited, and that would have to include ALL relevant books in ALL libraries (and the ones on my shelf).
Sorry, me laddie, but that won’t wash…
Seeing as we SHARE a dislike of “authority” (I have been an anarchist since before you were born) I will now tell you that MISINFORMATION (which is what you seem to wish to disseminate) is NO SERVICE AT ALL to the rest of us. We’re trying to WIN a battle that you’re trying to LOSE.
Far from myself being a “USEFUL IDIOT”, it is YOURSELF that is a USELESS one…

Rushfan
Once again, your insight is appreciated and respected, yet even with accurate statistics detailing various formations, it does not deny, or cause doubt toward the fact that geoengineering has been considered, may have been implemented and may even be in some form of advanced stages.
Knowing the weather modification efforts during the Vietnam War and our own use of chemicals, and the simple fact of the now documented untruth regarding the Tonkin incident, there is little to no reason to believe, with even the smallest of faith, what we are told.
The presentation of any statistics is by no means any type of answer that would confirm that no such thing is or has been happening. Should you ever be able to provide enough information that there would indeed be no reason or any effort whatsoever for any weather modification, this would be more constructive.
As I watch this and other areas, one thing remains constant, the ability to try and mislead the public for a greater agenda. I would much rather be wrong about an issue than be asleep to it.

Myself
“once again, your insight is appreciated and respected, yet even with accurate statistics detailing various formations, it does not deny, or cause doubt toward the fact that geoengineering has been considered” – You, I, and most everyone else has considered it. Yet few of us are sufficiently mathematically-inclined and equipped with hard facts about the Earth to do this. Those that do know that the Earth’s a large place and Man’s technological activities aren’t detectable within its atmosphere.
“may have been implemented and ” – Well, no, that isn’t true for the above reasons.
“may even be in some form of advanced stages.” – Well, no, that isn’t true for the above reasons.
“Knowing the weather modification efforts during the Vietnam War and our own use of chemicals, and the simple fact of the now documented untruth regarding the Tonkin incident, there is little to no reason to believe, with even the smallest of faith, what we are told.” – Even while agreeing with you that these events did take place, that doesn’t allow me to suppose that things aren’t different today. They are different today.
Many intervening events have taken place and everyone these days is web-aware. There was no web then.
“The presentation of any statistics is by no means any type of answer that would confirm that no such thing is or has been happening.” – That would be true if it were true. However I didn’t present you with “statistics”. I presented you with EVIDENCE proving the NON-EXISTENCE of CHEMTRAILS.
“Should you ever be able to provide enough information that there would indeed be no reason or any effort whatsoever for any weather modification, this would be more constructive.” – I provided EVIDENCE. You misinterpretation of that is your problem.
There ARE two worthwhile areas of geo-engineering, one involving salt-spray trimarans and the other fertilising the mid-ocean sea surfaces.
“As I watch this and other areas, one thing remains constant, the ability to try and mislead the public for a greater agenda.” – It’s a pity you seem to want to join in with this. If they can do it, you can do it, is that it?
“I would much rather be wrong about an issue than be asleep to it.” – Then you are apparently in your ideal state.

Rushfan
Once again, I would have enjoyed something that would remove any doubt about such possibilities. Nothing mentioned lays any basis for having any belief that such operations are not going on or have been going on. There is no basis to have faith in those that would or would not even be involved.It would be interesting as to why you can claim that such things are not possible unless you knew for certain that every possible source was in fact not doing these things. While your information base may be great, I fail to see anything that would cause support.
On another note, what is your take on the article published in the Open Chemical and Physics Journal of April 2009 regarding dust samples. I would surely like to see that their findings are inaccurate but no-one has countered with any significant results to the contrary.

Myself
The trails witnessed which persist when a jet plane flies through a supersaturated stratosphere ( 17% of Earth’s stratosphere is in this condition) are composed of ICE – as I have already told you.
There are 87,000 daily overflights of the US. Only the variability of the persistent jet streams determines where supersaturated conditions exist in the seven stratospheric circulatory cell systems which the Earth possesses.
You might suppose that nearly a million tons of aviation kerosine combusted to add just over a million tons of water vapor/ice might alter the stratosphere significantly locally, but measurements have shown less than a percentage change whenever they have been measured. This may cause hazy conditions – but they are local and temporary. And HARMLESS. Persistent trail ice is PURER THAN TAPWATER!
Metals and other materials cannot be passed through jet engines without being visible in the trail gap.They AREN’T, so aircraft jet engines are NOT the route by which you can claim “spraying” to be taking place.
If you knew ANY science, you would know that passing finely-divided metals through a flame is a means of determining which element they are – for each element has a different flame color. It’s known as “Flame Testing”. Every colored firework you have ever seen should remind you of this. BARIUM is used to color fireworks GREEN.
Metals which undergo VIOLENT HIGH SPEED COLLISION reach PLASMATIC temperatures. They FLASH!
If you collide iron and aluminum at high speeds (half a million tons falling from a thousand feet) the violence vaporizes some the metal into a hot spray of microspherules – just like thermite combustion.
All the materials necessary were there in the WTC – iron from the structure, aluminum from the plane, sulfur from the gypsum wall-boarding.
I draw your attention to this vid of a Phantom colliding with a very solid concrete block. You’ll see the plasmatic flash, and the fine dust (microspherical) which flies out radially from the point of contact. This dust (made from a dural/titanium airframe and two engines with very large, hard, heat-resistent alloy-steel shafts about ten feet long!) won’t contain much sulfur, but that’s the only difference.

Now get off your ass and stop buying things so easily. Science is a process which checks itself all the time, and if a dozen scientists say one thing, with a single dissenter, then the chances REALLY ARE that the twelve are correct, and the dissenter isn’t. If you want to be sure, then LEARN SOME SCIENCE.
The beauty of everything I’m telling you is that if you CHECK FOR YOURSELF in a book in some library I have never seen, or in a paper available on the internet via your own search process, you CAN quite independently confirm what I write here.
The fact that the US is run by a criminal syndicate in no way alters the physics of gas turbines in the atmosphere or high-energy collisions.
Get logical.

Well, he stopped responding. He answered none of my questions, followed none of my links.

These guys are so paranoid and deluded that they avoid Science in their desperate attempts to remain “uncontaminated” by the “powers-that-be”.

YouTube is supremely unconcerned with matters of truth, and many of the people I know who, like me, find this delusional and divisive behavior to be appalling, have been banned from it when they overstep the mark (by posting too often, or by being complained of to YT). It also puts a 500-character limit on comments and has some ingenious software which prevents anyone from posting links, which makes it very difficult to challenge these deceitful videos, while making it very easy to produce them.

RECENT YOUTUBE COMMENTS ON

“CHEMTRAILS FROM THE INSIDE”

doobeedoo22
The interior photos show a pre-production aircraft, fitted with instrumentation for use during a flight testing programme.  The liquid containers that you see, fixed to the floor in the cabin, can be filled with water to simulate the weight of seats, passengers, cargo and luggage.  New aircraft must be tested at their all-up weight, but you don’t undertake trials of a new design with hundreds of people on board!   No chemtrails here.   Fnord.
 
kashpd
Fnord… And “Hail Eris !”

dustinwrye
That does not say Hazard Inside.  It says HAZMAT.   It means hazardous materials.  So you are partially right.   Inside the striped tape is a sign in sheet used to show who checked on or secured the material last.
Standard government stuff here.  It could be anything.  You are only speculating on the “spraying”, you can’t really tell what it is saying.
Same with the “Lock Care”.  If it had anything to do with safety it would be in the same place on every barrel.  The government standardizes everything.
 
eyeOOsee
Dustin I cannot believe what you wrote!  I have been photographing these goddamned billows of crap being srayed over my town for 10 fucking years and you want to argue over hazmat vs hazard!!??  Are you insane!!??  Look at the skies for god sake.  This is world wide.  Not EVERYTHING is necessarily going to be the way you expect it to be when we have all seen more than one type of plane spraying.  It is not JUST THE US GOVERNMENT here!  Watch “Aerosol Crimes” on google video.  What is really important?
 
dustinwrye
Fine, don’t believe what I wrote.  I said it was HAZMAT, that’s the same as Hazard in a way.  Don’t be stupid, the government is not “spraying” you with anything. Don’t believe everything you see on YouTube.  And if they are, it isn’t working.  I still know they are corrupt and after nothing but power.  Life expectancy is going up, so it must not be that bad for ya.  If it is something that kills certain people…  fine, the world population is getting out of hand.  Just hope I’m not the target.

 
eyeOOsee
Dustin, re-read what I wrote.  These have been falling on the ground x10yrs, I have been photographing longer than I have had a computer.  Life expectancy is goin down..how many 90 yr. olds do you know?  When I was in MY 20’s every family had 3 to 4.  Seriously take a look at “Aerosol Crimes” on google video by Clifford Carnicom.  It’s about 1hr.45min.  Great documentary, and a decade of material, incl. updates.  And “you” “are” the target. We all breathe the same air.  Have you seen what’s in these?
 
dustinwrye
Making it to 90 years old has never been the norm….NEVER.  The life expectancy is in the 60s, it continues to go up too.  As for families having less kids now, well I see that you are 50 some years old.  Some would say part of the baby boomer generation.  Yes, parents had more kids back then.  People built their lives around hard work and producing goods.  No longer is that the case, we are a consuming nation now, more kids are not needed to help around the house anymore.

eyeOOsee
Dustin, check your mail for response.

farmersc3500
The orginal photo dated May 25, 2005 can be found by googling airliners Boeing 777-240/LR william appleton
Go to the first hit on google, it should be from airliners net and you can click and expand or save image as.  And see every thing you see on this video close up. Including the sign, barrels windows and computers.  You can also click on the “cn 3378/504” so you can find 80 more photos of the same airplane including photos of both the inside and outside for ID purposes.  Case Closed.

laurasmales
I’ve just looked it up on google, saved the image and the writing doesn’t seem to be on there anymore?

farmersc350
Laurasmales, you are correct, the original photo dated May 25, 2005 does not have the writing “Sprayer” “Hazard inside” and “Lock care” on it.  Which just goes to show that the video maker (tankerenemy) photoshopped the picture in order to deceive people into believing in chemtrails.  It is obvious that the maker of this video is knowingly and willing putting out disinformation in order to promote chemtrail beliefs.  For a video of the same plane including the tanks, pilots and engineers just google 777-200LR Worldliner videos.  Go to the first hit play the video “777-200LR prepares for first flight”.  In short, people like tankerenemy could not promote his false chemtrail beliefs without misinformation/disinformation. His photo shopped picture is a fine example of how far he will go to mislead people.

laurasmales
If it is photoshopped then they aren’t helping to spread the word about chemtrails, instead they’re inviting criticism.

Now that’s interesting. Although it’s obviously a fraud, this only “invites criticism”!

iggy6
It doesn’t matter how much proof you show, there are govt. employees whose job it is to seek out all of these videos and articles and use any tactic to discredit the facts.  Contrails form at 29,000 feet, yet in desert areas aerosols have been sprayed at less than 10,000 feet and lingered for hours. No matter what you say they will deny.  So that is why I find it funny.  They get all bent when someone uses their same tactics back at them.

KamarHarris
Ya because google can be trusted if the government was corrupt in that way.

rodman332
Chemtrails are fucking real!

farmersc3500
Rodman, even tankerenemy knows this is not at “chemplane”, if he really thought it was a “chemplane” then he would not have photoshop the photos in this video.  To see the orginal photo that predates tankerenemys photoshop version just google airliners Boeing 777-240/LR william appleton.  Note the original photo does not have the words “sprayer” “hazard inside” “lock care” because that was added by tankerenemy after he copied the photo off airliners net.  What is real is that IS a photo of the ballast tanks that are used to change the CG (weight and balance) in the certification test for the Boeing 777-240LR serial number 33781/504. And that same airplane is now used in passenger service for PIA.   Also what is real, is tankerenemy is knowingly and willingly putting out disinformation in the form of this photoshopped photo.

glennwa11
Farmersc, that is the typical chemtrail activist tactic.  Deceive and lie.  Anything for ratings and views.

westwatford
Yeah, they were connected up through tubes which must spray out the back.  What ever it is, the goverment are doing something.

unusmultorumm
They are connected with tubes so they can flow the water from the back to the front of the aircraft.  They do this to determine the center of gravity limitations of this aircraft.

1enzeder
Could be part of the global eugenics program, or maybe its just liquid plant fertilizer the CIA are spraying on their opium crops.

a123a456a123a456a
Shut up you poisoned troll, the water and air is contaminating and mutating people into troll-like creatures , many people all over the country have gotten their hepa filtration systems tested, that’s how we know, and as for the military planes i have seen them with telescopes aliminum barrium trails, again buy an IQ air health pro, and forget about these military scumbags trying to kill you, at least while in your home.

GLOBALRAPTUREdotcom
My good friend Dr. Bender said another possibility is that after 2012 we will go through the galactic plane as it is called in science and our magnetic field will be affected.  Chemtrails can be filling us with a false metallic base so when there is less of a magnetic field they can throw on Haarp or something of the like and keep us under control, we know now that you can control a person by remote radio waves this is one possibility you can by a heavy metal detox to take once a month.
Holyshit can’t understand a word he said but i get it….
Chemtrails are a weather manipulation operation by the NEW WORLD ORDER using regular military people to carry out chemical spraying on civilian populations using low range bioweapons, also as a means to move moisture collect it and redistribute it as a weapon in other remote areas.  They tell the soldiers they are helping thwart global warming.   Soldiers do not question orders and this is a major flaw in military people, besides their willingness to receive bioweapons and they are told they are vac.

icke11234
Chemtrails – genocide!   Join petition on an investigation of chemtrails: thepetitionsite.com/7/investigate-persistent-contrails-aka-chemtrails

dimviesel
The chemicals (metals) in chemtrails work together with the haarp, once these chemicals are ingested for years it is much easier to control people’s thoughts, courage, fight or flight response and proper judgement.  Just look at how crazy ppl are acting these days?  There have always been lunatics in public but the types of acts of todays looney tunes are unprecidented and unusual.

carlosmante
Filios Puttana.

yohrdzayr
Simply scary!  Thanks for posting.

URAterrorist
Chemtrails Are: Persistent lines of chemical-infused aerosol spray dispersals from typically unmarked planes which are now seen in the sky all over the world. Unlike normal jet contrails formed from water vapor, chemtrails spread to form a thick blanket of cloud cover, held together by polymer fibers until they reach the ground, contaminating crops, water supplies and humans with radioactive soft metals and dessicated red blood cells which contain active human pathogens.

Ah. So “URAterrorist” is a sock-puppet of SERIOUS BULL, as the above is a word-for-word cut-and-paste of his!

KarakulBrigand
Chemtrails don’t exist? Watch this vid.  Experimental Biological Chemical Spraying(chemtrails?)

RyanKearns1985
Does anyone know how a cloud works?  It is condensed moisture.  As a jet flies, it produces exhaust.  Very hot exhaust.  This hot exhaust condenses as it is cooled by the upper atmosphere, creating a sort of artificial cloud.  If you believe in this chemtrail story, then you are a grade “A” follower, and an idiot.

TouchedProductions
Sorry to say it, but it’s public knowledge now.  It has nothing to do with conspiracies.  It’s weather modification, and it’s funded by the US State.  Please, before you start flaming me, at least google it.  I wish I was wrong.

iggy6
It is more than weather mod.  AbouttheSky.Com. Plus, read CFR’s own documents… cryptogon.com/?p=7709
Explain the nanotech biologicals containing dessicated blood cells, 24 viruses, anthrax, and many other nasties. Is that for the weather too?

TouchedProductions
I only preach what is proven, mate.   No offense, but unless I can prove it, I’m not going to push it.

CrudeDude
Chemtrailers are just stupid, delusional, paranoid cretins.  Sad.

URAterrorist
What is unbelievably dumb, is someone who thinks contrails and chemtrails are the same thing.
 Yes any idiot knows that contrails form at high altitudes and low temperatures.  Chemtrails however, form at ANY altitude and at ANY temperature.  There are 4 seasons where I live.  Chemtrails form in ALL of them.  I’ve only been watching this anomaly for 10 years now.  If they don’t spray all night, my morning BLUE sky turns completely WHITE EVERY afternoon.  This may be your memory of normal, but not mine!

He doesn’t know the stratosphere exists.

RyanKearns1985
The weather is usually “controlled” by salts, not chemical aerosols, as far as I know.  Anyone else know?

PParranoidd
The thing you’re talking about is called cloud seeding.

BlueSkiesWhiteLies
After many years of fighting the Global, Chemtrail Operation, I have found only ONE WEAPON that is effective against them. That is an Orgonite CloudBuster. This simple yet powerful device, breaks up and repels Chemtrails and it restores and maintains natural cloud and blue sky. You can learn to make one on U Tube but I bought mine ready made.  I have 12 work’n hard.  Now my neighborhood sky stays BLUE while surrounding areas stay WHITE! Buy Yours@CTbustersdotcom and SEE The Change In Your World!

I wouldn’t call the above a white lie…

iggy6
Please read cryptogonDOTcom/?p=7709
From the CFR’s own documents…
“1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere
2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere
3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.
4. Change large portions of the planets land cover from things that are dark such as trees to things that are light such as open snowcover or grasses.”
So KILL TREES?

CrudeDude
Chemtrailers are just stupid, delusional, paranoid cretins.  Sad.

gulesh01
Ok I need to mention something…  I saw this on another video and someone responded saying: What we are looking at is the inside of a training aircraft.  Before pilots start flying human beings they train in plains that are filled with liquid, weight, and shift measurments so every movement of the pilot is categorized and graded for his piloting course.  The weight barrels and over abundance of electrical equipment stocked head to toe in there are there for pilot training. I dont know whats true…

gliderwickid
Those tanks are used in test aircraft for centre of gravity adjustments.   Test pilots need to fly the aircraft on the extremes of what’s possible so as to keep “normal” pilots within the safety limit.  And rather than to risk people or have to carry around with lead bricks they use these large water tanks and shift the water around through the piping to shift the centre of gravity for testing.  The electronics are to record flight parameters.

RyanKearns1985
You’re a bad ass.  Finally a voice of reason.  I thought for sure the illuminati, the reptilian overlords, morgellons or Orgonite was responsible.  About three weeks ago I stumbled upon chemtrails and I haven’t stopped researching yet.  I just keep getting deeper and deeper into paranoid, delusional, craziness.

gulesh01
Now wait up a sec….  Like what the other guy says even if this video is nonsense it doesn’t rule anything out…  btw I have been researching morgellons for about a year.  I first discovered it and spent 2 weeks straight looking into it.  In that time I’ve read every single website that aims to disprove and discredit the “condition” as well as all the sites that try to prove it.  After weeks of first studying it I have no choice but to conclude for now that this disease is real…

gulesh01
Check the CDC site bro they been studying Morgellons for 3 years and they STILL haven’t said a word about their findings.  I must ask… It takes 3+years for them to tell us that these fibers are hair’s/fuz? See for yourself – they have NO suggestion – stumped.   The biggest website dedicated to disproving morg (odd?) is a site called Morgellons Watch ran by 2-3 people who create/debate evidence.  Ever since CDC started they disabled their comments section as it was always filled with angry morg sufferers.

Revolt300
Don’t listen to explanations from anyone.   trails should not be in the sky.   thats it.   this video means nothing.   what we see in the sky DOES mean something.  demand answers and documentation.

gliderwickid
I’m not saying that there is nothing.  I’m just answering gulesh question.  Why should nobody listen to a correct answer?  You yourself are demanding answers but you’re not listening to them.  Bit weird don’t you think?

CrudeDude
Orgonite counters the harmful effects of chemtrails. Simply place a small piece of orgonite between the layers of the foil in your hat.

CrudeDude
Revolt300 said “don’t listen to explanations from anyone…”  Especially if they are coherent, logical statements made by professional people who are more intelligent, and know more about the subject than you.  Only listen to statements made by people who are just as delusional as you are.

oltomee
If you listen to some corrupted scientist (more intelligent than you, know more about the subject etc but he’s a corrupted nwo agent) who is covering the spraying operation you’d feel more informed?  Sometimes you have to think by yourself.   There are weird white planes that spray something on us all around the world.  You don’t have to work at the Nasa to see that lol. Do we have to wait the day they spray blue or red shit to say “it is not normal”?

CrudeDude
oltomee, you poor delusional paranoid cretin, Chemtrails? You gotta be kidding! ROFLMAO at you clowns.

haycarambaaaisback
A- U r just plain stupid.  B- U r one of them.

CrudeDude
haycarambaaaisback said ” A- U r just plain stupid.  B- U r one of them.”
Yep.  You got me.  I’m “one of them”.  I’m one of the many intellegent people out here laughing at your ridiculous “chemtrail” videos.  And as far as “stupid” is concerned, I’d say that people who think airplanes are spraying chemicals on them to depopulate the earth are the truly stupid.  That’d include you, Sparkie.

xxxxxDIABLOxxx
if you can prove it right.. go on.   if you have proof it’s not true.. good.   if none of the above.. shut the fuck up and go fuck your mother until she’s dead.  if she’s dead, go dig her up and stick your tongue on her motherfuckin pussy.  you don’t know the truth, and you don’t know otherwise.  don’t play smart dick. hehehe…

gliderwickid
Now calm down.  I’m not some agent or scientist.  I’m training to become a commercial pilot which gives me a reasonable understanding about what happens with planes and contrails.  IF chemtrails were to be real i definitely don’t want anything to do with them.  But atm I am just not convinced by the evidence you guys are providing.  But i’ll check up there if i get a job 😉

julyboy66
allright

Ng7solja
the government can do what they want to human beings and do not have to tell us as long as what they’re doin is classified as testing.

SpriteCCA
So, Middle-eastern musicians are behind ChemTrails?   Whatszup with that?   Geeze…  Peace, Sprite.

Revolt300
pay no attention to these videos.  they spray our skies around the world.   no permission and without mentioning it.  the sky is fine the way it is.  nothing more is needed to be said.   especially in the states.   is america not a democracy?

TheMorpheusbrasil
USA is now a Fascist Dictatorship.  Don’t you know?  Educate yourself man!  George Bush ends the Democracy all around the world man.  Go research, Television is the main tool to make people fool, in order to implement the World Slavery!

TheJimbob111
We are a Constitutional Republic last time I checked, though it would not appear to be in todays events.

WTU208
see the first line written into the Stone Henge sized Georgia Guidestones…..and then tell me these are not real…
 
speeder757
I know why don’t the anti-chemtrailists hire a fucking big hot air balloon and go up into these clouds and breathe as deep as they could, just to prove us wrong.

MrSuntour
speeder757, better yet, chemtrailers should hire someone to go up and do some testing on these persistent contrails that they claim are “chemtrails”.   Chemtrailers make the claims, they’re the ones who have to “prove” that there’s a “clandestine spraying operation”.

speeder757
Give me proof they aren’t chemtrails, it’s just words so far no proof from contrailist either, trust me I don’t make decisions without the facts.  convince me I`ll be the first to agree they are contrails but no one so far has, you’d be the first.

MrSuntour
I think you’re having a problem grasping the simple logic of our situation.  It’s impossible to prove something does not exist, it’s nonsense to even suggest it.  Therefore, the onus is on the Chemtrail believers to prove that Chemtrails DO exist.
Fact – Contrails exist and act the same way they have acted for more than 50 years, youtube search “newsreel battle of the bulge” for tons of persisting and grid contrails from the 1940’s.
Now prove that persistent contrails today are different.
“Newsreel: Battle of the Bulge” at 6:08 to be exact, tons of persisting and crossing contrails from 1945.

speeder757
I would know the difference if I see vapours from the engines and I could live with that it is contrails.  No one should take the word of something unless they research it and all possible avenues are exhausted untill you can come to a competent decision on your own, even then question yourself if it’s correct information you’re getting.  Now if I see spray nozzles there would be no question as to chemtrails, thats why observing with a telescope might be the only way.

MrSabre11
i’ve seen these news reels but i’ve also seen a discovery channel documentry on chemical warfare and saw shots of planes dumping clouds of chemicals and testing the results on animals.. this was during the 30’s – 50’s…   Also weather mods need to be taken into consideration thats also been a viable technology since the 30’s…  In the UK we flooded a town testing it way back then…

chibet
What’s a Chemtrail? Seems Interesting.

peterson553
Has anyone else noticed a ceasing of chemtrails in their area? Out here in LA, on the westside, there have been no chemtrails for over two weeks.  They went from very heavy application for a long time, then nothing…

banana268
In Vancouver BC they have been getting progressively worse.  I have never seen them so bad.  I see them every day.

Firegiant3
Man just watching these movies and reading your comments causes the loss of brain cells how could any of you survive this long in life with the IQ of a Fern?

LOL ! 🙂

CrudeDude
Your comment is an insult to ferns worldwide.  Even a plant has more inherent intelligence than the average chemtard.

elucidative
You got to be a complete retard if you can’t see these “contrails” don’t fade away into the humidity because they are aerosols and make false cirrus clouds and fog the ground with chemicals.  Like they don’t spray people, tell that to the agent orange victims.

Firegiant3
WOW, you are far off there…  my father was in an Agent orange area and VA taking care of our troops…   now they admitted what they did.  It’s way different in a war zone.  It doesn’t make what they did right, but they owned up to it…  our govt’s not perfect and in many cases yes, screwed up, but it’s not dropping chem on us in everyday situations.  Go see a shrink and get fixed.  If not, then move out of this country if you don’t trust them…  get your head whacked off in Iraq, or somewhere similar, and realize what you had.

