I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

George B · Feb 29, 2012

It is amazing how few people understand how far ahead DoD is . . . . when compared with the rest of the world . . . If DoD and their support industry figured out global warming was a threat to the National Security. . . It was years ago and was computer simulated a billion times. . . .with all the mitigation schemes, etc . Evaluated. . . .The generation that came out of WWII and the cold war were not people to sit on their hands when there was a threat. . . Trust me if Edward Teller told them they should act they most likely did. . . And what they do . . . they almost never advertise. . . .

Noble1965 · Feb 29, 2012

George B said:
It is amazing how few people understand how far ahead DoD is . . . . when compared with the rest of the world . . . If DoD and their support industry figured out global warming was a threat to the National Security. . . It was years ago and was computer simulated a billion times. . . .with all the mitigation schemes, etc . Evaluated. . . .The generation that came out of WWII and the cold war were not people to sit on their hands when there was a threat. . . Trust me if Edward Teller told them they should act they most likely did. . . And what they do . . . they almost never advertise. . . .

Yeah, because we don't agree with you about "chemtrails"...that means we automatically don't understand what YOU understand about the DoD...

We are just clueless idiots about everything because we don't make the same assumptions you do...

Riiiiigghhhttt.......

Noble1965 · Feb 29, 2012

George B said:
Please tell me the names of the "respected scientists".

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management )

As early as 1974, Russian expert Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cooldown the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create ahaze. PaulCrutzen suggests that this would cost 25 to 50 billion dollars per year. Itwould, however, increase the environmental problem of acid rain.[7][8][9]

A preliminary study by Edward Teller and others in 1997 presented the prosand cons of various relatively "low-tech" proposals to mitigateglobal warming through scattering/reflecting sunlight away from the Earth viainsertion of various materials in the upper stratosphere, low earth orbit, and L1locations.[11]

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols_(geoengineering)

Tom Wigley calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one tofour years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by thevolcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

*yawn*

Impressive....

Still not evidence of "chemtrails".

Noble1965 · Feb 29, 2012

George B said:
George-

what do you think the single, most convincing piece evidence is that there is a spray campaign taking place?

Try not to obfuscate with lots of dots...just pick the single, most compelling piece of evidence.

Sorry, there is no one convincing piece of evidence . . . it is a whole picture . . . there are some I consider more important than others . . . If I had to give one it would be the power and clout of the Congressional Industrial Military Complex . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

So, since some men have power...

Chemtrails are real..

Got it!~

Thanks...

Noble1965 · Feb 29, 2012

George B said:
"Can you describe the scientific process you use to come to a conclusion?"

Sure, I used deductive logic using inferential circumstantial evidence and I weighed the preponderance of the evidence and it was IMO over 51% in support of an Intentional Aerosol Injection Program . . . which in US Civil Law is adequate for a finding of the court for the party presenting such a case . .. Hard Science is not the only process used to come to a finding .. .

Yeah, preponderance...

I don't see ANY evidence.

I see speculation and assumption.

Jay Reynolds · Feb 29, 2012

George B said:
Trust me if Edward Teller told them. .

George, I taught my children that if someone EVER tells them, "trust me", or "you can believe me", they should NEVER trust that person again.

I will never trust you for other reasons, but now you have given me another.

Billzilla · Feb 29, 2012

Noble1965 said:
Yeah, preponderance...

I don't see ANY evidence.

I see speculation and assumption.

Thanks, my point exactly.

Jay Reynolds · Feb 29, 2012

George B said:
Please tell me the names of the "respected scientists".

