NOTE: like with the essay Saturday about isotasy/glacial rebound being a myth, I don’t think the chemtrails idea has any merit whatsoever. Dr. Tim Ball points out more bad science – chemtrails, which are really just contrails, and which has a cult-like following much like some of the worst theories of global warming zealots – Anthony
“It occurred to me….” To avoid political correctness and say what they really think people say, let me play Devil’s Advocate.
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
One minute people say government does too much, the next they demand action to resolve problems. Environmentalists demand government stop global warming, but oppose remedial actions like spreading iron filings on the oceans to increase uptake of CO2 or spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to create clouds to block sunlight and reduce global temperatures. Both actions are wrong because they constitute geo-engineering – governments playing God. The real problem is neither governments nor opponents know what is happening, but think they do, so demand action. Doing nothing is better if you don’t understand, contrary to the false claim of the precautionary principle. Environmental issues are a war and as Aeschylus said “In war truth is the first casualty”.
Figure 1 shows the different atmospheric layers each defined by temperature changes that reflect different chemistry.
The critical boundary is the Tropopause between the Troposphere, where 99% of the weather occurs, and the Stratosphere. It’s a very distinct boundary marking different density of gases and a change in temperature from a decrease with altitude to an increase. There are few gases thinly spread in the Stratosphere.
Figure 1 shows the Tropopause at 17 km. Actually, this varies considerably from Equator to Poles, mostly because of temperature. Seasonal temperatures also create differences. Variation at the Equator is 17 km (winter) to 19 km (summer). At the Poles it is 7km (winter) to 10 km (summer). Seasonal range is greater at the Poles because of greater seasonal temperature range.
Naturally, it is far more complicated. Understanding of some Troposphere dynamics are very recent. The Tropopause is not continuous, being broken by wind circulation patterns as Figure 2 shows.
PFJ =Polar Front Jet; STJ = SubTropical Jet
Twenty years ago my graduate class in Applied Climatology involved a briefing as a commercial pilot flying from Winnipeg to Vancouver. I realized most flights were partly in the lower Stratosphere. Since then these flights have increased because of better aircraft pressurization and more efficient engines in colder temperatures at higher altitudes.
I learned of changing flight patterns when flying search and rescue in northern and Arctic Canada. Flights increased significantly because of the end of the Cold War. with more flights over greater distances and different routes. The amount of traffic has increased significantly, especially the number of flights to Asia, most of which fly out of North America using “great circle” routes that brings them over western North America and Alaska or over the Pole.
Great circle routes take Asian bound aircraft across the general westerly flow of the upper level winds. This means condensation trails and high level clouds, especially Cirrus and contrails in the lower stratosphere are being dispersed in the same direction. Temperatures at these altitudes mean most of the gases condense directly to ice crystals. This makes them very visible, but also slow to dissipate.
A Contrail is exhaust from an aircraft engine cooling very rapidly below the dew point temperature and condensing into a visible trail of microscopic droplets. Through binoculars you can see the gap between the jet engine and the beginning of the trail. Earlier I mentioned that the gas constituency of the lower Stratosphere, where these planes fly, is different being much thinner and colder than in the upper Troposphere. Aircraft exhaust is a much higher percentage of total gas in the Stratosphere. This creates very different contrails, rates of dissipation and other factors. I mentioned that there are clouds in the lower Stratosphere called Noctilucent clouds. Here are some pictures of these clouds from Wikipedia:
Compare those images with these of Cirrus clouds also retrieved from Wikipedia.
Many confuse noctilucent clouds with chemtrails or contrails. Many confuse lower stratosphere contrails with chemtrails. It’s probably because most they want to see chemtrails. I’ve received many photos as evidence of chemtrails that are contrails, high cirrus or noctilucent events.
Noctilucent cloud occurrences are reportedly increasing. Is it possible the increase is because noctilucent clouds “ …are most commonly observed in the summer months at latitudes between 50° and 70° north and south of the equator.” These are the latitudes at which most flight increases have occurred. It is likely the increase in reported chemtrails are actually contrails from lower stratosphere flights.
There may be issues with flights in the stratosphere but nobody is really looking, possibly because the obvious solution is politically unattractive. Fuel consumption increases at lower altitudes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t include the lower Stratosphere in their models. From the 2007 Science report:
“Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere, the models employed for the current assessment do not generally include the QBO.”
The QBO is linked with El Nino/La Nina. They, as well as ozone and clouds in the Stratosphere, are significant factors in Tropospheric weather. Some claim Stratospheric changes explain global temperatures better than IPCC and other models. Lu et al wrote:
All the observed, analytical and theoretical results presented lead to a convincing conclusion that both the CRE (cosmic-ray driven electron-induced-reaction) mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O3 hole and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models.