11seretter11
i would say the same to u, realise what u have, for soon it will all be gone and something new will come, and the time for us is coming fast, it all has begun for u, so sticking around in the US for the next years is maybe not the best place to be.
-Obama – building a civilian army
-Fluoridation of ur drinking water (to slow u all down)
-house market crashed
-dollar will collapse soon
-us/canada/mexico become one (=EU)
-FEMA camps
u don’t think there are chemtrails in the rest of the world?

BingoTheClowno666
huh? is this a language?

pffbh
eugenics is alive and well . They love soft kill weapons that can’t be traced and make you sick so they can sell you medicine to cover the symptoms and you end up in debt and they take it all in the end when you die…  I love the flag wavers like firegiant…  took many years for the govt to admit to wrongdoing over agent orange.  learn some more history.  Forced sterilizations were performed on american women from 1909 till 1945 for women thought to be unfit mothers.

pffbh
Syphilis was given to blacks as an experiment.  aids is man-made.  azt was given to aids victims and it sped up the process of dying. where the hell did morgellons come from?  The victims think it’s chemtrails.  What about the bees dying en masse? No bees, no food.  GMO foods affect the dna in your gut.  It’s frickin’ endless and the fda does nothing!  go have some aspartame…  enjoy!  It’s all coming to a head.  I’m a vet by the way 74-78…  Now our troops are exposed to depleted Uranium.  look it up…

pffbh
yes, flag wavers, we mean nothing.  we are cannon fodder for the big boys playing war games.  Its all about the money.  Always has been…  here’s a heads-up for all who are reading my rant. The dollar will tank between nov 5th and march of 2010 according to predictive linguistics which has a 75% accuracy rating.  Better have a 6 month supply of food, at least.  get a couple 50lb bags of rice and beans.  better own silver or gold depending on what you can afford. Hyperinflation is coming soon.  good luck!

Firegiant3
see his profile for my rebuttal.

beachcomber2008
This is the Boeing 777 LR prototype.  Look it up in airliners. net.  The notice has been photoshopped in.  THIS IS AN IN-YOUR-FACE LIE.

DYONESLEMOSRAMOS
jihad now, jihad now, jihad now.

speeder757
Ive seen those newsreels too.  Yes they are compelling, but newsreels can be doctored.  Hell, I’ve seen a truck turn into a robot in a movie.  That looked real.

GregOrca
You guys – if you had ever bothered to do legitimate research you would know these are normal ballast tanks for simulating the weight of passengers in new aircraft prototypes.  All prototype passenger airliners use them.  You can plainly see them on film of the very first 747 in 1969 long before 1996!
Not a shitty doctored photo stolen off the net with “sprayer”‘ and “Hazard” added using photoshop, but the real thing.
at 6:41

at 1:05

Also watch this video at 5:51 mins in

Such old films show how farcical the claims of Chemtards are, and show their almost total ignorance of even the most basic aspects of aviation and science and meteorology.

Stev888
The favourite concept of the Chemtard is the “persistent contrail” normally prefixed somewhere with the thought-stopping “scientifically proven.”

GregOrca
No, the favourite concept of the chemtard is “just look up at the sky”, the same mindless principle that made people think the sun revolved around the earth for millenia.  Chemtards don’t understand science.  They don’t understand anything much which is why they believe in the hoax and have no idea what their eyes are seeing.

sodasoap
I’m a pilot and this are not contrail, it’s more than vapour than simple minds may think.  Not normal for sure.

stopthechem
i know they are not normal.. because i cough up blood and have difficulty breathing about 3 hours after they pass by … sick bastards.

AntiLieGuy
The chemtrails are hide our 10th planet Nibiru. This is also the reason the govt is now classifying all asteroid events.  this is the warning for the war of armageddon which will see Russia, China and the SCO destroy America on 10-10-09.
News here: (3w) . docstoc . com/docs/6519605/WarNews
btw – gregorca is a paid govt liar. dont argue with the liars.

Said with such conviction too.  But the date has passed!  Are we at war?

CrudeDude
AntiLieGuy—1st degree Chemtard.

sleathx
I agree with you, he is a liar.  I don’t know about government liar, but he certainly could be a disinformant. Not agreeing with chemtrails, but his arguments against chemtrails are “chemtards are wrong, chemtards are stupid, chemtards don’t know science.”  That’s not an argument, nor is it a debatable fact, it is a series of opinions.  People tend to take opinions as facts – so he is a decent liar.  But not good enough.

tAcco9911
You cannot go into a debate with chemtards, because there is no foundation for debate.  You won’t debate with someone who tells you earth is a disk and not a globe.  So it is perfectly reasonable to say (and, therefore, not discuss with them) “chemtards are wrong, chemtards are stupid, chemtards don’t know science.”  It may be an opinion, but it’s a well-founded one.

vaccineshurtbabies
“chemtards” = chemtrail deniers
There is an obvious difference between chemtrails and contrails.  Contrails fade, chemtrails spread out into smoke-like formations and often create chembows.  Contrails don’t.

tAcco9911
Ah, vaccineshurtbabies…  interesting.  Please explain why that makes you sure that longer lasting and smoke-like formations that last behind an airplane are chemtrails and not contrails! 
The only thing that is obvious is that there is different behavior in contrails.  Or what about clouds?  They look also like smoke, can last very long and influence the weather and there are may different types of them. Uh, I am scared of them! 😀

tAcco9911
You know that the atmosphere is not a monolithic formation?  It has different layers, with different conditions, airplanes are flying at different altitudes, there are so much variables that can influence the “behavior” of a cloud or contrail and if you consider them, the different behavior of contrails from time to time can be explained by more rational means than a conspiracy theory about governments polluting or sky on purpose!

tAcco9911
Sorry, but that’s the problem with chemtards: their minds seem to be so simplistic that they cannot imagine that the world is far more complex than their minds and everything that looks strange must be made up by an evil world conspiracy.  I do not want to insult anyone, but please, if you do not have the brains, shut the f*!? up and deal with and talk about topics that you understand…

poopindaturd
and how is this going to hide a planet… seriously…

CrudeDude
Correct Title; “CHEMTARDS FROM THE INSIDE”

TheFireShow
Looks like you guys are being exposed, hey DUDE? You can try to deceive all the morons you like, but some of us know too much. Perhaps name-calling makes you out to be highly intelligent, and beyond the ENLIGHTED ONE.  However, try as you may, you will only persuade the weak minded clones.  We who track air pressure, humidity, moisture, and temps know the games that the world militaries, and new world order governments play.  PERHAPS YOU WORK FOR THEM.

sodasoap
You are right I cough blood as well!
 
aces9876
more people need to become aware of chemtrails, its so obvious.

mypigmisery
There is no money for we need, oh money is so tight, gotta stop this funding, gotta take more funds for humanitarian good.  No funds going here, less going there.  But I’ll be damned they got LOTSA LOTSA money for this poison!  Can U imagine the money we could have for the good of others – instead of using it on this?

aroneous
HAHAHA Where are the thousands of pilots, crews, air traffic controllers, airport employees, chemical producers, loaders, plane owners, repairmen, and hundreds of other jobs?  Basically at least a million people worldwide would have to be in on this with none of them breaking silence for it to be true.  Yes there are chemicals that come out of the back of airplanes, from fuel combustion.  Contrails appear differently in the sky depending on the atmosphere.  Sorry to ruin your little fantasy story.

vaccineshurtbabies
“Where are the thousands of pilots, crews…”
Interesting point.  The fact remains that chemtrails are real.  I have seen quite a few myself and they’re obviously not contrails.

WOW. Another telling point slides right off the tinfoil hat.

voidows
Thanks for sharing.  Altho we never know that this plane was never used for spraying on people. We now have some good proof they try to hide it.  Why else would they rebuild an commercial plane that is far more expensive than an industrial plane. With no windows on the side for example.  Thanks for sharing.

I recognize the style here.  This point I have seen made in the original Italian.  Voidows is an originator of this fraud.

gliderwickid
It was never used for spraying people.  It’s a test aircraft.  Those tanks are ballast tanks used for Centre of Gravity shifting so different loads can be simulated without putting people at risk.  Do some research before you blindly believe every Youtube video.

voidows
Talk about brainwash.  Of course they use it for lots of different stuff.  But thinking it’s only for the GOOD of mankind is really believing everything so-called officials say and not searching any further than that.  I did a lot of research already and am still busy with it.  Ignoring and saying it’s not true ain’t research dude.

gliderwickid
Dude…  the picture of the inside of the aircraft is taken from Airliners.net.  It’s a prototype Boeing 777-200LR.  This actual picture is from test aircraft WD001.  The 2 signs were photoshopped in.  Says something about the trustworthiness of your fellow researchers.

voidows
OMG I know that.  I know they r used for more stuff.  And i know there r people that make scams.  But just because they give you a reason why they use it.  Doesn’t mean the other reasons r impossible or faulty.  There’s more than enough proof around.  It’s not just this movie.  This movie proves it can be done and it is done.  What is this with you people?
 100 people talk about some unknown.  And 1 person says it’s not true and you all believe that single person.  What a brainwash.
Show me the official site then were these pictures were taken from and edited by an editor.  
Since you know for sure what you say you must have proof to back it up.  Or did YOU only watch youtube movies and listen to your teachers at school.  And watch wikipedia?  Show me the pictures without the altering of it.  Because i have screened these pictures after you told me.  And i can’t see any abnormality in it.  It is all seamlessy fitting together. Pls give link because i don’t believe you.

A fine bluff!
 
tAcco9911
“you must have proof to back it up”  Where are your proofs?  “Because i have screened these pictures after you told me.  And i can’t see any abnormality in it.”  And you are an expert in image manipulation?  The one who is believing the wrong people, is you!  You listen to people who have no real evidence, just weird speculation.  They accuse people of polluting our sky without either evidence or proof.  The defendant is considered innocent until proven otherwise…   And you have no proof!
 
gliderwickid
I most certainly have proof.  The original was taken by William Appleton.  Go to airliners.net.  Search for William Appleton in the top righthand corner of the screen.  And then it’s picture 8 on the first page of results.  You’ll have to do it this way because you can’t post links in youtube comments, unfortunately.

voidows
LoL..  Just stay in your BOX of thinking mate.  It doesn’t matter.  Even when i bring a shipload of proof you still won’t believe it.  And yes i have a master in digital editing for your information.  Why do you answer a question with an question?  I ask for the real pictures and proof of your words you said. And you ask me that question again?

tAcco9911
I do not ask about proofs for pictures.  I asked for proofs for chemtrails!  These pictures and fabricated videos do not prove anything.  It is OK to question things, but it is not OK to neglect the obvious answers and create a world conspiracy from the most illogical and unlikely explanations.  This is … sorry, I cannot find another word for it… silly.  You are the one in the BOX, because you only think about chemtrails as being real!”  “Even when i bring a shipload of proof you still won’t believe it.  “OK, bring a shipload of valid unquestionable proofs that are scientifically grounded or based on eye-witnesses (and just seeing a plane creating a contrail is not evidence for chemtrails).  Explain how the logistics for chemtrails work, explain the motivation for “spraying” and explain the physics and chemistry.  The question here is not about faked images, so maybe you are discussing the wrong subject regarding your profession.

voidows
thanks gliderwick i will look into it.   Tacco you simply keep saying the same stuff as i asked you.  This is my last entry since we won’t come to an agreement like this and it only gets worse.  I believe something and you believe something.  Let’s respect each other’s choices okay.   Thanks for responding Tacco and Glider.  Without debate we will never get smarter.  Thanks a lot.

So tacco i was right the picture is not altered in any way.  I looked at the picture what spiderwick told. It’s precisely the same one.  Do you see any bees for example around the last years.  They pollinate the plants.  If this stops the plants will go extinct.  That’s a link to the chemtrails. And Germany has openly admitted that they were testing chemicals to alter the weather for war practice. There is much more to see and read then only a few youtube movies. And pls open your mind tacco.

Voidows slid smoothly out of that one with a successful misdirection.

gliderwickid
Germany has openly admitted to using Chaff.  The translation from German to English is misleading.  There is no mention whatsoever about chemtrails in that one.  I must admit that there is something happening with the bees.  But that can have many other reasons than chemtrails alone.  These chemtrail movies are not good research material.  There are people out there deliberately altering pictures and videos to prove their point.  And i must add that the picture was altered.  The black writing above and below the piece of paper on the wall was added.  Where he claims it says Sprayer and Hazard inside.  And the label on one of the tanks which he highlighted says Load Bank in the original picture.

wayneob1
Google this: Leaked DEFRA Papers from the U.K. Confirm Chemtrails Usage Real!

Tressco
…misleading title…  …defend your credibility…  Interesting info, though!

oasisthunder
And to think, you American fluoride-drinking people are so dumbed-down already that INSTEAD of complaining & doing something about this chemtrail spraying that occurs all over the USA…  you simply watch baseball and do absolutely NOTHING!   WAKE UP PEOPLE!  Cut the crapola on irrelevant stupidity and do something, ANYTHING to stop this!  That goes for you goofy Canucks 2.

tgambill
Nazi Germany used fluoride in the camps to make prisoners docile. Yes my fellow Americans are heading for a major wake up call that will dwarf 911, since the government planned 911 anyway.

gulesh01
Christ Mr Canada you really need to tighten your weed control laws.  Keep your nutter ass on the toilet.  I seen this before.  What you are looking at is the inside of a training aircraft.  Before pilots start flying humans they train in craft that are filled with liquid, weight, and shift measurments so every movement of the pilot is categorized and graded for his piloting course.

WellSightedGentleman
you’re right!  its all about weed control laws!   believe it or not!

Telepcanin
Why do they do that, do they spray some viruses or what?

diffusedlight
It’s the tin foil hat brigade!  This is a plane used for testing WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION ON A PASSENGER JET.  They pump water around the tanks to simulate different passenger seating plans to make sure the plane is safe to fly.  It’s funny how desperate illiterate hippies have to believe in something “bigger” than them (like an evil government conspiracy at every turn) -when 99.99999% of people already know where the photos and videos they stole ORIGINALLY came from.  It’s the tin foil hat brigade!

pajas2222
LOL, just lol!

doobedoo22
When an a/c is new, you need to test its performance with a weight equivalent to a full passenger load.  So they mount small tanks in place of each seat, and pump them full of water – which stays on board for the whole flight.  What we’re shown here is a prototype or pre-production a/c.  If you wanted to transport or spray chemicals, you’d use fewer, larger tanks – more efficient, obviously.

aheartattack1
Wow, the follies of developing a program such as photoshop…  damn you GATES!!!
p.s. i mean the placards not the tanks.

chrispyt77
the tanks are for testing of weight distribution. this dodgy photoshop job is excellent disinfo.   it proves nothing, just that some people like stirring up trouble and creating easily debunked disinfo.  but this dodgy little picture doesn’t change the fact that contrails used to dissipate, and now they create banks of wispy white ‘clouds’.  hold onto your intellect, let go of your conditioned simplistic ideas about big issues in the world.  Something is amiss in the sky.

bikersrule07
I’m sorry but this could be any old cargo plane…   how come these people who are supposed to have taken these pics, never ever get the tail number?  Hmm, or they never ever show more photos of the plane, this is bull shit.

durizap
Just stay in your conformity zone of ignorance, and stay cheerfull…  Or wake up to reality!
 
bikersrule07
Why?  Who is to say you’re right?  Who says you’re wrong and I’m right or vice versa?  What you said to me durizap, the same goes for you.

durizap
Difference is, that I do not say this is truth or BS.  I put a neutral stand until I know much more.  You said he was wrong, I said you should wake up and get out of your conformity zone (in a sarcastic way tho).  I say this, to make you consider the possibilities, not just to blindly believe videos like this.  Sorry if I offended you, I only tried to provoke you a tiny bit to make you think for yourself.

bikersrule07
okay.. how am i ignorant? how am i being comfortable?… why? because i don’t fall for what you may believe? in or what somone else believes in, there is no logic there.. you don’t even know me to judge me like that.. i don’t think you even know what i believe in.

VelosoFernando
Spraying Day in Portugal – Tuesday 25th August 2009 – Lots of grids in the Sky.

lukeslandspeeder
ya so much the sky has faded and isn’t blue anymore.  it’s a white faded pale blue haze everyday now.  1970″s-1980″s people know how different it is now including the summer evenings, the winds don’t blow anymore, the sun is different color also.  then compared to now now is terrible.  summer evening in 1989 were WOW.  they felt so good outside.  gone now.

TheMorpheusbrasil
Yes, I make your words as mine, here in BRAZIL we suffered huge attacks since may, now we have 4 days without chemtrails, but the skies ARE WHITE NOW, with strong sun we can see perfectly the light white fog all the day, and at morning’s dawn the skies, once black-to-blue, are now WHITE TO LIGHT-BLUE-GRAY!  OMG!  (just send my report from Brazil to world)

bulltexan1
Trymetylaluminum-radar jamming medium see ::: qc0TWVtozio&feature=related  Also can (in theory) used to curb “global warming” by dispersing in UPPER ionisphere, to reflect sunlight…  away from mother earth…

gliderwickid
And Jet aircraft are supposed to put these particles into the ionosphere?  Do you even know how high the Ionosphere is?  You need a space shuttle to get there!  You guys absolutely don’t know what you’re talking about.

Breakhoven
muther fuckers!
 
rocnsoc2007
New World Order?

moirbindy
Oh?  BS that’s kegs of Beer not chemicals lmao!
 
Adideva01
Today on my way to work there were 10ths of these ******* chemtrails all over the sky.  And by the way these types of demoniac events are taking place in other countries…  As mentioned in the Vedas in the current Kali-yuga goverment/rulers are demons disguised…  “Oh Supreme Personality of Godhead; Please destroy all demoniac forces of the Earth.”  Planet Earth needs new Mngmt.  Era of Enlightenment coming…

dconrad000
Go to my channel and see a recent, extremely hard hitting interview on the absolute fraud and danger of vaccines — and about a simple tool to viralize the truth about vaccines. The more people that know the truth, the harder it will be to force these vaccines on those of us that would rather put our trust in God, eating right, our own immune systems, natural remedies, faith & prayer — rather than on Big Pharma and their veritable witches brews.

beachcomber2008
I see this concatenation of lies is still up and carrying out its socially-malicious slanders.  What a vile and ignorant world we find ourselves in.

OK Rushfan, counter these statements, ignoring the fact that you unashamedly persist in publishing this FAKE.  All aircraft trails are definitely contrails.  Burning kerosine makes an equal amount of water.  The plane is in the stratosphere which is stable and clear.  The stratosphere can hold in supersaturation (when very clean) an excess of water as vapor.  This excess can boost the density of the trail by up to 10,000 times.  So 10,000 times as much ICE as the engines make by burning kerosine may be visible to you.  So all aircraft trails are DEFINITELY CONTRAILS.

All aircraft trails are definitely not “chemtrails”.  The gap between engine and trail evidences the invisible exhaust vapors and gases.  Metals don’t make invisible vapors – in fact they’re used in fireworks PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY MAKE BRIGHT COLORED FLAMES.  So there are no metals in the exhaust.  So there is NEITHER aluminum NOR barium present in the TRAIL.  ALL organic materials burn in a jet flame at 2000 degrees to produce that GAP, for carbon dioxide (invisible) and steam (invisible) is what they will make.  No metals.  No organics.  Just fuel and air.  So all aircraft trails are DEFINITELY NOT “CHEMTRAILS”.

edgeguy99
What?  Since when can water vapor from a few jets make a cloudy day?  Since when Einstein?  Let me answer for my ignorant friend.  Since never!  You need to change your misinformation strategy because it’s already painfully clear that someone is spraying stuff into our skies.  Might I suggest saying the stuff is harmless and running with that BS line?  Then, when we are all sick, you can come up with another excuse like “a Virus, not our fault”.
 
beachcomber2008
Since whenever a powered aeroplane flies through ANY stratospheric layer which is SUPERSATURATED, which will happen for 17 flights in every 100 on average.  This has been known ever since the 1000-bomber raids over Germany in 1943.  100s of research papers on this have been written since.  The fact that you have never bothered to RESEARCH THE SCIENCE makes you a jackass, doesn’t it?  Persisting in your lies without bothering to check what I say will make you worse than just a slanderous liar.

edgeguy99
“Since whenever a powered aeroplane flies through ANY stratospheric layer which is SUPERSATURATED, which will happen for 17 flights in every 100 on average.”  And then disappear a mile or two behind the jet.  Not turn into clouds!  And I never slandered anyone.  We all see chemtrails in the sky.  What is your game here?  There is no question that jets are spraying stuff in the air.  What science am I supposed to research?  What lies am I telling?  Look up!  There it is!  Research done!

beachcomber2008
“No-brainers” are for people without brains.  Are you one of those?  Aircraft ice trails PERSIST as a physical consequence of atmospheric humidity.  Do you understand what “persist” means?  What it DOESN’T MEAN is “fade away”!  The world is more complex than you think.  People work harder than you appear to believe.  Calling my resume of known and established atmospheric science “misinformation strategy” IS slanderous.  I have PM’d you.  Read my letter through.

edgeguy99
“Aircraft ice trails PERSIST as a physical consequence of atmospheric humidity.  Do you understand what “persist” means? What it DOESN’T MEAN is “fade away”!  It doesn’t make clouds that block out the sun.  It doesn’t make an overcast day.  We already know about contrails and because of this controversy, we know a lot about contrails.  We are talking about chemtrails or the intentional spraying of a substance in the atmosphere by jet planes.  There is nothing slanderous about anything I said.

beachcomber2008
“We are talking about chemtrails or the intentional spraying of a substance in the atmosphere by jet planes.”  And I have just given you a logical and conclusive proof that your statements are lies, baseless, and without foundation.  Your failure to refute these statements has already demonstrated to everyone that you are indeed a slanderous liar.

edgeguy99
Again with the “slander”.  You’re in a cult.  It sounds like your from the LRH cult but you could be from another.  No matter, your choice of language gives you away.  There are 3 of you here that use the same exact language.  It’s the problem with cults.  After you’re broken down and they rebuild you – it’s always from the same book.  That makes you easy to spot.  Which group do you guys belong to?  Nothing personal, we all breathe the same air.  Are you aware that your life was stolen from you?

beachcomber2008
So you DUCK acknowledging the FRAUD of this video and you DODGE acknowledging the LOGIC of why trails are definitely contrails and why they are definitely NOT “chemtrails”, and wish to change the subject, PROVING beyond all doubt that you ARE indeed a slanderous liar.
You will not conduct an honest debate, will you?  You prefer further slander and ad hominems.  Another irresponsible liar OWNED…  The difference between us is that I am calling you what you obviously are, by your own actions.

edgeguy99
You really like to point the finger.  I lost count of all the crimes you accused me of.  Chemtrails are real and their purpose is a secret.  Call me whatever makes you happy.  Very odd chemical and biological matter are in some chemtrails.  They have found traces of radioactive material and aluminum powder.  And I already told you guys to stop using the word “slander” because It’s a tell that your a cult member and robotically you still use the word.  Your so programmed.  They stole your life.

beachcomber2008
“point finger”- that’s YOU.  Hypocrite.  “lost count” – learn to count.  “Chemtrail real” – No. Your delusion is.  “Call me” – CHEMTARD.  “in some CTs” – Contrails have been tested. ICE.  “traces of r’active mat’l and alum’m” – The US is radioactive. Aluminum is in SOIL.  “stop using slander” – I’ll USE it while you DO it.  “They stole your life” – I’m an atheist and anarchist.  NO bugger owns me. I live in the sun close to family and friends.  You steal TRUTH, even from yourself.  There’ll be consequences.

edgeguy99
Someone is spraying chemicals into our atmosphere and doing so on a global level!  If you want to express your anger, do so at the people poisoning us.  I know from your own choice of words that you’re a NWO cult member.  You’re a Luciferian.  Your statement “I live in the sun” is code for basking in the light of Lucifer (the illuminated one).  This global chemtrail phenomenon is the work of Satanic cults working together to bring about “the New World Order”.  You’re an NWO cult worker ant.

TheAmericanThinkers
Hey edge guy.  i found evidence of Morgellons in the spray that lands on us Chemtrail believers, Checkout my video.  I bet you get it all over you too.

edgeguy99
That’s sperm and you know it.  Don’t belittle a serious subject with your homosexual nonsense.  Grow up already.  You’re too old for this.