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management )

As early as 1974, Russian expert Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cooldown the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create ahaze. PaulCrutzen suggests that this would cost 25 to 50 billion dollars per year. Itwould, however, increase the environmental problem of acid rain.[7][8][9]

A preliminary study by Edward Teller and others in 1997 presented the prosand cons of various relatively "low-tech" proposals to mitigateglobal warming through scattering/reflecting sunlight away from the Earth viainsertion of various materials in the upper stratosphere, low earth orbit, and L1locations.[11]

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols_(geoengineering)

Tom Wigley calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one tofour years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by thevolcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

George thinks we are a bunch of idiots who don't realize that ALL so-called "chemtrails" are being created far below the altitude IN THE STRATOSPHERE where ALL of these proposals are telling him that geoengineering would have to take place to be effective. He also thinks that we are idiots who can't look at worldwide scientific data which shows that NO SUCH AEROSOL INJECTION HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE ON THE SCALE OF PINATUBO IN 1991 AS SEEN IN THE GRAPH BELOW!

GEORGE, I AM USING ALL CAPS SO THAT YOU WILL END YOUR REPETITION OF INANE BULLSHIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED.

GEORGE, DO NOT FURTHER INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE BY ENDLESSLY REPEATING CRAP, WE ARE NOT IDIOTIC PEOPLE, AND I FOR ONE AM FED UP WITH IT!

George B · Feb 29, 2012

Jay Reynolds said:
George, I taught my children that if someone EVER tells them, "trust me", or "you can believe me", they should NEVER trust that person again.

I will never trust you for other reasons, but now you have given me another.

Good thing to tell your children. . . .

George B · Feb 29, 2012

Billzilla said:
Thanks, my point exactly.

If it is a covert program . . .do you think they are going to make it obvious . . .by leaving hard evidence all over the globe. . . . these are not stupid people with a minimal budget. . . think about it. . .

George B · Feb 29, 2012

Jay Reynolds said:
George thinks we are a bunch of idiots who don't realize that ALL so-called "chemtrails" are being created far below the altitude IN THE STRATOSPHERE where ALL of these proposals are telling him that geoengineering would have to take place to be effective. He also thinks that we are idiots who can't look at worldwide scientific data which shows that NO SUCH AEROSOL INJECTION HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE ON THE SCALE OF PINATUBO IN 1991 AS SEEN IN THE GRAPH BELOW!

GEORGE, I AM USING ALL CAPS SO THAT YOU WILL END YOUR REPETITION OF INANE BULLSHIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED.

GEORGE, DO NOT FURTHER INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE BY ENDLESSLY REPEATING CRAP, WE ARE NOT IDIOTIC PEOPLE, AND I FOR ONE AM FED UP WITH IT!

1) So you will get it . . . I will put it in all caps as well. . . . ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere )

"Commercial airliners typically cruise at altitudes of 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) in temperate latitudes (IN THR LOWER REACHES OF THE STRATOSPHERE) This optimizes fuel burn, mostly thanks to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. It also allows them to stay above hard weather (extreme turbulence)."

See lines 168 & 178. . . .( http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf )

2) Something has changed the rate of global warming. . . What was it . . .? Seems sulfur compounds injection into the lower stratosphere from commercial aircraft could very well account for a higher rate of background noise than would have been there otherwise. . . without which the Radiative Forcing would have been even less. . .

George B · Feb 29, 2012

You wouldn't be the same Mr Reynolds. . . Would you????

( http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html )

-Jay Reynolds
*

Those Mysterious Lines in the Sky

This article originally appeared in hard copy form in the national*
newspaper VERITAS, Issue 21, 3/1/99, page 1. It has been updated and formatted with web links. Reprinted with permission from the publisher.

"Contrail Formation

The trail seen behind jet aircraft is formed by condensation, much like our breath does when we exhale in cold weather. The difference in contrail formation is that at the altitude that contrails form, temperatures are very low and the condensation droplets rapidly freeze into ice crystals. This occurs mostly in the upper troposphere and the upper stratosphere (5-10 miles high).*"

Did you make a typo. . . .upper stratosphere. . . .????

