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)
Philip Bradley says:
September 3, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Are you sure you are not looking for something a little more advanced than anxiety?
Phobias are anxiety disorders.
Is CAGWism an anxiety disorder?
I suspect it is with many people. And many others exploit people’s general anxiety to focus it on CAGW, Gore for example.
________________________________
“He betrayed this country. He played on our fears!”
– Al Gore, during campaign against George W. Bush
Could there be a better example of a two- faced trickster?
Rob Crawford says:
September 3, 2013 at 2:32 pm
““Wasn’t there a report that the days after 9-11, while the planes were all grounded, that global temperatures dropped slightly?”
I understand it continued to drop for the next few months.”
If the temperature did drop are a result of the planes being grounded and it continued to drop – or stayed below the average – for months after might that not also be a result of fewer plane trips, and thus fewer contrails? This has nothing to do with the chemtrails nonsense of course.
Ah, found some references with links to their references (always a good sign):
Jet Contrails Alter Average Daily Temperature Range
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm
Alternate story where contrails may reduce daytime temperatures –
Airplane contrails and their effect on temperatures
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures
On page two of this a reference to Jim Hansen pops up saying contrails can’t possibly affect temperatures – its the CO2 stupid (in aviation emissions)
“Of course, aviation’s real impact on climate probably has nothing to do with contrails. In 2005, NASA’s James Hansen published a study to that effect. He found that, even if the number of contrails were quintupled, global mean temperature would increase by just 0.03 degrees C (0.05 degrees F.). Aviation emissions, which are rising dramatically, are the true culprit. ”
There seems to be research being done on the effect of contrails on climate but the jury appears to be out discussing the matter…
Philip Bradley:
Sincere thanks for your post at September 3, 2013 at 4:22 pm.
The NHS link gives me some good leads. Thankyou.
And, incidentally, it does seem pertinent to why some people are easilly duped by scares such as AGW, chemtrails, Frankenfoods, etc.
Richard
I have a question… Why would a government spend a Eff-ton of money to have black helicopters and airplanes spray mind control chemicals and other stuff into the atmosphere, when, in reality, all they would have to do for mind controlling a vast amount of people would be funding Jersey Shore, Big Brother or Dancing with the Stars?
Who needs a three letter government agency conspiracy when you can have the same effect with Justin Bieber of Kim Kardashian’s butt?
Heck, what’s there to mind control anyway? Hitler already knew in the 1920s that the large mass of people was blind and stupid, and that even without TV. Why would a government want to mind control a mass of people who have already turned themselves into total zombies, and that willingly?
george e. smith says:
September 3, 2013 at 9:58 pm
//////////////////
No naturally produced hydro carbon is pure in the sense that it only results in a combination of CO, CO2 and H2O upon burning.
To give you some insight into the specification of jet fuels, have a look at this http://www.exxonmobil.com/AviationGlobal/Files/WorldJetFuelSpecifications2005.pdf
If you look at the specification tests, you will get an impression of what chemicals are released upon burning. Of course, not everything is tested, merely items which may be of concern to the user.
The source of these ‘chemicals/pollutants’ is not necessarily an artefact of the raw material and distilation thereof, but also storage and transport. Both shore tanks and ships tanks are not necessarily used exclusively for the storage and transport of jet fuel. In fact tanks dedicate in that fashion are not the norm (shore side may be more so than ship tanks), and jet fuel inevitably picks up residues from cargoes previously stored/carried in those tanks as well as coating residues (the tanks are rarely stainless and are usually coated).
Equator…winter…summer…huh? You might wish to clear that up. The equator doesn’t have seasons.
Further to my post above, I should have observed that when you see a detailed analysis of jet fuel, it is not uncommon to see iron, copper, vanadium, tin, antimony etc in very small quantities.
Mike says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:46 am
///////////////////////////
Can you expand on that since depending upon the time of year the sun moves over the tropical region, ie., between the tropics of cancer (north) to the tropic of cancer (south) and back again crossing the equator twice a year.
Gene Selkov says: September 3, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Ralph, many aviation theorists, starting with Zhukovsky and including many today, would correct you here. They would say it is the same vortex.
______________________
You mean the great Russian designer, Zhukovsky? Well if he says so, one aught to listen. However, the wingtip vortices we see on a regular basis are only ever very small and never spread out into the larger wing vortices. Here is an illustration of the smaller wingtip vortex.
http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/0/1/3/44037_1148142310.jpg
ralfellis says:
> However, the wingtip vortices we see on a regular basis are only ever very small and never spread out into the larger wing vortices.