TheAmericanThinkers
Hey, these tanks in planes must be a new thing right, because these trails are new and the tanks shouldn’t appear in old films like this which actually explain what they are:

edgeguy99
con·spir·a·cy  /k’n’sp’r’si/ [kuhn-spir-uh-see] noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
These people use the same language.  Accused of “Slander” from two different people who take the same position!  They’re reading from a book.  You people are so transparent.  You must be really low level cult members and youtube doesn’t even deserve a real handler.  But your making our case for us!  Are you two part of a conspiracy?

tastycrows
I am from the government, I come to “debunk” all “myths” about “chemtrails” because it matters to us.  People are finding out about our conspiracy!  They can’t know or the chems won’t work and we won’t be able to control your minds!  With alien technology kept secret in Area 51.

beachcomber2008
You are ignorant and from the Moon.  The Boeing 777 LR Prototype shown in the video has barrels of water in it to shift its centre of gravity in order to determine the flight envelope within which it may be flown.  Someone has photoshopped this picture from Airliners. net to put a “hazmat inside” notice on the cabin wall.  This is a conscious fraud and an absolute lie.   Everything each of you has written has been a lie, a falsehood, a SLANDER.  Everything I’ve written is true.  Too afraid to check?

edgeguy99
We are being chemtrailed by a cartel of satanic cults that have been behind the scene for centuries.  Modern science enables the NWO to affect mankind on a global scale.  They have no qualms about sacrificing us to their “enlightened one” and believe that they will be reincarnated back to their blood lines, preserving their fortunes and power.  So if they die with us, so be it.  Their minds are twisted by an indoctrination process that starts at infancy.  They are highly motivated robots.

beachcomber2008
“spraying chemicals on a global level” – not visible in satellite pics.
“people poisoning” – Your lies are POISON.
“your a NWO cult” – You’re an OWNED cunt.
“Your Luciferian” – You’re a slanderer – once more.
“Your statement “I live in the sun” – Is the TRUTH, for I live in the Canary Isles.  Today it has been HOT AND SUNNY.
All aircraft trails are DEFINITELY CONTRAILS and DEFINITELY NOT CONTRAILS
THIS VIDEO IS A PHOTOSHOPPED FRAUD, defended by a liar who is unable to counter my arguments, which are:
All aircraft trails are definitely contrails.  And this is why.  Burning kerosine makes an equal amount of water.  All long-distance planes cruise in the stratosphere which is stable and clear most all the time – except when it holds sometimes holds visible ice crystals in cirrus clouds.   The stratosphere can hold in supersaturation (only when very clean!) an excess of water as vapor.  This excess can boost the density of the trail by up to 10,000 times.  So 10,000 times as much ICE as the engines make by burning kerosine may be visible to you.  So all aircraft trails are DEFINITELY CONTRAILS.

All aircraft trails are definitely not “chemtrails”.  The gap between engine and trail evidences the invisible exhaust vapors and gases emitted by the engines.  Metals don’t make invisible vapors – in fact they’re used in fireworks PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY MAKE BRIGHT COLORED FLAMES.  So there are no metals of any kind in the exhaust.  So there is NEITHER aluminum NOR barium present in ANY TRAIL, because trails ALWAYS begin with a GAP.   ANY organic material WILL burn in a jet flame at 2000 degrees to produce that GAP, for carbon dioxide (invisible) and steam (invisible) is what they MUST make.  No metals.  No organics.  Just spent fuel and air.  So all aircraft trails are DEFINITELY NOT “CHEMTRAILS”.
 
edgeguy99
Just like car exhaust on a cold day, steam dissipates.  If you see lingering smoke your engine has a problem.  Contrails are similar in that they dissipate.  If it lingers and spreads out then it’s not a contrail.  Jets are spraying chemicals into our atmosphere across the planet and your funny little explanations sound like a used car salesman explaining that the smoke coming out of the exhaust is just steam and not a blown head gasket.  But the truth is in the lingering smoke, not your bull.

TheAmericanThinkers
You are so full of shit AND stupid.  Watch the contrail instantly dissipate in this video, and the breath on a “cold” day. Wow, it doesn’t blow away – it instantly dissipates right?
And the contrail doesn’t drift all the way to the horizon, it instantly disappears…  just like your intellect did years ago.

So as Beachcomber correctly states, there is a slight difference between your idea of a cold day, and the typical conditions at airline cruise altitudes.  But to know that would actually require some education on your part which, sadly, is unlikely to ever happen.

edgeguy99
Watch them bury my post.

beachcomber2008
“Watch them bury” – You bury mine.
There’s just one of me…:)
“Just like car exhaust on a cold day” – MINUS FORTY is colder than “a cold day”. At the N and S Pole such exhausts PERSIST.
“If you see lingering smoke” – from seven miles beneath you cannot say that.
“If it lingers”? – Hundreds of science papers say ICE.
“Jets are spraying” – You are LYING.
“not your bull” – Thousands of scientists know better than you.  They also know how to use libraries, and debate properly.  They also don’t slander innocent people.

 

SAME POSTS 

“i have seen these same posts of yours on other chemtrail videos” – but obviously not responded to them.
“Frankly, I have my doubts about chemtrails myself” – because if you had, they’d be MORE than DOUBTS.
“How do you respond to Dr. Deagle’s Video response above?” – I didn’t like “sheeple” or “chemtrails” and a tripod would be NO HELP on a boat anyway. The aircraft above were either breaking from the troposphere into the stratosphere or hitting a humid stratospheric layer.
“There are also videos and still pictures of “chemtrails” that go in circles and is not an airshow” – an “airport holding pattern” or a military “keep station” are normal phenomena.
“Have you seen those?” – Yes. I was an air force brat and then an aeronautical engineer in past lives.
“I understand the onion theory” – NO YOU DON’T. It isn’t a THEORY, it is KNOWN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS.
“Do some fuels pollute more than others or is it only the onion theory that makes or breaks contrails?” – What MAKES a CONTRAIL is JET EXHAUST (STEAM and NITROGEN and CARBON DIOXIDE) AT 2000 deg C meeting COLD HUMID AIR at -40 to -80 deg C. The STEAM FREEZES TO A FINE “SMOKE” OF ICE CRYSTALS. HUMIDITY LEVELS determine whether or not those crystals SUBLIME back into water vapour, which is INVISIBLE. In SUPERSATURATED AIR the crystals ACCRETE MORE ICE AND GAIN WEIGHT AND FALL FASTER. In perfectly saturated air the crystals REMAIN AND SPREAD LIKE DIFFUSING SMOKE. In less-than-saturated air the crystals SLOWLY SUBLIME AND DISAPPEAR – to water vapor..
In VERY DRY AIR a trail may not become visible at all. 

SCALAR (“WEAPONS”)

“scalar weapons” – Hmm. Wiki pulls up nothing on that. Do you have a good ref?
* Since then I’ve discovered that “scalar weapons” are based on “imaginary number” field calculations deriving from Nicola Tesla’s work. He theorized that through them it was possible to capture FREE ENERGY. Have you seen any such energy in the past 100 years? Nor have I.
Now “imaginary number” calculation have been used in Quantum Theory to make some very successful predictions about the physical properties of particles. However, they have never been extended into the “real” non-quantum world with any success. If they were usable as weapons, they would have been used by now. Have they? – NO..
“other electromagnetic technologies” – “Electromagnetic” isn’t a buzzword. The light you see by IS EM radiation – we all live in a BATH of it, and WITHOUT IT we would DIE. The ONLY dangers from it are from focussed HIGH ENERGY beams – LIKE LASERS OR MICROWAVES. Unless you like getting sunburned on the beach and wish to risk contracting skin cancer.
“plasmatizing the atmosphere” – Now you’re talking HAARP. This can “warm up” a line-of-sight area in the IONOSPHERE some hundreds of square kilometres in area. The energy density is in the order of THREE MICROWATTS per square centimetre, which is LESS THAN A TEN-THOUSANDTH of the energy of SUNLIGHT. It may be able to EXCITE the ionosphere, but that would be because THERE’S VERY LITTLE MATERIAL IN THE IONOSPHERE – IT’S ALMOST OUTER SPACE. It could NEVER successfully warm up my cup of cold tea.

1) It’s line-of-sight (but cannot move!) which makes it a crummy weapon.
2) It is incapable of carrying out war policies – the worst it can do is damage radio communication.
3) It is energy-INEFFICIENT, demanding VAST energy input for a small output.
4) There are AT LEAST THREE OTHERS. The European one is TEN TIMES LARGER.
5) These places are RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS, and WILL get military funding on the off-chance that there’s some tactical information to be gained from knowledge of the ionosphere.

THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS SCALAR WEAPONS.

SCALE

A SENSE OF SCALE?
A typical passenger transport plane (medium haul) burns 7 tons of fuel and unloads 7 tons of ice and 4 tons of gaseous oxides (mostly carbon dioxide) into the tropopause, which is the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
The troposphere contains about 80% of the atmosphere and is the part of the atmosphere in which we live, and make weather observations. In this layer, average temperatures DECREASE WITH HEIGHT. This is known as adiabatic cooling, i.e. a change in temperature caused by a decrease in pressure. Even so, it is still more prone to vertical mixing by convective and turbulent transfer, than other parts of the atmosphere. These vertical motions and the abundance of water vapor make it the home of all important weather phenomena.
The troposphere’s thermal profile is largely the result of the heating of the Earth’s surface by incoming solar radiation. Heat is then transferred up through the troposphere by a combination of convective and turbulent transfer. This is in direct contrast with the stratosphere, where warming is the result of the direct absorption of solar radiation and INCREASES WITH HEIGHT. The stratosphere is STABLE, and doesn’t support convection at all.
The troposphere is around 16 km high at the equator, with the temperature at the tropopause around –80 °C. At the poles, the troposphere reaches a height of around 8 km, with the temperature of the tropopause around –40 °C in summer and –60 °C in winter.
The weight of the atmosphere is 5.25 petatonnes. The ANNUAL FUEL BURNT is 300 M tons.
One can see that, as a proportion of the weight of the atmosphere, the burnt fuel comprises FIVE MILLIONTHS OF A PER CENT.
It would take TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS at today’s rate of air travel, (and believe me THAT CANNOT happen – fossil fuel will be gone in twenty years!) to HALF-FILL our atmosphere with contrail gases (and that of course ignores the fact that physical and living processes would be doing that job anyway).

The Earth would easily absorb them in that time…   it’s BIG…

SCATTERING

“Jazzroc IS a spook its obvious” – look up my spooky music on my channel here.
“why hasnt any1 seen these chemtrails 5+ years ago” – they were 1st seen 88 years ago – I’ve seen them for 50 years. I called them contrails…because they ARE contrails…
“why are the planes unmarked” – the phenomenon is called “blue light scattering”. Read a PHYSICS book.

“why do they form overcast clouds” – because they ARE clouds – of ICE crystals – just as are Cirrus clouds.
“why is there proof that these trails contain heavy metals, anthrax, zinc & other nasties” – THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL. I’ve been looking…
“the mainstream media won’t” – they don’t concern themselves with fools.

Sleeps

PAGE CONTENTS

SLEEPS – SLIMEBALL – THE TWO FACES OF SCHNARCH – SOCRATIC INTERLUDE – SODA POP – SOME & ALL – SPACESUITS – SR1419 PWNS RUDEDOG – STEAM – STERN’S “DUMBEST CONSPIRACY EVER” – STEVE

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

“they don’t have to use the engines to spread it” – Well, there’s only the fuel dump vents on the wing trailing edges. Where else do you mean?

There would have to be special tanks and bowsers, airport personnel in protective clothing, some operators or their families poisoned or infected, splashes anywhere on runway aprons would be brilliant WHITE.
THERE IS NONE OF THIS!
“I look through my binoculars and can see” – CONTRAILS.
“look Clifford is not deceiving” – WHEN HE SLEEPS…
“metallic salt introduced as a condensation nuclei” – 3.4 MILLION TONS would be required to single/shot the Earth (apparently there’s a report which claims 20 million tons). You’d have to keep doing it as well…
“pets licking/planes adding” – No connection. Do you live near a salt mine, or the sea?
“Trails should not spread” – GO AWAY AND READ UP before you repeat yourself. Try href=”http://contrailscience.com”>http://contrailscience.com
If you wish to discover TRUE SCIENCE, just use “advanced search” and make sure you exclude “CHEMTRAIL”, “CHEM”, and “AEROSOL”, as there are thousands of chemtrailers out there, and they do not understand science at all, and are clogging up the web with misinformation and disinformation.

SLIMEBALL

Hi Slimeball Disinformation Specialist…
Seeing as you are conducting a campaign of LIES I thought I’d hit you with TRUTH.
An easy thing to do because you don’t have to remember what you said last time….
My basic life story is on http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc
I have a channel here, as you can see.
I am a 65 yr old man, heterosexual and faithful, happily married for forty years, with a beautiful and intelligent wife, two beautiful and intelligent professionally-qualified daughters, and an energetic and intelligent 8 year old grandson (and another’s on its way!). I have never lied or cheated throughout my life. I am an inventor, composer, and artist. I owe no-one anything (apart from my wife) and am successful and happy.
What have you done, apart from LIE? (Rhetorical, but he didn’t understand that…)

THE TWO FACES OF SCHNARCH

November 2007
i just took a look at your wordpress blog. don’t get me wrong. i’m not fanatical about chemtrails, just curious. i haven’t reached a final conclusion yet. i’m interested in all kinds of information regarding that topic. that means i’m interested in plain scientific fact, weird sci-fi psycho theories and everything in between.
one false theory spread by the chemtrail fanatics is: ‘every contrail that doesn’t disappear within a few minutes is a chemtrail’. in saturated troposphere a contrail can trigger the generation of a cirrus cloud. i remember seeing some vapor trails that don’t dissipate since my early childhood. i also saw fat contrails in ‘rocky 2’ starring sylvester stallone.
another misleading theory is that there are no chemtrails at all.
As i’m sure that you have seen this video posted by your special friend nicscics, german military admits spraying substances that appeared on a weather radar as a ghost cloud. the meteorologist thinks that it’s chaff.
whatever it is, some planes are flying around spraying crap without asking the population if they want it. another well documented case is espanola canada. the difference is that unlike germany the officials denied the whole thing over there. these are just two examples that shouldn’t be ignored.
what still makes me sceptical is the amount of unverified crap about chemtrails that is being spread on the internet. it’s almost like a special interest of esoteric/UFO weirdos that don’t care about evidence. for instance the spray on/off phenomenon. i understand that the plane can alternate between saturated and unsaturated layers of the troposphere which causes the illusion of spray on/off. i also know about hypersaturation causing the illusion of the whole plane spraying. and i know about the wake vortex.
and if someone sees a plane spraying something, it’s only fuel dumping. and that is only done in case of emergency. there must either be a lot of emergency situations up there or they are doing that too often. when i mentioned low flying planes causing a contrail (or chemtrail) that turns into a lasting cloud you asked me to VERIFY it. i can not do it. even if i would film it with 20x zoom compare the size of the plane to the size of planes flying in cruising altitude filmed with 20x zoom … u could argue it’s fake. i don’t have the possibility of taking a stereo picture. so i’m afraid i cannot verify it to convince you. the problem is that i can tell the difference between a plane in cruising altitude and a plane flying less than 5000m high. when i saw that the first time i was stunned. i had already dumped the chemtrail theory then. but to see that happening very often made me change my mind. i also happen to see this phenomenon pretty often.
when i first saw it i thought he just filmed a reflection in the window. now i know it’s a parhelion/ sun dog. look up sun dog on youtube. i did it and rarely found a sun dog video without con-(chem?)trails, even if the lucky filmers weren’t aware of it. the ones i saw looked like in the video i mentioned above. that also is not an evidence for the existence of chemtrails.
two days ago i saw clouds illuminated by the sun with pink and bright green stains on them after heavy air traffic. i couldn’t believe my eyes … ok, so you tell me those stains were caused by ice crystals. btw i could claim anything, i could be a liar.
another strange thing is a dry cough some people have. it is not like a cold, it feels like edema in the bronchia. after days of crazy air traffic it feels like someone peels your throat with a knife. a friend of mine who thinks i’m a kook told me lately that he nearly puked out his lung when he went to work by bicycle one morning. he told me that he thinks some times that something ‘is wrong with the air’. he said that it made him think about the crazy conspiracy theory i told him about. we had the same symptoms on the same days during a time we hadn’t met for weeks. the funny thing is that i could describe his exact symptoms after he told me about it…

Yours is about the best letter I’ve had so far. Perhaps a dozen have written to me, (and I have a couple of friends now as a consequence).
But yours ain’t bad.
About my “special friend” nicscics…
Everything he has published has been discredited and debunked. It’s all lies. He has published so many lies that he deserves special treatment, and he’s going to get it from me in the fullness of time. The “report” was a complaint about “chaff” disrupting weather radar which was deliberately and cynically mis-translated into a “chemtrail” issue. Not everything on the web is true, and in the case of “chemtrails” nothing is EVER true.

5,000m high “chemtrails”? As I said, try to verify it. (It might be technically possible for that to occur on a cold day, close to the poles!)
With a standard telephoto/camera combination it IS possible to calculate the range from the image size. You just need a “dangleometer” (plumb-bob/protractor) to give you the camera angle, and Bob’s your uncle. “Contrailscience.com” (a “debunker” site!) gives you the why and the wherefore.
The contents of “chemtrails” can only be proved by catching the stuff at 35,000ft and taking it quickly back to a lab for analysis. As I have said before, you have to use TWO synchronized cameras, (and TWO independent monitoring witnesses) and make sure that NEITHER the SAMPLE nor the EQUIPMENT leaves the VIDEO FRAME until analysis is COMPLETE and the FIGURES DISPLAYED.
CHAFF is a complete red herring. It won’t make you any more ill than your aluminium saucepan (rhubarb! whoops!) but you know what I mean.
So are ISOLATED MINOR INCIDENTS. THEY are NOT part of some GLOBAL “conspiracy”!
Plane emergencies are sometimes caused by passengers….
Sun-dogs are an ICE refraction/interference phenomenon. They have been noted for thousands of years. They DO happen WITHOUT any aircraft “connection”. They are a natural phenomenon.
href=”http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halosim.htm”>http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halosim.htm

They CANNOT happen with metal compounds, or dusts, which break down the crystal-forming. I NOW live in the Canaries; we quite often get beautiful high-altitude pearlescent clouds, but never when we have a KALIMA, which is a dust-laden wind from the Sahara. The KALIMA turns our complete world SEPIA MONOCHROME – we get “Photoshopped”! But no halos or sundogs while that happens.

I LEFT Britain (North London – Home Counties) because since about 1995 I found it increasingly difficult to breathe. The two things I couldn’t live with were POLLEN and PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG.
You should research how dangerous these two things are in combination, and consider their prevalence, and then their RELEVANCE to “chemtrail” debate. I agree with you, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR AIR.
Since I moved in 2002 I have been perfectly fit and well… yet I live close to a busy airport (they climb past my window here 300M to my left and 300M up!), and seven miles up over my head I CAN see persistent contrails – sometimes…
And I live where a desert meets the sea. There’s NO TRACE either of pollen or photochemical smog… and there’s NOTHING WRONG WITH MY AIR EITHER…
i also see where planes normally fly and have to say that the suspected planes don’t have air corridors, they appear everywhere. you look in one direction and see planes fly back and forth leaving a con-(chem?)trail grid. and the next days there is no plane at all in the same direction.
i cannot quite imagine who would do that, how they do that nearly everywhere and why they would do it. i am usually quiet about chemtrails, it only makes ppl think i’m crazy. but yes, i do think something strange is going on. i also admit that there is a lack of hard evidence for the existence of chemtrails. even though it is verified that it DID happen doesn’t necessarily mean it happens everywhere.
so i don’t think everybody has to share my opinion on this. as far as you are concerned: you only seem to accept facts that support your theory (chemtrails=bs). many chemtrail whackos also only accept facts that support their theory. it it strange that you invest so much time to argue with ppl who think chemtrails do exist. if someone has beliefs i do not share, i think it’s not my business. i also think it’s arrogant to think your theories resemble objective reality.

You may think my behavior arrogant, but that is because you mistakenly believe me to believe in a “theory”. I don’t. I understand the scientific basis for your belief, while you do not. You need to consider the “observer effect”. You only see what you’re looking at WHEN you’re looking at it. You only see planes WHEN they are laying contrails on a blue sky day WHEN the stratosphere is (invisibly) saturated. THAT is WHEN you remember them… The “Grid” of trails is a “print-out” consequence of CROSSING SHUTTLE ROUTES. It will appear at a different part of the sky (on wet blue-sky days!) because the stratosphere SPEED and DIRECTION vary ALL THE TIME. The plain facts are that you DON’T see the planes on a very dry blue sky day AT ALL (blue light scattering “removes” the plane, and the trail is tiny/non-existent). And, of course, you don’t see the planes at all on overcast days.

The general truth is that the SAME PLANES ARE FLYING THE SAME ROUTES ALL THE TIME. It’s the airline business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sQNn1FbnEI&NR=1

Another general truth is that you haven’t yet thought properly and constructively about your perception. How you “trust” your vision (how can it be wrong?) but let it down with your conclusion (you were crucially unaware of OTHER FACTS). Does the Sun go round the Earth? What do your EYES tell you?
The logic of TELLING people this is that while people confront a COMPLETELY NOEXISTENT PROBLEM the REAL PROBLEMS are UNADDRESSED. Pollen/photochemical smog CONTINUES to KILL PEOPLE, and the PTB’s REAL way of shafting YOU remains undetected…  In the terms of having a REAL, PRACTICAL, AND FUNCTIONING SOCIAL CONSCIENCE, people who adhere to the “chemtrail” theory are WORSE THAN USELESS. I’m quite happy to tell such people so…

 

 Remember “don’t get me wrong. i’m not fanatical about chemtrails, just curious. i haven’t reached a final conclusion yet”?
Well our hero SCHNARCH keeps an open internet diary, from which I quote:
“Jan 16 2008 After seeing a sundog aka parhelion after heavy chemtrail activity over leipzig/germany (it looked like in this vid), i wanted to know what that is all about. is it a natural phenomenon that happens once in a while or is it caused by chemtrails? many ppl posted their captions of sundogs and halos, few noticed the chemtrails in their vids. the only videos without a chemtrail haze were taken near the south pole. here are a few examples of sundog and 22 degree halo vids clearly showing chemtrails, yet the filmers of these vids ignore them. He also noticed the connection between sundogs and chemtrails, he calls it ‘magic rainbow’. Are chembows the same phenomenon as sundogs and halos? what causes these strange rainbows? ice crystals (natural) or chemtrails?”

I TOLD HIM DUSTS PREVENTED CRYSTAL FORMATION!

.

“Today I noticed little activity over my hometown, until the blue sky showed, but it wasn’t there to stay. Many planes appeared and spread their haze. I don’t need to look up into the sky to see what’s happening. There’s a stinky smell outside and i feel it in my throat. I noticed these irritations before I knew about chemtrails. the way most ppl think about this phenomenon makes me think i’m nuts or paranoid sometimes. But i’m afraid i’m not. I think it’s real. some planes are flying so low I can’t imagine it’s cold enough for contrails to form at all. After seeing three sun dogs in one week, many u-turns of planes, planes leaving chemtrails despite flying at a low altitude (<3000m/ 10000ft). the whole thing still gets me thinking.
Jan 17 2008 It is hard to find reliable information about chemtrails in Germany. Of course many ppl take photos and videos. but there is little confirmed information about chemical or biological fall-out analysis. Most websites about chemtrails in Germany are full of esoteric/spiritual stuff and ufo-stuff. few ppl take this issue seriously, most will ridicule the whole thing. it is unimaginable to most that the government is spraying us like bugs. If you want to share a good laugh with friends, tell them about chemtrails. to have some hard evidence for chemtrails would be nice. Carnicom or Rense seem to be pretty good, but the ppl over here in Germany won’t relate to that. The US isn’t Germany (they think). The part of the population who are aware of chemtrails are a lost minority. If only a few people know about this, it’s useless.
Jan 18 2008 ‘no fucking marking on that muthafucker’ … lol, unmarked planes all over the planet. Does anybody know the low-flying sausages with the fuselage that appears to be very thick compared to the wings? They produce either clouds or nothing. I’d love to shoot down one of them with a stinger just to see what’s in it. The ‘sausage’ plane i was referring to reminds me of an airbus A300-600ST, tho i’m not sure. it’s a cargo plane. Wikipedia says only five of them were built.”

IT’S AN AIRBUS FUSELAGE TRANSPORTER!

.

“Jan 20 2008 Maybe i’m wrong, but yesterday i saw a plane that looked like this on my way home from work. it was flying pretty low (app. 10000ft), all of a sudden it left a chemtrail that turned into a lasting cloud and flew on without any contrail at all. i saw planes like that fly along chemtrails that were sprayed before without leaving a contrail at all. Is anyone familiar with this type of aircraft? Many of the chemtrails are sprayed by the notorious unmarked tanker planes. “

I TOLD HIM ABOUT BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING!

.

“Jan 20 2008 Interestingly chemtrails appear very often in the afternoon and in the evening. this increases the humidity in the troposphere and keeps the ground level from cooling down. yesterday i read a statement by a meteorologist on a german page, who suggested that planes should fly 6000ft below cruising altitude to avoid the forming of contrails that increase the humidity of the troposphere/ stratosphere. that means that chemtrails seem to cause local warming where they occur.”

I TOLD HIM THAT HUMID CONDITIONS CAUSED PERSISTENT TRAILS!

.

“Jan 24 2008 I will never leave the house without my camera again. Yesterday i saw clouds lit by the sun, they had red and green stains … the sun wasn’t emitting much light in the red spectrum at that time. btw yesterday a friend of mine told me that he was going to work by bicycle yesterday in the morning. He said that he almost puked his lungs out for no reason … ‘something’ was wrong with the air … made me think about your paranoid conspiracy theory’ – lol. What is going on? WHO wants to weaken or kill us? We are really getting hammered with chemtrails at the moment. Maybe 80% of the weather is engineered right now.
Feb 10 2008 Check this out. GOt EM! CHEMTRAILS ON GERMAN TV. I know this one. The debunkers always say ‘it’s only chaff, chaff is a red herring, blabla’. I don’t know why the military should be using chaff nowadays, you can’t fool modern radar with it.”

