Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Chemtrails: Widespread Conspiracy Theory DEBUNKED" video.
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MichaelForrestChnl
As is the case with all the subscribers to this hoax, you clearly have no scientific knowledge or background whatsoever Michael...and its frankly embarrassing.
Your cut and paste appeal to authority has all been systematically addressed by Scottie Duclos and instead of being able to offer a similarly constructive response, you simply cut and paste...again. Genuinely, what's wrong with you people?
Wigington's sources are derived from the same self-referencing community of chemtrail/career conspiracy theorists - none of which are published, none of which state the methodology.
As an example, why on earth do you regard a character such as Jeff Rense or Arizona Skywatch as a legitimate credible source?
Your Arizona Skywatch hoax, measured concentrations in the particulates as opposed to concentration in the air. The air that most people breath would be approximately 0.0015 ppb barium. Look at their data - (556,000 ppb) that'll be how they arrived at 370,000,000 times the normal amount then!
Regarding gallium...
https://rense.com/general87/gallium.htm
Once more, have you actually at any stage looked at the claimed data? Again, this is derived from the Arizona Skywatch fraud, in which they claim that they are tests of the air, when in actual fact they relate to the composition of particles in the air. There is no methodology, no duration of sampling or weights taken. If you had even the most rudimentary scientific inclination then you'd have identified this and understand the significance. Gallium does not occur naturally on its own, but as Scottie explained, can be found as a salt in zinc and bauxite ores - consequently airborne dust, particularly in desert regions. The method of analysis does not identify its presence in elemental form. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
I'd also like to highlight the beyond farcical KSLA barium debacle. Firstly it wasn't Arkanas. If you'd actually bothered to watch your own source instead of simply posting mindless confirmation bias, then you'd know that. In 2007 a reporter for KSLA News (Shreveport, Louisiana) by the name of Jeff Ferrall was investigating a report of “an unusually persistent jet contrail,” and found that a local in the area had “collected dew in bowls” after he saw the contrail. The station had the water in the bowls analysed, and reported barium found at 68.8 µg/L. That’s 68.8 parts per billion.The problem is, the reporter got the concentration wrong claiming 6.8ppm more than three times the limit set by the EPA — when in actual fact it was 68 parts per billion - So it’s actually 0.0688 parts per million, which is right in the normal range for water from natural sources (especially water collected in a glazed ceramic bowl, because ceramic glazes often contain barium as a flux). Ferrall was mortified and highly embarrassed by this mistake.
"Yes, I did make corrections to my first report, which originally aired almost 2-years ago now… after quickly realising my very embarrassing mistake. I was not happy with myself. Unfortunately, the first version of my report got out to the internet before I could make the correction(s), and the wrong version is shown repeatedly.
…
My feeling is, and maybe you’d agree, that if such aerosol mixes were created and loaded into jets with either a separate/independent dispersal method other than the exhaust, or actually in the fuel itself… somewhere, somehow, you’d expect someone to talk. I have not heard that yet.
…
I also interviewed the scientist who originally patented what some believe was a precursor to so-called chemtrail technology. He’s a very kind, helpful man who could not have been more helpful. He says he knows nothing about any such conspiracy."
Jeff Ferrall (2009)
I can't believe that this not only remains on Wigington's site but over a decade later you people are still mindlessly batting this nonsense around your vacuous echochamber as supposed evidence of your conspiracy theory.
Do you need the rest of your post systematically dissecting again or will you actually bother to read the reply that was originally provided by Scottie, gain some semblance of modesty, dignity, humility, integrity and intellectual honesty and actually challenge your preconceptions? If not only for yourself and your own mental well-being?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Hyper_drive214
Aircraft are subject to regulations in terms of both horizontal and vertical separation - typically on thousand feet. It is virtually impossible to discern the difference as a ground based observer. The atmosphere is a fluid and continually in motion and is non-isotropic in terms of temperature. pressure and humidity, the chief factors that govern the formation of contrails. These conditions can change within a matter of metres.
If you fly an aircraft at high speed through ambient air which is in flux, it is for the same reason that a contrail will indeed appear to sporadically and intermittently turn on and off. It only takes the slightest change in the interplay of the aforementioned variables to produce such an effect. You evidently need to look harder. Frequently once a persistent contrail has been deposited you will observe sections of it fade and vanish due to the same effect. This is a visual reminder that the atmosphere is in motion and is caused by either a rising or subsiding parcel of warmer/drier air. Like I say - are you similarly perplexed by patchy or differential cloud cover?
The meteorological conditions at ground level are completely different six to eight miles above your head. If you burn a hydrocarbon fuel, the main products are water and carbon dioxide. Do this in the regions in which commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - and if the conditions are conducive, then a contrail will form. If the RHi is high, then it will persist and if the ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, then it will expand and grow with most of the vapour being drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget whilst the water content from the exhaust has merely created the contrail. In such cases, often fanned by high altitude shear, persistent contrails may grow and agglomerate becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus. The following paper tracked contrail‐induced cirrus using a number of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, and at its peak, covering over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Read up on the differences between specific and relative humidity and in relation to this, dew point, and also dry and adiabatic lapse rates.
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Really, guys? It's that impossible to spray shit out of tanks?"
And deposit a 200 mile long trail weighing thousands upon thousands of pounds which expands in the same way as available atmospheric moisture? - yeah, I'd say so.
"You people are all over the damn place. You want people to tell you what and how to think. You don't want the truth."
Oh look, you broke it...
https://izenmeme.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/i_meter5.gif
"Nobody is making this shit up, it's barium and aluminum oxide sprayed into the air"
And you have established this how?
"then, HAARP can manipulate the MAGNETIC chemicals in the earths (ION)OSPHERE (Magnetic) and the chemicals can be manipulated to cover certain areas with a blanket of cloud like substance."
What???? Firstly the atomic structure of Al means that it does not have magnetic attraction. The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme??? You mean that now dormant observatory and an adjacent field containing those HF antennas with a maximum transmission power of 3600 kilowatts? That HAARP?. Magnetic chemicals in the ionosphere???? What the fuck are you talking about? The purpose of HAARP was to reproduce the Luxembourg effect and it was subsequently used as a an ionospheric research facility. Although the research facilities need to have powerful transmitters, the power flux in the ionosphere is below 0.03 W/m2. This gives an energy density in the ionosphere that is less than 1/100 of the thermal energy density of the ionospheric plasma itself. The power flux may also be compared with the solar flux at the Earth's surface of about 1.5 kW/m2. This means that at about 75 times the power of a commercial radio station - HAARP delivers only a tiny fraction of the strength of the natural solar radiation striking the same part of the ionosphere at which it was aimed. During aurora generally no ionospheric effects can be observed with the HF pump facilities because the radio wave power is completely absorbed by the naturally heated ionosphere. Moreover, HAARP and the ionosphere have nothing whatsoever to do with clouds in the troposphere and lower stratosphere.
Why don't you find out for yourself? Although HAARP has barely been used since its sale to the University of Fairbanks, they nonetheless host tours of the facility during open days and even a summer barbecue. You could train the ELF waves on your hotdog.
"If you can't see it when you look up, you're paying too much attention to that little device you're holding 24/7."
Well actually, I have "looked up" all my life - and see the same persistent contrails that have been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of powered flight.
"This is the literal last comment i ever make about chemtrailing."
Is that a promise? The comments section of You Tube is on the cusp of existential meltdown.
"You don't trust your own judgement. "
Yeah, actually I do. Because unlike you I actually understand what I'm looking at, don't blindly accept or allow baseless internet conspiracy theory to tell me what to think and am able to differentiate between pseudoscientific online fantasy and the physical laws which govern reality.
"they are cloud seeding to prevent global warming..."
Cloud seeding has nothing to do with global warming mitigation, or the trails that you are seeing. Cloud seeding does not produce or create clouds and the science behind it is as questionable as the results. It is intended to introduce additional nucleation typically via silver iodide flares rack mounted to the wings of light aircraft to be released into extant cumulus clouds - those already conducive to precipitation - and thereby induce rainfall.
Because of this, it is typically conducted between 2 - 6 thousand feet. There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity under the technical banner of "Weather Modification". Cloud seeding is neither secretive and has been in the public domain for years. It does not spray, produce clouds nor does it make trails and the environmental impact of the negligible quantities of silver iodide used is zero. What does cloud seeding or geoengineering come to that have to do with the contrails under discussion in this video?
"Don't listen to me just because i told you, either."
Thanks for that, but I assure you, there's no danger of that happening.
"Go do your research."
That excruciating but inevitable moment when an online conspiracy believer tells you to "do your research".
And how did you "do" yours? - given that "research" does not constitute and evening in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias and junk pseudo-scientific conspiracy websites.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@johnnymcblaze
Geoengineering in the form of SRM is entirely in the realms of hypothetical research and hasn't even reached small scale trial. Several problems with your claim. Such a strategy which aims to recreate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols would take place at double the altitude of the trials that you are seeing and certainly wouldn't resemble a long white trail in the wake of a commercial jet aircraft (that the rational and informed identify as contrails). SAI/SRM wouldn't even be visible to the ground based observer. Additionally, contrary to your claims, there are no aircraft being "outfitted with spraying equipment". There are cloud seeding operations, usually light aircraft with wing mounted flare racks, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with SRM and again, these do not leave lasting trails at the altitude that you are seeing. In fact one of the main challenges facing SRM is that currently there is no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite material to the designated altitude which is 65,-70,000ft. Moreover, there is no agreement upon those materials - that is, which could best be employed to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols.
Regarding your final point about cloud cover trapping heat, you are absolutely correct and there is currently a large volume of research into the extent of radiative forcing of contrail cirrus.
3
-
@johnnymcblaze
Thanks for your reply,
"I am aware the numbers don't make sense in the case of geoenginering, but to say it's in its fancy is incorrect in my opinion."
It isn't. There are many GGR strategies practised such as carbon sequesterisation and ocean fertilisation. However, SRM with the exception of ground based albedo modification, is purely hypothetical.
"Independant scientists have noted for several years that aluminum particulates are accumulating exponentially in Arctic areas of the North and the anarctic areas of the south."
Seriously??? "Independent scientists"? You mean self-referencing conspiracy theorists? Could you name them, together with their full credentials, fields of expertise and publications?
"This was the first admitted case of which aircraft were actively spraying things into the air."
Admitted???
"Ironicly the american government denied all knowledge of this, but the British government not only acknowledged that they "spray", but they also divulged the canisters used were given to them by the American government."
Could you link me to this admission - the original government source please. Thanks.
"At the end of the day, no one is certain. But just like the Epstein murder, it's plain that the official story is an insult to critical minds."
What official story?