MikeC · Feb 29, 2012

George B said:
Did you ever hear of bait and switch . . . someone capable of coming up with a Global Climate Strategy can handle a few details like that . . . how about a few extra bucks in your paycheck and you are helping to save the world . . . ask the thousands of people who worked on the F117 and at area 51 all those years . . .

Got any evidence of anyone being paid any extra to look the other way??

"and it would be almost trivially easy to spot . . . "

No one has been looking . . . and what would they find Sulfur within the allowable maximum . . .

They would know the level of sulphur in the fuel.

And people have been looking - the source you quoted gave a level for the normal amount of sulphur in fuel these days - so someone HAS been looking.

And if people keep looking they will be able to spot levels consistently higher than that - in which case the amount will have increased.

You really are destroying your own case!!

Billzilla · Feb 29, 2012

George B said:
If it is a covert program . . .do you think they are going to make it obvious . . .by leaving hard evidence all over the globe. . . . these are not stupid people with a minimal budget. . . think about it. . .

I have thought about it and since there is precisely zero evidence there is no need to concern myself for something that doesn't exist.

Danny55 · Feb 29, 2012

I have often wondered WHY, when there is an abundance of evidence to show that "chemtrails" exist, the people with the evidence go and make more videos for sale, or print more t shirts for sale, or write more books for sale, rather than file a lawsuit.
Seems rather odd to me.

Noble1965 · Mar 1, 2012

Danny55 said:
I have often wondered WHY, when there is an abundance of evidence to show that "chemtrails" exist, the people with the evidence go and make more videos for sale, or print more t shirts for sale, or write more books for sale, rather than file a lawsuit.
Seems rather odd to me.

There's a sucker born every minute....

George B · Mar 1, 2012

"I have thought about it and since there is precisely zero evidence there is no need to concern myself for something that doesn't exist." . . .

Are you concerned about the probability of a solar maximum that NASA has been making public releases about for months. . . .? Whether real or not someone high up believes it is possible enough to construct a satellite early warning system for solar storms . . . Do you think global warming is not just as important???? Seriously . . .what has anyone done about mitigating global warming. . . .????

George B · Mar 1, 2012

Danny55 said:
I have often wondered WHY, when there is an abundance of evidence to show that "chemtrails" exist, the people with the evidence go and make more videos for sale, or print more t shirts for sale, or write more books for sale, rather than file a lawsuit.
Seems rather odd to me.

There are always people trying to make profit. . . that is why I don't visit their websites nor buy their products. . . Nor recommend going to their websites. . .

George B · Mar 1, 2012

Originally Posted by George B
Did you ever hear of bait and switch . . . someone capable of coming up with a Global Climate Strategy can handle a few details like that . . . how about a few extra bucks in your paycheck and you are helping to save the world . . . ask the thousands of people who worked on the F117 and at area 51 all those years . . .
Got any evidence of anyone being paid any extra to look the other way??

Click to expand...

"and it would be almost trivially easy to spot . . . "

No one has been looking . . . and what would they find Sulfur within the allowable maximum . . .
They would know the level of sulphur in the fuel.

And people have been looking - the source you quoted gave a level for the normal amount of sulphur in fuel these days - so someone HAS been looking.

And if people keep looking they will be able to spot levels consistently higher than that - in which case the amount will have increased.

You really are destroying your own case!!

And people have been looking - the source you quoted gave a level for the normal amount of sulphur in fuel these days - so someone HAS been looking.

Yes, and as long as the only source samples to test the fuel is controlled by a few people and even the testing and the reports . . . That would be what you expect if there is a coverup. . . .

George B · Mar 1, 2012

I must run. . . .will check in later. . . Good questions!!!!!

Noble1965 · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
Billzilla said:

I have thought about it and since there is precisely zero evidence there is no need to concern myself for something that doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

" . . . Are you concerned about the probability of a solar maximum that NASA has been making public releases about for months. . . .? Whether real or not someone high up believes it is possible enough to construct a satellite early warning system for solar storms . . . Do you think global warming is not just as important???? Seriously . . .what has anyone done about mitigating global warming. . . .????