YOU CAN!

.

“Other debunkers say that the phantom clouds on the weather radar attracted attention because they were NOT visible as opposed to the chemtrails which are visible. dunno. Since I noticed that small metallic particles are everywhere (windows, windshields, even in the dust on my furniture) I need no more proof. I also saw planes spraying at ridiculously low altitude (15000ft/5000m).
Feb 22 2008 I just posted a video about chemtrails over Leipzig. in the videos you can see sun dogs, a 22 degree halo, upper tangent arc and a circumzenithal arc – caused by chemtrails. At the end of the video there is a spray plane flying low in the evening sun – with 30x zoom. It does have wings, webfairy.
Feb 28 2008 It would makes sense if the sundogs were related to chemtrails.  Especially if the dense chemtrails contained heavy metals that the sun was reflecting off of.
Mar 7 2008 Persistant contrails do also occur naturally but not that many, not that often. Sometimes they spray the whole day and sometimes they only spray assault-like for 30 minutes or so. Strange. I wonder which planes they are using. Sometimes i see 747s. I really think we live in a strange age. i am waiting for major changes, but maybe it is stilla couple of decades away from now.
Mar 10 2008 I posted them and some shill came right out of the woodwork. The links are dead. At least they smell funny.”

Smell funny? 🙂

SOCRATIC INTERLUDE

There was a brief moment when I pm’ed Socrates (of ‘All Aircraft are Not Involved’) and he pm’ed me back with what seemed to me a gracious reply, and we were all set for an interesting dialogue from opposite ends of the table, so-to-speak. But it was not to be:
Socrates
This could be a breakthrough proving disinformation thus proving chemtrails. For why would such efforts be taken to alter the contents of books to make it seem that commercial aircraft can create chemtrails and always have and thus chemtrails are contrails???
The focus returns to the Epoxynous character, now known for spamming youtube and having a disinformation website named Contrail Science. This is no obvious scammer like “KevinMartin” who offers enigmas in the form of convolution. This guy works with subtlety.
I took care of this guy last year. For another one of these types of videos, it turned out that every example he found was from military aircraft.
Now he has made a video alleging to have found chemtrailed skies from 1972. I used a proxy to get into Carnicom’s where I found out about this. The hat tip goes to Vericarl, who by chance has been accused by Megasprayer of being my sock puppet. There was only one other thread that seemed interesting. Day Glo, the voice of reason, deleted her posts, so I don’t know what it was about. But I think it was similar to her previous types of posts pointing out crazy ideas that make chemtrails look like an internet hoax.
I believe a few of us have made a difference. I believe that despite the fact that the major chemtrail boards have been rigged, a few of us have gotten the word out that it is not outrageous to believe in chemtrails. Maybe Day Glo saw my post slamming Kathaksung before it was deleted and I was banned. Perhaps Day Glo is for real and is starting to realize that Cliff Carnicom is part of the problem.
Epoxynous/Contrail Science is a Patrick Minnis mouthpiece.
( For details of Patrick Minnis read my blog “Penrod – Debunking Chemtrail Debunking Debunking” – https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/26-penrod/ )
They are admitting that we are seeing what Minnis refers to as contrail outbreaks. These guys are going way out of their way to try to make chemtrails look kooky. They then have Deborah, Chem11, Arcadia Ego, and BigBunny spreading the disinfo that chemtrails are contrails. This has been an elaborate script covering many years, around nine to be exact.
There is even the same kind of nonsense going on at Chemtrail Central with someone named Free World Order, but I digress.
I am not sure why two books would have the same isbn number. Perhaps that isn’t a big deal. I don’t know. It could have been a typo or it might mean something.
But unless the Italian chemmies are plants, some form of strawmen, they have located the book Epoxynous used for his video. The book has obviously been altered where the photos used by Epoxynous are located. The only thing I can think of is that the Italian chemmies are fakes, and it will be proven that they scripted this whole thing, that they are the disinfo strawmen to boost Epoxynous’ credibility.
However, the only thing I see from their youtube page that doesn’t add up is that the guy “TankerEnemy” wrote that he is censored on his own pages. Yet right in the comments, there he is. Controlled opposition is a problem we must keep an eye out for. But nonetheless, please check this out. It sure looks like Epoxynous and many others have been busted for being spooks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM75WU-ko9U
TankerEnemy
We found these kind of anomalies not long after a symposium of C.I.C.A.P. (italian debunkers). During the conference, Simone Angioni, an italian chemist, (as well as component C.I.C.A.P.), showed this book with the same strange details. Obvsiouly he showed it trying to demonstrate that hours-persistent-contrails ever existed. We know it’s a lie then we purchased the same volume and found what we let anybody see in this video. Some pages were torn and replaced with other different ones. Somebody manipulated a number of original informations of this book, “Clouds of the World”. Ask yourself: WHY?
anthony.r.duncan (that’s me, folks!)
 socrates: This could be a breakthrough proving disinformation thus proving chemtrails. For why would such efforts be taken to alter the contents of books to make it seem that commercial aircraft can create chemtrails and always have and thus chemtrails are contrails?
I wouldn’t be so hot to trot if I were you. For you are taking the words of a proven hoaxer as truth.
Quote: The focus returns to the Epoxynous character, now known for spamming youtube and having a disinformation website named Contrail Science. This is no obvious scammer like “KevinMartin” who offers enigmas in the form of convolution. This guy works with subtlety.
Yes, he subtly asks for PROOF.
Quote: I took care of this guy last year. For another one of these types of videos, it turned out that every example he found was from military aircraft.
The early persistent trails WERE from military aircraft. They were the only planes carrying people photographing aircraft. When civil aviation began to expand (from a size fifty times smaller than the present) the people inside weren’t taking pictures of the trails that these aircraft were making.
Quote: Now he has made a video alleging to have found chemtrailed skies from 1972.
Of a book (showing persistent contrails). I’ve seen this. Look, Socrates, I’ve seen (in the late forties!) newspaper and magazine pictures of persistent trails myself. This horse doesn’t run.
Quote: I believe a few of us have made a difference. I believe that despite the fact that the major chemtrail boards have been rigged, a few of us have gotten the word out that it is not outrageous to believe in chemtrails.
I don’t know if the major chemtrail boards are rigged. I’ve been ejected from YouTube, David Icke, and Outlaw. If anything, the rigging’s the other way.
Quote: Epoxynous/Contrail Science is a Patrick Minnis mouthpiece. They are admitting that we are seeing what Minnis refers to as contrail outbreaks. These guys are going way out of their way to try to make chemtrails look kooky.
If aviation’s increased by fifty times since the fifties, the aircraft engines are putting fifty times more water into the air. If trail times reflect the humidity of the air they are dumped in (which they must!), then trail length and sizes must also increase. There’s a million tons of water added to the air each day. This is a tiny proportion of the amount that is already up there, but these trails are the most dense where the atmosphere is at its coldest, which is at the tropopause, approximately 26,000 feet up in the central US. Contrail ‘outbreaks’ must increase as air travel increases. It is atmospheric science. There is no “maybe” here.
Quote: They then have Deborah, Chem11, Arcadia Ego, and BigBunny spreading the disinfo that chemtrails are contrails. This has been an elaborate script covering many years, around nine to be exact.
If all scientists say the same thing, it doesn’t have to be “to a script”, does it? It is just that they share the same understanding. If you were to say “the Sun goes round the Earth”, then a lot of people would disagree with you, but not to a script!
Quote: But unless the Italian chemmies are plants, some form of strawmen, they have located the book Epoxynous used for his video. The book has obviously been altered where the photos used by Epoxynous are located. The only thing I can think of is that the Italian chemmies are fakes, and it will be proven that they scripted this whole thing, that they are the disinfo strawmen to boost Epoxynous’ credibility.
Those “chemmies” are crooks, and doing what they always do – LIE. They are responsible for photoshopping a Boeing 777LR CG test prototype interior with a “hazmat inside” sign, and rostrumming this photo (freely available from airliners.net) into the “Inside a Chemtrail Sprayer” video. My challenging this YouTube video got me thrown off YouTube, so i) the world’s not rigged against you, and ii) they are lying bastards who’ll do anything to further their malicious agenda. These guys are working beyond the Hanlon’s Razor mentioned in my signature – they know exactly what they are doing. And so do I.
Quote: However, the only thing I see from their youtube page that doesn’t add up is that the guy “TankerEnemy” wrote that he is censored on his own pages. Yet right in the comments, there he is. Controlled opposition is a problem we must keep an eye out for. But nonetheless, please check this out. It sure looks like Epoxynous and many others have been busted for being spooks.
TankerEnemy is simply lying, and you know that when you lie, the problem is that you have to remember the list of the lies you make, and trot them out to order. If you keep on doing that, you end up falling off your self-made cliff.
TankerEnemy: We found these kind of anomalies not long after a symposium of C.I.C.A.P. (italian debunkers). During the conference, Simone Angioni, an italian chemist, (as well as component C.I.C.A.P.), showed this book with the same strange details. Obvsiouly he showed it trying to demonstrate that hours-persistent-contrails ever existed. We know it’s a lie then we purchased the same volume and found what we let anybody see in this video. Some pages were torn and replaced with other different ones. Somebody manipulated a number of original informations of this book, “Clouds of the World”. Ask yourself: WHY?
I’ve already answered his question.
socrates
I’ve had some concerns with the big forum he is affiliated with. They seem to have stuff on orgone and ufos, for a few examples. But I don’t know Italian, so it’s not something I have access to figuring out. That all the early evidence of aircraft induced white-outs are from military aircraft implies that such evidence is useless. Plus, those white-outs don’t look like those that showed up around the year 2000 or a bit earlier.
We’ve also already heard all the explanations from the closed-minded debunker side. Increased air traffic. More pollution particles in the air. New turbo engines. It’s gotten very stale.
Your horse seems to be one that keeps running in the stratosphere despite the consistent claims of witnesses that the white-outs are being created much lower than that.
I’m not saying for sure that the book in question was tampered with, but it sure looks like it may have happened.
It’s good that you were banned from youtube. No one likes to read spam.
You are a broken record. I was in the trenches and figured out a lot about fake chemmies named Deborah, Chem11, BigBunny, Arcadia Ego, Wayne Hall, Lou Aubuchont and many more. But oh no, according to you, it appears that I am just smearing them because they disagree with me. And real scientists agree with them! So it doesn’t even matter, according to you, if a sophisticated fake chemmie/fake debunker script has been uncovered.
In a controlled opposition, discrepancies are planted for the scripted foes to debunk. The result has been nothing but noise. Real people have been shamed out of participating. There’s no need for real people in such discussions. Lou Aubuchont is a nutjob? Have Jay Reynolds point that out. Carol Rosin is in all likelihood a cointelpro plant in the peace in space movement? Have ContrailScience point it out. God forbid the few real chemmies who refused to give up have been the ones to clean up the whole stinking disinfo ship.
This forum wasn’t established so people like yourself could show up and change the tempo. Your past spamming attempts and bullying efforts are taken into consideration when reading these present efforts.
As for David Icke and the Outlaw Forum, those are two of the worst websites on the whole internet. Why you would want to post there is beyond my imagination. I can see how Uri stayed on a fair bit to set the record straight about the neo-nazi ideology being spammed, but for you to say you are such an intellect, yet post at those kinds of places, is hard to make sense of.
Just because someone gets caught in lies, does not mean everything they post is lies.
The preponderance of evidence shows that a “chemtrails are kooky” script has been put in place. There is something referred to as concern trolling. Folks will make it appear that they are one of the good guys. They will post things that make sense in order to gain the reader’s confidence. But what goes on with such folks is a confidence game.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t look like things are working out here. Nothing personal, but I’m starting to remember how annoying you can be.
Take my advice and go to DebateBothSides. I kind of don’t want you here. 
 anthony.r.duncan
socrates: those white-outs don’t look like those that showed up around the year 2000 or a bit earlier.
They look exactly the same to me.
Quote: Increased air traffic – stale.
Truth seems stale to you?
Quote: consistent claims of witnesses that the white-outs are being created much lower than that.
But not one proof, with all those videocams…
Quote: It’s good that you were banned from youtube. No one likes to read spam.
Policemen are nasty people that attack burglars. That seem reasonable to you?
Quote: figured out a lot about fake chemmies – according to you, it appears that I am just smearing them
Really? Does it? Did I say so?
Quote: because they disagree with me.
How could they possibly do that?
Quote: So it doesn’t even matter, according to you, if a sophisticated fake chemmie/fake debunker script has been uncovered.
A script using scientific truth? NO – it doesn’t. I quote: “Just because someone gets caught in lies, does not mean everything they post is lies.”
Quote: In a controlled opposition <snip> whole stinking disinfo ship.
I can appreciate your concern about that. It’s the mess we have to swim in. I don’t give a monkey’s fart for such stupid shenanigans – my only concern is science and logic. It seems to me that arguments using these two themes can continue unobstructed through the above-mentioned crap.
Quote: This forum wasn’t established so people like yourself could show up and change the tempo.
Gosh. I know what that is code for.
Quote: Your past spamming attempts and bullying efforts are taken into consideration when reading these present efforts.
You seem keen to define what I’m doing here as some pre-arranged agenda. If a LIAR sets up business in YouTube, is that OK? If someone calls out the lie, is that SPAM?
Quote: As for David Icke and the Outlaw Forum, those are two of the worst websites on the whole internet. Why you would want to post there is beyond my imagination. I can see how Uri stayed on a fair bit to set the record straight about the neo-nazi ideology being spammed, but for you to say you are such an intellect, yet post at those kinds of places, is hard to make sense of.
Three days at Icke?  Setting the record straight about CTs and Evolution was wrong when I did it in Outlaw – yet Uri was OK in the same activity re NeoNazis? Whoa! Did I call myself an intellectual?
Quote: Just because someone gets caught in lies, does not mean everything they post is lies. The preponderance of evidence shows that a “chemtrails are kooky” script has been put in place. There is something referred to as concern trolling. Folks will make it appear that they are one of the good guys. They will post things that make sense in order to gain the reader’s confidence. But what goes on with such folks is a confidence game.
I think you’re succombing to paranoia here. If you feel in advance you are going to lose an argument with me, and it makes you wish to repel me, you should ask yourself why. If I am about to win an argument by reason alone, then as a reasonable man you should anticipate that possibility with pleasure. Otherwise what else is there? Unreason and fear?
Quote: I’m sorry, but it doesn’t look like things are working out here. Nothing personal, but I’m starting to remember how annoying you can be. Take my advice and go to DebateBothSides. I kind of don’t want you here.
Well, I assume that means you don’t want to consider reason, science and logic. There hasn’t been anything like that from you so far. It’s strange, but try as I might, I just don’t see you as malicious.
————————————————————————————-
Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/about/
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com
http://www.reverbnation.com/jazzroc
http://www.esnips.com/web/Beachcomber-Classics

And THEN I was gone! Of course, a post followed my last, and it was this:

Re: Jazzroc is Disinfo by socrates on Sat Feb 28, 2009 wrote:
I’m surprised you haven’t looked more into this rather than the dead-end chemtrails versus contrails debates. It’s like with global warming. The deniers trot out their small list of scientists and political operatives in an attempt to turn the undebatable into an enigma. I think it’s fairly accepted that Frankensteinian geoengineering ideas are no good. But there has been a push to cover up the Dr. Evil part of it, from Paul Crutzen to guys like Wigley and Benford.

socrates

anthony.r.duncan wrote:
A year and a half ago I knew nothing at all about “chemtrails”. These names I don’t know.

socrates wrote:
His claim of being an anarcho-socialist (SYNDICALIST) or whatever rings hollow. He also claims to be a buddhist atheist. Uri called him out good on that one. If one doesn’t get caught up trying to read his headache slice and dice hatchet jobs on folk’s posts, you can see that he is working scams. Useful idiot or paid disinfo? Those are the only two choices I see.

Jazzroc is the debunker version of Halva {“Wayne Hall”}. Stalinists, anti-social, dogmatic, utterly sporadic. A normal debunker would be cool. Closed-minded debunkers out of the cookie cutting university will not do. He chops and sautees everyone’s posts out of context (untrue). As someone else said, he is a time waster. Sorry about that Uri. Feel free to pm me if anyone else you know is a suspected troll. Though now I probably sound just like all this astroturfing Kos Kop/troll pack paranoia. This was/is an interesting thread. It’s as if he picked the most normal looking one to newbies to disrupt and derail. Or he has some severe anti-social skills.

I think he’s a spook. How could he say he never heard of Paul Crutzen? Hey Uri, then people like us get called troublemakers for just being down-to-earth and telling it like it is. The final straw was seeing how he was discussing Paul Crutzen with one of the only normal posters there (untrue). But earlier in this thread, he claims to have never heard of Paul Crutzen. He really is fairly dumb as a debunker. His talk of the stratosphere was ridiculous, as if chemtrails are being witnessed from aircraft in their cruising elevations. (They are!)

He could very well be paid disinfo, in my humble opinion.

He wasn’t the possessor of a “humble opinion”. He thought he knew enough science, when he thought that aircraft cruised in the troposphere, and couldn’t accurately state or recollect things either…

Who is Paul Crutzen? I shall have to go and check…

Ah…

Curriculum Vitae of Prof. Dr. Paul J. Crutzen
Born: December, 3, 1933 in Amsterdam, Holland.
Family status: Married, two children.
Academic Studies:
Civil Engineering, 1951-1954, Amsterdam, Holland.
Academic Studies and Research Activities 1959-1973 at the University of Stockholm, Sweden.
M.Sc. (Filosofie Kandidat), 1963.
Ph.D. (Filosofie Licentiat), Meteorology, 1968,
Title: “Determination of parameters appearing in the ‘dry’ and the ‘wet’ photochemical theories for ozone in the stratosphere”, Examiner: Prof. Dr. Bert Bolin, Stockholm, Sweden.
D.Sc. (Filosofie Doctor), 1973, Stockholm,Sweden,
Title: “On the photochemistry of ozone in the stratosphere and troposphere and pollution of the stratosphere by high-flying aircraft”, Promoters: Prof. Dr. John Houghton, FRS, Oxford, and Dr. R.P. Wayne, Oxford.  (Ph.D. and D.Sc. degrees were given with the highest possible distinctions).
Employment:
1954 – 1958: Bridge Construction Bureau of the City of Amsterdam, Holland.
1956 – 1958: Military Service, The Netherlands.
1958 – 1959: House Construction Bureau (HKB), Gaevle, Sweden. 1959 – 1974: Various computer consulting teaching and research positions at the department of Meteorology of the University of Stockholm, Sweden, Latest positions: Research Associate Professor.
1969 – 1971: Post-doctoral fellow of the European Space Research Organization at the Clarendon Laboratory of the University of Oxford, England.
1974 – 1977: Research Scientist in the Upper Atmosphere Project, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder,Colorado, USA. Consultant at the Aeronomy Laboratory, Environmental Research Laboratories, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisitration (NOAA), Boulder, Colorado, USA.
1977 – 1980: Senior Scientist and Director of the Air Quality Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, USA.
1976 – 1981: Adjunct professor at the Atmospheric Sciences Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
1980 – 2000: Member of the Max-Planck-Society for the Advancement of Science and Director of the Atmospheric Chemistry Division, Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry, Mainz,  Germany.
1983 – 1985: Executive Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany.
1987 – 1991: Professor (part-time) at the Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA.
Since 1992: Professor (part-time), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, USA.
1997 – 2000: Professor (part-time), Utrecht University, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, The Netherlands.
Since November 2000: Emeritus.

Scientific interests of Prof. Dr. Paul J. Crutzen:
Global modelling of atmospheric chemical processes (2-D, 3-D) for troposphere, stratosphere and lower mesosphere.
Interactions of atmospheric chemistry with climate.
Studies of the potential role of halogen photochemistry with ozone in the marine boundary layer.
Tropospheric chemistry, including the role of biomass burning in the tropics and subtropics.

Gosh! Another no-good washout who doesn’t match up to socrates‘ standards, in spite of his Nobel Prize. Watch out, folks…

NOW I know about Paul Crutzen! 

So what’s with this guy SOCRATES?

Well, for sure he never passed Science at any level. In his world  atmospheric physicists and Nobel Prize-winners are simply other devious pervs like himself, with subtle and secret agendas.

The institutions they work for are merely tools of the powers-that-be, and the not-too-bright serfs that work under them, agents, enemies.

With his x-ray vision, SOCRATES is the seer who sees through other peoples’ feeble fronts, and lets you know the truth.

Un – BAH – leavable! (What’s this bad taste in my mouth?)(spits)

SODA POP

“Chemtrails” ARE SODA POP. Put them through a carbon filter for sure, and each mile of “chemtrail” will get you a crate of soda pop.
The stratosphere is stable and layered like an onion with layers of differing humidities. A “saturated” layer will NOT reabsorb the trail, which will slowly fall and form stratus or cirrus cloud. That is what you see…
Want some soda pop? I’m nuts for soda pop! Are you? 

SOME & ALL

Some of these in this film might be contrails.
ALL of them.

There were also normal passenger planes at the same height which left no trails at all.
Planes flying at the same height are never less than TEN MILES apart. Otherwise they are 2000 feet higher or lower. That could be in a layer of a different humidity.

I had my reasons to suspect that they were chemtrails.
You left REASON, and BELIEVED them to be “chemtrails”.

 SPACESUITS

Vapor trails (soda pop!) are made of fine crystals of ICE (it’s very cold up there!). IF THERE WERE other “particles” in them, their rate of descent (inches/hour!) coupled with the prevailing wind (always there!) would place their LANDING point OVER your HORIZON. How on earth is THAT a TARGETED WEAPON?

If it’s such a GENERAL attack, can’t you spot the perpetrators? They’ll be the ones wearing SPACESUITS! 

SR1419 pwns RudeDog

This took place in Contrailscience’s lively comments section on January 24th, 2009. I wish I’d written this. A lively and interesting debate precedes this too:

RUDEDOG: “Your constant attempts to avoid the issues and your failures to adress the questions as they are presented to you once again reveals your true intentions to minipulate and decieve people. If these are not your true intentions, then why are you so determined to descredit every person and try to disprove every claim that is ever reported by people who are genuinely concerned about what they know are not normal contrails.”

SR1419: “This is somewhat of an ad hominem attack and somewhat surprising as I have done nothing but directly address the issue – specifically addressing your questions. That you do not understand the answer is not my fault… at least not entirely.  Moreover, accusing me of deception and manipulation is as outlandish as it is funny as I have not deceived anyone nor manipulated anyone… I put forth opinions based on facts.

Again, it gets back to ignorance… or perhaps lack of knowledge is a better way to phrase it – when you say “what they know are not normal contrails.” …I believe “they” DO NOT know what normal contrails are!

If they believe that any contrail that does not dissipate after a few minutes is not a “normal” contrail – then they DO NOT know. If they believe that because it is 120 degrees on the ground then contrails cannot persist – then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. If they do not know that a contrail can spread out into sheets of cirrus clouds and even induce additional cirrus cloud formation – then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. If they do not know that propeller-driven planes can leave contrails – then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. This is not deception on my part, not manipulation on my part… this is lack of knowledge on their part.

…It is because of this lack of knowledge about all the variables that go into any given contrail… from the highly complex atmospheric conditions such as relative humidity, updraft velocity, and crystal concentrations necessary for contrails to form and persist, from the condensation nuclei needed, from the concept of ice supersaturation, to the types of ice crystals involved, to the effect the type of plane that is leaving the trail, to the type of engine the plane is using, to the particular mix of fuel any given plane has, to the speed of the plane… that I am highly skeptical about claims of “chemtrails”.

…Seeing a persistent contrail… filming it and posting it on YouTube claiming it is a “chemtrail” being sprayed is an exercise in speculation-based ignorance. Not a combination that leads to credibility.

Without knowing that there can be pockets of supersaturation leading to gaps in trails or that multiple planes leaving persistent contrails on perpendicular flight paths can resemble “grid” formations… or that any given moment there are over 5000 planes in the sky above the US, or that it is virtually impossible to determine the altitude of plane simply by looking up much less determine its logo from 7 miles away – or that any trail you see above you will not fall on you but instead drift for hundreds of miles with the upper winds… all this ignorance just adds fuel to the speculative fire.

Given the fact that “normal” contrails often behave EXACTLY like “chemtrails” supposedly do, it is impossible to definitively know that you are looking at one just by seeing it. Without sampling the trail in situ one cannot know for sure… and yet the vast majority of claims are based solely on visual “evidence”.

…And so, being that persistence is the only “evidence” offered…. and the fact that normal contrails can and do persist… and that most “chemtrail” believers are ignorant of a great deal of the information required to make an educated claim about what they think they see… it is easy to doubt their claims.

Do not worry about my motivation. Worry about facts. I am not out to “prove everyone is wrong”. I simply point out facts that are pertinent and show gaps in knowledge that – when filled – might lead to different conclusions and understanding. Insinuating that I am somehow complicit in some evil act simply because I do not agree with you is not a healthy argument.”

JazzRoc
“SR1419, the response you have made to RD above is so excellent that I have copied it into my blog, as a fine example of clarity, accuracy, and attention to detail. I hope you don’t mind.” 