3
-
3
-
@johnnymcblaze
"I literaly googled "scientists find man made increase of aluminum" and it was the first result. I never learned how to provide links honestly, so you can choose to Google search as I did, or not."
I simply wish to take a look at the paper that you referred to. If you are going to make claims, you need to understand that you need to substantiate them.
"Just as you can choose to believe everything scientists say as fact."
Three things of note here. Firstly, you are the one that appealed to authority not me. I simply asked you to provide the credentials and data of the scientists that you referred to - and to remind you, you are the one that said this; "I hardly think scientists taking core samples can be identified as "conspiracy theorists". Secondly, in common with any conspiracy theory, deferring to "scientists" is fine, so long as it appears to support your narrative. That's called confirmation bias. Finally, I'm only interested in what known science has to say, which is demonstrable, reproducible and governed by ineluctable physical laws which are axiomatic and so have a voice of their own and speak for themselves.
"I mention this only because I was once like you. The only things I was sure of, is what I thought I knew."
Reading back your posts, the unintentional irony at this point is unbelievable.
Science is not about what you think you know. I am irrelevant.
So you are unable to produce these claimed studies which show that "aluminum particulates are accumulating exponentially in Arctic areas of the North and the anarctic (sic) areas of the south"?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"where they admit to already carrying out geo engineering. Page 3 paragraph 3."
Here is what it actually says...
"There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate. Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third, we may need geoengineering as a “Plan B” if, in the event of the failure of “Plan A”—the reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues."
Some - albeit very small scale - geoengineering testing is underway. Again, what does that have to do with the persistent contrails in this video which are misidentified by chemtrail conspiracy theorists.
Geoengineering encompasses a very wide range of strategies divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors.
The latter is almost entirely in the province of research proposals and computer simulation, the exception being ground based albedo modification.
However, in terms of a "small scale trial", through the SCoPEx project, this year Harvard intend to launch a steerable balloon 20km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert to measure perturbation and dispersion releasing a few kilograms of calcium carbonate...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Again, what does this have to do with the subject matter of this video? Do you even understand the logical fallacy of false equivalence/association fallacy?
3
-
@TCM215
"why would movie makers bother to put contrails in films and put them in films set prior to the invent of the aeroplane?"
What??? None of these extracts pre-date the "invention of the aeroplane". As I said, contrails have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of powered flight. In the case of the animation, contrails have been added for artistic license and recreate reality. The films that are included in this video have inadvertently captured contrails. A classic example is Spartacus made in 1960.
"Also why bother to put “contrails” into old movies?"
They have not been put in, they have been caught on film. I can provide many examples of this.
"Why are you lying? You say after you had already referenced the proposed balloon experiment to block out the sun, which is the proposed mechanism to lower temp, that then there is no such plan to block out the sun"
Jesus. Once again, SAI is not designed to block out the sun, and the SCoPEx experiment will not involve "blocking out the sun". You are the one that keeps making that assumption not me. SCoPEx involves mere kilograms of calcium carbonate for chrissakes.
For the fifth time, the purpose of SAI is not to "block out the sun" it is to introduce small particle matter into the mid stratosphere in order to reproduce the cooling properties of volcanic aerosols which reflect a portion of the sun's incoming insolation. You merely associate this with blocking out the sun, because you falsely equate contrails and cirrus cloud to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection without actually understanding what it is.
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. I#ll repeat it again - the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
3
-
@TCM215
"No no don’t straw man argue me."
Bit rich you accusing another of a logical fallacy don't you think Scott? Nonetheless, I apologise, I misinterpreted your statement.
"my question again is for you to please explain why movie makers are bothering to place trails from planes in movies set prior to manned flight?"
My answer remains the same. They have not. The animated movies certainly employ artistic license and have depicted contrails to mirror reality. Spartacus, made in 1960 contains a well known continuity error which was noticed long before your chemtrails conspiracy theory. As I explained to you and substantiated with ample sources, persistent contrails have been observed, recorded, photographed, filmed and studied since the early advent of aviation - which is completely contrary to your irrelevant anecdotal incredulity and whatever you choose to "remember". It is inevitable that these have been inadvertently captured in movies irrespective of when they were set. I can give you many such examples.
"Would you agree that this is done in order to normalise these lines in the sky for the next generation."
No.
"What’s your spin on this please?"
Talking of "spin" - your You Tube video suggesting that these continuity errors have actually been subsequently added...are you actually seriously contending this?
Your confirmation bias blinds you to any evidence contrary to your claim. Do you also believe that "Flight to Arras" or the in situ studies of the microphysical properties of persistent contrails in the journal published papers that I provided dating back almost half a century that you choose to ignore have similarly been doctored? If so, who by?
Your tangential attempt at deflection aside, returning to your contention that SAI is already in progress...what is your evidence for this and what then is the purpose of the SCoPEx trial? Do you accept that the source that you provided, contrary to your claim is neither a 'government paper' nor does it "admit" to carrying out geoengineering? And what aspect of the content relates to the contrails under discussion in this video. If you were a ground based observer witnessing Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - explain precisely how you would expect it to manifest itself, together with the reasons why and supported by the wealth of official literature at source associated with these proposals.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I can see with my own eyes the chem trails appear in the crystal blue sky and then with 3-4 hours the sky is completely cloudy"
Chemical spraying that behaves exactly like ... condensed atmospheric water vapour. Who'd have thought it?
"the sky is completely cloudy and no moisture or humidity anywhere in the forecast"
No 'moisture' in the forecast???? The atmosphere is full of water vapour. How did you determine humidity at altitude? - you are surely aware that the atmosphere is not homogeneous in respect of humidity nor is it isotropic
Empirical data please.
"and no front moving thru with ppt."
So total cloud cover and no frontal system....but complete cloud cover. You'd think that an entire branch of meteorology, atmospheric science and environmental monitoring would notice something suspicious...or are they sworn into silence and co opted by this conspiracy too? - in addition to geo-political systems, every nation on the planet, the aviation sector worldwide, its contractors (ground crew, load masters, fuelling, airport management, ATC etc etc), aircraft manufacturers, pilots and air crew?
"This is not normal and it is happening more and more!"
I assure you that it is...and the increased prevalence of contrails is due to the exponential expansion and growth in demand within the global commercial aviation sector and associated routes flown. It is set to become much, much worse before it gets better.
"DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH FOLKS"
And how precisely did you do yours?
Got any hard data? An analysis of these chemicals at source would be a great place to start.
"AND DO NOT BELIEVE THIS FOOL WHO PUT OUT THIS VID...IT IS CRAP!"
Then I invite you to disprove and refute the independently verifiable science of contrail formation and the associated known physical laws of the atmosphere.
Good...luck...with...that
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So you provide a link to possibly the most predictable and obligatory video about the chemtrails conspiracy theory, made by the main perpetrator of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, re-posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, featuring appeals to false authority by proponents of the chemtrails conspiracy theory as supposed evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory?????
This is Wigington's ludicrous Shasta testimony. Tell you what. These supposed "Pilots, Doctors and Scientists" - could you provide their credentials, their fields of expertise, their analytical studies and publications into chemtrails, and in the case of the clown in the fancy dress outfit, the airlines that he has flown for and flying hours accrued. Then when you fail to do so, come back to me and I'll not only tell you about the circumstances surrounding this farce but who they all really are. Here, let me give you a helping hand with that, Iraja Sividas - y'know, the buffoon that thinks your exhaled breath on a winters day is analogous to a stream of superheated exhaust from a jet engine in an ice saturated environment - a local High School Mathematics teacher from Redding CA. "The Union of Concerned Scientists"? - open to anyone - you could apply for membership if you wished...which is frankly quite concerning.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@feetusyeeter
"Why would you need to fly over a desert when there's nothing there"
Because commercial aircraft fly passengers on designated routes to a range of destinations. In doing so they may traverse deserts, oceans, forests, mountain ranges and polar regions. You said this...
"why are they in places without air traffic"
Specifically, what places are you referring to?
"And why do whenever you look up in the sky there are streaks across the sky every where"
There are not. That would depend entirely upon the immediate atmospheric conditions. On some days it can be completely clear. Are you equally perplexed and incredulous about variation in cloud cover?
"contrails" lasting for well over 5 hours, if it's just water vapor then why does it last so darn long?"
Contrails are a product of condensed atmospheric water vapour. The duration of the latter is dependent upon humidity, temperature and pressure. In ambient air which is saturated in respect to ice, a contrail will not only endure because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible gaseous state (water vapour), but may often spread due to high altitude wind shear and agglomerate, thereby becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
Again, are you equally bemused by the persistence of clouds? Both are the result of condensed atmospheric water vapour.
2
-
2
-
@ThePenquinoS
"did you know Bill Gates openly announced that he funded Harvard millions to do stratospheric aerosol injections (literally a chemical trail of heavy metals and aerosol)."
Oh Christ almighty - how many times?
Bill Gates has pledged support for the notion of geoengineering and in particular SRM, but the Harvard Research Project which commenced in the spring of 2017 is much more complex than that. What you'll actually find that the grant allocation to this area of geoengineering is actually quite meagre and there are calls from many protagonists to step up the research in this particular domain.
Firstly understand that geoengineering is a very broad term, which can be divided into two main headings - GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR involves such strategies such as aforestation, carbon sequestering, ambient air capture, and biochar, whilst most funding and interest is channelled into ocean fertilisation. SRM meanwhile exists very much in the real of paper based proposal and would involve methods such as marine cloud brightening, albedo enhancement and space reflectors. One of these, Stratospheric Aerosol injection has not even progressed beyond the status of isolated small scale trial.
SAI exists on paper..that's it. The formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to attempt to curb global warming, that it would ever be employed. Contrary to your statement, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate (that's right, chalk) called SCoPEx will take place in Arizona.
"literally a chemical trail of heavy metals and aerosol"
Heavy metals???? Why would SAI involve heavy metals? and do you even understand what an aerosol is?
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground base observer to to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. It certainly wouldn't be resemble the long white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic that gullible online scientifically illiterate dullards claim to be "chemtrails". The latter is precisely what this video is debunking.
"He wants to "block the sun" for climate change lol."
No, as I explained the principle of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which can scatter incoming solar radiation to space, increasing planetary albedo, reducing the total amount of solar energy reaching the troposphere and the earth's surface, and decreasing the daytime maximum temperature (aerosol shortwave forcing). Amusingly, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing, the contrails that you mistake for this cause diametrically the opposite effect that proponents of SAI wish to engineer by trapping heat.
"People still deny it"
No one has "denied" SAI. Research into the latter is fully transparent and has always been in the public domain.
"i don't know what else to say about it at that point"
Perhaps saying nothing would be preferable. The problem with the internet is that it gives the uninformed a voice - generally individuals with little to say who in the real world have little to contribute and rely upon baseless internet conspiracy videos to afford the illusion of relevance to otherwise insignificant lives.