We need answers from science, free from politics. People need to sort out what actions and issues governments should be taking, but we can only do that if we understand the issues. Since we don’t, it is better to do nothing.
We must avoid the irresponsibility of the precautionary principle.
Related articles
- Chemtrails versus Contrails: Do Conspiracy Theories Make Sense? (cliffmass.blogspot.com)
- Weather control conspiracy theories: scientifically unjustifiable (washingtonpost.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike M says:
September 2, 2013 at 8:35 pm
Well said. This is also the reason the Moon landings could not have been faked: There would be far too many people involved for the ‘secret’ to be kept easily, especially as people retire (and would like to get some book rights).
Didn’t I read about the British government admitting to spraying all kinds of things over its own population in the 50’s or something?
I’m not surprised the Russians think their government is spraying them. I think they actually did try to change the weather at one time, but can’t remember when. Was it at the time of the olympic games, or does anyone know?
My thoughts about the supposed chemtrails in the USA is that air spreads to just about everywhere. The supposed perpetrators also live and breathe the same air. Would they spray their own air supply? That’s a bit stupid, methinks.
Tim, these photo are true noctilucent clouds. I see them from my balcony in Moscow every summer. But you are wrong about their altitude: they are not in lower stratosphere, but in mesosphere, more exactly right in mesopause, at 83-85 km above ground. They are also called mesospheric clouds.
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
There is a lot of evidence out there that chemtrails are real, just as real as contrails. Those going on about the contrail mechanism from atmosphere and fuel, etc – sure, is an accepted real phenomena, no problem. Chemtrails exist too, look at the evidence for yourself – there is official patent info, news reports (look at beijing snow for big example), organic farms and Mnt Shashta with chemical traces that can only have come from spraying and subsequent precipitation. Pilots who know. Just look up weather modification companies, one in particular is weathermodification.com whose ad blurb states:-
“Now, more than ever, the worldwide need for solutions to atmospheric necessities such as water resource management and environmental quality monitoring, is critical. With nearly a half-century of successful programs, our experience speaks for itself.” Cloud seeding. They have a section on cloud seeding equipment and even talk about ‘plane selection’, FAA approval and so on.
How do the chemtrail deniers explain cloud seeding without plane loads of chemicals sprayed into the atmosphere? See my video links in earlier posts.
It is time for people, especially some on WUWT, to open their minds to this and get into a serious debate – this is real and serious business.
Monsanto engineering crops for abiotic stress and elevated aluminium contamination. Needless to say, aluminium is one of the most talked about cloud seeders that I’ve come across.
One problem of really seeing what is going on is that when you want to alter a weather pattern in location A, you might need to do your business a long way distance at B, a day or more before. How do you relate the two, when you don’t know what is going on? The evidence is on the ground, with elevated aluminium, strontium, barium copper sulfate and other chemical traces, far above normal.
There is a science to this that has learned a lot and is being put to use. There is huge money to be made too…
Gene Selkov –
You don’t seem to understand what a vortex is, a vortex is simply a rotating amount of liquid (including gas). A tornado is a vortex, so is the water spinning as it goes down your bathtub drain.
And the comment in the aerospaceweb link is rubbish. It includes leading edge slats, (what they’re really called BTW), as being: “the purpose of these devices is to create an energetic, swirling mass of air called a vortex”.
That’s ridiculous! The purpose of a leading edge slat is to change/stretch the wing’s airfoil into a high lift configuration at low airspeed during takeoff and landing phases of flight. Flaps do the same thing but also to supply drag when fully deployed, (for landing only).
Mike M: I see a case of reading comprehension here. I admit the fragment you quote could be written less ambiguously:
> “the purpose of these devices is to create an energetic, swirling mass of air called a vortex”.
>
> That’s ridiculous! The purpose of a leading edge slat is to change/stretch the wing’s airfoil into a high lift configuration at low airspeed during takeoff and landing phases of flight.
By “these devices” they meant vortex generators, not slats. They are installed on all surfaces whose interference with lift-generating planes is detrimental. Vortex generators protect the function of the leading edge and the rest of the wing surface by organising and compacting the otherwise random turbulence into well-defined vortices that slip away without disturbing the flow where it matters.
There is even a case where vortex generators are installed along the entire leading edge of the wing, because it is the leading edge that is always a trouble-maker at high wing load.
You misread the whole thing.
Theresa says:
September 3, 2013 at 2:06 am
I don’t know what you read, sorry.
Ric Werme says:
September 3, 2013 at 5:22 am
Theresa says:
September 3, 2013 at 2:06 am
Didn’t I read about the British government admitting to spraying all kinds of things over its own population in the 50′s or something?