RUDEDOG

“SR1419, If I understand you correctly, these are the facts as you see them regarding contrail formation:

*Contrails primarily consist of water vapor or ice crystals formed from water.
*In order for contrail to become persistent, the aircraft must be cruising at 40,000 feet or above.
*The ambient air temperature at that altitude must -40 degrees c or lower.
*The air must be ’super saturated’ to create the contrail.
*Regardless if the conditions at ground level are 120 degrees and dry or 10 degrees with high relative humidity, it has no affect on the conditions at 40,000 feet.
*Contrails are also formed behind propeller driven airplanes as well.

In regards to the last one, I cant find any data that shows propeller planes traveling at 40,000 feet or higher. I assume it would be dangerous since it might interfere with the jet aircraft. Or perhaps they were not designed to operate at that altitude. In any case, I have never seen one leave a contrail and I do not believe that they are a contributing factor to the plague in our skies.

There are literally thousands of pictures and videos that have been posted on the internet from legitimately concerned people that are posting them because they believe them to be something other than normal contrails. They believe this because they remember watching contrails being formed since they were children and the recent ones (in the last 10 years or so) do not behave or look like the contrails that they have come to know. You contribute this to increased air traffic and you claim that all of these people just weren’t paying attention prior to this or they just don’t remember contrails as clear as they think they do. That is merely an assumption on your part that is lacking any kind of science so that assertion is completely invalid. It is simply your own opinion. I personally remember very clearly watching contrails as a child and was very interested in them at an early age and have always been an avid sky watcher as have many many others that resent the fact that you do not believe this to be true.

There are many places on the internet to find these photos and videos. You tube is not the only place although it has many available to view. There are thousands of pictures and videos that have been submitted as ‘chemtrails’ which vary in geographic location around the globe, spanning all 12 months of the year when filmed and done so under all types of weather conditions and submitted by people for no other reason than looking for the truth. Out of all of these photos and videos, you claim that every one of them are nothing more than normal contrails that persist and spread out into cirrus clouds. This in turn means that you are claiming that all of these thousands of pictures and videos all have in common the above mentioned criteria necessary for the formation of persisting, spreading contrails.

You are claiming that every one of these photos and videos were taken at 40,000 feet (or pertinent to the latitude) and the temperature was -40 degrees or less and the air was super saturated at that moment in time. PROVE IT!

Certainly you must have proof of this in order to make such an affirmative bold statement. To call all of these people liars and to present your contrail explanation as the true facts and to portray the claims of the actual witnesses who were physically present during the incident as conspiracy theories or cases of mistaken identity.

The fact is, you have no proof of this. As a matter of fact, I am sure that I will be able to prove that some of them were in fact NOT filmed or photographed under the conditions necessary for the formation of a persistent ever expanding contrail cirrus cloud mutation. I will begin by seeking out the ones that have documented the date, time and location of the incident. Through some careful research, I will find out what the conditions were at that time and location and if the conditions could have supported the formation of lingering persistent thick ever expanding contrails, especially on a large scale as we see in so many of the photos and videos.

In the mean time, continue on with your campaign to deceive and dis-inform the unsuspecting population as you do. It is only a matter of time before that spiel has so many holes in it that the bottom will fall out.”

UNCINUS

“Rudedog, you seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding here. Nobody said contrails only form above 40,000 feet. All that was said was that if it was 120F at ground level then it can still be -40F at 40,000 feet.

Contrails can actually form at sea level if it is cold enough. There is a critical temperature that is required for contrails to form. This varies based on air pressure, which varies based on altitude. This is sometimes called the MINTRA level. At sea level this is about -11F, and about -40F at 34,000 See MINTRA here:

http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/54

MINTRA – To aid the forecasting of condensation trails emitted (or not) from high-flying aircraft, a line marking the critical temperatures (altitude dependent), above which trails are not possible, is marked on a tephigram . The values are approximately -24degC at 1000 hPa (i.e. roughly sea-level), -39degC at 250 hPa (34000ft / 10.4 km) and about -45degC at 130 hPa (50000feet/15km). Using the MINTRA line (as it has come to be called – based on experiments by JK Bannon during World War II with the piston-engined Spitfire), a forecaster will mark two further lines on a tephigram: MINTRA minus 11degC (A) and MINTRA minus 14degC (B). If the ambient temperature (from the tephigram air temperature plot) lies between (A) and (B), then short, non-persistent trails are possible. If colder than (B), then long, persistent trails should be expected. However, some note should be paid to the relative humidity – high values will tip the balance to trailing (or longer/persistent trails.), even with air temperatures warmer than (A); ultra-low rh% will reduce the risk of condensation trails – the design of engines will have an effect as well. In broad terms, warm Tropical Maritime airmasses with a high but cold tropopause will result in a good deal of trailing, whilst cold, polar air-masses with a low, relatively warm tropopause will seldom give rise to significant aircraft trails.

Super-saturation is only required for the contrail to spread out over several hours into a layer of cirrus cloud. No doubt the various different videos were filmed in various different conditions.

And contrails ARE also formed behind propeller driven airplanes, if they fly in a cold enough region. The first contrails were observed behind prop planes. Generally now though there’s not much point for a prop plane to fly high enough, so it’s unlikely that any contrails you see in the sky now are from prop planes (unless the weather is very cold).”

SR1419
“RD – Uncinus is correct… if it is cold enough contrails can form at ground level… much like exhaust from a car on a cold winter day… even persistent contrails can form at ground level.

“Supersaturation” refers to the air being supersaturated with respect to ice… look up “ice supersaturation” for more information. Since ice supersaturation areas can be quite large, persistent contrails often occur in clusters where many planes leave trails.

There are literally thousands of pictures and videos that have been posted on the internet from legitimately concerned people that are posting them because they believe them to be something other than normal contrails. They believe this because they remember watching contrails being formed since they were children and the recent ones (in the last 10 years or so) do not behave or look like the contrails that they have come to know.

I am sure “they” are legitimately concerned… that does not mean they can’t be wrong or can’t be ill-informed. Moreover, I never once called them liars. Do not put words in my mouth. I said they were ignorant of the information needed to truly know what they were looking at.

The FACT of the matter is persistent contrails DID EXIST when I, you and they were younger. The fact that you- as an “avid” skywatcher- do not remember them doesn’t mean it isn’t so. It was so. Uncinus’ many photos on this site should help clarify that. As this paper from 1970 will attest – persistent contrails that spread out, covering the sky in haze were very much a reality 30, 40, 50 years ago – perhaps not as common but very much a reality. I’m sorry if you do not remember them:

http://tinyurl.com/bypwmt (click on the PDF to read the paper)

As the author says:  “The writer himself has seen instances in which a single contrail seemed to grow until it became an overcast covering the whole sky.”

So, clearly…it was happening even if you do not remember.

Also – since it has been shown that persistent contrails are a result of normal aircraft use and have been a reality as long as aircraft have flown… then it is up YOU to prove that what you see in the sky is otherwise. The burden of proof is not on me… it is on those who claim that persistent contrails are something other than a normal result of plane flight.

That is where that pesky “evidence” comes into play. If all those legitimately concerned citizens are posting video of contrails that persist simply because they do remember them persisting when they were younger and therefore they must be part of a nefarious “spraying campaign” because they read it on the internet… well, then they are sorely mistaken and ignorant of the facts.

Where have I deceived or “dis-informed” anyone??? Alas, it is the “unsuspecting public” that has been deceived and misinformed by “chemtrail” theorists – claiming that any contrail that doesn’t dissipate is a “chemtrail”… and that contrails didn’t persist when they were younger. Those are utterly false claims.

Why do you keep trying to ascribe a motive to me? or why must I be out to deceive and “disinform”. Why can I not simply disagree with you?”

rudedog
SR1419, You say:”The fact that you – as an “avid” skywatcher – do not remember them doesn’t mean it isn’t so.”

If there was something to remember, I would remember it as clearly as I remember the other details of my lifelong experiences. So would everyone else that deliberately observed contrails in detail because they were fascinated by them.

You keep on insisting that every one of us have had some kind of blackout regarding contrail behavior when we were young. Tens of thousands of us have conveniently forgotten that particular part of our lifelong observances of jet contrails. One hell of a coincidence wouldn’t you say?

You attempt to debunk all chemtrail claims by referring to photos that uncinus has posted as so called evidence. The photos that you refer to are not convincing anyone that they have blocked that part of their memory out. They certainly are not ‘proof’ that what we are seeing today existed then either simply because you can not distinguish the difference. The fact of the matter is, they look like contrails by design. At least in the beginning stages anyway. If they did not resemble contrails do you think we would even be having this discussion? How is it that you can refer to a photo of something that you claim is a persistent spreading contrail from 30 or 40 years ago and then use that as your proof that there is no chemtrail spraying going on today? One has nothing to do with the other! Just because you say so doesn’t mean it is so.

Hypothetically speaking, if a series of planes were to release millions of gallons a clear liquid chemical that resembled drops of water does that mean that what we are seeing is ordinary rain? Of course not. If I were to use your logic then it must be ordinary rain because I can refer you to photos and documentation that says it has been raining just like that for my entire life. Since you can not tell the two apart by looking at photos or video, it means that to claim it is anything other than normal rainfall is a conspiracy theory.

Are you beginning to see how ridiculous your non-science is? Or are you just that ignorant of the fact that you or uncinus have not provided one shred of evidence that proves that any of the documentation submitted as chemtrails are nothing more than normal contrails. Just because you refer to a picture of a contrail does not make all things contrails. If they were just normal contrails this disinformation website would be non-existent.

I am afraid that the burden of proof is on YOU. People are providing photos and videos of the visual part of their chemtrail encounters and you are telling them that they are wrong. So where is your proof that they are all wrong? Shouldn’t you be able to back it up if you are going to contradict someone?

Uncinus
I don’t remember persistent contrails when I was a child. In fact I really only remember them from around 2006, I can’t say I recall ever seeing them before that time. Does that then mean that there were no persistent contrails before 2006?

rudedog, what year did you first notice them?

SR1419
Wow… not sure what to say to you RD… your twisted logic and refusal to acknowledge fact… and therefore reality… makes it hard to truly dialog.

Do you really believe that persistent contrails did not exist prior to you noticing them?

Did you read the paper I posted from 1970 where the author specifically describes contrails that persist, spread out and cover the sky in a haze? How do you reconcile that? Do you just ignore it? Was he lying? Is it planted disinfo??

What about this description also from 1970:

“The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.
[….]
Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks. Fig. 1 is a typical example of midmorning contrails that occured on 17 December 1969 northwest of Boulder. By mid-afternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2 an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.”

or this comment from 1981:

“Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“”

or the time lapse photos posted here from 1970 – showing exactly the persisting and spreading YOU CLAIM did not happen back then:

http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

“How is it that you can refer to a photo of something that you claim is a persistent spreading contrail from 30 or 40 years ago and then use that as your proof that there is no chemtrail spraying going on today?”

I use it as proof – along with the peer-reviewed scientific data from that time – that persistent contrails DID EXIST prior to you noticing them. It is not proof that “chemtrails” do not exist but it is PROOF that persistent, spreading contrails did exist prior to you noticing them….

…which leads to the basis of your claim. You allege that because you didn’t notice persistent contrails until recently that they did not exist back then… and that is proof that they are not persistent contrails but “chemtrails”.

…but THEY DID EXIST prior to you noticing them… and thus NOTHING is different now accept perhaps the frequency. The behavior of the trail in the sky now is exactly as they were described and photographed 40yrs ago… but you want to say that they are somehow different and thus is “evidence”. In fact, they are not different, they are identical and thus claims of “evidence” are dubious at best.

Your only “evidence” is videos of persistent contrails… but since they have always had the ability to persist, it isn’t really evidence at all but instead utter speculation based on ignorance. Your analogy is false… an appropriate analogy would be if you said that the liquid coming out of the clouds is not rain but really powdered aluminum… and I asked you how you knew this and you said because you did not remember liquid falling from clouds before.

See how ridiculous your claim seems?

Because persistent, spreading contrails have been observed, studied and acknowledged for over 50 years the burden of proof is on YOU to show that they are really something other than the accepted scientific fact. If you cannot acknowledge the fact that persistent contrails that spread out covering the sky in haze DID EXIST prior to you noticing them then we are at an impasse and your refusal to accept reality is a deal-breaker as far as dialog is concerned.

Good luck with that.

rudedog
You guys can talk all day about how a contrail can persist and spread into a cirrus cloud and it doesn’t even matter if it is true or false.
Once again, it does not prove that it is what you are seeing on another persons video. You talk about screwed up logic. Where is the logic in that? There isn’t any.

You offer a description of a contrail as you believe it to be, therefore all other things in pictures and videos that look similar to your description of a contrail can not be anything else but a contrail? Yeah, you are mister logical and we are all to whacked out to hold a conversation with. Hokey dokey mister logical. You are right about one thing. An intellectual conversation is not possible with you if that is your definition of logic. By the way, where does one go to study for his masters degree in contrail science? Oh, why am I asking you guys? I forgot, you are only here moderating this website because you like to look at clouds as a hobby or something. You just reminded me of being back in school, except in school the teachers actually had earned some sort of a degree to show that they had mastered the field that they are teaching and are competent to pass that knowledge on legitimately and with unquestionable integrity.
If you can refrain from giving lessons on contrail 101 and actual provide some actual proof that all of the chemtrail pics and videos are only contrails them maybe you might actually gain some integrity too. So far all you have is that they look similar to contrails, which is to be expected. Remember, just because you say they are does not make them so. Another redundant lesson on the history of contrails does not provide the proof that is necessary either. Please! Haven’t you beat that horse to death?

Like I said, if you are going to tell someone that they are wrong, then be able to prove it with something other than your personal opinion. It’s getting old.

JazzRoc
No, what’s getting old is your continued refusal to be scientific, yet make assumptions and pronouncements on what is essentially a science topic.
It is YOU that has to back up the claim that contrails are other than water, not WE that have to prove that your baseless claim is false.
We have all the proof that we need: scientific paper upon paper quantifying the contents of contrails. What’s more, so have you. You just aren’t reading it, or maybe you aren’t capable of comprehending it.
Just consider the AMOUNT of trail material recorded for a typical trail: 16Kg per meter – from the paper “Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties”
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 16 Kg per meter.”
That means a 5000 kilometer flight (THROUGH SATURATED AIR) would put down 80,000 tons of trail material…
Whoa! Wait a minute! Isn’t a jumbo’s fuel load about 250 tons?
So where does the rest come from? Answer = OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE
IT IS ICE OUT OF THE AIR, RUDEDOG. AND A LOT OF IT. 

STEAM

“Think of it logically” – Take your own medicine

“How could steam last for hours up in the freezing cold?” – HERE IS YOUR PROBLEM. Exhaust steam at 2000 deg C COOLS to -40 deg C in TWENTY-THOUSANDTHS of a second. Having cooled to -40 deg C (it can be COLDER than that!) the steam is now ICE, in tiny flat crystals, looking like white smoke. The plane is travelling at 800 FEET per second so you see the trail appear SIXTEEN FEET BEHIND the engines. THAT ICE WON’T GO AWAY unless it can EVAPORATE into it. If the HUMIDITY of the air is 100% then the ice CANNOT EVER evaporate into the air.

“Ever seen steam last for hours on a cold day? No? Duh.” – I think you need to repeat “No. Duh” because your reasoning has just been DESTROYED!

“They ensure planes don’t cross paths” – FAR FROM IT. Do you know anything about airportS and flight systems? – Thousands of planes cross paths ALL THE TIME. That is WHY there is AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL.

“It’s not hard to figure out” – But a bit harder than YOU thought

“None of this has anything to do with chemtrails!!!” – TRUE.

THIS is REAL. “Chemtrails” aren’t. 

STERN’S “DUMBEST CONSPIRACY EVER”

Chemtrails: Strong Competitor for “Dumbest Conspiracy Theory Ever”
By Ray Stern in NewsThursday, Dec. 18 2008 @ 12:54PM

(This is such a huge post, chock full of misperceptions, misunderstandings and outright lies, that it’s going to be a while before it becomes completely rebutted. Probably a month or two…

But it will be. I have an absolute confidence, borne of two years experience now of NEVER finding anything that couldn’t be rebutted in chemtrail “truth”.)

Most conspiracy theories are so ridiculous, it’s hard to choose which are the least plausible or which faces the higher mountain of opposing evidence. Some seem within the realm of the possible, such as the ones that surround the assassination of JFK, the Pearl Harbor attack or the murder of Princess Di. Others, like the absurd theories about the 9/11 attacks, rampant alien abductions, faked moon landings, Jewish world domination and Biblical creationism can be dismissed by reasonable people within minutes of hearing their proponents’ arguments.
The so-called “chemtrails” theory, espoused by Valley guitarist Carole Pellatt, lands solidly in the latter category. Simply put, the idea that secret agents are using jumbo jets to spray the whole world with toxins for some nefarious purpose is opposed by common sense, contrary evidence, lack of supporting evidence and sheer implausibility. The theory has at least a few dozen supporters who know how to use a computer. Our recent blog post about Pellatt and chemtrails has received 127 comments as of this morning. Most of the commenters are strong believers in the chemtrails conspiracy and took us to task for the minimal research we did before declaring the theory “debunked.”
We feel our level of research was far more than sufficient, given the subject matter. But we decided to spend another hour or so reviewing the post’s comments, reading some of the Internet reports — both pro and con — on chemtrails and e-mailing one of the ardent supporters of the theory for comment. We had an interesting conversation with Dave Mason of southern California, the person we e-mailed who uses the handle “freedomfighter4theplanet” for his blog comments. And we came to understand something about these chemtrail believers.Their real enemy isn’t the toxins they believe are being sprayed by waves of sinister jumbo jets.
What they are really scared of is skepticism. Mason, when confronted with a healthy dose of questions, seems to writhe on the phone like a vampire being dragged into sunlight. Our first question for Mason was why the government would be spraying people with poison. In a move typical of believers in disproven, illogical ideas, Mason tries desperately to change the subject. What he wants to talk about are his unending questions: Why won’t the government take his claims seriously? Why would a Raytheon-owned airplane working for the military fly in circles for hours without landing? Why can’t he inspect that airplane when it lands? Why would he be arrested if he threw chemicals out of his car window, yet no one seems to care that government jets are showering particles of heavy metals on people?

When New Times attempted to show Mason some of his questions might have perfectly mundane answers — don’t some planes fly in circles to monitor weather? — Mason got upset. “It’s military — classified! Got it?” he pouts. When asked why he thinks the Raytheon airplane is suspicious, beyond the fact that it’s flying in circles, he hesitates to give an answer, perhaps wary of how corny it may sound. New Times presses, and Mason says the plane — which, admittedly, does bear the spooky name of “VOODOO1” — is suspicious “because we’re not allowed to look at this plane to see what it is doing.”
Finally, he admits he wants to see the plane because he thinks something “sinister” could be going on. “I think they are putting barium, aluminum and titanium into the atmosphere,” he says. “I think (VOODOO1) is one of the planes.” His theory for why “they” are putting the metals in the sky: To turn clouds into communications devices. Worldwide. “I think it’s the United Nations, not just the United States,” Mason says.

New Times points out there’s a big problem with this theory: Valley air quality monitors don’t show high concentrations of barium, aluminum and titanium particles in our air. Mason immediately changes the subject. Now he wants to talk about a government program to monitor clouds for the aerosols he believes are being sprayed. He points New Times to a government Web site for something with the ominous-sounding name of “Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign.” He urges us to look at the canister on the wing of an airplane in a picture on the Web site. But there’s nothing remotely scary about the canister, New Times tells him. The site says this equipment collects particles in the air to determine their effect on climate change. That’s a good thing, isn’t it? At that point, Mason grew hysterical and hung up on New Times. He proceeded to write a new comment on the blog post about Pellatt (his fifth? sixth?) claiming we’re a “lost cause.”
Pellatt wrote four comments on the post. In one, she claims we must be either “insane” or “in the paid service of the industrial complex.” In responding to one skeptical reader’s comment that one only need read a physics book to prove “chemtrails” is wrong, Pellatt’s comments show just how far deep she’s in: William, please give me the name of the book that proves there is no aerosol spray program…
Of course, like me, I know you checked into who the author, authors, or organization was that authored and published the book, and then checked them out to make sure they have no ties to the Government, National Science Institute, EPA, NASA, National Weather Service etc. Because we know that NASA – just go to their web pages – is the lead organization in the National Weather Service’s “Weather Modification Program”. That’s public knowledge. It’s only a conspiracy theory in the mind of ignoramuses.

Nowhere in any of the 127 comments do the supporters of the chemtrails conspiracy theory offer any evidence of their theory, nor do they even fully outline what that theory is. Failing to explain details is a trick common to many proponents of wacky theories, and it’s used to avoid scrutiny. Creationists do this all the time, because saying you believe in the vague notion of “intelligent design” sounds a lot less nuts than saying you believe baby dinosaurs rode with Noah on the Ark. Some commenters presented what they see as evidence for the theory. For instance, “Doug” lists “facts” that include an alleged Wall Street Journal article about Russian “weather modification” experiments and the astonishing news that “almost all wildfires have been well documented as burning hotter and with more intensity than at any other time in recorded history.” No evidence is offered for the wildfire claim, which makes sense because the statement collapses under the weight of its own silliness.
What’s really lame here is that there is real science behind contrails, which are formed when jet exhaust condenses in cold air, but these seemingly smart people would rather focus on unprovable nonsense. As the picture at the top of this blog post shows, jet contrails have become ubiquitous with the huge increase of air traffic in recent decades of air traffic. The contrails cause more cirrus clouds in the sky, which trap heat and lead to more warming on the ground. There’s another real problem lurking in jet exhaust: Carbon emissions, which the world’s top scientists say are leading to global warming. Plus, piles of white lines cluttering up what would otherwise be a mostly blue sky could be considered a type of visual pollution — ugly, but not as disturbing as the rumbling noise pollution the engines also put out. But to look at the peaceful contrails floating in the sky most days and perceive them as some kind of death-rain attack by our own government — that’s just sad. — Ray Stern

Zret: The same old system: to defame the researchers, instead of trying to explain. Chemtrails are real and poisonous! Shame on you for this garbage.

Russell: It really is astonishing and sickening that large numbers of people will believe stuff like this despite the complete lack of evidence. In this day and age, the existence of people so gullible as to fall for outlandish drivel like “chemtrails” brings a tear to my eye. I blame the American “education” system for failing to perform its stated job in science education.

I. M. Looney: I had my carpets cleaned by ChemTrail and they came out great . . . oh wait, that was ChemDry. Maybe there WAS something in that cleaning solution!

Alan: Ray, At first I thought you were just an asshole. Thanks for proving it! “What’s really lame here is that there is real science behind contrails, which are formed when jet exhaust condenses in cold air, but these seemingly smart people would rather focus on unprovable nonsense.”
Explain my first sighting which took place in NYC on a very warm, dry summer day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaRVA1HKLiM  I find it hard to believe that only a handful of jet aircraft out of hundreds would leave such persistent contrails. Where’s your science now? You should have left well enough alone but you have challenged and insulted people who actually give a damn about our planet. Your dismissive attitude is self-serving and demeaning. I’m sure that you will be hearing from many more credible people on this subject!

Anon: Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? The simplest explanation is usually the best? After watching the fascinating youtube video, I have reached the conclusion that contrails are left behind by bored pilots playing tic-tac-toe.

Joya: Ray, You obviously have not witnessed, as I have, jets leaving normal contrails, which evaporate quickly, and planes spraying chemtrails, which last for hours, flying directly above me, at the same time. You have not witnessed, as I have, 3-4 Chemtrail planes for hours, flying, spraying then turning around and spraying some more and doing this all day long, in a sporadic and criss-cross patterns.
You have obviously not witnessed, as I have, heavy chemtrail spraying in an area without heavy commercial air traffic. You obviously have not experienced, as I have, the smell of these chemicals on heavy spray days, as I have and the pink rainbow like haze that they leave. Why also are there days now and then when there are no chemtrails, pure blue sky, yet there are contrails from regular commercial jets? You might want to do some eyewitnessing before writing your articles.

Why Not Test Yourself?: Ray, Do the hepa filter testing you have been advised to undertake by many people who wrote in response to the other article. It is not hard to do. Put the unit outside. Cut the filter after use underneath a lined sky into three pieces. Send each to a separate lab. What is so hard about that? I know you deem such totally unnecessary, because you are absolutely confident you have your answers already. But wouldn’t it be reeeeally something if the results you receive aren’t in reasonable harmony with air quality stats supplied by the, “official,” sources? There is no shortage of wild-eyed people on board the chemtrail train. Some people will latch on to something for dear life, and make it into a life itself, entertaining the most outlandish tangents. You’ve undoubtedly run across a number. But then there are the clear-eyed, exceedingly practical, and pragmatic. Who work for the so-called military industrial complex. Who know for a fact that aluminum and barium are injected in the atmosphere, by jet aircraft and on an on-going basis, in the interest of vastly improved satellite communications. If you do the testing, you will come across results that must be explained. There will be a direct disconnect between the data you will hold in your hands and that received by the standard sources you and nearly everyone else have come to rely upon for the safeguard of health. Please don’t dismiss what I’ve told you. If you assume that such particle dispersal may be taking place and that it’s O.K. because the government knows what it is doing, you need to know the amounts/percentages that end up in blood streams go far beyond the maximum toxic limits allowable. Alzheimer’s (aluminum directly linked) has risen, is striking younger people on a wider basis, and you will see yet wider swaths of populace segments regarding age spread occurring. Now it is possible that in the near future, with enough independent testing and enough of a ruckus raised, that such maximum allowable toxic limits may be changed upward to accommodate this new reality. But that would not alter the health effects.