The chemtrails hoax originated in the late 1990s predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. Why do you think that were it ever to become a reality, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection would bear any resemblance to the latter in either appearance, nature or deployment?
2
-
@ThePenquinoS
"That's way more than I can even address."
I am not asking for you to address it, simply to read it, understand your errors and that your conflation of chemtrails and geoengineering is a logical fallacy.
You say that and then produce a rambling post of sprawling proportions due to tangential leaps of logic and containing a farrago of fallacious factoid, a mess of regurgitated online conspiracy theory, claiming legitimacy through poorly appropriated bad science, out of context references poorly sourced confirmation bias and meaningless false authority. Nonetheless, I will address it in its entirety throughout - although this may be the first of several posts in order to achieve that largely pointless aim.
"But the metals yes there are metals. The patents [From John Golete @ LTA CORP in DC] say Silver Iodide, Aluminum Oxide, Strontium, and Barium."
In respect of what? Link me to it and I'll explain the intended purpose to you. Moreover, a patent is not proof of the existence of something. Silver iodide is used for cloud seeding which has nothing whatsoever to do with either the contrails that you are seeing or geoengineering.
"Congressional Research Service Geoengineering Governance and Technology Policy from 2010 and 2013 both state the same things"
Citation necessary.
This paper addresses emergent geoengineering research and potential strategies from a geo-political, technical, logistical, socio-economic and environmental standpoint that's all. From your own source I quote...
"With the possibility that geoengineering technologies may be developed and that climate change will remain an issue of global concern, policymakers may determine whether geoengineering warrants attention at either the federal or international level."
"Geoengineering is an emerging field that, like other areas of scientific innovation, requires careful deliberation by policymakers, and possibly, the development or amendment of international agreements, federal laws, or federal regulations. Currently, many geoengineering technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven."
What's your point?
Aluminium, barium, strontium, ammonium? - all of which are naturally occurring? You realise that these are also all present in domestic fireworks of which America burns 30,000 tons per year at, or in the proximity of ground level? Presumably this is all part of the sinister plot too? Illuminati confirmed.
https://techlagari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/fireworks_colors-techlagari.jpg
"many people have been finding high levels in after they send soil samples and snow/ water samples. "
No, really they haven't. But if you think otherwise do feel free to present these findings and I'll explain why they are flawed. We can start with strontium if you like.
"This is the original proposal of Agenda 21 was the rationing of everything after Global Warming had apparently ravaged the Earth."
Ah Agenda 21, that old chestnut - never takes long. You mean that over a quarter of a century old non-binding toothless action plan that originated at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, tabling a series of recommendations in respect of sustainable development that no country ever bothered adhering to or instituting in law?
"Why the hell is (sic) Aerosols causing ice to blacken?"
Why the hell do you suppose that they are? Do you even understand what an aerosol is and that we are surrounded by them from both anthropogenic and natural origin and ingest them with every breath you take?
"Well people have had samples tested from bits that fell from the sky - or from after a rain they would have things tested and there's websites dedicated to this"
No, there are baseless self referencing pseudoscientific online chemtrail conspiracy sites duping the public.
"always comes back high in Aluminum."
Aluminium is the third most abundant element on earth - you are surrounded by it, again both from natural and manmade sources. It is everywhere in the household. and the upper layer of the crust is even in part named after it. If you capture it in its compound form, then of course it will be present in any analytical test.
"Many other times there will be Arsenic, Titanium, Copper, etc etc..."
Present your independent sources.
"It just amazes me how far some people go to say that chem-trails are not real when chem-trails are simply aerosol injections. A real and proposed method of Geoengineering."
Well firstly as I have shown innumerable times to be the case, SAI only exists in the realm of paper based research and computer modelling. There is not even agreement upon which materials would best replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Moreover, why would SAI resemble a contrail in either appearance, nature or deployment? To remind you, the chemtrail hoax is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails in the upper troposphere. SAI is intended for double the altitude of the contrails that you are seeing. Again, what's your point?
2
-
@ThePenquinoS
"I know what condensation looks like"
Well that could manifest itself in many ways, from the dew on a blade of grass, to the moisture on a window pane to a huge bank of fog.
"I see Passenger jets all day man they leave small condensation. I'm sure you have some way to discredit this in your own way"
Nothing to do with me, your contention is with the known physical laws of meteorology and atmospheric science, which are I'm afraid, not on your side...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The duration of a contrail is governed by the immediate atmospheric conditions in respect of temperature, humidity and pressure. In conditions of high RHi or ice supersaturation which are very common in the regions that commercial aircraft cruise a contrail may not only persist, but can expand and spread owing to the available moisture budget in the atmosphere and the fact that it cannot sublimate back into its invisible gaseous state (water vapour).
"I always wonder about your types lol. You're very quick to defend something that's highly controversial"
Nothing controversial about the science that I defend...although known science is independently verifiable, incontrovertible and being axiomatic has a voice of its own. When chemtrail believers mindlessly parrot that a contrail can only last seconds to minutes because an internet conspiracy site told them so they are not choosing to contend their beliefs with individuals, rather an entire branch of evidence based science, which makes it all the more amusing.
If by "being quick to defend something that's highly controversial" you are referring to SAI, I have not expressed any personal opinion upon such a possibility. In point of fact I would be utterly opposed to such a strategy were it ever to become a reality.
"...& not very transparent to the public. If it was a harmless experiment and it was to save the Earth, more people would know about it. But they don't."
Research into SAI has never been out of the public domain, has never been secretive nor has it been denied...and ironically it is due to this that conspiracy theorists know about it and intentionally conflate it with the chemtrail hoax.
"Also condensation doesn't fall from the position it was in, and lowers to a certain point where it begins to either dissipate or mix with another cloud near it"
Sigh...you mean this?
http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/1991-day-p47-2.jpg
You can see virga and wake vortices in the lower section of a contrail. Contrail pendules also result from the Crow instability. At high relative humidity (RHi about or greater 100%) the exhaust contrails would spread fast and envelope the wake vortices. Having formed inside this envelope, the hybrid contrails would break up in loops and hoops, bulging out as pendules. The blobs that you observe correspond to the places in which the mixing has penetrated into the vortex cores composed of detrained accompanying fluid. Very, very basic meteorology and atmospheric physics which has been studied and understood for decades. You simply don't understand what you are looking at.
Spend some time reading the following In particular, refer to Figure 3:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.2765
"they always leave the same weird spidery - cob webb vein looking shapes - very wispy and the sun becomes foggy on many days."
Precisely what condensed atmospheric water vapour is prone to doing then?
"Congressional 2013 doc says that we may receive less sun light, a less blue sky, o-zone depletion and unpredictable shocks from the Earth or just a loss of control of the weather manipulation."
The environmental ramifications of SRM are as yet unquantified. That is one of the main reasons for the hearing.
"The risk factors are incredible & we can physically see the risks they spoke of (if) they were to do aerosol injections, cloud seeding & cloud albedo etc and we do see the risk factors they spoke of. "
No, you are seeing the increased prevalence of contrails due to the unregulated exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector and routes flown, in addition to existing natural meteorological phenomena that you were previously not conscious of and you deem to be sinister.
"The sky is less blue"
That would entirely depend upon your locality. A pale blue sky is an indicator of high humidity and thus may also be conducive to contrails.
Atmospheric aerosol is most noticeable on humid summer days. Under these conditions, there are billions of aerosol particles and they absorb water and swell up to a size that is quite efficient at scattering sunlight. The atmospheric boundary layer is filled with aerosol that has been well mixed by warm, moist air parcels rising and stirring the boundary layer air into a thick haze - something which often coincides with the formation of contrails at higher altitudes and is frequently attributed to chemtrails by believers in this conspiracy theory.
Most particles originate from emissions from Earth’s surface. Primary aerosols are emitted directly from the source, although the smaller ones start off as hot gases that rapidly condense to form particles even before they leave the smokestack or tailpipe. Secondary aerosols are gaseous emissions that are converted to aerosol particles by chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Some of these become CCNs - typically 0.2 µm, or 1/100th the size of a cloud droplet on which water vapor condenses. This process is often called gas-to-particle conversion. Most CCN are secondary aerosols.
The sources are both natural and anthropogenic. Seaspray, volcanoes, forests, and forest fires, pollen, as well as gas-to-particle conversion of naturally occurring gases such as sulphur dioxide (SO2) and some naturally occurring VOCs, such as α-pinene are important natural particle sources. Industry, power plants, using fires to clear cropland, transportation, and gas-to-particle conversion of anthropogenic SO2 and numerous other gas emissions are important anthropogenic particle sources.
2
-
@ThePenquinoS
"Either way it proposed droughts were a definite possibility and we're seeing crazy weather - forecasted droughts - crop failures happening right now (with high metal content), water pollution (aluminum and metals), respiratory issues"
And the sole explanation can only be, those long white lines in the wake of commercial aircraft cruising predominately in the upper troposphere six miles above your head?
"I've had a wide range of people talk to me about whats going on in the Florida sky, people are noticing and they don't believe the bullshit that's said about how its condensation."
Anecdotal and valueless. Known science is not about "belief". What "people" in Florida elect to believe has no relation to the rational world. The workings of the atmosphere, together with the entire field of meteorological science is neither obliged nor duty bound to conform to the credulous arbitrary demands or expectations of the scientifically illiterate that subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to convince them that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
"My neighbors complain of white shit on their roofs and the stuff is fiber like and white - go figure."
Because the only possible explanation can only be that an supra-national programme of chemical spraying involving global geo-political complicity and the cooperation of the entire aviation sector worldwide including airlines, aircraft manufacturers, ancillary services & contractors, fuelling, ATC, - not to mention the collective coercion of the field of environmental monitoring, atmospheric and meteorological science is responsible?
"People at parks staring at the sky confused and people noticing a trend of - lots of planes back and worth with X's all over the sky for usually a night and a day or 2 of each"
Do you think they are equally perplexed about variation in cloud cover or the revelation that aircraft fly in different directions, at a multitude of altitudes to and originating heading to and from a wide range of varied destinations?
Here - nice X shape when viewed from below.
@71fM
"but usually what follows is an extreme cold front out of nowhere & it happens every single time without fail."
Contrails are very commonly the precursor or approaching frontal systems. Do you think you may be able to venture as to why this is the case?
"Either realize what's happening or stop telling people their wrong because there's quite a bit backing this up"
Actually, no there isn't.
"the technology exists"
No it doesn't.
"the patents exist"
Patents do not prove the existence of something.