>
> http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/0/1/3/44037_1148142310.jpg
What you see here is just the core of a much larger and extremely violent vortex. You are only able to see it because of condensation in the core, which does not occur every time. We almost never see it in such an awesome rendering as on the picture you found. To see it all, on a regular basis, a very large instrument is used:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXrnGiIMGLs
These vortices are very long-lived. Depending on the wind direction near the ground, it is possible to have a wake vortex from an airplane that just took off linger on the same spot for minutes or slowly drift across the runway, still having enough energy to wreck small aircraft. The flow visualisation instrument shown in that video owes its existence to concerns over safety hazards posed by wake vortices.
So it’s not tiny, and it’s not just the visible part.
By the way, while looking for images, I found this picture showing a vortex generator in action:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spiderman/2303021515/
You don’t see it as clearly every day, either. It’s a shame he missed the leading edge, but it’s awesome, nonetheless (incidentally, I know the fellow who made it — it’s a small world).
Heads up! David Suzuki has a commentary about global warming and chemtrails, in the paper this morning. How can people believe in the non-science of chemtrails, but not in the real science of climate change?
David Suzuki: Conspiracies fuel climate change denial and belief in chemtrails
http://www.straight.com/news/418226/david-suzuki-conspiracies-fuel-climate-change-denial-and-belief-chemtrails
I was going to continue my observation of visible contrails and compare it to the weather conditions at 30,000 feet today but the site is down… make you wonder.
http://weather.uwyo.edu
Plus, now David Suzuki says he’s a chemtrail denier.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/03/conspiracies-fuel-climate-change-denial-and-belief-chemtrails?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
If David Suzuki says it isn’t happening I think I will have to do the opposite and say it is.
…for today anyway.
The site is working again
http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2013&MONTH=09&FROM=0412&TO=0412&STNM=72649
At 30,000 ft. temp is -31.1C dew point -42.9C an -11.8º difference and there are some contrails not as many as yesterday however. which is still consistent.
I think what I am going to do is continue this exercise and keep a log on my site.
The BBC are carrying this story about the cold war allegation that America was dropping Colorado beetles on East Germany:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23929124
Interesting parallels and conclusions
Not precisely on topic, but a few decades back, I had gotten interested in contrails after seeing a newspaper item about researchers at the University of Illinois studying to see if contrails were affecting surface weather conditions.
Effect of Contrail Cirrus on Surface Weather Conditions in the Midwest:
Atmospheric Sciences Division at the U of I
Changnon, Semonin, Wendland
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/cr/iswscr-236.pdf
If you’ve ever lived in the Midwest, you’ll know that, in certain years, certain seasons, the sun never shines on weekends.
Gene Selkov says:
September 2, 2013 at 4:18 pm
I take it then that when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics dismantled itself, all those former commie atheists just suddenly decided to “convert” to Christianity. And Is that a rebound, or a slide?
Finally, we’ve read in this thread several variants of the argument that people can’t keep secrets:
dbstealey says:
September 3, 2013 at 1:45 pm
Steve P,
I don’t know the full story of what happened in Russia, and I am not really a competent Russian; I had to leave because I was never able to figure out how Russia worked, and I left it under the impression that it was not a user-friendly country. So I can’t give you any explanations; only a few vignettes from memory.
When I was a kid, and up until early 1990s, the were only two sources of talk about Christianity. One consisted of senile women in their 80s who shuffled between their miserable homes, graveyards, and a few remaining churches where they fed obese pigeons with bread crumbs. The other conspicuous category was made up of young and middle-aged men who had just been released from prison. Those were returned to civilian life with crosses and church icons tattooed on them; many were promptly sent back where they came from and they did not have a chance to leave a lasting impression.
There was a third source, although it did not have a broad reach: Radio Liberty and VoA programmes about the plight of dissidents in the USSR; they would often talk about religious dissidents.
The commie atheists were not really atheists by conviction, I reckon. Their only cult was subordination to their party and a firm belief that nothing in that country would ever change.
Of course, before then, there was a cult of Stalin, about which I know next to nothing, but I surmise it was just the thing that confined Christianity to prisons and graveyards. For which I will be eternally grateful, as I was able to spend the first half of my life unmolested by cults of any sort (communism does not count; it never made it to the level of a cult on my watch).
There was also the fear of mass repressions, which many people took seriously, while for others like myself it was a very remote threat.
It was not a bad time, overall. Science was generally encouraged and even funded, if not lavishly, at least steadily. There was no need to beg for money. You either had it or not, and once you had it, nobody really cared what you did, with a few exceptions. One exception I knew about very well was ethology. People could get in trouble for publishing works about the behaviour of animals. Like in any cult, there were taboos and censorship. We had foreign journals in libraries, but they had patches of text smothered in indelible ink. Those I remember best were Letters to the Editor in Nature. They were completely torn out. But overall, that was not a bad time. People could concentrate on what they liked to do.