I don’t know what you read, sorry.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
“Millions were in germ war testsMuch of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials
Share Tweet this
Email Antony Barnett, public affairs editor The Observer, Sunday 21 April 2002 10.23 BST
…
Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: ‘Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.
‘The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.’
Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: ‘It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.’
antony.barnett@Observer.co.uk ”
Whatever is happening, I think it more than a tad naive to put up the straw man that people cannot tell the difference between contrails and something that is not anything like them..
The page of information about spraying in Chico California, is gone, but maybe the others worth a look, http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tests/
So many patents, so little time… http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/12/10/chronology-of-us-patents-for-spraying-atmospheric-aerosols/
And, lastly:
http://www.naturalnews.com/037451_chemtrails_conspiracy_theory_geoengineering.html
“Swedish official admits toxic ‘chemtrails’ are real, not a wild conspiracy theory
Saturday, October 06, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
…
“Spraying the skies to save the planet?
Interestingly, the United Nations (UN) and various Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-backed groups have recently been forced to admit that such sprayings are taking place, and that the emitted particles are not normal contrails. But their excuse for why chemtrail sprayings are being done is that they will somehow save the planet from the devastating effects of so-called “global warming,” that ever-present, pseudoscientific environmental theory that is often used as justification for all sorts of outlandish policy proposals. (http://www.globalresearch.ca)
In the case of chemtrails, everything from blocking the sun in order to lower the earth’s average temperatures, to deliberately shifting weather patterns for the purpose of offsetting the allegedly melting polar ice caps, have been used as excuses for trying to legitimize the seeding of our skies with a cornucopia of poisons. And if re-elected to another term, Hagberg says she will continue to fight such chemtrailing efforts in her own country, which she says have been co-opted by the Swedish government.”
What possible reason would anyone have to take ‘official government sanctioned’ denials over empirically tested results, given ‘governments’ track record for dishonesty?
“a life unexamined is a life not worth living” socrates
Mass hysterias of all types abound, in large part due to the internet. Most seem to involve a conspiracy of some sort involving government, and contain some abominably-bad “science”. With CAGW, what we have is really bad, agenda-driven “science” being supported by governments, “scientific” organizations, and the MSM, all tapping in to the social phenomenon of mass hysteria.
This creates the spectre of a mass hysteria (CAGW) so huge in scope that it is able (for a time) to paint the opposition as those with a psychological disorder.
if this article is true and “chemtrails” are just contrails from commercial jets, why is that one day will be perfectly clear and there will have no contrails at all and the next the sky is covered with them? Is there no commercial airlines flying on those days?
elmer asks:
> why is that one day will be perfectly clear and there will have no contrails at all and the next the sky is covered with them? Is there no commercial airlines flying on those days?
Because of weather changes, which occur all the time at cruise altitude, as well as near the ground. You will not only see condensation appear and disappear day-to-day or hour-to-hour, but if you care to look, you will notice that a trail left behind the same airplane may be interrupted where the conditions are not right for the jet exhaust to condense, or where it evaporates faster even if it happens to condense initially.
You can view those contrails (or their absence) as dew point indicators at that altitude.
Here is an image of a high altitude contrail from both wings and engines:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cathay-Pacific-Airways/Boeing-777-267/2213426/L/&sid=9e2247e47d167f8469fb5881abece895
The moisture content of the air that the jet flies through is important which means that the jet exhaust is not the only ingredient in a contrail but the moisture already in that bit of air.
And this:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthansa/Boeing-747-430/2043015/L/&sid=9e2247e47d167f8469fb5881abece895
I can carry on as there are many more examples.
From their website:- Texas Weather Modification Association…
The first cloud seeding project began in 1971 in West Texas. In 1995, several counties in that area formed a weather modification association. To date, there are eight regions that have weather modification programs.
All organizations that conduct cloud-seeding activities, or firms that contract for
cloud-seeding services, hold a weather-modification license and permit from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). The American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have issued policy statements on weather modification that attest to the efficacy of existing technology to enhance precipitation.
The following photos give a glimse of what has been going on for decades…
http://www.nawcinc.com/photos.html
Quote:-
There are two primary methods employed to stimulate precipitation. One, hygroscopic seeding, affects warm cloud processes. The other, glaciogenic seeding, initiates cold cloud processes.
You can guess the government, military, etc research going on secretly…
Have you ever seen a ‘jet’ fueled on the ramp by anything other than JP4 or kerosene?
(My experience has been that not ALL pilots are firmly ‘bolted down’. )
Elmer, you seem to be a good guy, so I say this with kindness:
Your local community college; go to it. Look up meteorology courses and pay the bucks and audit a few … this may also involve a Physics course or two.