"there's papers that have been released from private companies that discussed specifically spraying the skies of Florida in the 70's and Texas in the 80s and 90s. It was called FACE-1 and FACE-2 . Florida Area-wide Cumulus Experiment. They sprayed to try to get precipitation"
Yes it's called weather modification - the legal term for the dubious science of cloud seeding which is quite commonly commercially practiced. Dubious, because there is still not scientific evidence to suggest that it actually works, which is why it tends to be quite unreliable. Cloud seeding typically involves the release of silver iodide from wing mounted flare canisters fitted to modified light aircraft. It aims to introduce additional nucleation into existing clouds that are already conducive to precipitation and thus induce rainfall. Because of this, it is generally conducted at altitudes between two to six thousand feet targeting convective cumulus cloud formations. Cloud seeding has absolutely nothing to do with the persistent contrails that you are seeing at treble the altitude, or geoengineering research in the form of SAI, it does not create clouds nor does it produce a long visible trail. The irony is, that through radiative forcing, the contrails you insist are evidence of SAI bring about diametrically the opposite effect to that which proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ patrick rodgers
You are referring to the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan; and his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous titles of online conspiracy videos that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does Stratospheric Aerosol Injection have to do with persistent contrails which have been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of aviation and the subject of this video?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@neverlostforwords I'd also like to refer you to the following recent comment on You Tube:
"Totally 100% chem trails are real ! UN playing god they feel the need to depopulate to 500million with few of to be smart people to run world and bread and some to be dumbed down to make workers and they have been tirelessly trying to get a form of autism dialed in to be very smart to program and fix Ai “ artificial intelligence “ meaning the computerized robots that will take at least 40% of jobs in next 15 years. Yes 15 years this revolution is going fast it’s a fact PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH ! So you think why, autism has increased to ridicules percentages in past 10 years the children are very smart but are lacking some social skills this being dialed in will make very smart people to do a job better then most and eliminate over population autism people tend to not breed like people without. Also autism people tend to be very dedicated and precise making them very suitable at performing delicate work such as keeping robotic AI up and running. Right now chemtrails have been proven and tested by many many people the labs are tired of testing. Fast food , driving , flight, will be first also these 3 jobs make up 40% of workforce out the gate. This is going fast also these programs to depopulate are going faster. Many reading this can notice probably they don’t seem physically the same as few years back. Like a steady tone in ear, depression, many different things, this is likely to be a attack in the way of frequencies to disrupt your health. Billions of black money has gone into these frequency test. Why? Scientists have known for many years that everything is made of frequencies. These weapons are used somewhat openly in the Mid East and USA to make aggressive groups and individuals a bit less likely to cause a problem. Experimentation has been done where they can send thoughts /voices into people’s heads no one around can hear it. Many other things can be done to control health and behavior. This now is easier then ever with cell phones ,LED bulbs ,A lot of people don’t know that just like your old land line phone had steady voltage that you could talk and listen through also your house voltage is now the government land line to your house with a microphone in every room in the form of a LED bulbs or tv. Why you think everything is changing to led , thought was to save energy well also can be listed and send info. So much is changing it’s not all good. To much for a comment however if any doubt research for your self good luck."
To which you replied, "Great info. Thanks for sharing. :)". Why do you regard this nonsense as "great info" and how have you established the veracity of these claims?
So you evidently believe that your supposed chemtrails are not actually a method of SRM, rather, a means to cull global population? You have been sucked deeper into this dark rabbit hole than I had previously suspected.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shelleyhowell6678
"So what "genuine" environmental concern would you suggest?"
Oh I dunno, perhaps one that is backed by evidence based science, measurable analytical findings and demonstrates causality - as opposed to being the product of an online hoax originating in the late 1990s that has managed to dupe the gullible and grossly scientifically illiterate into the belief that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
"Am I to begin fighting climate change by paying a carbon tax to fund more chemicals for the geoengineering program?"
What geoengineering programme would that be? GGR attracts reasonable funding, but mainly into ocean fertilisation strategies. SRM meanwhile which with the exception of some albedo modification is in solely in the province of research proposal/computer modelling and in the case of SAI hasn't yet even reached the stages of small scale trial. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to invest money into understanding the economic, environmental and practical challenges of SRM before such measures could ever take place.
"Shall I write a check to psychopath David Keith so he can poison me more?"
How precisely does David Keith "poison you" when there isn't even any agreement upon the materials that would be employed by SAI to best replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols? Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. As I said, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - yeah, that's right, chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
"Please explain the aluminum, barium, desiccated red blood cells, fungi and the plethora of other chemicals that are found in the soil?"
Aluminium and barium are naturally available - and the former is the the most common metal on the planet whilst being the third most abundant element in the earth's crust. We can indeed address that - but first, let's commence with your claims of "desiccated blood cells" whatever that is supposed to mean. Analytical samples please - as opposed to some bullshit link to charlatan and one of the perpetrators of this fraud, Clifford E Carnicom. Go ahead, present your data together with the methodology.
"Explain the change in soil pH."
What "change in soil pH? Acidic soils have always been problematic for farmers occurring due to an increase in concentration of hydrogen ions. There are many reasons for this...none of which pertain to large white plumes in the wake of commercial aircraft cruising at 30,000ft. The main cause of soil acidification is inefficient use of nitrogen, followed by the export of alkalinity in produce. Ammonium based fertilisers are also major contributors to soil acidification.
"Please explain the insane flight paths and the unmarked fuselages of these aircraft."
Why do you suppose that any livery or markings should be visible on an aircraft cruising in the tropopause or lower stratosphere captured in the form of amateur shaky cell phone footage that you clowns post as supposed evidence? If you are in possession of the necessary equipment - this is what you will see...
https://youtu.be/IiEj267kcmo
"Yes, I see them up close and personal because they take off right over my house! I can tell the difference between a chemtrail tanker and a commercial aircraft."
Which is? Don't say it, demonstrate this.
"I've been watching this crime for two decades now, and I know these are not normal aircraft contrails."
Splendid, then you could become the very first of your ilk to actually define both your precise qualitative and quantitative methodology to allow the differentiation between a contrail and a chemtrail and provide statistics as to the reliability and error margins of your method. Your alternative is to admit that you have no such methodology. Go ahead.
"Your pseudo-intellectual nonsense...."
...Look what you did, you broke it -
https://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://izenmeme.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/i_meter5.gif&key=e8afe5c7f0f6f609f441e3f3a5a92d9cdf393094dde3927c39e0a43b0ec88fa6
To remind you, you said this...
"Please explain the aluminum, barium, desiccated red blood cells, fungi and the plethora of other chemicals that are found in the soil?"
...and your point was? Oh, hang on...
"does not convince those of us who have actually watched the sky for many years and remember what a real sky is supposed to look like."
To whom to afford credence? A journal published paper into the microphysical properties of contrail cirrus on behalf of a team of renowned atmospheric physicists and meteorological specialists supported by applied mathematics and known physical laws?....
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
....Or a cretinous community of credulous gullible scientifically illiterate buffoons trolling on the comments section of a video entertainment platform that subscribes to an online hoax that had managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? Hmmm., tough choice that.
Incidentally, do feel free to falsify and refute the "pseudo intellectual nonsense" contained in the above paper - perhaps commencing with the applied mathematics in the form of binomial equations used to express the mixing densities/ratios associated with the contrail factor. You'll find them in section 4. When you've done that, by all means refer me to your comparable in - situ analytical studies of one of your supposed chemtrails at source. Given the supposed two decades of this alleged spraying, and in view of the hundreds of analyses into the microphysical properties of contrails, in view of the sophistication and availability of remote sensing and atmospheric monitoring technology, you must have similarly volumes of hard data to be able to present.
"You people are not fooling anyone except for the typical dumb-downed, hopeless sheeple who will never connect the dots."
Again, a coal shovel to clear up that metric ton of unintentional irony?
"Sheeple" - Are you imbeciles capable of generating a scintilla or originality or the vaguest suggestion of any independent thought process?
Try again.
2
-
@shelleyhowell6678
"Oh congratulations, you're such a scientist."
Well I've worked in atmospheric and environmental science for the best part of two decades - so I guess you may be right. And yourself?
However, I am of no relevance to you - it's the established and known physical laws associated with my field that you appear to be contending here. By the way, how are you getting on with that? Only - you forgot to say.
"I have a memory, and I have the ability to observe the environment."
On the contrary, you clearly have serious and demonstrable deficiencies associated with both. However, I can help you there too since my specialism was ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) - so not only do I understand what I am looking at, I can measure it too. And the analytical data of your chemtrails at source that I requested? Looks like you forgot to present that too.
"I'm not buying your bullshit gaslighting technique."
The physical laws of the atmosphere are not obliged nor duty bound to conform to the arbitrary, ignorant and arrogant expectations of an online scientifically challenged conspiracy theorist. "You're not buying"??? So what? - unlike your internet conspiracy charlatans, I have nothing to sell. Moreover, science and the rational world doesn't give two shits nor a rats arse about the subjective opinions of a gullible dullard, trolling credulous anecdotal bullshit over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
Incidentally, given that David Keith's proposed Stratospheric Aerosol Injection doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Why should we believe assurances that all aircraft trails are merely traditional contrails, and that the patterns and clouds we observe are formed from contrails, when top scientists in the field don’t yet fully understand contrails?"
Because "top scientists" aren't casting aspersions upon their existence, like any specialist field, they identify that there is still much more to be understood about the science that governs their formation.
Marine biologists don't fully understand the process of coral bleaching and die off; seismologists don't yet have a predictive methodology for earthquakes, cetologists have yet to account for the observed supergroups formed by humpback whales, geneticists are continually refining their understanding of the human genome,
Anyone questioning that plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic are anything other than contrails is perfectly at liberty to obtain analytical data in order to prove otherwise. There are no such legitimate studies, no data gathered and no credible scientists that claim that aircraft trails are anything other than contrails.Why? because we understand what contrails are. - That they are formed by the process of burning a hydrocarbon fuel in cold humid air is not in question, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more to be understood about their microphysical and optical properties. Thats precisely what the scientific method aims to do.
"However, according to top atmospheric scientists such as Chauvigne et al (2018), contrails are not well understood."
You have cherry picked from and abstract which identifies a lacuna in the research and understanding of precise optical, microphysical and macrophysical variables that influence the lifetime behaviour of the contrail life cycle. This is what science does - continually pushes the frontiers of our understanding. Did you read the entire paper? Of course you didn't. The paper finds that adapting the statistical method based on the in situ optical measurements performed during the Contrail and Cirrus Experiments (CONCERT) campaigns and through the application of Principal Component Analysis demonstrates that studying contrail optical properties is an apposite model and approach by which to identify and discriminate between the different contrail growth stages and to better characterise the evolution of contrail properties.
Really - you're trying too hard.