All in all, I judge that to have been the high time for science in Russia. I doubt it will be as good under the present government.
This started changing with the die-off of party bosses, many of whom spent months on life support before they died, to the gleeful cheering of the citizenry. One of the favourite jokes was about the progress in medicine that gave Andropov an artificial kidney and was ready to equip the next one with an artificial brain.
When Gorbachev came to power, many political prisoners were released, and with them came multiple waves of amnesty to criminals. At the same time, a rudimentary form of private business emerged, providing ample prey for rampant hierarchies of robbers and racketeers. The prison culture left its underground confines and began filling the space between TV commercials.
By the time Yeltsin came to power, the commie atheists were overrun by criminal Christians. I understood Yeltsin’s televised church visits as manifestations to the latter that he was the right sort of guy. That’s what started an avalanche of church-building, reparations and “return to the roots”. Twenty years later, people voluntarily send their children to church schools.
Now there is virtually nobody there who wouldn’t bother you with conversations about quack medicine, supernatural healing, teleportation, anti-gravity, bio-fields, good and bad energy, Chinese philosophy, astrology, and, of course, chemtrails, HAARP, and the coming end of the world.
Steve P says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:47 am
dbstealey says:
September 3, 2013 at 1:45 pm
Please provide proof that people cannot keep secrets. The fact that some secrets are exposed is no proof that some are not.
Rather, the fact the some secret are not kept does not mean that none are.
Steve P says:
“Please provide proof that people cannot keep secrets.”
Translation:
“Please prove a negative.”
Re-read the article’s title. That says it all, my friend. No scientific context. Also, no legitimate whistleblowers, with verifiable photos, or emails, or chemical ingredients, or manufacturers, or procurement orders, or authorizing legislation, etc., etc. And etc.
‘Chemtrails’ is simply a Belief. If it were real, there would be plenty of people competing to sell their stories to the NY Times. Any effort like what is claimed for a chemtrails organization would certainly have hundreds, if not thousands of people on various payrolls. Despite what you believe, that many people cannot keep a secret. There are always Bradley Mannings ready to blab.
But you can’t find a single chemtrails employee to corroborate your belief. I’m a ‘show me’ kinda guy. Show me verifiable evidence. Otherwise, I view the chemtrails conspiracy theory like I view the tooth fairy: a very unlikely belief.
db,
You’re barking up the wrong tree. Please note that there is no defense, no mention whatsoever of chemtrails in my post.
But I will stand by my assertion that some secrets are kept. 50 years on, we still don’t know who killed President Kennedy.
[My comments in square brackets, and my bold]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails
“At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.
“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007
[My bold. What in that statement gives problems to comprehension?
[That article is worth reading for a basic flavour of the history, some here]:
“Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.
“Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.
[Why propose a UN moratorium on something that does not exist?]
“Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:
“The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.
“Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.
“Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/11%20romy-ny-dry-ice-seeding-1946.jpg
“New York dry ice seeding 1946 (Life Magazine)
1947 Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]
1949 Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque. [31]
1950 Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]
1952 The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]
1962-1983 Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]
1966-1972 Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]
1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]”
[There seems to be a distinct lack of critical thinking about this – links to governments’ admissions are being ignored – as it says on this page]:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemtrails-politician-ignites-controversial-debate-in-swedish-media/5308948
“Conspiracy or conspiracy theory ?
“Chemtrails are a fact not a conspiracy theory – the suppression of information about this issue by the mainstream media and the ridiculing and ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to speak out is a conspiracy.”
“Even the US Navy admits that tiny particles of aluminium (chaffs) are sprayed. [3] There is no doubt that there is a military connection to chemtrails…:
“A research paper produced for the United States Air Force written in 1996 speculates about the future use of nano-technology to produce “artificial weather“, clouds of microscopic computer particle all communicating with each other to form an intelligent fog that could be used for various purposes. “Artificial weather technologies do not currently exist. But as they are developed, the importance of their potential applications rises rapidly.” Weather modification technologies are described as “a force multiplier with tremendous power that could be exploited across the full spectrum of war-fighting environments.” [4]”
“[3] “Effects of Navy chaff release on aluminum levels in an area of the Chesapeake Bay.”
PubMed. US National Library of Medicine. June2002:
http://www.ncbi.nl.nih.gov/pubmed/12061831
[4] “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025″. US Air
Force. http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf. Retrieved April 17, 2012.”
[The question is not whether chemtrails/persistent contrails are real or not, they are fact, but how can we prevent abuse of it?]
@ur momisugly mod, snipper…thankyou for correcting me.