People have cut down on emissions...there is a LOT less smog over the cities than there used to be. Isn't that a clear sign that we are running cleaner?!

It was years of unmonitored pollution which got us into this mess...and steps HAVE been taken to limit it.

And, AGAIN (for the 1003rd time) I don't say there is no way that there isn't something being done to mitigate "global warming" or shield us from solar maximums (which have occurred in the past)...

I'm saying the EVIDENCE to support the claims is BULLSHIT! It's just assumption, speculation and paranoid nonsense.

Is it any coincidence that those who believe that "the Government" is the most evil thing in existence...on all these conspiracy sites...are the ones who accept this "BULLSHIT" AS evidence?! It's a witch-hunt...pure and simple...nothing more! Those who fear the government have ALWAYS assumed that "they" are up to no good...constantly.

I see NO EVIDENCE that "chemtrails" are real...except the claims made by the same people who are constantly bitching about "them".

Just because we have environmental problems...doesn't mean that anyone is intentionally spraying anything to mitigate them.

Noble1965 · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
Danny55 said:

I have often wondered WHY, when there is an abundance of evidence to show that "chemtrails" exist, the people with the evidence go and make more videos for sale, or print more t shirts for sale, or write more books for sale, rather than file a lawsuit.
Seems rather odd to me.

Click to expand...

There are always people trying to make profit. . . that is why I don't visit their websites nor buy their products. . . Nor recommend going to their websites. . .

That's you...but the average morons will google "chemtrails" and be suckered into all this nonsense. That's what Will Thomas, and the others like him, are banking on...literally...and that's why people with multiple accounts on sites like GLP are pushing this ridiculous nonsense so much.

Noble1965 · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
And people have been looking - the source you quoted gave a level for the normal amount of sulphur in fuel these days - so someone HAS been looking.

Click to expand...

Yes, and as long as the only source samples to test the fuel is controlled by a few people and even the testing and the reports . . . That would be what you expect if there is a coverup. . . .

And you know that there are only a "few people" controlling this data...how?!

More assumption?!

There are SEVERAL schools with atmospheric science programs...which use all sorts of ways to collect such data.

Balloons, rockets, airplanes...and you actually believe that you know that all data about the levels of Sulfur is being controlled to a point where these atmospheric science programs wouldn't know the levels?!

Assumption after assumption after assumption...

And NOTHING to support your claims.

Mick West · Mar 1, 2012

[Admin note] This thread is getting rather confusing to read because (as already noted) of the unattributed quotes, or unusual ways of indicating quotes. I've been attempting to fix these so it makes sense, and people know who said what.

PLEASE use the "Reply with Quote" button if you are quoting someone. If you want to quote multiple posts then use the "Multi-Quote" button (to the right of the "Reply with Quote" button) - click on the posts you want to reply to, and then click on "Reply to Thread".

If you have any doubts about the readability of your posts, click on on "Go Advanced" and then you can "Preview Post" as much as you like before replying.

As a last resort, you can manually quote something by [quote=mick]enclosing it in quote=username tags like this[/quote] which results in:

mick said:
enclosing it in quote=username tags like this

Also avoid cut-and paste directly from the thread, as you get messed up fonts and bolding. And avoid chainging font color or bolding to indicate quotes. It's very confusing.

Thanks

solrey · Mar 1, 2012

Are you concerned about the probability of a solar maximum that NASA has been making public releases about for months. . . .? Whether real or not someone high up believes it is possible enough to construct a satellite early warning system for solar storms . . . Do you think global warming is not just as important???? Seriously . . .what has anyone done about mitigating global warming. . . .????

Solar Maximum a "Probability"? "Real or not"? "Possible enough"? That's got to be in the top five of the most ignorant statements in a thread full of ignorant statements.