Again, what's your point?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Charger R/T 1969
"You are a liar"
For the benefit of those reading this, do feel free to demonstrate why highlighting the inaccuracies in my responses supported by independently verifiable sources. You'll find that your contention does not lie with me, rather demonstrable physical laws that inform the science of aviation and meteorology.
"you obviously are an imbecile"
Again, no use saying it - demonstrate why.
"or are devoid of any logical thinking"
Would you like a shovel to clear up that metric ton of unintentional irony?
"and/or of course purposeful disinformation."
Which is?
"Chemtrails have also been studied by honest scientists."
Finally. Could you name them, together with their full credentials, specialist fields of expertise and link me to their publications in relation to chemtrails? There are hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails. Given the supposed two decades of this alleged spraying and the availability and technical sophistication of environmental monitoring and remote sensing the world over there must similarly be hundreds of in-situ analytical studies of your claimed "chemtrails" at source. If it's not too much trouble,would you mind linking me to one? Thanks ever so much.
"Also, contrails dissappear within seconds, or minutes"
Please do explain why - in particular why they can't persist for longer and also, why a claimed legal practitioner has the spelling ability of a seven year old?
"chem-trails last for hours."
Much like condensed atmospheric water vapour also can?....oh wait.
"You should be embarrassed by your coments."
Coming from an anonymous online keyboard warrior on the comments section of You Tube that thinks that "contrails disappear within seconds or minutes", offers little beyond simple minded incredulity and ad-hominem abuse and is unable to spell "disappear" and "comments"? - Not really.
How's that "legal career" coming along?
2
-
What does that have to do with the contrails under discussion in this video?
The $20 million launch of the recent Harvard Research programme is a drop in the ocean. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to understand the economic, environmental and practical challenges of geoengineering. The systematic dominance of physical science and engineering perspectives in geoengineering research encourages a neglect of social and environmental impacts. This negligence is characteristic of an approach that addresses symptoms but aims to leave the underlying conditions that spawned the problem in place. Yet the socio-political and socio-economic implications of large-scale technological schemes to “fix” the climate are profound: under existing global power relations, geoengineering is bound to be exploited for corporate and strategic interest.
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involves such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors.
I'll wager, (given the desperate attempts by the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory to conflate geoengineering with this online hoax), that you are referring Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. It does not designed to, as you say, block out the sun - rather reduce incoming insolation. Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Computer simulations have predicted other possible impacts of geoengineering schemes on the natural world. Injecting aerosols in the stratosphere could suppress rainfall and potentially interfere with monsoon patterns. Carbon farm monocultures could conceivably destroy natural ecosystems at a massive scale. Given that natural processes and systems are complex, non-linear, and in some measure chaotic and unpredictable, the overwhelming majority of effects that will ripple through our global ecosystems might only become apparent after geoengineering technologies are actually deployed.
Regarding SAI - even if it were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilitse the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
2
-
2
-
2
-
"No rain in the forecast and we have clear blue skies outside Atlanta, planes leaving the normal trail that disappears. When rain is coming like today I can literally see checkerboard designs in the sky basically as they cross cross and the vapor stays for 24 hours or more."
The duration of a contrail is determined by the immediate atmospheric conditions in respect to temperature, pressure and humidity. Persistent contrails can often be precursors of approaching frontal systems conducive to rainfall.
"I notice today while they are doing it I can see some rainbow effects in the mist they spray."
Why wouldn't you expect condensed atmospheric water vapour to scatter light? No different to a lawn sprinkler on a sunny day.
"Even the CIA director says they have been spraying for climate change calling it stratospheric injection."
I think you meant the former Director of the CIA, John Brennan - and no, he said nothing of the sort. Whilst appearing as a guest speaker for the Council on Foreign Relations, the theme of the talk was "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program for example, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications, including technological and science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a PESTLE framework. He broached a range of research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talked about anti -ageing technologies.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan says that "they have been spraying for climate change". Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Chemtrails are an online hoax based upon the misidentification of contrails and in an attempt to vindicate their claims, perpetrators and believers in this conspiracy theory are increasingly intentionally conflating it with research into Solar Radiation Management. In the unlikely event that SAI was ever deployed, you would know about it because it would be publicised, just as you know about the research because it has never been hidden. You would not however know about it because of a large white plume in the wake or a civil airliner, as in the footage contained in this video. SAI would take place at double the altitudes of the aircraft you are witnessing taking the form of a fine mist and very probably in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns. Currently, one of the major problems that it confronts is the fact that there is no aircraft in existence that could convey the necessary payload to the designated altitudes. This would require a heavily modified fleet, or entirely new designs, which would be prohibitively expensive.
What do research proposals into SAI have to do with the misidentification of contrails? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection exists solely in the province paper based hypotheticals and although a small scale trail is designated for next year involving a ballon and a few kilograms of calcium carbonate to measure dispersal, there is not even agreement upon the material to be used to simulate the cooling effects of a volcanic aerosols. As I said, it is very unlikely that this would ever become a reality due to appreciable logistical barriers, geopolitical ramifications, governance and opposition both within and outside the scientific community, were it ever to be deployed in a last ditch attempt to mitigate global warming, it would be imperceptible to the ground based observer and certainly wouldn't resemble condensed atmospheric water vapour that you are seeing.
2
-
2
-
@TCM215
"ok cool so how have contrails in the last 25 years gone from trails we can observe for around 5 min at most to trails that prevail in the sky for 12 hours"
Utterly incorrect. Persistent contrails have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation.
In Flight to Arras. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942).
the following paper is almost five decades old.
" Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"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." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Check Dane Wigington"
Con artist, and career conspiracy theorist.
"Dane has a background in solar energy. He is a former employee of Bechtel Power Corp. and was a licensed contractor in California and Arizona."
He was a fitter. So what?
"Geoengineering is the artificial modification of Earths climate systems through two primary ideologies, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)"
Correct. It is a very broad term divided into two branches, GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists on paper and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be employed. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
To be clear, the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. It originated in the late 1990s on the late night radio shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM a sensationalist commercial radio station that to this day manufactures conspiracy theory and gossip because it boosts ratings and thereby advertising revenue. The internet now works in the same way and entertainment platforms/social media has seen the burgeoning proliferation in conspiracy theory which is lucrative for all concerned. The perpetrators of this fraud such as Wigington have simply conflated their hoax with research into geoengineering in an attempt to gain credence and legitimacy to their claims. Let's be clear, if the believers in this bullshit are stupid enough to subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to convince them that a cloud is a conspiracy theory then they are unlikely to be able to understand the technicalities and differences when it comes to SIA or cloud seeding.
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer to to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the contrails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@calotcha108
"So, you're saying that we can know their location of departure and destination?"
By accessing MLAT, yes, very inexpensively.
"And yet no one has tracked the origin and destination of these chemtrail planes to debunk the theory behind them?"
Why would they given that "Chemtrail Planes" don't exist? You are the one alleging that they do. The onus does not lie with the rational world or the commercial aviation sector to mitigate for the incredulity of a small bunch of online conspiracy theorists that don't understand civil air traffic. Moreover, as the ones making these claims the burden of truth lies with you to provide evidence. Don't expect others to prove an absent.
"Yet i've seen photos of the chemical containers inside these planes"
No, you've seen images dishonestly appropriated by You Tube conspiracy videos.
Odd don't you think that they bear an uncanny resemblance to these...
https://youtu.be/IxMSoxzYhG8
https://youtu.be/Oz1RH6gqQ8s?t=19
https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/washington/737max-flight-test-prepare-02-12-18.page
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/peek-inside-boeing-747-8/
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/5636164/24
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6188301
"and much, much more that lead me to believe that there is something "
going on"
Science is not about belief. Instead of seeking explanations on You Tube, why not read up on some objective and independently verifiable sources and learn about aviation and meteorology instead?
"whether it's weather modification or whatever else anyone wants to think."
Weather modification is the legal terminology for cloud seeding which is a commercial enterprise, doesn't leave a trail, involves light aircraft, does not involve spraying and is conducted at a fraction of the altitude of the contrails under discussion in this video.
2
-
@calotcha108
"Yet what you forget is that science can blind us."
The rudiments of the principles governing the formation of a contrail are not hard to grasp. Granted, the applied mathematics expressing the contrail factor, less so.
"Well, how many times has science been wrong?"
The entire rationale of the scientific method is to a falsify and attempt to disprove its precepts...which is why conspiracy theorists run a mile from it.
"I choose to believe in my senses, in what i see and experience regardless of what science says."
No, you choose to believe online charlatans and deceptive You Tube conspiracy theory videos, which is precisely the reason that you think that ballast barrels involved in prototype testing of aircraft are "chemtrail interiors".
"If you ask me, science is like religion (not many see this, you bet)."
Known science obeys ineluctable physical laws and must be tested, reproduced and empirically validated. Religion is an unfalsifiable system based upon belief.
"Evidence is always based on what we choose to believe and accept as real"
Absolute arrant nonsense. Scientific evidence relies on data, and it is crucial for researchers to ensure that the data they collect is representative of the “true” situation. This means using proved or appropriate ways of collecting and analysing the data and ensuring the research is conducted ethically and safely. Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested and reproducible.
"Yet from my own personal experiences, i've touched and discovered what science had not touched and will not touch for a long time all because science has to wait for what is evidence to it."
You are "touched" by the classical universe, and the core of your existence can be reduced to the realm of quantum physics; you experience, electromagnetism and the force of gravity - but we as of yet lack a grand unified theory. The science of contrails however is understood, demonstrable and supported by applied mathematics and self evident physical laws.
"Did you know that most everything science discovers was at one point already discovered by regular people with no science background?"
Examples?
Let's commence with an MRI scanner.
"Yeah, science can be a drag, i tell you."
Indeed - curse that device that enables you to type this, or damn that infernal stem cell technology that regenerates damaged tissue and saves lives.
"So, i just move on"
No you don't - you are happy to live off the spoils of technical advancement and expertise, you just refuse to acknowledge it and understand it. Precisely the reason that you subscribe to a baseless online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
"without having to wait for science or some politicians, doctors, and so on"
Physical laws are not set by any of the latter. They are axiomatic and thereby have a voice of their own.
2
-
@calotcha108
"Exactly! Except that we think we know what the laws are."
As I explained, the physical laws governing the formation of contrails are axiomatic and thereby self evident. They are also expressed by applied mathematics. Simply because this eludes your understanding, that does not invalidate them.
"Btw, just because i use and enjoy many of our technology doesn't mean i am to blindly accept and embrace every single bs technology that is out there, do i?"
What you choose to accept or reject has no bearing upon reality.
Also, odd that you said this...