Thanks for your creative M4GW work too. Loved the cute blonde in the one vid! Say hi to her for me and the gang here at WUWT.
.
I am very grateful to TIm Ball for knocking the chemtrails nonsense on the head. At nearly every talk, I am approached by someone who asks about chemtrails and I have to explain that there is even less evidence for those than for catastrophic global warming. Well done, Tim.
psy·cho·so·mat·ic (ˌsīkōsəˈmatik), an adjective
1) Imagined physical condition or symptom created totally or in most part by the mind or belief system.
2) A physical illness or other condition caused or aggravated by a mental factor such as internal conflict, stress or lack of exposure to (and knowledge ) the workings of technology in a modern day and age (related, see: Cargo-cult science.)
.
Amen.
Ppl living an existence SOLELY on the internet (and in Mom’s basement) don’t have the practical world experience to come to those conclusions, however.
.
Yeah, we know. Still carrying no weight (BTW, how’s the wx down there in Mom’s cellar?)
.
SAMPLE THE FUEL GOING INTO THE FUEL TANKS?
Too easy huh (Chemistry much)?
.
The ultimate MK-ULTRA ‘win’ eh MWG? (He, MWG, ‘knows’ what I’m talking about …)
.
.
BTW, lucien I agree with you.
.
@Stephen Fisher Skinner 6:52am and 6:53am.
My money is on The Cathay-Pacific photo as a very poor photoshop job. Perspective of the “contrail” is wrong, the edges are way too sharp, lighting is unbelievable.
The Lufthansa might be real, but i would not bet on it. I think it is a real contrail with some photoshopped streaking in the gap between the contrail and the plane.
These are engine contrails from a 747 — Imperfect, diffusing, and tangling.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/MASkargo/Boeing-747-4H6F-SCD/2223671/&sid=fee5f5548454b30ca80287c658f32043
Here is some strong over-wing condensation on landing in Santiago Chile in early morning light fog.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Boeing-767-3P6-ER/2285056/&sid=7f546cb3837dbd783fe1d596b20b9992
Backlit landing at LAX in the early morning, May 11, 2013, MD-11.
Condensation visible off leading edge wing slats, trailing edge flaps, and outer flap edge vortices, the winglets, off the horizontal stabilizer tips. The atmospheric conditions are just right for maximum condensation at reduced pressure and the lighting is perfect to show every bit of it.
“B-16113 (cn 48790/634) Landing early at LAX with a spectacular condensation. ”
http://www.airliners.net/photo/EVA-Air-Cargo/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11F/2269544/&sid=7f546cb3837dbd783fe1d596b20b9992
That would be Dennis “UFO” Kucinich … during an answer to question on the subject posed by the late Tim Russert during a demo primary presidential debate on NBC:
Dew.
You had it analyzed … right?
What did the analysis coming back from the lab show?
Water? With a bit of ‘Radon Washout’?
.
/mild sarc. Sometimes I think these ‘people’ are just testing *our* competency (w/’trick questions’ or ‘trick’ scenarios and observations).
_Jim:
Sorry, but I disagree with your reply to Cam_S which you provide at September 3, 2013 at 8:09 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/02/chemtrails-or-contrails-another-alarmist-issue-without-scientific-context/#comment-1406695
The explanation for the ‘moth myth’ and many other myths is the desire people have to apply causes to observed effects combined with failure to understand that randomness is not uniformity.
When people notice something they don’t like and they think it to be unusual then they assume a cause. Each day there are some people who experience temporary breathing ailments which are unusual for them. In the case of the ‘moth myth’ some of the people who had temporary breathing ailments assumed their problem was caused by the (non-existent) spray from the observed planes. Their temporary ailment was unusual for them, but some people experience temporary breathing ailments which are unusual for them every day.
Then there is the problem of randomness.
Throw some cornflakes in the air and they will fall to the floor, but they will not cover the floor evenly. Their distribution will be approximately random so some regions of floor are covered by clumps of cornflakes while other regions of the floor remain exposed.
Similarly, a disease (e.g. thyroid cancer) may be randomly distributed which means that some places will exhibit a few sufferers while other places have none. People in a town with no thyroid cancer don’t think about it. But people in a town with above-average thyroid cancer are likely to look for a cause, and will attribute it to something local; e.g. power lines, a local factory, a mobile phone mast, etc.. In reality, there may be no cause for the ‘high’ incidence of the disease in the town: some places have to exhibit above average incidence. And if the people of the town are told there is no cause for the ‘high’ incidence they may become more convinced that the ’cause’ they have decided is real and then assert the rejection of their decision must be a ‘cover up’.
Richard