Old Scientist : Skepticism is healthy. An open mind is as well, providing it is not leaking like a sieve. To find the balance is the key. Apply the scientific method. Don’t take any official experts’ word on this subject. Don’t take conspiracy theorists’ words on this subject. Physical evidence of particles is easily enough apprehended on an individual basis as long as you have a little $ to apply to the task. The patents for utilizing same are currently readily available from the U.S. Patent Office. Putting it all together is the tricky part. My own assessment is that the thirst for expanded knowledge and control have yielded yet more compromise in the the long-term health of the public as a whole and a perceptible downgrade in the immediate environmental quality of life for all. Just as the soldiers at the Smokey test in the Nevada desert weren’t told the truth, and denial by officialdom continued until the very last person died of leukemia, so it will be about the projects over the heads of Americans, and results that are already appearing today.

sebringcoupe: “It really is astonishing and sickening that large numbers of people will believe stuff like this despite the complete lack of evidence. In this day and age, the existence of people so gullible as to fall for outlandish drivel like “chemtrails” brings a tear to my eye. I blame the American “education” system for failing to perform its stated job in science education.”
It is really astonishing and sickening that you keep attacking us with the same old rhetoric and no solid facts. Stop it with the reverse psychology, it is YOU who is not providing the facts. Show us some INDEPENDENT sources that this in fact contrails (national institutes DO NOT count). And I like that word “outlandish” sounds like it is directly ripped from mainstream sources due to your lack of originality when it comes to childish insults.
To the propagandistic… erm I mean journalist: You are never going to debunk this if you keep coming off as a self absorbed prick, you must make a killing lying to the public. Once again you show you cannot stand actual thinking people so you resort to more rhetoric. You even stepped it up a few levels calling everyone who did their homework and ACTUALLY researched it (unlike yourself) dumb. What kind of journalism is this? You still have YET to provide facts but merely Bill O’Reilly style insults to your readers. Fortunately not ALL buy into this abusive propaganda. OH I know what’s next, you are going to completely ignore the facts again and continue to insult people. You are oh so too predictable. This is one topic you should have left alone if you cannot handle the pressure from it. @ I-M LOONEY: After that comment it sounds like you guzzled down that bottle of carpet cleaner. Better lay off that stuff it might cause you to leave comments that make absolutely no sense… oh wait.

 joya : Ray, you must be on the US Gov Dept. of Propaganda payroll and if you aren’t…. well then…you’re giving it away for free. and to russell: I have a degree from one of the Top 6 Science Universities in the world. If I have an orange and and someone tells me it’s an apple, I don’t need to prove it’s an orange, I just know!

Deb Tamb : Why would harmful aerosols and any toxins be released over/around my homeplace? I DON’T KNOW! That would be way too kooky! So, you “chemtrail skeptics” please consider the concerns of those who can not stop looking up at our beloved sky. I am certainly interested/curious about any aspects of this blatant weather manipulation but do not label me a conspiracy theorist!! Even if I’d never noticed a “chemtrail”,the resulting sky is absolutely undeniable. From my backyard and neighborhood I’m seeing the sky from around this location: at less than 20 miles from Camp David.  At less than 70 miles from D.C.  At less than 7 miles from Lambs Knoll.  At less than 18 miles from Fort Dietrick.  At less than 30 miles from Site R.

John Bonnema : Ray Stern, you remind me so much of the child who would clasp his hands over their eyes and then scream out “you-can’t-see-me!” Na, na, na, naaaa! You’re an ignorant man Ray. You’re only hurting yourself and your loved ones by failing to recognize the blatant poisoning in our skies. Go to 4:15 of this video and if you can tell us this is normal, then we’ll know how much of a feckless dolt you really are. youtube.com/watchv=11J_VopuDXc&feature=related

Clay Milfeld: I want some of what you’re smoking.

Carole Pellatt : Hello Ray, so you couldn’t take the heat of the responses after the last pathetically unscientific article you printed about me. You had to defer people’s attention away from those responses by creating another one. Still haven’t gone to my website have you? No, you’re a forum junkie. Still haven’t read any report on weather modification have you? Still haven’t read “Owning The Weather 2020”, have you? Still haven’t read any weather modification treaties, have you? Still haven’t read even one military budget-obviously. Still haven’t read any patents, have you? Still haven’t done a HEPA filter test, have we? Still haven’t checked the lab reports from air and water samples around the state, have we? Sad, sad, sad. You have nothing to say, nothing to offer anyone that is intelligent on the subject of aerosol experiments, and judging by some of the idiotic comments I see, every other “looney” who uses the term “chemtrails” associated with “conspiracy theory”, knows absolutely nothing about science.

I call it weather modification or electromagnetic experimentation. Chemtrails is your word Ray, not mine. GIVE ME YOUR PROOF RAY. You haven’t done one lick of research. I’ve been pretty cool up until now, but your articles are written like that of a school student who has never studied but is trying to fake a grade. Afraid of real science, are we? You keep saying we offer no proof of aerosol spraying-not chemtrails Ray, what is a chemtrail? I have no idea-only conspiracy theorists like yourself call them chemtrails to distract the public from the overwhelming physical evidence of aerosol spray programs-by the military, NASA,NWS, and the government’s own admissions and documentation.

You have become like a mosquito buzzing in someone’s ear. You have nothing intelligible to say, but your purpose is to try to irritate. That’s not a very nice energy to put out into the world. I don’t understand your hostility, your aggressive language, condescending attitude, and unwillingness to hold a true dialogue with someone purely for the purpose of an exchange of ideas.

Why does it upset you so that people are truly concerned about the poor quality of the air we are forced to breath in this city. And that most of it comes from airplanes? Why does that not even bother you?-That worries me-human to human. Why do you act like you care about nothing genuinely-other than your arguments? These things distress me.

Would you like to know how many people are currently without health insurance in this country? I can tell you. Would you like to know how many more people can’t feed their families because of the mess this economy has been allowed to slip into-partly by a sleeping press? Would you like me to tell you what it’s like for a woman in Bosnia to have to go to the Hague to testify about being a victim of mass torture and rape during the genocide? Would you like me to tell you about RAWA-the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan who bravely hide video cameras under their burkas and film human right abuses, and smuggle the film out of their country so the world may see and understand what’s really going on there? Would you like to know what it’s really like for workers in the industrial parks in China-I’ve been there, I can tell you. Do you know the circumstances that all had to be in place in order for the Rwanda genocide to blaze across that country,ripping it open into a frenzy of violence? And do you wonder what the international community was doing while it was going on? Would you like to know how much ground water in Phoenix has been polluted by corporations? Would you like to know what the number one cause of infant mortality in this country is? (It’s new). Would you like to know how many superfund sites there are in this city, state, or country? Do you want to know who learns faster, unilingual or bilingual children? Do you want to have a discussion about the laws of Eminent Domain? Or are these subjects boring or stupid for you to report on.

I mean what are you spending time doing Ray? If it were research, I would have some place to start to call what you have to say an intelligent argument. And I wouldn’t begrudge you our discussion because it would be centered on a subject matter, not on a person. So once again, you quote “comments” as your basis of argument. A verification that you all you want to do is argue Ray. If you wanted to know if there was an aerosol spray program, you would go to official documentation, not people’s “blog” comments. This is how you do your research? And your editors are fine with this?

Well Ray, it’s time to leave me out of this discussion. Direct your inner frustration and aggression elsewhere. If you ever want to truly have a discussion about any of the subjects I’ve mentioned I’m always open for that, but take your dog and pony show elsewhere because you can’t even get the smallest fact right. I am NOT A SCOTTSDALE GUITARIST. I’ve never lived there. Merry Christmas. truly, Carole

Chad : Ray, you have somewhat restored my faith in the progress of humanity. Alan and Joya, however, make me frightened for the future.

As an aside I just want to let people know that, as a scientist, I get a real kick out of peoples’ homemade “experiments.” Putting a HEPA filter outside and then cutting it and sending it to a lab? Really? If you don’t understand the glaringly obvious faults with that experimental method then I feel that there may be too large a gap between you and I that it would be impossible to cross. What a shame.

Ray Stern :  Carole: The “Scottsdale” part is fixed — I was thinking of your music camp in Scottsdale. I’ll fix any other errors in the article, if you make a good case for why it’s an error.

John Bonnema :  Thank you Carole for your beautiful website. If I could just say that arguing with ignorance is futile. And to Chad, yet another feckless inane dolt, I’ve already placed HEPA filters outdoors for several hours while they were spraying and then had them tested. Guess what CHAD? They came back positive for high than normal levels of both barium and aluminum oxide and a polymer substance the lab could not identify. Go put you head back in the sand with Ray and the rest of your ilk CHAD! Go now! And you’re a scientist are you? That’s a joke, right? Breathe deep CHAD and enjoy the poisons, they’re free.

Anonymous :  What a disappointment to read such an angry and fearful article. I have personally read many well-written articles and research on the aerosol program. It’s hard to believe that in the year 2008, after years of weather modification, that someone could be so filled with anger at what people see and know. The people writing to you are concerned about fall-out period. Farmers are concerned about ionospheric modification for good and sane reason. Their required soil tests for acid-alkaline balancing have shown terrifically high levels of aluminum and barium. They watch the particulate fallout after the aerosol tankers grid the skies above their land. High levels of aluminum in the Adirondack’s waterways are a concern of scientists. Acid rain studies have been very costly, and sulfur dioxide drift has been a chronic problem. Now aluminum toxicity. The world wide aerosol program or “sun dimming” is not made public because the mass reaction would not be positive. Scientists and military are under contract for 20 or more years after retirement. The threat of a $10,000 fine, a prison sentence, and loss of pension is enough to keep anyone quiet. Forgive me for my personal criticism, I am not personally involved with you, but you need to get in touch with your unfocused anger. It’s not the citizens, their concerns and knowledge that you’re angry about.

Alan :  Ray, why haven’t you posted my last comment? It was a response to Chad’s disrespectful comment made about Joya and myself. Are you into censorship as well? Can’t take the heat? Alan

Rosario Marcianò :  The smoking gun! Controlled aerosol over the cities. Chemtrails! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfRtITzZbBM&fmt=18 

Dave :  This guy is a hack. Even admits to doing minimal research and obviously had his mind made up. If you can look up at the sky while Chemtrails are being sprayed, say that it is normal, then you are in denial or just plain dumb. Also, there are mainstream reports about very high levels, illegal levels of Barium from the Chemtrails. Suck on this Ray…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI “Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails”. BOGUS.

Another great source for info: http://www.bariumblues.com/index.htm Warning, Ray may find the information hard to understand. BOGUS.

Doubting Thomas :  I met a guy this summer who was absolutely convinced of the conspiracy behind Chemtrails. As proof, he told me to look it up on Youtube. I told him that I would only trust proof provided by People magazine and left it at that. So in a nutshell, I have to say I agree with what Chad said and I would add that everyone take the time to look up the following terms: Confirmation Bias – Scientific Method – Full Disclosure – Peer Review – Baloney Detection Kit – and most importantly – True Believer Syndrome

Aurora :  Thank you Carol for standing up for your truth and thank you all of you that take this seriously. There is so many sleep walking people in the world and I’m wondering if there is a conspiracy going on to numb people.  Someone said that what’s happening above our heads is one of the greatest crimes against humanity. A lot of people are in for a rude awakening when the truth comes out…. Please read the following article: “Germany becomes the First Country to admit Clandestine Chemtrails Operations” (debunked as a vicious mis-translation) For all those activists who have been investigating and reporting on clandestine government operations around the world to manipulate our weather patterns, this news from Germany is groundbreaking. The TV news report states that “the military planes of the German Federal Army are manipulating our climate; this is what the weather researchers are presuming and their suspicions are confirmed… “We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals.” “This is their main purpose, but I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements — although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful.” “In the United States of America there are protest after protest for many years now, against these military operations and now people are mobilising in Germany as well. Per example JOHANNES REMMEL of the Greens. “It’s obvious that enormous regions are being polluted with clandestine actions, but all of this has to be made public. The government must provide explanations to the unsuspecting population.” This is a very significant development in the battle to find out why our governments are spraying chemicals into our atmosphere, however it is only the tip of the iceberg. As far as researchers have been able to conclude, chemical spraying by our governments have been in full operation since mid-to-late 1990’s (possibly earlier). The following video presentation is a great introduction to chemtrails and some of its possible implications: Aerosol Crimes (1:39:23). Right now we can only speculate as to what type of chemicals are used in these operations, however one thing is certain, if we saw a car driving down the road, spewing out a plume of smoke the way these planes are doing we would be very concerned. Considering that half the species in the world could be wiped out due to global warming, the least we could do is to demand that our governments explain what it is that they are spraying us with, specially if military heads are claiming “that the substances used are not harmful”. As we know, when the militaries of the world say we have nothing to be concerned about then we have everything to be concerned about. Keep in mind that chemtrails have been categorized as an “exotic weapons systems” by the 107th CONGRESS of the United States in House Bill H. R. 2977. Further information on chemtrails at educate-yourself.org http://www.chycho.com/?q=chemtrails BOGUS

M. Richard :  Chad, as a “Scientist” maybe you could explain Ionospheric Modification to your friends. You must be familiar with the Weather Modification Bill from 2001 that originally coined the term chemtrails. What type of Atmospheric Science do you study? You could be involved in a comprehension study for your age group. Sometimes the youngest children have a need to argue any subject, just to be “right”. It’s relative to passive/aggressive behavioral disorder. Something in common with Ray? Hope your not an Environmental Epidemiologist who studies cluster groups of fallout victims.

New Orleans Wake Up Club :  Good Folks, time to move on. Yet a second article; this definitely a distraction. Don’t waste your time and energy. The old saw to stay away from argumentative, close-minded people applies. Like so many things, waking people up is a numbers game. An experienced salesman knows that every, “no,” leads that much closer to a, “yes.” And Moves On. Know when to fold a hand and walk. Attempt to focus your efforts, stay away from diversion, and make your shots count for as much as is possible. You are fishing for those who are slated To Know. Not everybody, by a long shot, is. Drop your seeds, do a bit of watering. If signs of progress appear, pay a bit more attention. But keep it fluid and moving in any case.

s :  Kind of like the proponents of the theory that the physiology of a cell is determined by the cell’s genetic material. Or the theory that the universe was created out of nothing by a “big bang”. You will object, but when I tried to ask some scientists about it, they “immediately became evasive and tried to change the topic”.

In response to this quote from the article: “Failing to explain details is a trick common to many proponents of wacky theories, and it’s used to avoid scrutiny.”

Geoengineering : It also appears that we ‘Chemtrail’ investigators have been chasing our tails, being intentionally discredited, maligned, and fed disinformation to keep the actual truth just below the levels of media perception. The real story has been taking place in broad daylight, safely concealed under the scientific umbrella of ‘Geoengineering and intentional climate change.’ Chemtrails are just one of the ‘mitigations’ proposed to Geoengineering our planet. Once we began sifting through the numerous studies, experiments and papers written on intentional climate change, we found a wealth of supporting evidence of well funded global atmospheric modification programs. One such paper is Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two (Jay Michaelson, published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January, 1998) The author makes a very convincing case for the pressing need of undertaking geoengineering projects. He argues that regulation, environmental laws and other stumbling blocks limit our ability to directly address the dangers that threaten us directly and immediately. He writes: “The projected insufficiency of Kyoto’s emission reduction regime, and the problems of absence, cost, and incentives discussed in part II, cry out for an alternative to our present state of climate change policy myopia.” “Geoengineering–intentional, human-directed manipulation of the Earth’s climatic systems–may be such an alternative. This part proposes that, unlike a regulatory “Marshall Plan” of costly emissions reductions, technology subsidies, and other mitigation measures, a non-regulatory “Manhattan Project” geared toward developing feasible geoengineering remedies for climate change can meaningfully close the gaps in global warming and avert many of its most dire consequences.” “In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy journals. [FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron “fertilizer” in parts of the Earth’s oceans. [FN128] Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial “Mount Pinatubos” by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. [FN129]” pp. 105-106, Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project.” In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be BOGUS the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet’s albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere. This method was BOGUS the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental protection and regulatory entanglements.

It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be acceptable losses. This landmark study; the widespread experimentation BOGUS and published papers of atmospheric theorists and scientists, combined with the visual evidence that atmospheric mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming mitigation. The evidence is all around us. For example; this past week Boeing Aircraft received an enormous initial order from the Pentagon for 100 Boeing 767 tanker planes, to begin replacing the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135s, the most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane BOGUS. The final order will exceed 500 planes. There has been no mention of the usage of these aircraft. Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a staggering scale, without the impediment of environmental laws or regulatory constraints. This grand experiment is being conducted in full view, while being concealed in plain sight.

I finally found “the” smoking gun. You can ridicule me as much as you want. But I forgot about this one website and found it. This is a site with 1000’s of collected declassified docs. He has made it his niche. He started it when he was 15 and is now 26. On just about any subject. Especially what we like to cuss and discuss here. www.theblackvault.com… . This “smoking gun” is actually a book. It is called: “Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaption, and the Science Bases”. Where the conclusion by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research is the most effective global warming method of mitigation (corrective) is the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing, commercial, military, and private aircraft. These were the “Policy Implications”. They spray it into the stratosphere- www.en.wikipedia.org… For those who need an explanation of exactly where that is. Here is the link to that article- “The Chemtrail Smoking Gun-Proof of Global Geoengineering Projects. www.lightwatcher.com… Here is another one.- Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project. www.metatronics.net… Or, you can just go to blackvault.com and check it out. Bunch of links. Actually, their first one, was shooting 1900 1b. bullets into the atmosphere, they even have all the costs and everything in this big book. Including, weather balloons with a load of the aluminum, barium powder. There are links to the book, and you can buy it (a little spendy) or, it has links to pages you can read for your scientific research into what has been presented in it. It is considered a “sunscreen” as the inventor of the H bomb, suggested back in the 50″s. There are also other links to investigate for yourself. www.data4science.net…. www.chemtrails911.com… www.anomalies-unlimited.com… One of the guys that was also giving some info, supposedly killed himself. We know what those implications are. Anyway, there ya be. And if the links don’t work, they work through the black vault site, cause I had to dig.
And I have found out too, that the guy was a hoax that called it “Project Cloverleaf”. Who knows, they just don’t want us to know what they are doing to us and they will intentionally say people are a hoax when they aren’t. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4 blackline – http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page836.html  World Needs Climate Emergency Backup Plan, Says Expert

Lockergnome : In submitted testimony to the British Parliament, climate scientist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution said that while steep cuts in carbon emissions are essential to stabilizing global climate, there also needs to be a backup plan. Geoengineering solutions such as injecting dust into the atmosphere are risky, but may become necessary if emissions cuts are insufficient to stave off catastrophic warming. He urged that research into the pros and cons of geoengineering be made a high priority.“We need a climate engineering research and development plan, in addition to strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” testified Caldeira, a faculty member of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California, at an inquiry on geoengineering convened by the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee of the House of Commons on November 10. “Prudence demands that we consider what we might do in the face of unacceptable climate damage, which could occur despite our best efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions,” he said. Climate engineering (or geoengineering) refers to controversial proposals to deliberately modify the Earth’s environment on a large scale, primarily to counteract greenhouse warming. One scheme would cool the planet by injecting dust into the upper atmosphere to scatter incoming sunlight. Other possibilities include enhancing cloud cover over the oceans. Critics question the effectiveness of these schemes and worry that tampering with the Earth’s systems would create as many problems as they solve. But others warn that currently accelerating carbon emissions may push the planet’s climate system to a tipping point, making drastic measures necessary to prevent an environmental calamity. “Science is needed to address critical questions, among them: How effective would various climate engineering proposals be at achieving their climate goals? What unintended outcomes might result? How might these unintended outcomes affect both human and natural systems?” said Caldeira. “Engineering is needed both to build deployable systems and to keep the science focused on what’s technically feasible.” Caldeira advocates a university-based research effort involving scientists and engineers representing a range of disciplines. “A climate engineering research plan should be built around important questions rather than preconceived answers,” he advised the committee. “It should anticipate and embrace innovation and recognize that a portfolio of divergent but defensible paths is most likely to reveal a successful path forward; we should be wary of assuming that we’ve already thought of the most promising approaches or the most important unintended consequences.” “Only fools find joy in the prospect of climate engineering. It’s also foolish to think that risk of significant climate damage can be denied or wished away,” he said. “Perhaps we can depend on the transcendent human capacity for self-sacrifice when faced with unprecedented, shared, long-term risk, and therefore can depend on future reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But just in case, we’d better have a plan.”

Geoengineering : http://www.chemtrails911.com/archive_photos/00_Satellite%20Imagery/00_Satellite%20Imagery.htm

Cathy :  Another disinfo article to mislead folks away from the truth: chemtrails are real and anyone with half a brain who is willing to look up can see them. http://sonomachemtrails.blogspot.com/

Doug :  Congratulations Ray, you succeeded in proving my initial assessment of you as being 100% correct. Once again, you have chosen to use your grade school reporting skills to attack the people who wrote in, rather than address the issues or the facts presented. You are truly a hack and a whack job as a so called reporter (sic) – your credibility level is zero! Your previous blog space was filled with over 120 responses mostly by those who have spent more than a few minutes truly researching the facts. Yet you picked and chose only those items you thought you could refute! What a shame that New Times has relegated itself to the level of a cheap rag magazine. Since you obviously are unaware of what a “conspiracy” is, let me educate you assuming your IQ level is above a single digit – conspiracy Noun pl -cies
1. a secret plan to carry out an illegal or harmful act
2. the act of making such plans
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Since what is being done with “chemtrails” is “in your face” and openly being done for all to see, and thus NOT secret; then the term conspiracy does not apply now does it? Neither does the term theory since there are way too many documented facts. Yet you chose one person to contact of all those who replied to your article (or more succinctly personal attack) to question, then jump up and down when the person could not provide you the answers you demanded. Cheap theatrical hack reporting. Here’s a name to contact – how about Clifford Carnicom (http://www.carnicom.com/) – I am sure he can provide you with more than ample answers to your diatribe! How about the Congressmen and women as well as Senators who introduced Bills in Congress to make weather mitigation legal or chemtrailing illegal? Guess you didn’t have the testicular fortitude to go there did you?

You make the claim (and I will quote you on this verbatim): “Nowhere in any of the 127 comments do the supporters of the chemtrails conspiracy theory offer any evidence of their theory, nor do they even fully outline what that theory is. Failing to explain details is a trick common to many proponents of wacky theories, and it’s used to avoid scrutiny.”

Guess either you cannot read or are incapable or incompetent in reading what was written. Yet you fully described YOUR tactics perfectly! How much evidence do you need to validate what is being seen? How about the documentation showing “off the scale” readings of aluminum, barium, manganese and iron – which I am sure the authors of that blog would be more than willng to send you if you even had thought about asking for it? How about all the other sites detailing the Congressional bills and government programs (HAARP – DARPA) in place affecting weather and what they use to do it – or how about the manufacturers of materials used for weather control. I guess one has to be objective instead of stupid to look beyond their own preconceived notions that you and your management espouse. Pity!

Here’s another of your comments: “Some commenters presented what they see as evidence for the theory. For instance, “Doug” lists “facts” that include an alleged Wall Street Journal article about Russian “weather modification” experiments and the astonishing news that “almost all wildfires have been well documented as burning hotter and with more intensity than at any other time in recorded history.”
“No evidence is offered for the wildfire claim, which makes sense because the statement collapses under the weight of its own silliness. “

Below are several easily available articles clearly stating the condition and facts that wildfires ARE burning hotter and with more intensity – took me all of .14 seconds to find those Ray in a Google search!

“What’s really lame here is that there is real science behind contrails, which are formed when jet exhaust condenses in cold air, but these seemingly smart people would rather focus on unprovable nonsense. As the picture at the top of this blog post shows, jet contrails have become ubiquitous with the huge increase of air traffic in recent decades of air traffic. The contrails cause more cirrus clouds in the sky, which trap heat and lead to more warming on the ground.”

True about the trails causing cirrus clouds which trap heat – I’ll give you that one – but then again it is well known – especially if you understand how they are formed. Considering that air traffic is pretty much constant on a daily basis, and there are FAA regulations clearly stating the rules of flight, one would have to be a complete moron not to notice the clear violations of both airspace and patterns flown – but of course you have to go outside and observe – that is called investigating Ray – try it some time!

Since you obviously lack the ability to research the truth; here are several articles listed below which were found in less than 20 seconds time – including the Wall Street article you claim is alleged! Sloppy job there Ray!