"Yeah, science can be a drag, i tell you. So, i just move on without having to wait for science or some politicians, doctors, and so on. ;)"
Then on another thread - posted this.
https://youtu.be/0NCI8xYnJtE
Sounds as though so long as "science" selectively says what you want to hear, that's fine - (even though there are no "Doctors Pilots or Scientists" in this video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelfee2022
"Condensation trails sure did get much longer in the last few years?"
No, they became more prevalent. The length and duration of a contrail is a function of temperature, pressure and humidity - this has been known, recorded, documented and understood since the early advent of jet powered aviation irrespective of what your junk online conspiracy theory tells you to believe.
"I wonder how that happened."
Your personal incredulity is of no consequence and utterly irrelevant in the rational world.
"I'm sure your entire field of atmospheric globalists....I mean of science and meteorology..."
Not interested in politics and opinions, known science and physical laws of the atmosphere are axiomatic, demonstrable, ineluctable and thereby speak for themselves.
"can explain how condensation trails can stretch approximately 10 miles at only about 15 thousand feet."
Unlikely - although not impossible. What's your point?
"I notice condensation trails..I mean the real condensation trails only extending about 5 plane lengths behind a jet at 25,000 ft."
And how have you established this? If the atmospheric conditions are conducive to their formation, contrails will commonly occur at altitudes between 18,000 ft and 45,000 ft - in the tropopause and lower stratosphere, they may also stretch for in excess of 100 miles.
"Aren't these trials supposed to be longer the higher up you are because of the temperature?"
I suggest that you familiarise yourself with dew point, dry and adiabatic lapse rates and understand the contrail factor. The applied mathematics/binomial equations are presented below - do feel free to falsify the contents of the following papers...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281997%29036%3C1725%3ACOACFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1017/S1350482799001115
Contrail factor and propulsion:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/2.2976?journalCode=ja
1
-
@UCOthrOWW5fsUJI1z1-Ap7uQ
Thank you for your civil and courteous response Michael.
"All I know is if what you say is true than than the atmosphere above my house must have really changed."
"What I say" is of no consequence. Like I said, the known physical laws of the atmosphere and established meteorological science is axiomatic and thereby has its own voice. The atmosphere above (and surrounding) your house is very likely more polluted (depending upon your location of course), the main change 'over your head' (no pun intended, although evidently so) is the unprecedented growth in demand for air travel consequently leading to the exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector and associated routes flown.
"I never saw the sky look the way it has looked lately 10-20 years ago."
Ten years ago - yes, twenty, not so much. Interesting how so many of the believers in this hoax cite "20 years ago" which coincides with the origin of this conspiracy theory on Coast to Coast AM.
"Back then the only contrails you would see on a clear day in any of the four seasons was a jet flying well in excess of 20k ft and those trials would never go across the entire sky to slowly widen then dissapate."
I can assure you that this wasn't the case and there are studies, photographs and documented evidence to the contrary. Once again, in an ice saturated environment a contrail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state - invisible water vapour. This may then spread due to wind shear and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. Again, there are many journal published papers that have studied the radiative forcing effects of such contrail cirrus. Here are a few -
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/550c/b87d270f60c81c40b6446909342d388e26a0.pdf
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04068-0
The following paper 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."
from Peter Kuhn," Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970)
Or the following -
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometres is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”
Taken from RG Knollenberg "Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail" 1972.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
In "Flight to Arras" by French author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry published in 1942 the author recounts his role in the Armée de l'Air as pilot of a reconnaissance plane during the Battle of France in 1940.
''The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside''.
"I will say that the pictures here don't look like condensation trails to me."
You will say? - Fortunately science offers an explanation for each one. All of these images can be explained - incidentally, you may wish to look into the phenomena of a roll cloud/morning glory which one of your pictures captures.
Every meteorology and cloud reference book published since the 1920's explain how and why a contrail may dissipate rapidly, persist for many hours, or persist and spread across the sky. You can hold a beat up and yellowing meteorology book published decades ago that not only explains what you are seeing in the sky, but also contains photographs of persistent contrails -- again, from decades ago -- that completely match what you are identifying as chemtrails in your images.
"Also wasn't this finally admitted by the CIA?"
If you care to believe sensationalised monetised straplined sensationalist You Tube conspiracy videos.
During his address to the Council on Foreign Relations, former head of the CIA John Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts.Brennan is discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a PESTLE framework. Research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice - he even discussed future implications of anti-ageing technologies.
Do feel free to cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"These people also seem to be rational in their thought processes as well."
???? So you link me to a chemtrails conspiracy video posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, featuring proponents of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, assembled by the main perpetrator of the chemtrails conspiracy theory as proof of the chemtrails conspiracy theory????
Rational? One of them, Iaraja Sivadas believes that the superheated exhaust from a jet engine is analogous to your breath on a cold day!!!
This is Dane Wigingtons's farcical Shasta hearing from nearly a decade ago which astonishingly is still being batted around the vacuous echochamber by the chemcult. Tell you what - name every person featured in this video, list their flying hours, their fields of expertise and their publications in respect of chemtrails. When you fail to do so, come back to me and I'll tell you who they really are - including the clown in the pilots fancy dress outfit.
I find it utterly astonishing that people increasingly reject science and empirical data in favour of online anecdotal You Tube videos and social media which believers in this nonsense brand as 'research'.
There are hundreds of in situ studies into contrails, now produce one similar analytical examination of one of your chemtrails at source.
All I can say is - good....luck...with...that!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Will Survive
"you disputed his claim as if he were wrong though."
He is.
"you seem positive they were contrails despite evidence"
What evidence would that be? Have asked him to provide it. The burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim.
"neither of you can prove what you claim in fact."
Other than the fact that they are identical to persistent contrails that as I said have been observed, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight. You could also assert that contrary to this they are the composed of magic fairy dust - doesn't make it any more valid.
"but chemtrails have been sprayed since since the 60's and years before that."
How interesting, since none of you can agree. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory originated in the 1990s largely through a piece of junk sensationalist 'journalism' by William Thomas and through the late night shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM, a populist commercial radio station that also sells cheap sensationalism to boost ratings and maximise advertising revenue. It was predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails and has burgeoned over the internet through the post truth era and the popularity of cheap online conspiracy theory. Now it seems chemtrails are whatever you want them to be, with its perpetrators and believers assigning all manner of false equivalence and association fallacy to validate their claims.
"so it's VERY possible chemtrails were in the film, NOT just contrails. cool hand luke was released in '67. 2 hippies filmed at Woodstock in '69 can been seen asking, "why are they seeding the clouds?"
So what? At the time Operation Popeye was being deployed in Vietnam and although classified, the subject of cloud seeding had gained increasing attention in the press and scientific circles, particularly through attempts at hurricane mitigation. A couple of acid fried hippies are a reliable testimony? It rained during the festival...hardly uncommon at that time of year in upstate NY. So two paranoid hippies thought that the government had made it rain on a field full of insurgents?
"so it very well may have been cloud seeding spray."
Cloud seeding spray??? Cloud seeding bears no resemblance to a contrail whatsoever. Cloud seeding does not create clouds like a contrail. It is intended to introduce additional nucleation typically via silver iodide flares rack mounted to the wings of light aircraft to be released into extant cumulus clouds - those already conducive to precipitation - and thereby induce rainfall, therefore it is typically conducted between 2 - 6 thousand feet as opposed to the trials that you are referring to that are formed in the upper tropopause and lower stratosphere. There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity. Cloud seeding is neither secretive and has been in the public domain for years. It does not produce clouds nor does it make lasting trails the environmental impact of the negligible quantities of silver iodide used is zero and it's not particularly effective either. What does this have to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory under discussion in this video and the persistent contrails captured in 1967 film?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timw7300
Do you people actually watch this rubbish or is it simply the confirmation bias of the strapline that draws you in?
So you present a link to possibly the most obligatory chemtrail conspiracy video, posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, produced by the main perpetrator of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, featuring fellow advocates of the chemtrails conspiracy theory about the chemtrails conspiracy theory as evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory???
I find it astonishing that this is still being batted about the vacuous echochamber so many years later. This is Dane Wigington's farcical Shasta hearing. None of the contributors are actually "Pilots, Doctors, or Scientists" - rather selected cronies assembled for this "hearing" organised by Wigington himself and associated with his lucrative fraud . Here's a challenge - list the credentials, individual fields of expertise, publications in relation to chemtrails and in the case of the clown in the fancy dress outfit that thinks a contrail cannot persist - individual flying hours/airlines flown for. When you fail to do so, come back and I'll tell you who they really are. Here's a start. In the case of the first "testimony" - Iraja Sividas (who ludicrously thinks that a contrail should be analogous to your breath on a cold winters day), I can tell you that (at the time of this footage) was a local mathematics teacher from Redding CA. Moreover, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" requires no credentials whatsoever to join.
You said the following remember?
"So why do so many Govt., agencies admit to spraying chemicals if it doesn't happen?"
What government agencies are you referring to and could you link me to these supposed "admissions" to chemtrails in the form of original quotations at source?
Confirmation bias at the ready...3...2...1 and cue John Brennan.
Off you go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheChrispylad
"Yeah. I see normal planes mostly, because they designed them to look normal"
Who are "they"?
"they spray most days, I say cloud seeding, yes, I but I mean to SAI"
As I said, why do you believe that SAI is in progress and why do you suppose that it would resemble a contrail or be deployed at half the altitude that the research designated it for?
"I believe the shape of clouds have changed"
"You believe" - established meteorological science is not obliged to conform to your arbitrary expectations nor is it in anyway duty bound to address or mitigate for the incredulity of a baseless online conspiracy hoax.
"I see the waved affect that has never been a common effect of clouds"
Undulatus Asperitus is indeed rare, but has nonetheless been observed, recorded for millennia and more recently studied and understood. Again - basic meteorology.
"I see how it covers the sun and follows the sun as a shield of sorts"
Cloud cover? Then it isn't SAI which as I keep telling you would be invisible to the ground based observer. Moreover, the relationship of cloud to the sun is entirely dependent upon the relative position of the ground based observer. It may be completely different only miles up the road.
"secret knowledge is thus, it's not known no one is going to tell you."
??? Research into SAI and solar radiation management has never been secretive or out of the public domain, which is precisely the reason that you are familiar with the term.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You all need to ask yourself this: why do certain people post over and over again, refuting the claim that there are chemtrails?
Why do certain people post over and over again, refuting the fact that these are contrails?
"You will recognise certain names."
Such as yourself?
"You may have noticed that when questioned, those people insist that they are doing it for entertainment. However no-one gets entertained for years and years, refuting someone's claim of chemtrails just for entertainment,"
And not in the interest of science of course?
"It isn't hilarious when people are worried for their lives and the lives of their families."
Because of an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? They needn't. All they need to do is learn some basic meteorology and stop subscribing to baseless sensationalist internet scaremongering. Personally, I'd be more worried about the deranged lunatics threatening to interfere with commercial aircraft or attack pilots and airline staff because the internet told them to.