I looked into what you said and admit not knowing such. If the word deniers is linked so forcefully to holocaust deniers then I distance myself from the term and understand now that site policy.
the sockpuppety you mentioned – it is allowed on the other site I comment on and seem to remember seeing same here, quite often, so followed suite, neillusion is not so bad surely?
Yes my name is neil. You identify me as Mr. Jackson and you had already changed my id from neillusion to neil. The last comment to you, that you snipped, had a genuine arguement I thought?
I do like this site.
Keep up the good work.
Kind regards
Neil
[ We don’t change user ID’s nor can we. That is what was entered in the comment box before you pressed ENTER – mod ]
@dbstealy – you only have to look up a couple of the links on this site to find what you claim is non-existent. That you profess as you do seems then to say more about your own judgement/comprehension (lack of) than the issue.
@mod, snipper,
I’ve just looked up what sockpuppetry is, the term you applied to me, my id as neillusion, although you had already changed my id to neil.
When you corrected me, I guessed it meant using an login/user id other than your own name. But I was wrong and you were wrong in your criticism of me earlier…
from wiki – sockpuppet(ry)
Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. (a lot of this relates to multiple accounts/logins to perpetrate deceptions, etc, above)
What, pray, was I guilty of in respect of your claim of sockpuppetry, my id was my id, not changed, linked with a genuine email account, only one id have I and used consistently.
I may have slipped up using the word den*er, but that doesn’t come under ‘sockpuppety’
So how find you of your own ‘sockpuppetry’ criticism?
Kind regards
neil
@mod snipper
your own ‘reply’ re den*er and sockpuppetry, influenced the proper evaluation of the contributions I made to this debate, as such issuing bias as mod and overall bias of the balance of this debate – don’t you think?
Neil
This comment is for Anthony, to complain in the open, about the reply I got.
I’ve come to realise that there is a ‘bully’ moderator, see ‘reply’ to neil earlier.
I think it undermines the credibility of the sight for its efforts in promoting/allowing a balanced debate.
I freely admit i use the word ‘den*er’ and had not looked at site policy.
I am grateful for correction on this.
But to go on as the volunteer moderator did after snipping my comment amounts to
bullying/insulting/ranting/lying.
Why mention ‘hol*caust’, why accuse me of sockpuppetry? why try to scare me off with ‘Mr. Jackson’
So Anthony, thanks for this debate/site – great job
thanks for opening it up to Chemtrail – I’m sure that the links, info and other interesting experiences provided here has sparked interest/open mindedness to the subject and many will pursue it and realise what is really going on, and also its real relevance to the global weather debate too.
Myrrh says:
September 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails
The term Chemtrail is pejorative and the various examples in the above link or the other links do not make a good case for contrails that are persistent being nefarious. There are no ‘specifications’ for how long any type of cloud should persist, whether weather generated or artificially. So, if a contrail ends up seeding persistent cirrus clouds it is absolutely possible just from having a jet pass through that air if it is susceptible and has enough moisture in it.
Cloud seeding technology is not a secret and tends to involve putting stuff into clouds already formed and that contain moisture. These will be Cumulus clouds and not Cirrus clouds. The explanations and descriptions given in the above link can be sloppy such as: “1946 General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]” The photo does not show any “‘explosive’ growth”, but a large hole. No doubt the dry ice cooled the air so that the moisture froze and dropped out. It’s interesting but I see no link between this and the claim about so called nefarious ‘chemtrails’.
“1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]” They didn’t divert the fallout. By cloud seeding they obviously managed to ‘rain out the fallout before it reached Moscow. Diverting something is changing it’s course. it says they seeded clouds.
Then we have the 1rainmaker’ Charles Hatfield. A few searches reveal a slightly more complicated story with supporters and detractors. The example given here was in the end ruled an act of god. Where was he during the dust bowl years and if all this is geo engineering is so advanced how come it hasn’t been used during the recent US drought or the Russian heat wave etc etc. With the casual understanding that I have cloud seeding is very local.
“1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]”
????? What has this got to do with geo-engineering? This is just throwing any old story in just because something was thrown out of a plane.
The US military may have experimented with cloud seeding but it tends to be a commercial activity for the benefit of farmers. There is a photo of a plane used in Operation Stormfury. It has a very visible lump. Planes used in cloud seeding also have additional bits so as to dispense the silver iodide or whatever it is. To suggest as some do that the high altitude persistent contrails are some kind of plot or whatever is absurd. There are just too many people who either fly the planes, who maintain planes, who are passengers, who load the planes, who fuel the planes, who direct the planes, who manage the planes, who just watch the planes for someone not to notice something a bit more tangible than what amounts to a gut feeling.