Solar Maximum happens about every 11 years, pretty much like clockwork, DUH. We've been studying sunspot/solar activity with ground based telescopes for, oh something like 400 years, with the addition of various satellites over the past four decades of which SDO is just the newest addition to the fleet. An early warning system for solar storms is just one function of many involved in studying the sun with that fleet of satellites. "Someone high up believes" solar maximum is "possible enough..."?!? More like the entire community of solar and plasma scientists knows it's imminent...something like thousands of people. Not to mention anybody with even a modicum of scientific knowledge.
Double freakin' face palm.

In addition, over the course of the past two years the predicitons for the strength of solar cycle 24's maximum has been steadily downgraded culminating in the most recent prediction stating cycle 24 should be the weakest in about 100 years.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 63 in early 2013. We are currently over three years into Cycle 24. The current predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by George's comment since uninformed fearmongering over the coming solar maximum seems to be a common trait among chemtrail believers.

About adding sulfur to jet fuel. Considering dozens of refineries spread across the US produce jet fuel every day, exactly where and how would sulfur be added covertly to the ongoing supply of jet fuel?

And where's the massive increase in acid rain that would have to result from any sulfur injection scheme?

Not even gonna get into the whole "climate change" thing.

cheers

George B · Mar 1, 2012

Solrey said:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by George's comment since uninformed fearmongering over the coming solar maximum seems to be a common trait among chemtrail believers.

About adding sulfur to jet fuel. Considering dozens of refineries spread across the US produce jet fuel every day, exactly where and how would sulfur be added covertly to the ongoing supply of jet fuel?

And where's the massive increase in acid rain that would have to result from any sulfur injection scheme?

Not even gonna get into the whole "climate change" thing.

cheers

First of all I left out the word major or severity regarding the solar maximum . . . simple . . . I am quite aware of the solar cycle . . .

1) You don't need to add sulfur . . . you just don't refine it out . . . ( http://www.bellfuels.com/lowsulfur.html)

Simple just don't take as much out in the refining process . . .
• Crude oil has approximately 12,000 ppm of sulfur before refining.
• Clean Air Act of 1990 mandates tighter tailpipeemissions.
• In 1990,sulfur content in diesel is 5000 ppm. In 1993, sulfur drops to 500 ppm.

2) Very few refineries supply a large part of the aviation jet fuel and much of the jet fuel produced is produced in the US. . . . In 2005 US produced 73,634,000 Tons the next ranked country was South Korea with 10,755,000 tons . . . http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_jet_fue_pro_fro_ref-energy-jet-fuel-production-refineries

Second part to number 2 . . . limited sources of Jet Fuel . . .
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/A/abp_wwd_us_carson_city_fact_sheet_june_2011.pdf

Both BP facilities . . .

The refinery supplies approximately20% of the Southern California gasoline market and 50% of the jet fuel to theLAX Airport.

"The Cherry Point refinery is the largest of five in Washington with the capacity to turn 230,000 barrels of crude oil a day intogasoline, diesel and jet fuel. It's the third-largest refinery on the WestCoast. It produces 20 percent of Washington's gasoline needs and it supplies the majority of jet fuel for Sea-Tac, Portland and Vancouver, British Columbia, airports."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017632070_apwabprefinery.html

MikeC · Mar 1, 2012

Danny55 said:
I have often wondered WHY, when there is an abundance of evidence to show that "chemtrails" exist, the people with the evidence go and make more videos for sale, or print more t shirts for sale, or write more books for sale, rather than file a lawsuit.
Seems rather odd to me.

What is odd about making money??

Seriously - lawsuits cost money, merchandise makes money - it's not really that complicated!

MikeC · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
Yes, and as long as the only source samples to test the fuel is controlled by a few people and even the testing and the reports . . . That would be what you expect if there is a coverup. . . .

Got any evidence that the only source for fuel samples is limited to a few people involved in the cover up??