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-LikOkTsyYqSaQA8Za0tzA9H9aaY5ARuZ?p=24

http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1694.cfm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/25/MNUUSVEFP.DTL

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=0028

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6983960.stm

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1043621.html

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR138

Did you look further into the articles located above about hotter fires you state do not exist: Seeing a pattern here Ray? Below is excerpted from a fire site clearly defining what happens when you introduce aluminum into a fire – see the correlation Ray? Or is that beyond your mental capabilities? Notice the inference to extreme weather below Ray! Is any of this making sense to you yet? Combustion is the chemical reaction that feeds on a fire more heat and allows it to continue. When the fire involves burning metals like lithium, magnesium, aluminum etc.(known as a class-D fire in the American fire classification system), it becomes even more important to consider the energy release. The metals react faster with water than with oxygen and thereby more energy is released. Putting water on such a fire result in the fire getting hotter or even exploding because the metals react with water in an exothermic reaction. Therefore, inert agents (eg dry sand) must be used to break the chain reaction of metallic combustion. The fire square is a model created by fire ecologist Richard W. Halsey. It shows how catastrophic wild fires, like the 2003 Cedar Fire, are formed. It includes the three original elements from the Fire Triangle, but adds an extra side, showing Extreme Weather as another important element. Extreme weather is however affecting the fuel side of the triangle giving more easily pyrolysed materials, and also the heat side of the triangle. This means that the original triangle accounts also for the extreme weather situation. Now one last thing, lets look at your comments (now how did you state it – oh yeah) – “What’s really lame here is that there is real science behind contrails, which are formed when jet exhaust condenses in cold air, but these seemingly smart people would rather focus on unprovable nonsense.” Vapor trails – contrails – heat vapors – created when heat is introduced into a humid cold condition. Simple physics really – like when you breathe out on a very cold day – one sees a vapor trail for a few seconds before it disappears. Much like the contrails in the sky which dissipate behind a jet within a couple of minutes when the same hot gases are quickly cooled and integrated into the cold air mass. Ever look up from under your desk Ray and see the jets in the air that leave a true contrail? Ever notice jets leaving trails that expand and spread – or how about those that are left in “puffs” – oh let me guess – they must turn the engines on and off in flight to get that effect right! Ray, you are suffering from a terminal case of cranial anal suffucatus! You truly are a hack – you do not deserve to write – let alone be published! New Times has scraped the proverbial bottom of the barrel in hiring a hack like you – but unlike you, the facts have been presented before you were labeled who and what you are – too bad you didn’t make the same attempt at credible reporting.

I guess your choice to block my repeated attempts to respond to your comments clearly shows you are willing to avoid rebuttals to your lies! Says a whole lot about who and what you are truly all about!

mc :  Say Ray, maybe it’s time for you to open your eyes and look up. Since you’re in the profession of reporting what you see, it may be that you are slacking in your responsibility of reporting the truth to the public. Your eyes don’t lie. Not everybody is dumbed down. You can fool most of the people most of the time, but not all the people all the time. To sum it up, it’s time to do your homework and rightfully earn your salary.

Geoengineering :  Geoengineering is defined as the deliberate modification of Earth’s environment on a large scale, “to suit human needs and promote habitability”. Wikipedia
Potential geoengineering options from the IPCC: Reforest 28.7 Mha of economically or environmentally marginal crop and pasture lands and nonfederal forest lands to sequester 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. Place 50,000 100-km2 mirrors in the earth’s orbit to reflect incoming sunlight. Use guns or balloons to maintain a dust cloud in the stratosphere to increase the sunlight reflection. Place billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons in the stratosphere to provide a reflective screen. Use aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight. Decrease efficiency of burning in engines of aircraft flying in the low stratosphere to maintain a thin cloud of soot to intercept sunlight. Burn sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight. Place iron in the oceans to stimulate generation of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton. Use lasers to break up CFCs in the atmosphere. http://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/janet_fleet.html

TAX PAYING CITIZEN :  When The Army Owns The Weather – Chemtrails & HAARP Author: Bob Fitrakis. Humans have long sought to control the weather. Early people learned how to make fire and modify their micro-environments; rain dances and other rituals to alleviate droughts are part of our folklore. So news that the government is engaged in secret experiments to control the weather should come as no surprise — especially after a long history of “cloud seeding,” “atom splitting” and cloning revelations. In fact, a vast majority of people would be shocked to learn that this orphan of the cold war is still in practice. As the U.S. and former Soviet Union spent trillions of dollars on their militaries, their commitment to mutually assured destruction led to extensive experimentation with the use of weather as a weapon. In 1977, the Saturday Review cited a CIA report hinting that the U.S. government already had the power to massively manipulate the weather for war purposes. As the Soviet Union disintegrated, a 1993 Isvestia article suggested the U.S. might want to partner with the Russians in peddling their top-secret technology to the world. Oleg Klugin, a high-ranking KGB officer, bragged of his involvement in geophysical weapons research to a London newspaper. The grid patterns of jet chemtrails now spotted throughout the Western world are likely the application of these technologies to new military and civilian uses. The military is not attempting to hide its long-term goals. “Weather is a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” is a white paper that can be found on a Pentagon-sponsored website. The paper’s abstract reads: “In 2025, U.S. aerospace forces can ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies towards fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighters tools to shape the battle space in ways never before possible In the U.S., weather modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications.” Wired magazine wrote about the paper and extensively quoted physicist Bernard Eastlund in its January 2000 article “Activate Cloud Shield! Zap a Twister!” The article detailed the military’s plan for “made-to-order thunderstorms” and “lightning strikes on demand.” Eastlund managed programs for Controlled Thermal Nuclear Research for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission from 1966 to 1974; he was a key researcher in the 1980s’ Strategic Space Initiative (aka Star Wars). Since 1996, Eastlund served as CEO and president of Eastlund Scientific Enterprises Corporation. The company boasts on its website that it specializes in “weather modification” and “tornado modification” among other high-tech services. Eastlund considers the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Alaska a smaller version of what he envisions for weather modification. In response to Michael Theroux of Borderland Sciences — who asked Eastlund whether the HAARP station could affect the weather — Eastlund replied: “Significant experiments could be performed The HAARP antenna as is it now configured modulates the auroral electrojet to induce ELF waves and thus could have an effect on the zonal winds.” At the Space 2000 Conference and Exposition on Engineering, Construction, Operations and Business in Space, sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Eastlund outlined his plan for zapping tornados with an electromagnetic radiation beam from the proposed Thunderstorm Solar Powered Satellite he’s developing with the help of the European Space Agency and Jenkins Enterprises. U.S. patent number 6315213, filed on November 13, is described as a method of modifying weather and should concern the public. A scientist from Wright Patterson Air Force Base acknowledges that planes are spraying barium salt, polymer fibers, aluminum oxide and other chemicals in the atmosphere to both modify the weather and for military communications purposes. The patent abstract specifically states: “The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitates to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the cloud’s ability to rain.” Answering the age-old question, Who’ll stop the rain?: Apparently our government and a few of their closest friends in the military industrial-complex. The emergence of Edward Teller promoting this startling technology is more than scary. (Teller was the father of the H-Bomb and grand promoter of Readi Kilowatt, our perky little radiation friend from the ’50s; one of his bright ideas from the ’50s was to create harbors by nuking our own coastline.) The April 24 New York Times reported that Teller “has promoted the idea of manipulating the Earth’s atmosphere to counteract global warming.” The computer simulations on the use of aluminum oxide to counter global warming come from the Lawrence Livermore Weapons Laboratory, where Teller serves as director emeritus. There should be little doubt that this would be a priority for the government — or for for-profit military contractors. While 2001 was the second-hottest year on record (1998 holds the record as the hottest year), the nine hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. But why would the government conduct anti-global warming experiments in secret? Investigative reporter William Thomas holds that there’s a link between the recent increase in asthma, allergies and upper respiratory ailments and the chemtrail spraying. Sound crazy? Remember, it sounded absurd when reports first came out that the government had conducted radioactivity experiments on U.S. citizens and released radiation from nuclear plants to test the effect on civilian populations. It sounded bizarre when news first filtered out that the government was engaged in the MK-Ultra mind-control experiments using LSD. The CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency admit they were responsible for many of the UFO sightings in the 1950s in order the explain away experimental military technology. From public documents to mainstream news accounts, the record is filled with reports of weather-modifying technology left over from the Cold War. Now we have a right to know what, if anything, the government plans to do with it. Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12342

HAARP :  Quantum Weapons (Part III) Ionospheric Heaters. If you reverse a radio telescope, and use antenna to send out signals instead of receiving, then you could theoretically boil the atmosphere with a focussed and steerable electromagnetic beam. Researchers call this model an “ionospheric heater”.
An Ionospheric Heater could lift targeted areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate anything. The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth’s upper atmosphere that sits about 40 miles above the Earth’s surface. Currently, there is one known test creation for this super- powerful radiowave- beaming technology, but it is being used for academic reasons (click to enlarge). The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP, has the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. In the words of the military, HAARP aims to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.” HAARP is a larger version of ionospheric heaters operating safely throughout the world in places such as Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Tromso, Norway, and the former Soviet Union. Funding for this Alaska based project justifies the research by saying HAARP system could: replace the huge Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) submarine communication system operating in Michigan and Wisconsin with a new and more compact technology, be used to replace the over-the-horizon radar system that was once planned for the current location of HAARP, with a more flexible and accurate system, provide a way to wipe out communications over an extremely large area, while keeping the military’s own communications systems working, provide a wide area earth-penetrating tomography which, if combined with the computing abilities of super computers, would make it possible to verify many parts of nuclear nonproliferation and peace agreements, be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area, and be used to detect incoming low-level planes and cruise missiles, making other detection technologies obsolete. This particular Ionospheric Heater can be found at Alaska University’s webpage: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

Weather manipulations are another aspect of the scalar terrorism which is facing us, and this has in fact been on-going for the past several decades. Weather engineering – steering the jet streams, thus “steering” or “guiding” weather entities. By warming the air in one region, the warm air expands so that it is thinner. Thus the interferometry makes a low pressure area in that region. By gradually moving the “warming region” (by moving the interference zone’s location), the low pressure area is “steered” and its path is determined. By cooling the air in a region, a high pressure area is created, and it is steered in the same fashion. By making multiple highs and lows and adroitly positioning and steering them, the jet streams and other prevailing winds can be entrained, “captured” and steered. This alone allows substantial augmentation and steering of weather effects. Triggering volcanos – by focussing the interference zone inside a volcano to its magma, and steadily depositing additional EM energy in the piezoelectric matter, a buildup of pressure in the volcano is induced. Eventually the volcano will erupt from the increased pressure. If the increase in pressure is applied slowly, the slow increase in pressure will be held longer by the static friction, so that a higher pressure is reached before the volcano erupts. This engenders a large and violent eruption, with consequently greater ejection and distant dispersion of ash, lava, and other debris.

Blasting away with explosions – all sorts of “patterns” of EM energy — glowing spheres, hemispheres, etc. — can be produced and these can be used against various targets, either for electrical and electronic destruction or for electromagnetic explosions of these balls of energy once they contact the intended target

Triggering earthquakes – by depositing the extra interferometry energy in a fault zone location, the increased piezoelectric activity will also result in increased stress in the rocks, thereby inducing an earthquake when the rocks finally slip. By adjusting the rate at which the excess energy is added, the size of the resulting earthquake can also be changed.

Direct Killing – by inducing repeatedly pulsed negative energy in an area containing living animals or humans, the animals or humans can be directly killed. Strong pulsing will result in rather instant death, where the bodies drop limply, with not even a nerve cell firing thereafter. Everything living cells, microbes, viruses, whatever in the struck bodies is killed instantly, and the bodies do not decay, even over a month or more. The Soviets tested such weaponry in this mode against two Afghan villages in their own war in Afghanistan, and it is probable that the Yakuza is now able to produce portable weapons with this capability.

Killing underground or underwater – since the longitudinal EM waves used in the interferometry of a scalar interferometer easily penetrate Faraday shields, the ocean, the earth, etc., such weapons are very useful in attacking deep underground targets and facilities and destroying them or wreaking damage.

Triggering nuclear powerplant meltdown – the use of a more portable scalar interferometer to destroy the electronic controls of a normal or nuclear power plant from a distance is obvious. With nuclear power plants this poses the risk of a melt down. Electrical controls for pipe valves, etc. are also vulnerable; the storage of spent nuclear fuel rods is largely underwater in pools on normal power plant sites. If the water is drained from those pools, the rods will heat up and again a melt down condition or very hazardous venting of radioactivity can ensue

Wiping out electronics & power grids – large electronic complexes such as switching and control systems, centralized control systems for power grids and substations, etc. are deadly vulnerable to scalar interferometry attack, by either long range or short range interferometers.

Targeting infrastructure
Chemical plants, refineries, fuel storage sites, tank farms, etc. are also deadly vulnerable to scalar interferometry, including portable attack.

Sinking tankers – liquid natural gas ships, oil tankers, etc. are also highly vulnerable to scalar interferometry attack.

Carole Pellatt :  A FINAL MESSAGE ABOUT ENERGY. Hello everyone, it’s been quite an intense week. A week of tug-of-war, push and pull, and battles of words. This message is about energy. How we direct our energy. And how we conserve it. Most of you who know of my work-music, photos, or research, know of my dedication to the discipline of constant reading, learning, and practicing. A large part of what I do is pass information along. I try to connect people with concepts.
I have sent my photo essays to literally hundreds of members of the press, city, state and federal officials. This is something we must continually be doing. Someone once asked me, “What’s the point of doing all this when nothing is really going change?”. That’s a legitimate question. The answer is, “I do it because I have to.” Victory is not a prerequisite for doing the right thing and speaking up against injustices.
This week Ray Stern decided to pick up one of my essays and write a post about it for everyone to see. Point number one is that he decided to say something about a subject which is very heated. Many of us didn’t like what he had to say and wished he would have thought otherwise. I kind of wish he would have been a little kinder in expressing his point of view, and used less antagonistic words, but we all have our own style. However, I think that would have made this more of a discussion or a dialogue than an argument-which goes nowhere. Nonetheless, I can’t name another reporter that picked up this story this week, and put it in the forefront.
Simply put, you can’t definitively prove aerosol spray programs exist in the “comments section” of a blog. Nor can you do it in one or two or three conversations. It takes years of research to understand the immense nature of geo-engineering, military technology, the facets of government that function independently from our public understanding, and then start to assemble minute pieces of the puzzle.
You have to be dedicated to the fact that something is wrong in order to spend vast amounts of time reading and studying 600 page reports with titles such as, “National Defense Authorization Act”, the Congressional Research Service paper on “High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse and High Power Microwave Devices”, “Title II Research Budget”, “Army Test Resources Master Plan”, “Microwave Symposium”, “Department of Defense/Management Issues Related to Chaff”, Naval War College reports; “Space Forces Support For the Joint Forces, Desert Storm, Who’s in Charge?”, “Progress In Space Acquisition”, “Program Acquisition Costs”,etc.
Most people don’t want to read obscure medical papers such as “Elevated Silver, Barium, and Strontium, in Antlers, Vegetation, and Soils Sourced From CWD Cluster Areas: Do Piezoelectric Crystals Represent the Transmissible Pathogenic Agent in TSE’s?” by Mark Purdey.
Then there’s scientific reports like, “Gravitobiology” by Lt. Col. T.E. Beardon, “H.A.A.R.P. Applications And Research” , “Science Board Task Force On Directed Energy Weapons”, “DARPA Statement”, “Viability of Directed Energy”, etc. There’s an endless list of geo-engineering reports; “Department Of Defense Weather Programs”, “Benign Weather Modification” from the Airforce School, “Decision Making In A Precipitation Management Program”, “Summer Runoff Increases by Weather Modification”, “Weather Modification-A Fire Control Tool”, “The Use Of Highly Charged Hygroscopic Drops For Fog Dispersal”, “The Airborne Seeding of Six Tornados”, “Airborne Jet Seeder Solution Burner”, “How Weather Engineering Will Ease The Energy Crises”, “Cloud Seeding From Space By High Altitude Rockets”, “How Silver Iodide Supresses Hail”, “Black Clouds and Silver Iodide: Public Safety and Weather Modification Law”, “The Weather Modification Research Program of NOAA”, “National Cloud Seeding Operation 1976-1977”, “(1980) NOAA’S New Trust In Weather Modification” and, “History of Planned Weather Modification Activities And Research At The Illinois State University 1947-1978”
This list represents a fraction of the reading involved in order to truly understand what is going on with the earth and how many seemingly unrelated phenomenon are connected. Call me old fashioned, I read books. I also have discussions with scientists of many disciplines from many countries. I may agree or disagree with them, but I engage them in long conversations in order to understand how they came to their conclusions. I also watch 3-5 University lectures a week from Universities all over the country on a variety of topics. There is information everywhere beyond mainstream. This is also why it takes years to put the big picture together. There is no quick fix.
One thing I don’t generally don’t do is get information from the internet. The internet was breached as a source of verifiable information a long time ago. Cutting and pasting, counterfeiting, recycling, rumors and accusations, mire the availability of indisputable facts. Scientific libraries have been pillaged, information and statistics have been altered and newbies who go to the internet for “research” have no idea what they are getting themselves into.
All this to refocus on our energy.
What happened this week was a good thing. We have seen that if you persist in expressing what you believe to be true, though 2000 people may ignore you, someone will eventually pay attention. And I have to say that during the long road of my research and activism, the universe has sent many carriers of information into my life. Some have carried my message further because they were in agreement, and other have disagreed.
I think we are living in a world of high stress and frustration and the internet offers a dubious medium for us to direct our daily frustrations at each other under the cover of anonymity. We do and say things to each other that we would never do if we were eye to eye. It’s like flipping someone off in your car.
To everyone who feels there’s something wrong in the sky-or anywhere else-let’s continue to make contact with the media. Let’s continue to write, to speak, to march, to photograph, to paint, to teach.
Ray Stern believes what he believes and it’s not up to me to twist his arm and “make” him see what I see. An apt expression is “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” ( I am in no way implying you are a horse, Ray). How much energy do we want to divert from research, activism, creativity and just plain living to stop and make a horse drink?
Thanks again Ray for making this subject a public forum and for taking the hits for disagreeing. Thank you everyone for your support. truly, carole

Dave Mason :  This is Dave Mason from Southern California, and I was not going to respond to the BLOG…& the reason for not responding to Ray “The Debunker” Stern was that I succeeded in getting my message out. I WON RAY. and Carole, Thank you for the inspiration! I was painted one way – BUT, I know the truth of that conversation. Your Venom spewed, but I knew what I was dealing with. Thanks for telling my story and waking people up. The feedback has been so positive that WE are getting answers. And This is just the beginning… People, I hope our military is not spraying US — and that means you reading this. I truly hope that secret agents using jumbo jets to spray the whole world with toxins for some nefarious purpose is ludicrous…But the day I stop asking questions is the day I die. Got It. – And I will continue to fight for the planet. And WE will win! God Bless US all.

onedeep :  quite the biased, arrogant (and laughably incorrect)article. Big words for someone that is dead wrong, and CLEARLY has done zero research. Sounds like you’re out to just mock people instead of knowing the truth. I feel bad for people in such close minded, self absorbed bubbles. At any rate, I think the open minded intellectuals have owned you enough in here, so Ill leave it be…

Douglas :  Mr. Stern, I recently read your feckless attempt at real journalism with your alleged Chemtrail rebuttal. I was one of the ones that commented, with documentation references, in the first round of blogs regarding your initial article. I’m really somewhat surprised at your rebuttal article, especially since there was so much good, credible, verifiable documentation to the contrary in the blogs based on your original article – even though you blindly claim there was not. In spite of your claims that there were no good documentation, you apparently also chose not to research any of them, shameful for someone that calls themselves a journalist. Moreover, I think you added to your incompetence and willful ignorance by adding that those of us that believe in the facts clearly supporting Creationism are just as guilty as those believing in the indisputable facts supporting chemtrails. To me, that’s a pretty shameful excuse for journalism. I thought that journalists were supposed to shed light on the truth, not be shills for those that would hide it or misrepresent it or in many cases, outright lie about it. Such is the case at hand. Because you failed to research the easily obtainable supporting documentation in the first article, I will provide verbatim excerpts of the October 2, 1992 Wall Street Journal article regarding the Elate Technologies’ weather modification project. I’d be glad to send you a copy of the article if you’d like. The article, authored by Adi Ignatius, was titled “Rain, Rain, Go Away, Go Soak Someone Less Willing to Pay; Moscow Firm Offers ‘Weather Made to Order’; Our Man Requests Three Days,” pages A1 and A11.  A small Russian company, Elate Technologies, Inc., using the “electrostatics” of an antenna array consisting of “dozens of aerials, each 25 feet tall, that discharged electrical energy upward to react with the ions of the air,” cleared a 200-mile radius during a drizzly day. The company promises “weather made to order” in the field of “weather extortion” and claims it can “fine-tune weather patterns over a 200-mile range. The company’s commercial director asked the author, “Do you remember that strong wind in Moscow two days ago? We created that.” This company was using HAARP technology that is referenced in another credibly documented article, authored by researcher Mark Farmer, in the September 1995 Popular Science, titled “Mystery in Alaska, The Secret Agenda of a Military Project in Alaska.” In this easily obtainable document,the author states that this technology can be used “heating regions of the lower and upper ionosphere” and for “manipulating local weather.” Pardon my digression away from the issue at hand – chemtrails – but I just wanted to educate you, since you chose not to inform yourself, on some easily obtainable documentation on the very-real fact of weather modification. I live a couple hours north of Phoenix but go there often. Often enough to view the readily recognizable chemtrails that are being intentionally sprayed in the skies and those that are harmless, quickly dissipating contrails. The same ones that I watched over the past several days, and am watching as I write this, from here up north. You folks that refuse to see them or the difference and then refuse to do even a modicum of research are willingly ignorant and that’s a real travesty. Sheeple. Mr. Stern, there’s really no excuse for your shoddy uninformed journalism. In my view, you are one of Communist Lenin’s “useful idiots.” Why don’t you get in touch with Mr. Ignatius or Mr. Farmer and discuss the finer points of educated, informed journalism. And those of us that know the truth will continue to spread it, taking up the slack for those of you that claim to be journalists, and for whatever reason refuse to see it or write about it. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Nikolai :  Well, it’s pretty clear this lieporter Ray Stern is not going to open his eyes or tell us what is going on with the obvious chemtrails. But i have good news! At least your Government is now confessing they are spraying chemicals to prevent climate change! Remember, we have global warming going on. At least that is what they want us to believe: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/12/29/aerosols-climate-change.html?campaign=w01-101-ae-0003

Wake up america, Change is Coming, in your weather type namely. Please keep breathing… 😦

Ray Stern :  Nowhere in the discovery.com article you linked to states that “they are spraying chemicals” as you claim. That is an exaggeration on your part. The article is about scientists wondering whether sulphur should be sprayed in the air to counteract the greenhouse effect.

Nikolai :  Ah yes, how ignorant of me. This article is not in the closest possible way related to this blog… An YES, you are totally right: The fact that scientists or the writer of the article on Discovery News are stating that putting chemicals in the air has never been tested before or any of the things they talk about, means that it HAS never happened before, because they tell us so right? Dream on man.

Neil Thompson :  My Camera and my Eyes don’t lie. I know that it takes 30,000 feet and crisp air to create a ‘Contrail’ that last any longer than 1 minute. 2 if you have IDEAL conditions. These are lower in altitude, below the jet stream and PERSISTENT. Call me delusional, call me a ranting maniac, but that will not change the facts.

NBC :  Check out this news story from NBC. It says chemtrails are real and environmental groups have the proof. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz_oNMJXBc – 64k

infowars.com :  It’s really funny that when anyone tries to debunk conspiracy theories they don’t use scientific facts. They resort to making fun of anyone that has these views ie.”i think the jet planes are playing tic tac toe” to these people i say go read some books and get informed, then make up your mind. go to infowars.com.  p.s. Hey, Ray Stern, Alex Jones would eat you for lunch

Donna B. :  Anytime I read “wake up people” and “scientific facts” and “prove it’s NOT happening” all about one subject, I know I’m hearing bunk. Thanks for the laughs and keep on believing!

HonestObserver :  “There’s another real problem lurking in jet exhaust: Carbon emissions, which the world’s top scientists say are leading to global warming.” I have a sneaking suspicion that one whacko theory has died, and another has taken it’s place. Yeee-ep… You see, that’s not how you kill dracula because that’s how FRANKENSTEIN is killed. Ergo, that vampire is not a vampire, it’s a zombie! “Oh you silly conspiracy theorists… it’s NOT heavy metals that they’re releasing… it’s CARBON! And you should be very worried about it, because those tiny, tiny trails are causing global climate disruption and killing the planet! Got it?!” For the record, I don’t subscribe to either the chemtrail or global warming crap. I’m a SANE person in this asylum of modern times!

Ray Stern :  I never said the trails are “causing global climate disruption and killing the planet,” though scientists do say that the buildup of greenhouse gases is leading to global warming. Stick to the facts. We have to have a baseline of some sort, and that baseline is science. Without that, you’re just guessing. It’s intellectually unfair to compare something that is measurable in jet exhaust by the ton (carbon emissions) to something that isn’t measurable at all (the supposed chemicals in the chemtrails “theory.”)