Perhaps you should be more critical of the pernicious charlatans that perpetrate this cynical and wicked fraud - profiteering out of ignorance, fear and prejudice?
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/dane-wigington-e1354728857709.png
"Think, everyone, think. Clearly those people are being paid by someone or some organisation to post that chemtrails are not real.There can be no other motivation for posting over and over again except money (or military orders)."
The irony is excruciating.
"The fact that someone is willing to pay those people for years, surely adding up to substantial amounts (or willing to give them military orders) to post refutation of chemtrail claims, is very worrying and suggests that there is indeed something very serious going on with aircraft spraying"
Circuitous logic much?
And thanks to Mr, Neverlostforwords of Melbourne Australia. for sending in this week's spot the non-sequitur.
And what, I wonder, is your view of the following?
https://youtu.be/s7Fz6FRDcE4
1
-
@neverlostforwords
"I am interested in protecting the health of my family, friends, plants, trees, animals, insects and everything/everyone else harmed by chemtrails."
As opposed to genuine environmental and ecological concerns such as consumerism, ground based pollution and measured particulate matter from industry and traffic and in particular PM2.5? Do you drive?
And are you also I wonder, interested in protecting them from extra-terrestrial abduction, Bigfoot, ghosts and poltergeists, fire breathing dragons, demons, witchcraft and the zombie apocalypse?
And if God forbid one of your family is ill, do you consult with a medical practitioner and place your trust in evidence based medical science or would you entrust their welfare to a lay You Tube video or Dr Bill Deagle perhaps?
"That is the only reason I am keen to comment on (and explore) this subject."
But you don't critically "explore" at all - you simply feed and reinforce your preconceptions with repeated confirmation bias.
"I believe..."
And as I have told you on innumerable occasions, therein lies your problem. You thrive on conjecture. Known science is not about "belief".
"...that most (not all) others who have personally observed chemtrails are posting their observations and related thoughts out of similar concerns."
Concerns founded upon ignorance, fear and often vile prejudice which you seem oblivious to.
"Nevertheless, there may be a small number of such people who are profit-oriented or have other motives."
A small amount??? The entire cynical business of online conspiracy theory is predicated upon exploitation and gain. Most, if not all of these chemtrail websites are monetised. The big YT players thrive off advertising revenue generated by hits and subs. To those at the top of the tree perpetrating and perpetuating this nonsense you are simply the low hanging fruit, ripe fpr the plucking. These people harvest gullibility - and any attempt to expose them or debunk their junk science is explained away as 'disinfomation' or shillery. The internet has given everyone a voice - it is the uninformed with nothing of consequence to say in the rational world and are as a consequence generally ignored that frequently shout the loudest. Hence these irrational, illogical caps lock diatribes. Conspiracy theory sells the illusion of empowerment and significance to inconsequential lives. A fantasy in which you can sanctimoniously brand yourself as "awake" and others that challenge you as "sheep". How exquisitely ironic.
"However, my comment above was directed at those people who repeatedly counter chemtrail observations - the people arguing/insisting that chemtrails are misinterpreted contrails"
Present your best evidence to the contrary.
"I very much doubt there is a scientific motive for such people, however you claim to have one."
Do you also believe that a contrail can last between seconds and minutes You'll find most trolling this page do.
"Do you have evidence of a prior yt comment where you state that scientific interest is your motive? I would be interested to see it."
I will almost invariably refer chemtrail believers to meteorological sources pointing out that the science is axiomatic and therefore speaks for itself. I will also invite them to refute it - as you well know. And yes, in spite of this I have expressed that my main motive is to defend evidence based science although it has a voice of its own.
You haven't answered the question. Since you posted an excerpt of this as supposed legitimate source owing to the fact that the you tube video title had the word "chemtrails" in it, tell me, what is your view of the following?
https://youtu.be/s7Fz6FRDcE4
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joanginsberg9604
Whatever you watch on You Tube should not be automatically believed to be true - it needs to be independently verifiable - which this video is.
Sigh. This again? Really? How many times? Shasta County did not have any such 'enquiry'. You are referring to Dane a farcical chemtrails rally of July 15th 2014 organised by one of the main perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax - Dane Wigington, which culminated in a march to the Shasta County Supervisors chambers where they proceeded to bore the shit out of the few people present. Basically, nothing more than a bunch of ill-informed conspiracy cranks in a town hall. Most of these are Wigington's local cronies, others, career conspiracy theorists. One of them, Jeff Nelson, who has early onset dementia was even dressed up as a pilot, and another, Iraja Sividas, y'know, the clown that thinks that a contrail should be analogous to your breath on a cold day is a local maths teacher. Yes, there are I concede two medics present - but although Stephen Davis was a Chiropractic he is now a Certified Traditional Naturopath quacktitioner - and peddler of all manner of snake oil and woo. Dr. Hamid Rabiee a Neurologist at the Redding (Mercy Medical Centre) has since been struck off for sexual harassment of his patients and staff.
Nothing more than appeal to authority. There is no basis whatsoever for any of their ludicrous claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"According to researchers (Kaplan & Maxwell, 1994; Skubisz, 2010), anecdotal evidence is a valid type of qualitative evidence that can be collected by qualitative research methods that convert the anecdotal experiences into data for research analysis purposes."
Of course it is - who suggested otherwise? Have you actually bothered to read either papers? Let's take a look at the first.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259893812_A_Classification_of_Qualitative_Research_Methods
Er, yeah...this is a discussion about a range of qualitative (and quantitative) research paradigms particularly from an ontological and epistemological perspective. Summoning the work of Morse (1994), they acknowledge the value of “mixing reports (anecdotes), experiences, different situations to describe a sample or a combination of behaviours and reactions” in terms of epistemological value to the researcher. Much of the domain of their research is into interpretive methodology for the behaviourist. Amongst their conclusions are that qualitative researchers should try to identify personal biases in the research results and analyse them and if they can’t balance these biases, they should be clarified for the users.
Such enquiry is of particular value to the behaviourist, phenomenologist or ethnographer seeking explanations of belief systems and social constructs through the examination of values and bias.
https://www.scirp.org/(S(czeh2tfqyw2orz553k1w0r45))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1266504
Interpretive research can help us to understand human thought, perception and action in social and organisational contexts. Of course anecdotal evidence is crucial to such research - and from the perspective of Verstehen or Gestalt based philosophy for example - integral.
"So far, studies have not yet been conducted to collect and convert existing abundant anecdotal evidence on chemtrails into data for research analysis purposes."
Ask yourself why that might be the case? Why chemtrails are purely the province of subjective conspiracy theory as opposed to academia.
What's your point? There are no such studies that employ purely anecdotal testimony to prove the existence of the Sasquatch, or UFOs, of unicorns and fairies, yet plenty into the origins and derivation of the popular mythology or folklore underpinning such beliefs utilising the qualitative means that you speak of.
"So, while there is a huge volume of analytical data on contrails, there is also a huge volume of anecdotal evidence on chemtrails, awaiting legitimate research collection, conversion to data, and subsequent analysis."
In the purported twenty or so years that this alleged spraying has been in progress, not one comparable in-situ spectrographic analysis of your chemtrails exists at source, in spite of the sophistication and ubiquity of environmental monitoring/remote sensing.
Conveniently then, you are suggesting academic studies based solely on the anecdotal which is not what Kaplan and Maxwell advocate. (I am unable to find the Skubisz paper, do feel free to furnish me with a link and I'll take a look.)
So because a small community of online conspiracy theorists subscribe to a baseless hoax, then we should afford credence to their anecdotal testimony? I, along with billions of people in the informed and rational world are also witnessing the same phenomena and yet don't 'believe' in chemtrails. Approximately 110million people (over a third of the American populace) entertain the notion of creationism - that doesn't make it a reality. An objective researcher would be more interested in why and how this belief system has increased in prevalence - the existence of God, or the verification of intelligent design is unfalsifiable. Simply because someone says something on the internet, irrespective of how many that may be, it doesn't make it true. We inhabit a post truth era replete with cognitive bias and preconception. The research paper that you mentioned is concerned with methods to evaluate the meaning and construction of belief.
The chemtrail hoax was predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails and the fallacious belief that condensed atmospheric water vapour must dissipate within arbitrary time limits based upon this assumption (usually within seconds to minutes). Cursory examination of this comments section will reveal many such lay anecdotal observations based upon this claim which we can, due to known axiomatic, physical laws of the atmosphere immediately falsify and dismiss. (If you wish to contest otherwiswe then I would be happy to provide ineluctable proof). It doesn't matter what people think or wish to believe, if the initial premise which informs that opinion is incorrect, therefore the observation is worthless.
Whereas anecdotal evidence is sometimes the starting point of legitimate scientific investigation, it is all too often the ending point and every point of a pseudoscientific investigation. In the world of pseudoscience, an anecdote is the equivalent of a peer-reviewed, double-blind, repeatable scientific experiment with consistent results. Personal anecdotes are often the primary ammunition of those who deny science and in isolation are of no value to evidence. Anytime that someone uses an anecdote to argue that X causes Y, they are committing a logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is worth noting, that you can use the order of events to make a legitimate argument if you are making a probabilistic argument, and if a causal relationship has already been established. However, Using personal anecdotes as evidence of causation is logically invalid, and the rules of logic tell us that any argument that contains a logical fallacy is unreliable and must be rejected.
No one has collated your "huge volume of anecdotal evidence" on chemtrails because it is fundamentally flawed, based upon a false premise and moreover, would not withstand the independent objective scrutiny of the scientific method. If individuals are alleging that the white plumes that they are witnessing behind aircraft are anything other than contrails as a consequence of largely commercial air traffic cruising in the tropopause or lower stratosphere, then the burden of proof is incumbent upon them to provide empirical quantitative measurement to substantiate that claim. This is why Kaplan and Maxwell argue that although qualitative inductive reasoning is one legitimate line of research (which may incorporate the anecdotal), qualitative research and logical positivism need not be discrete. Your argument is based upon the perceived legitimacy of the product of an echochamber - nothing more. Unless proper reproducible scientific testing has demonstrated that X causes Y, you cannot conclude that there is a causal relationship between the two. Precisely why the perpetrators of this hoax rely upon solely the anecdotal, the realm of the internet bubble of cherry picking/self-referencing confirmation bias and run a mile from genuine scientific examination.
1
-
@neverlostforwords
Thank you for your civil reply this time.
"I cannot accept your word, your insistence, your argument, as proof, because what you have to say is not the published findings of legitimate, double blind peer reviewed, research."