What's to stop you opening an account at your local airport fuel farm for supply of Jet A1 in salable quantities?? you might have to buy a minimum of a 44-gal barrel - but in the wider scheme of things that's not a massive expenditure.

Or approach a nearby FBO to buy from them, or see if you can come to an arrangement with an aircraft owner to purchase or just take away his overnight fuel tank drains - or to purchase fuel from his tanks as part of a testing programme?

You invent possible scenarios to show how this could be kept secret - but you ignore the very real possibilities that exist to actually make it happen.

George B · Mar 1, 2012

MikeC said:
Got any evidence that the only source for fuel samples is limited to a few people involved in the cover up??

What's to stop you opening an account at your local airport fuel farm for supply of Jet A1 in salable quantities?? you might have to buy a minimum of a 44-gal barrel - but in the wider scheme of things that's not a massive expenditure.

Or approach a nearby FBO to buy from them, or see if you can come to an arrangement with an aircraft owner to purchase or just take away his overnight fuel tank drains - or to purchase fuel from his tanks as part of a testing programme?

You invent possible scenarios to show how this could be kept secret - but you ignore the very real possibilities that exist to actually make it happen.

Not bad suggestions . . . however, I am not much of a technical whiz about such things and I'm a Lone Ranger so don't think I will get around to do any of those things but would love to see someone try . . . Never the less . . . if my theory is true . . . I think there would be two sources for any such samples sold to the public, or to anyone not a long haul aircraft . . . from fuel source direct to the aircraft . . . that would be the way I would do it . . . but the fuel tank drains seem promising, but would they not have the highest chance to be contaminated??

Noble1965 · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
Not bad suggestions . . . however, I am not much of a technical whiz about such things and I'm a Lone Ranger so don't think I will get around to do any of those things but would love to see someone try . . . Never the less . . . if my theory is true . . . I think there would be two sources for any such samples sold to the public, or to anyone not a long haul aircraft . . . from fuel source direct to the aircraft . . . that would be the way I would do it . . . but the fuel tank drains seem promising, but would they not have the highest chance to be contaminated??

No kiddin'?!

George B · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
1) So you will get it . . . I will put it in all caps as well. . . . ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere )

"Commercial airliners typically cruise at altitudes of 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) in temperate latitudes (IN THR LOWER REACHES OF THE STRATOSPHERE) This optimizes fuel burn, mostly thanks to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. It also allows them to stay above hard weather (extreme turbulence)."

See lines 168 & 178. . . .( http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf )

2) Something has changed the rate of global warming. . . What was it . . .? Seems sulfur compounds injection into the lower stratosphere from commercial aircraft could very well account for a higher rate of background noise than would have been there otherwise. . . without which the Radiative Forcing would have been even less. . .

I would like to further address number two above . . . the contribution of the commercial air, whether the same ppm as the average of 500-1,000 ppm of Sulfur Compounds now presently in jet fuel or the spiked fuel as I have suggested with 3,000 ppm plus . . . could very much be part of the background noise and even as a small reduction in the amount of aerosol my friend keeps pointing to in his graph since the 1960(s) . . . and to the aerosols mentioned in the NOAA article . . . the source is suggested to be some small volcanic eruptions and and/or human activities . . . Why cannot these human activities be a modest yet significant injection of Sulfur Compounds into the high troposphere and lower stratosphere. . . .

NOAA study: Increase in particles highin Earth’s atmosphere has offset some recent climate warming

July 21, 2011A recent increase in the abundance of particles high inthe atmosphere has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade, according to anew study led by NOAA and published today in the online edition of Science . . .
The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, sayscoauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the CooperativeInstitute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanice ruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphereto form reflective aerosol particles.http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html

Sources of aerosols reach the stratosphere from above and below, as shown in the graph. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide (OCS), and dimethyl sulfide(DMS) are the dominant surface emissions which contribute to aerosol formation.Sources of aerosols reach the stratosphere from above and below, as shown in the graph. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide (OCS), and dimethyl sulfide(DMS) are the dominant surface emissions which contribute to aerosol formation.