Anonymous :  “I never said the trails are “causing global climate disruption and killing the planet,” though scientists do say that the buildup of greenhouse gases is leading to global warming.” Well, yes, they do, but that doesn’t make it a valid counter-argument against the conspiracy of chemtrails. Nor even particularly relevant, especially given that the uh… consensus… seems to have quite a bit of resistence these days. One might even say it’s falling apart at its hastily stitched together seams. That aside, though, there are other and imo better points you could have used that would have stuck with the argument at hand. You were doing great until that global warming point! So don’t get me wrong. I thought your article was illustrative and informative. And I apologize for my exaggerating your words over the irony I perceived. But that’s all it was… bad humor. Anyway, the irony is/was… “It’s intellectually unfair to compare something that is measurable in jet exhaust by the ton (carbon emissions) to something that isn’t measurable at all (the supposed chemicals in the chemtrails “theory.”)” Yes, my point exactly! lol  You used an unmeasured thing (human impacts on global warming) to disprove another unmeasured thing (poisonous chemtrails in jet planes ) as part of your argument against them. But the claims of those scientists are no more valid than the claims of the conspiracy camp, ie, both are just speculation even though some on each side believe them to be true. Rock can not beat rock in rock-paper-scissors 😉

Bryan :  Hi all, I have 2 main comments. First of all, often I find that truth lies somewhere in the middle. I suspect that this applies to ‘contrails’ as well. Trust is important, especially in this day and age where the worlds volatility and blatant corruptions seem to be continually expanding. We have got to get back to a higher level of trust in order for us to evolve and aim for a higher good. Corruption must be reduced and we are at a critical point already.

1. In investigating jetfuels I have recently learned that surfactants in JP-8 and other JP fuels includes ‘alumina’ which is aluminum oxide. This same type of surfactant also appears in a jetfuel additive sold by a company named International Fuel Technology Inc. Their surfactant which improves jetfuel and is touted as being clean/safe is actually a subsidiary of Alcoa-America’s largest Aluminum producer. IFT never calls their surfactant alumina, they have renamed it, in looking into their patent though it is mentioned that the surfactants are alumina precursors. This is not exactly a good example of the company being forthcoming, nor is it widely discussed (I haven’t seen it anyway) that JP-8 surfactants include aluminum oxide. It is said that aluminum is combusted fully but I am extremely skeptical that this is the case. If you watch the discovery program on ‘chemtrails’ it stuck out to me that the USAF declined giving over a sample of their fuel for testing. I think that likely aluminum would be found at a concentration higher than they would like for anyone to know about.
Supporting links;
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6027706.html
http://www.cohenresearch.com/reports/ifue_01-18-05.pdf
http://www.ftc-houston.com/images/Jet%20Fuel%20Filtration%2006-04.pdf
The above link mentions alumina as a
constuent of JP-8 in a breakdown of surfactant ingredients.
http://www.stormingmedia.us/70/7092/A709290.html

2. Freedomfighter4theplanet mentioned the Voodoo1 aircraft that flew large looping circles around Southern Ca. on Nov. 20th 2008. I actually took pictures that day of the circular contrail as I haven’t seen too many round shaped contrails. He mentions that the experimental aircraft which is a heavily modified B727 is owned by Raytheon. I would like to point out that Raytheon is also closely connected to HAARP. This plane is officially for Avionics research which also relates to HAARP capabilities of long range communications. I am going to be researching as much as I can about how active the HAARP transmission was during this interesting flight test and am also going to be looking at the jetstream and other weather data for a few days after this flightpath and its pronounced contrail. On the 20th of November I witnessed and imaged many persisting contrails throughout the entire day. It was one of those days where the sky got continually more overcast due to contrails. I think both of my comments are worthy of further investigations and would urge those with time, interest and energy to also pursue them further.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N289MT&distinct_entry=true
http://contrailscience.com/voodoo-contrails-over-los-angeles/
One note, if you decide to post over at contrail science, please be decent to the moderator, he has his viewpoint and does not deserve any garbage language or flaming comments. He makes many exceptionally good points regardless of how your views may diverge.

HonestObserver :  Bryan, I think your two points are good ones and investigating them further will shed more light on this matter. And I think it will probably result in a middle of the road explaination. One thing I would like to point though is that no one has provided any evidence that, even if there is total truth to the conspiracy, that there aren’t any/many (?) adversely-affected people to make the “theory” work. At least as far as I have been able to look into it, but I don’t have good reason to think that there are any/many. A sick/body count is needed and one has yet to turn up. While you’re probably correct that fuel/additives do in fact contain the alumminum (and/or other elements), we have to remember that they’re being dispersed from up high and over a wide area. So concentrations of them in fuel/additive alone aren’t going to prove anything. Anyway, you also made the point of having reason to be suspicious in today’s world. I whole-heartedly agree! The corruption however is entirely rooted in the global financial sector. It’s a world-wide phenomenon, actually, and not limited to the US (despite how much the media seems to speak mainly about the US). There are PLENTY of good reasons for people to distrust their government and be suspect of the… now how do those conspiracy theorists put it? The military/idustrial complex?… That has been adversly affected by the corruption in the monetary and financial system over the last century in general, more in the last 38 years and the last decade especially.
All of this is worth noting because the one man who ended the last of the gold standard 38 years was the same man to create the EPA: Richard Nixon. History has proven time and again that when a nation or nations drop a sound/er monetary policy, that chaos results and increases with time. I can’t prove it, but it makes sense to see that Nixon created the EPA in anticipation of an increasingly failing industrial society. With a government instutition is place, the government would be able to reap a fortune in environmental fines, laws, taxes, and expand the law to increasingly extort compliance out of the productive sector, even as the productive sector faces increasing failure. Lawyers would make a fortune, too. Nobody can argue that they haven’t, either!
It’s funny how the conspiracy theorists say that everything is kept under raps, hush-hush operations and all that, when the broader political spectrum is persecuting modern society and has been for some time now. It’s one of the most politcally correct things to do. Just look at the EU and England these days… they are so ban and tax happy on chemicals these days! And in the process, all manner of silly claims are put into the spotlight as relevent risk, while the real, significant risks building up in a bankrupting industrial society are ignored.
So I do not think the theorists are COMPLETELY out of their minds. They have their reasons to think what they do. But at the same time, there is a tragedy taking place… governments are able to get away with their crimes as people divert their attention elsewhere, into ever-increasing versions of half-truths and heresay evidence of them. Structural and financial decay and truly needed protective measures go more lax, and perhaps non-existent as the trivial becomes the serious and the serious the trivial.
Which is just downright scary. Every human society that had to endure a regressive dip did so in the wake of unsound monetary and fiscal policy. Today, there are more people than ever in the world, all dependent on the keeping risky ventures within the bounds of safety that knowledge and practice offers. Bad policy is erroding that away, and diverting resources to an attack/regulation on more benign set of “serious threats”.
So I ask all here to consider the broader spectrum, to quit screwing around with the leaves and branches and get to the root of the matter. While the time-bomb of unsound monetary and fiscal policy has already detonated (it has… nothing anyone can do about that now) the damage can be minimized, but only if we use our ability to be rational to as great effect as possible. Just remember, folks… a dark age was made out of such a collapse as we face today.

MadScience4Money$$$ :  This is Google’s cache of http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soilradar.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 12, 2008 19:18:34 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more Full version Chemtrails – spraying in our sky  “Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” Maple Leaf.  Spray Tankers Tracked by Radar, Lab Tests Raise Concerns By William Thomas Jan. 28, 2003 Last fall, a long-time landscaper working under contract for the City of Edmonton began noticing that carefully tended flowers and trees were showing signs of severe nutrient deficiencies. City specifications call for electrical conductivity (EC) readings no higher than “1” in local soils.  When soil samples showed damaging EC readings 4.6 to 7-times higher than this maximum permissible level, Dave Dickie suspected that elevated levels of electricity-conducting metals in the soils could be leading to the plants’ “chlorosis” condition.  A life-long plane spotter, Dickie also wondered if there could be a connection to events unfolding on ATC radar scopes during his regular visits to the Edmonton municipal airport’s Air Traffic Control center. Last Father’s Day, Dickie and an excited group of 12 year-olds watched two KC-135s, tagged “Petro 011” and “Petro 012”, flying at 34,000 and 36,000 feet south and north of Edmonton. According to the controllers watching the scopes, both U.S. Air Force KC-135 air-refueling tankers had flown south out of Alaska.  But the big Boeings were not refueling other aircraft.  Instead, as Dickie, the kids and the controllers watched, the four-engine jets began making patterns over Edmonton – “circuits” the controllers called it. The Stratotankers were working alone in “commanded airspace” from which all other aircraft were excluded. And they were leaving chemtrails.  TELLTALE SIGNATURES “The signature is significant” commented one radar operator, referring to trails clearly visible on his scope extending for miles behind the KC-135s.  In contrast, a commercial JAL flight on the same display left no visible trail. Going outside, Dickie and several controllers scanned clear blue skies over the northern Canadian city.  Visibility was outstanding.  They easily located a KC-135 leaving a lingering, broad white plume.  They could also clearly see the JAL airliner at a similar flight level. It left no contrail at all. On other occasions, Dickie has watched KC-135s on Edmonton radar leaving lingering trails as low as 18,000 feet. “We see these guys up here a lot,” radar techs told Dickie, explaining that the USAF tanker flights originate in Alaska and continue on into the States – after gridding the Edmonton area with emanations clearly visible on radar. “You should have seen it when they had the big summit up in Calgary,” the Canadian controllers exclaimed.  “It was exciting to watch them.”  The G7 maneuvers suggested that barium might have been sprayed to enhance radio and radar surveillance over what protesters condemned as a “globalization” conference aimed at worldwide corporate domination. That was speculation. But back in Edmonton, there was no doubt that particulates were being sprayed by the tankers.  Pointing to “birdie feet” on their scopes, the radar technicians showed Dickie particles appearing “as concentrations of dots” in the radar-tracked plumes. Zooming in and out on each plane with the click of cursor, Dickie said that he and the controllers “could see different contrails.”  Some were short, and quickly vanished from the scopes.  Other trails were thick, long and lingering – not acting like contrails at all. Especially exciting for Dickie and the kids was watching head-on passes between KC-135s and commercial airliners. Flying directly at each other with a closing rate of nearly 1,000 mph, the huge jets appeared about to collide. But the unconcerned controllers explained to Dickie that the aircraft must adhere to a minimum 1,000 foot vertical separation rule – recently reduced from twice that safety margin. No one explained what might happen, if the “top” plane suffered a sudden decompression and was forced to dive to lower altitude. BARIUM AND ALUMINUM CONFIRMED Assuming that unusual metal content in the soil could be causing the high electrical conductivity readings, Dickie collected samples of a fresh snowfall for the city, and took them to Edmonton’s NorWest Labs for analysis.
 This reporter has obtained copies of lab tests conducted on snow samples collected by the city of Edmonton, Alberta between Nov. 8 – 12, 2002.  The tests show unaccountably elevated levels of aluminum and barium.  Norwest Labs lab report #336566, dated Nov. 14 2002 found: aluminum levels: 0.148 milligrams/litre, barium levels:    0.006 milligrams/litre. Acting like the electrolyte in a car battery, barium chemtrails developed at Ohio’s Wright Patterson Air Force Base are routinely sprayed into the atmosphere to “duct” or bend military radio and radar waves over-the-horizon, instead of continuing straight beyond the Earth’s curvature into space.  “Wright Pat” is also closely connected to HAARP Experiments employing tightly focused, extremely high-energy radio frequency beams to alter the weather, disrupt communications and “X-ray” bunkers deep underground thousands of miles away the transmitter array in Gakon, Alaska. Aluminum stunts plant growth by sucking nutrients from the soil. Dave Dickie told me, “Our most recent snowfall was tested for aluminum and barium and we were not surprised with the results. You’ve said it all along and this just substantiates some of your claims.” But the soil expert cautioned that because the chemistry of unrefined aluminum oxide often found in the environment depends on soil acidity and the presence of other minerals, it is difficult to estimate “natural” background concentrations. Even so, NorWest Lab techs told Dickie that the elevated levels of aluminum and barium they were finding are not usually found in Alberta precipitation. Concerned city officials ordered more tests made on precipitation falling within a 40 mile radius of Edmonton.  A second series of lab tests has now confirmed high levels of barium and aluminum in snow Dickie thinks fell through chemtrails.  So far, he says, there is no other explanation for the high-levels of each chemical compound in city soils. Dickie says it’s so simple to test for aluminum and barium, labs typically charge $10 to $15 for this analysis.  He is adding quartz to the list of possible fallout components after tiny quartz particles dominated lab tests of rain falling through heavy chemtrails over Espanola, Ontario in the summer of 1999.  Levels of aluminum analyzed in the Ontario samples were up to seven-times higher than provincial permissible safety limits.  U.S. CONTROLLERS CONCERNED OVER CHEMTRAILS. South of the border, U.S. Air Traffic Controllers were also concerned over tanker-spread emissions.  Just after Christmas 2001, the Air Traffic Control manager for the northeastern seaboard became increasingly concerned that his young son’s illness – and episodes of Sudden Onset Acute Asthma suffered by his formerly allergy-free wife – could be linked with the increased aerial activity he was seeing on his scopes. On March 12, 2001, this source – who came to be called “Deep Sky” by this reporter and ABC-affiliated radio reporter S.T. Brendt – told Brendt that he and other controllers were being told to re-route commercial air traffic beneath formations of air force tankers.  Insisting that flight safety was not affected, he admitted during a follow-up interview at WMWV radio station that the KC-135s were spraying something that reflected radar pulses as a “haze” that degraded ATC radars. Brendt contacted the FAA official after counting more than 30 big jets within 45 minutes spreading persistent plumes over rural Maine.  Also alerted by Brendt, assistant WMWV news director Richard Dean and his staff counted 370 chemical trails criss-crossing his nearby location.  But Deep Sky told Brendt that of the nine commercial jets on his radars at the time, only one or two would have been visible from her location. Speaking on condition of strict anonymity, the ATC manager later expressed concern over the classified operations conducted by much larger military formations of KC-135 tankers between 37,000 and 40,000 feet. Many video-documented plume patterns grid skies away from charted airline routes on days when high altitude temperatures and humidity do not permit normal contrail formation.  Studies by Ralph Steadham of FAA – identified traffic over Houston found that while commercial condensation trails comprising momentarily flash-frozen water vapor typically disappear within 22 seconds or less, much broader, sunlight-reflecting jet trails left by military jets flying at the same time in the same airspace often lingered for four to eight hours. CANADIANS LODGE CHEMTRAILS COMPLAINTS. The previous December, 2000 Canadian aviation authority Terry Stewart investigating a Victoria caller’s complaint of intensive “chemtrail” activity over the British Columbia capitol left a taped message saying, “It’s a military exercise, U.S. and Canadian air force exercise that’s going on.  They wouldn’t give me any specifics on it…very odd.” Despite denials from a Canadian commander at Comox Air Base that the American tanker flights were taking place, Stewart later admitted to the Vancouver Courier that his information came directly from the Comox base.  He was later stopped and interrogated by U.S. authorities while crossing the border on a routine visit. Before ever hearing of “chemtrails”, Canadians were the first to formerly complain to their federal government over what they identified as chemical spraying.  In November 1999, an Opposition Defence Critic presented a petition to Parliament signed by 550 residents of Espanola, Ontario.  The largely native community demanded an explanation and an end to aerial spraying by photo-identified USAF tankers, which they claimed was sickening children and adults over a 55 square mile area. Laboratory tests of rainwater falling through the sky plumes being paid in X’s and grid patterns over Espanola found levels of aluminum seven-times higher than federal health safety limits.  The U.S. Air Force denied flying over Espanola.  The Canadian Forces, which do not operate large squadrons of aerial tankers, eventually responded, saying, “It’s not us.” DEEP SKIES II
But in late December 2001, just three months after the traumatic events of Sept. 11 left air force tankers gridding skies emptied of commercial aircraft, an increasingly worried “Deep Sky” began calling his colleagues at FAA flight centers across the United States to ask them if they were seeing what he was seeing on his own radar scopes. They were. Controllers at Chicago’s O’Hare (still the busiest airport in America), all three New York City area airports, LA’s LAX, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Cleveland, San Diego, Dulles, Washington DC and the nation’s biggest airport in Atlanta all reported tracking unusual formations of particle-emitting Air Force tankers on their scopes.  So were controllers at smaller municipal airports. Every controller contacted by Deep Sky said they were being told to divert commercial traffic below formations of tankers flying strange patterns they were told were “routine”. But instead of enhancing radar coverage, initial explanations from their superiors warned controllers that unspecified “experiments with radar” could degrade their own displays.  The controllers confirmed to Deep Sky that they had never seen so much “clutter” or artificial “cloudiness” obscuring their radars. By then, a growing number of informally networked Air Traffic Controllers were aware of the “chemtrails” controversy.  Some cited the short-lived House Resolution 2977 sponsored by Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, which sought to ban space warfare and other exotic weapons, including “chemtrails”. But concerned controllers across America told S.T. Brendt that whatever was going on, flight safety was a consideration.  Even more worrisome was the fallout they were seeing on their scopes.  They knew from their professional studies in meteorology, that “this stuff falls to the ground.”  And they wondered about what they termed, potential health hazards. As federal employees, the FAA radar operators were afraid to come forward with their concerns.  But at least one controller working in America’s heartland visited a local hospital after heavy tanker activity – to find the emergency room jammed with acute respiratory cases. “They want to know what the heck is in there,” Brendt reported.  “One of them said – al or barium – that’s not something you want to be breathing.” [Al is the chemical abbreviation for aluminum.] Corroborating Deep Sky’s allegations, controllers across the USA confirmed that the word “climate” is still being mentioned by their superiors in explaining the ongoing aerial experiments.  At the time of Brendt’s follow-up interviews, at least six Air Traffic Controllers were told that the air force tankers were engaged in “climate experiments”. In 1998, H-Bomb inventor Edward Teller urged the spraying of 10 million tons of sunlight-reflecting aluminum oxide in the atmosphere to deflect a small percentage of incoming sunlight and avert catastrophic global warming.  A patent issued to the Hughes aerospace giant calls for mixing 10 micron particulates of aluminum oxide and other sunlight-scattering into jet fuel for dispersal at cruising altitudes. After studies in the U.S. and U.K. showed that random concentrations of air pollution can cause lethal lung and heart problems, the United States EPA now classifies 10 micron air pollutants as an “Extreme Health Hazard”. (A human hair is 100 microns in diameter.) As reports continue to come in of renewed heavy chemtrail activity across the USA and Canada’s western provinces, lab testing continues in Edmonton, where an ongoing investigation seeks to correlate chemtrail “spray days” with fresh snow and soil samples. This article is used here with permission.  William Thomas is the author of “Chemtrails Confirmed”.  This account of his four-year investigation into chemtrails was last updated in Jan. 2003.  Contact William Thomas: willthomas@telus.net or Will Thomas. You are invited to contact us at the “Holmestead”.

QRM :  What’s really lame is that the reporter who wrote this article does not appear to have actually observed the phenomenon. A canister that “collects particles in the air to determine their effect on climate change”? Yeah, right. How many aircraft have one of those? On a day when weather only supports pencil-thin, evaporative contrails, if any at all, the sky gets filled with long-lasting parallel and crosshatch patterns of puff emitted from the wings of large aircraft that carry no logo. It makes your jaw drop open to see it. Giant Xs in the sky are in no way ordinary aircraft activity. And it can make you sneeze and hack almost without end, to the point you really start thinking about 1) remaining vertical and 2) whether you’ll need the emergency room.

Roger :  I realise I am wasting my time, because True Believers always find a way to ignore any counter-arguments, but I just feel compelled to respond to some of the obviously only half-informed comments that some posters have made (mm, that tar baby sure looks sticky….)

1. Yes experiments have been done to to increase ion concentrations in the atmosphere in order to extend the range of radio communications or radar signals in an emergency. However, for several very simple reasons, these experiments are certainly totally unrelated to the chemtrails hypothesis. Firstly, such experiments are conducted in the ionosphere, which is an extremely high altitude region of the atmosphere, a near vacuum “on the edge of space”, because at higher atmospheric pressures the ions would recombine too quickly. The air is so thin at these extreme altitudes that aircraft cannot fly there; experiments are conducted by sounding rockets, not by airplanes. It is so high, that you would not be able to see an aircraft even with binoculars anyway. Secondly, because of the extremely low atmospheric density at these altitudes, the amount of material required to create an “ion cloud” is tiny: generally only a couple of pounds. It is also pointless to create an ion cloud if you have an aircraft in the area: the aircraft is itself a far better radio relay than an ion cloud. Finally, I re-emphasise that all this *only* works in near vacuum conditions; at the altitudes at which aircraft fly, these compounds are less visible on radar than ordinary water droplets (which do, in fact, show up pretty well on an appropriately tuned radar.)

2. There is no evidence that aluminium compounds cause any diseases except possibly at very high concentrations. In fact, it is believed to be one of the least toxic of all elements. True, back in the 1990s there was a preliminary study which suggested a link to Alzheimer’s disease — and was immediately widely reported in the press, despite being unconfirmed — but all followup studies have found no such link. The fact is, the idea is so implausible it probably should never have been published. The reason that it is implausible is that aluminium is the third most common element on Earth, after silicon and oxygen, and is absolutely ubiquitous: you cannot avoid coming into frequent contact with large amounts of aluminium compounds. So if aluminium really does cause disease, it will be very upsetting to both Darwinists and to Creationists. The Darwinists will be upset because it will show that either humanity does not come from Earth, or else evolution does not work. The Creationists will be upset because it will prove that if Man is a result of intelligent design, then it is a malicious intelligence which designed for pain; the world created by an evil demiurge. But we don’t need to worry about converting to Gnosticism, because aluminium does NOT cause disease, except possibly at extremely high concentrations that are not found in nature.

3. Aluminium compounds and quartz are common ingredients of dust. Barium compounds are not as common, but are not rare, either. Finding them “falling out” from the atmosphere indicates nothing but that some neighbour has had a bit of wind lately.

4. Whether or not an aircraft generates visible condensation trails does not depend on the weather on the ground, it depends on the weather tens of thousands of feet up in the sky (notably, low temperature, high relative humidity and low wind turbulence.) It also depends on the tuning and particular fuel type of the aircraft. The KC-135 is a very elderly plane and the ones that have not been rebuilt have much less efficient engines than modern aircraft. Among other features, the elderly J-57 engine has a water injection system, which improves thrust efficiency — and also increases the formation of condensation trails.

5. It is practically impossible to tell by unaided ground observation if two airplanes are at the same altitude.

6. There are many perfectly innocent reasons why an aircraft might fly around in circles for a while — as a student pilot myself, I can attest to that! However, it is completely illogical that a plane would fly around in circles if it was trying to spread some chemical around.

7. Voodoo1 is the test plane for new Raytheon radars. This is not secret (even if the exact design of the radars is!), and publicly available photos of it clearly show its special chin mount for the radar antenna, and no spraying gear.

8. Alumina (aluminium oxide) is an abrasive and it is the last thing you would want in your fuel system as it would quickly destroy the fuel pumps. By an “aluminium based surfactant” they probably mean an organic acid salt (soap) of aluminium. These are indeed widely used as lubricants and greases, including in common automotive products. If an aluminium grease was used in jet fuel, the high temperature combustion would certainly convert it to aluminium oxide in the exhaust. However — so what? Aluminium oxide has very low toxicity and is widely found in nature already.

9. “…levels of aluminum seven-times higher than federal health safety limits …” is nonsense; there is no Federal health safety limit for aluminium in drinking water (because it is non-toxic.) There is a non-binding “secondary standard” guideline for aluminium levels, but it is based only on aesthetic considerations (i.e., taste.)

10. I could go on and on but you guys never pause for breath and I have work to do …

Er, thanks, Roger, for saving me some time. What a load of pseudoscience, garbage, and astroturf THAT was! 🙂

STEVE

(conversation with the Bard)

Not true when you do the FUEL ACCOUNTING. 300,000,000 tons. Civil bit 250,000,000 tons. Out of the remaining 50,000,000 you have to take out ALL ARMED FORCES REGULAR OPERATIONS AND THE IRAQ WAR. What’s left is INSUFFICIENT FOR A WORLD-WIDE CAMPAIGN.

Doing the US alone won’t do ANYTHING: the US is <2% of the area of the Earth.

That <2% would require 170,000 tons of Barium Oxide for A SINGLE SHOT. That would require 4250 flights. The Aluminium/Barium is BRILLIANT WHITE and splashes of it would be EVERYWHERE – but nothing is seen. SILVER can be ruled out – the US flogged off its stockpile to pay a small proportion of its vast debt.

Of course there will be photographs of nozzles and sprayers. The US used spraying in several war campaigns. Perhaps there’s only the ONE array of each type. Doesn’t PROVE a THING. THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER.

Hazardous materials would put workers’ families at risk, and there has been NO SIGN of that.

Nobody has sampled a “chemtrail”, or gotten inside a base to a store, raced around taking pictures of airstrips, planes. Nothing.

I grew up inside airbases, and later tested jet engines. Bases AREN’T SECURE (in peacetime), and jet engines DON’T WORK if they are forced to emit anything other than SODA POP from their exhausts.

Not only that, but what about all this hypocrisy and deceit? What about the COMPLETE level of ignorance? One site (it has blocked me) stoutly maintains that the PLANE THAT BRINGS MY MOTHER HERE (Monarch Airbus A-330 passenger plane service from Manchester) is a CHEMTRAIL SPRAYER!

Look again at my final point. The US economy is going to COLLAPSE within FIVE YEARS, by which time it will have NO REMAINING WAY OF PROVING ITS ABILITY TO REPAY ITS DEBTS. NO-ONE is going to cough up – especially NOT CHINA OR RUSSIA. And not Britain either.

When that shit hits the fan all HELL will break loose. This INFORMATIONAL GARBAGE will exacerbate that moment.

It’ll be a GOOD IDEA to REMAIN HERE.