What specifically are you referring to in the absence of your position/proposition? Chemtrails are unfalsifiable. However if one is to contend that contrails cannot persevere, must dissipate within "seconds to minutes" and do not ever spread expand aggregate and form clouds which is the central premise of the chemtrails hoax then you are incorrect.
The burden of truth is incumbent upon those making the claim - the onus does not lie with myself or science to disprove what does not exist, however in this case, mathematics provides proof of impossibility.
"I am not claiming to have "proof' of chemtrails."
How convenient.
"Clearly, I have made my own observations, however they are far from 'proof' of chemtrails, but form a very tiny part of the large (in my view, significant) body of anecdotal evidence to which I so often refer."
Which is? Could you provide some examples in addition to your own testimony. What "in your view" is the most compelling anecdotal evidence in support of the existence of chemtrails?
"That body of evidence should be analysed. So why has it not yet been analysed?"
Because, as I have repeatedly explained it is based upon a false premise involving the misidentification of contrails.
"The key reason it has not yet been analysed is that researchers do not believe that the body of anecdotal evidence is significant and, until/unless they do, nothing will be done. So my challenge, and the challenge for others who would like research (based partly on the anecdotal evidence) to be conducted, is to raise awareness of the significance of the anecdotal evidence."
What precisely is the significance of this anecdotal evidence then? Why do you regard it as legitimate and meriting academic investigation? Could you provide an example?
"I also understand that anecdotal evidence is not strong enough evidence on its own."
Indeed.
My background is remote sensing although I obtained a post graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology almost two decades ago. I understand how to derive measurement of the atmosphere and how routine an endeavour it would be, were a programme of spraying underway on the scale that chemtrail believers attest to be the case, to obtain unequivocal analytical data. Instead of conducting studies into the veracity and credibility of these claims why not simply measure these alleged trails at source? Why is it that those that contend that chemtrails are a reality not seizing this initiative? Are you saying that a "qualified, experienced, committed research team" comprised of advocates of the chemtrails conspiracy theory cannot themselves "design a rigorous and feasible project"? The answer to this question is quite simply that there are no such qualified or credible scientists that give credence to this fraud and the required level of such expertise simply precludes acceptance of such preposterous claims. Those capable already understand what they are looking at. One such methodology might involve Lidar measurements yielding in-flight determination of the location and spatial extent of the "chemtrails", and also to report extinction values to correlate with calculations derived from the microphysical data of contrails. A shortwave spectrometer will detect the "chemtrails" whilst UK Met the NAME III model can be used as a tool for modelling the dispersion of the "chemtrail". Direct active sampling can be conducted at source whilst passive sampling over time may be utilised for the longitudinal data.
"Lastly, here is the ref you requested"
Thank you, I will enjoy reading it.
1
-
@neverlostforwords
"I was simply stating that I cannot accept your word or argument that there are no chemtrails, only contrails. I would be more likely to recognise the published results of rigorous research, double blind peer reviewed."
Into something that doesn't exist? Why do you think that no one has published any results? If this spraying was real there would be a wealth of data and in view of the sophistication, ubiquity and availability of worldwide atmospheric monitoring it would be impossible to conceal.
"The dissipation claim may be made in some anecdotal comments and videos, but that does not mean that it is "the central premise" of the chemtrail argument."
What is then? Every chemtrail believer without exception that I encounter I have requested a methodology to allow differentiation between the two in addition to
providing statistics as to the reliability and error margins of the method. On the rare occasions that I elicit a response I am simply told that condensation dissipates within seconds to minutes and contrails don't persist, expand and spread into clouds.
"Only a rigorous analysis of (chemtrail) anecdotal comments, video narratives, etc can enable identification of a set of key differences between perceived chemtrails and contrails."
And what would that accomplish other than a collection of wholly subjective sources misidentifying contrails?
"I have yet to see that mathematics published as a result of rigorous research.The mathematical proof, if published, would form but a small part of the body of research on the (minimally researched to date) chemtrail subject but would nevertheless be valuable."
I'm referring not only to the applied mathematics underpinning the calculation of the contrail factor in the form of binomial equations but also the mathematical impossibility of a persistent horizon to horizon chemtrail.
"No, I can't do that, as it would be an injustice to the many videos and comments, and personal observations that I cannot instantly recall."
So this anecdotal evidence that you regard as being so compelling - you can't recall any of it?
"That is why a systematic research approach, reviewing accumulated anecdotal evidence, is required."
Why?
"My beliefs have been formed over several years and are based on my own observations and others' videos, observations, comments, etc."
Entirely subjective then. Known, established science is not about belief.
"It would trivialise the body of anecdotal evidence to select any examples, which would immediately be seized upon by you as the only evidence, or the key evidence, and discussed as such."
In other words, it is the only 'evidence' and is routinely debunked.
"As shown on many videos and in many comments, and as observed by me over the past two years or so, there is a vast amount of repetition of patterns linking aircraft movements, trails, cloudiness, cloud coverage of sun and weather movements more generally."
And how then have you removed the possibility that this is caused by condensed atmospheric water vapour? Also, "coverage of the sun" is relative to the position of the observer.
"The sheer quantity of such anecdotal evidence from diverse sources and locations around the globe, is significant, in my opinion."
Again, science is not about opinion. In spite of your use of the term "globe", are you also swayed by similar emergence of flat earth beliefs and does this afford legitimacy to UFO sightings, paranormal activity and folklore
"When experts do emerge, such as Herndon, they are immediately and systematically discredited."
J Marvin Herndon an expert????? He is discredited due to the fact that his work is demonstrably unscientific and fraudulent not through some conspiratorial witchhunt.
"I have seen this kind of treatment of people who refuse to toe the party line in the workplace, many times."
What legitimacy do you assign to any of Herndon's studies? Please feel free to provide and example. This one perhaps?
http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/JGEESI_42/2017/Jan/Herndon912016JGEESI30834.pdf
...In which he claims that "Contrails rapidly become invisible by evaporation whereas particulate trails spread out to sometimes briefly form artificial cirrus-like clouds before further spreading to form a white haze in the sky." Well there you go, that didn't take long.
An "expert" you say. You do realise that the above study of supposed chemtrail residue is actually bird shit?
Here's the comment and conclusion...
http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/JGEESI_42/2017/Apr/Scafetta932017JGEESI32479.pdf
"Further, credible researchers in the field would be risking their reputations and employment by researching a "conspiracy theory", particularly chemtrails."
You again fail to appreciate that given the global level of atmospheric monitoring this would be impossible to conceal.
"I would anticipate use of such an approach would be considered by the research team in any research project - which, sadly, remains but a pipe dream."
A pipe dream because there is no basis or substance to any claims that the trails people are seeing are anything other than condensed atmospheric water vapour caused by commercial air traffic.
Good to talk to you again.
1
-
@neverlostforwords
"This is hardly a recognised research method for increasing understanding of key differences between contrails and perceived chemtrails"
Agree, but as I said that is precisely what the chemtrail hoax is predicated upon, the notion that contrails can only last seconds to minutes.
"As mentioned in my previous reply, we cannot anticipate the results and findings of a future research project."
Oh I think you'll find we can.
"We haven’t yet seen rigorous research conducted that identifies the patterns of chemtrails, so until then, there is nothing to prove mathematically.
"
Of course you haven't, because your "chemtrails" are nothing more than persistent contrails - and there are a myriad of studies into the science behind these supported by applied mathematics. Those that contend otherwise have had two decades of this supposed spraying to prove otherwise and present hard analytical data. As I have repeatedly said, despite the availability and sophistication of atmospheric monitoring...to date no one has. I wonder why. Moreover, a persistent 100 mile long chemtrail is a physical impossibility. I have invited you to do the maths. Your hoax debunks itself.
"I can’t recall all of it, not “I can’t recall any of it”. You original request of me to provide compelling evidence is not possible as it is the accumulated anecdotal evidence that is compelling – not any single video, comment or personal observation. "
And as I said, this is entirely based upon the misidentification of contrails and natural meteorological phenomena. If you contend otherwise I am inviting you to state why.
"The accumulated anecdotal evidence is valuable, not a single anecdote. Data sets are valuable for research purposes – not a single piece of information (datum). I would not make a case based on one piece of information.
"
And once again, what do you think that this accumulated anecdotal evidence would be based upon?
"That is why I am proposing a rigorous research study.
"
Into something that doesn't exist? Ask yourself again why it is that in twenty years the perpetrators of this hoax, sorry, these beliefs, have not commissioned an independent investigation.
"I haven’t eliminated that possibility. That possibility is something that could result from a rigorous research study. I would be heartened if that was the result."
It is the result - and there is a wealth of data to prove it.
"A research project is always initiated by someone with an opinion about something.
"
Research begins with a hypothesis or a proposal. Data is collected in accordance to a defined methodology which is then analysed and tested and if the results are reproducible and vindicated a conclusion may be made. The initial hypothesis is then either accepted through demonstration, or rejected. The "opinion" you speak of is often in the form of an observation but frequently based upon evidence and the need to substantiate the latter. Since chemtrails are demonstrably misidentified contrails any claim of their existence can be immediately refuted unless equivalent analytical data is provided to the contrary.
"I find that his bio (on his nuclearplanet website) qualifies him as an expert in relevant physics-related fields. You find otherwise."
His "bio" on his own website? Herndon is neither an atmospheric chemist nor a meteorologist.
"Yes, of course others have tried to discredit him, just as they discredit all people who hold relevant positions or qualifications, who argue that chemtrails exist.
"
????? He attempted to pass off bird droppings as evidence of chemtrails. It has nothing to do with his qualifications, simply the fraudulent publications that he has made which are unscientific and grossly flawed in their methodology. Not only is he completely unable to coherently defend his research but he has demonstrated zero in the way of intellectual honesty and moreover a breach of professional ethics and integrity.
All people who hold relevant positions or qualifications who argue that chemtrails exist? Who precisely are you referring to?
"While it is true that published research on chemtrails is virtually non-existent, there is an enormous amount of ongoing research into the chemical composition and sources of aerosols in the atmosphere in various situations and locales around the globe, such as:
Xiao et al (2018) Chemical Composition and Sources of Marine Aerosol over the Western North Pacific Ocean in Winter, Atmosphere, 9(8). "
What's your point? The paper you have cited concerns heterogeneous reactions of a marine atmosphere. However, this is precisely what I have been imploring you to understand...and yet in spite of such sophistication of atmospheric monitoring the world over, not one credible detection of your chemtrails has ever been made.
"Atmospheric science could benefit from a study of perceived chemtrails via an analysis of anecdotal evidence of perceived chemtrails, that may provide interesting insights."
No it really couldn't.
That is like saying that astronomy could benefit from a study of astrology via the analysis of anecdotal evidence of horoscopes that may provide interesting insights.
Seriously, the rational world and the field of atmospheric science is completely indifferent to your online hoax.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1