MikeC · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
I would like to further address number two above . . . the contribution of the commercial air, whether the same ppm as the average of 500-1,000 ppm of Sulfur Compounds now presently in jet fuel or the spiked fuel as I have suggested with 3,000 ppm plus . . . could very much be part of the background noise and even as a small reduction in the amount of aerosol my friend keeps pointing to in his graph since the 1960(s) . . . and to the aerosols mentioned in the NOAA article . . . the source is suggested to be some small volcanic eruptions and and/or human activities . . . Why cannot these human activities be a modest yet significant injection of Sulfur Compounds into the high troposphere and lower stratosphere. . . .

(I removed the distracting formatting)

there is no reason why these human activities cannot be an increase in sulphur injection.

however there is no evidence that they are actually being done, and if they WERE being done, t could nto be secret.

There has never been an doubt that humanity COULD do a lot of things.

But that is not the same thing as those things actually being done.

If you are suspicious that they MIGHT e done some day then welcome to the club.

Otherwise I am struggling to see what point you are trying to make.

MikeC · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
Not bad suggestions . . . however, I am not much of a technical whiz about such things and I'm a Lone Ranger so don't think I will get around to do any of those things but would love to see someone try . . . Never the less . . . if my theory is true . . . I think there would be two sources for any such samples sold to the public, or to anyone not a long haul aircraft . . . from fuel source direct to the aircraft . . . that would be the way I would do it . . . but the fuel tank drains seem promising, but would they not have the highest chance to be contaminated??

It wouldn't have to be you doing it, and I'm sure doubters or worriers could organise at your suggestion or by self realisation or whatever.

Fuel in the tanks is what is actually going to be burned - and it needs to be uncontaminated by water & bacteria that are the most common problems. Certainly you can get a lot of water in an overnight fuel drain - but that can be separated out without much bother & the fuel component tested.

George B · Mar 1, 2012

MikeC said:
(I removed the distracting formatting)

there is no reason why these human activities cannot be an increase in sulphur injection.

however there is no evidence that they are actually being done, and if they WERE being done, t could nto be secret.

There has never been an doubt that humanity COULD do a lot of things.

But that is not the same thing as those things actually being done.

If you are suspicious that they MIGHT e done some day then welcome to the club.

Otherwise I am struggling to see what point you are trying to make.

That is where we disagree . . . I think there could some type of covert program to spike fuel and me thinks the institutions involved are capable of maintaining secrecy . . . or at least use occasional dedicated flights to inject a booster shot into the lower stratosphere . . .

George B · Mar 1, 2012

I would like to address the premise that hard Science is the proper or only tool one must use to prove the existence of an active and ongoing Intentional Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program . . . other methods are used every day by the average person . . . common sense, connecting the dots, intuition, circumstantial evidence and a preponderance of evidence . . .

The proper use of the Scientific method requires valid observable and reproducible data which is measurable using reliable calibrated and well functioning measuring devices of multiple types . . . It is best accomplished when the testing environment can be isolated so to create a situation where multiple variables which are felt to effect an outcome can be isolated . . . and one at a time eliminated or added back into the experiment to test the contribution they mak eto the outcome . . .

The problems with the existence of the Injection Program:

1) The system wherethe data is to be observed is in a totally open system, with an infinite number of contributing factors and contamination sources . . . thus no way to properly isolate factors to properly test them separately . . .they are all hidden in the soup or fog of other factors . . .
2) The Program (if it exists) is by definition secret or covert and unlike other scientific investigations which do not have to contend with withheld or camouflaged data they obviously have an uphill battle . . . if Gregor Mendel had someone killing his plants he would not have been able to formulate the science of plant genetics . . . "Although the influence of heredity has been recognized since prehistoric times, scientific understanding of inheritance is a fairly recent event. Modern genetics begins with the work of Gregor Mendel,an Austrian monk whose breeding experiments with garden peas led him toformulate the basic laws of heredity." http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/mendelexperiments.html

3) There is no cohesive group of investigators, no real budget, and a lack of professional scientists willing to risk their reputation to be part of the process . . .

4) There are already in existence explanations for almost everything that is observable about the program and by tradition those explanations will always be accepted first before a new explanation will be considered . . . i.e. persistent contrails, contrail induced cirrus cloud banks, metallic particulate and combustion products from jet engine exhaust, Sulfur and metals with anthropomorphic and natural sources with sporadic spikes in concentrations possible from all over the globe . . . water and soil exhibiting hotspots from leaching from regular rain and acid rain, etc.

5) Conclusion: Because of the above factors it is IMO impossible to use the tool of Scientific Method (exclusively) to prove the existence of an Intentional Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program at this time . . . and this will not change unless and until real data is observable, measureable and separable from natural background noise .. so the insistence from the consensus of opinion on the Forum to use only the scientific method sets the standard too high for a theory which is in its infancy . . .

MikeC · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
That is where we disagree . . . I think there could some type of covert program to spike fuel and me thinks the institutions involved are capable of maintaining secrecy . . . or at least use occasional dedicated flights to inject a booster shot into the lower stratosphere . . .

You highlighted part of my post here I said:

MikeC said:
however there is no evidence that they are actually being done, and if they WERE being done, t could nto be secret.

Occasional flights are not going to achieve anything significant tho, and you still don't have any evidence even of that let alone anything more - it is nothing more than something you think could be done.

As I said - all sorts of things COULD be done.

If all you are here to do is highlight things that COULD be done then fair enough - but it seems a fairly pointless exercise

MikeC · Mar 1, 2012

GeorgeB said:
1) The system wherethe data is to be observed is in a totally open system, with an infinite number of contributing factors and contamination sources . . . thus no way to properly isolate factors to properly test them separately . . .they are all hidden in the soup or fog of other factors . . .

Not so.

There are ample areas where there is would be little or no contamination and evidence would be easy to directly attributable to some sort of programme - delivery of materials to air bases for example, provision of spraying equipment on aircraft, provisions of different grades of fuel to aircraft or airbases, briefing notes for pilots, mechanics, engineers, supply contracts, people who know about the programme (whistleblowers), various other sorts of documentation such as plans, discussions, etc.

GeorgeB said:
2) The Program (if it exists) is by definition secret or covert and unlike other scientific investigations which do not have to contend with withheld or camouflaged data they obviously have an uphill battle . . . if Gregor Mendel had someone killing his plants ...etc

I do not understand what this means in plain English sorry, and the argument by analogy seems irrelevant and pointless

GeorgeB said:
3) There is no cohesive group of investigators, no real budget, and a lack of professional scientists willing to risk their reputation to be part of the process . . .

Irrelevant - there are people engaged in measuring air quality all over the world on a daily basis. There are aircraft that you can hire to take samples, and labs you can use. You do not have to be a scientific professional to construct a solid case

GeorgeB said:
4) There are already in existence explanations for almost everything that is observable about the program and by tradition those explanations will always be accepted first before a new explanation will be considered . . . i.e. persistent contrails, contrail induced cirrus cloud banks, metallic particulate and combustion products from jet engine exhaust, Sulfur and metals with anthropomorphic and natural sources with sporadic spikes in concentrations possible from all over the globe . . . water and soil exhibiting hotspots from leaching from regular rain and acid rain, etc.

Same as point 1 - you are repeating yourself.

GeorgeB said:
5) Conclusion: Because of the above factors it is IMO impossible to use the tool of Scientific Method (exclusively) to prove the existence of an Intentional Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program at this time . . . and this will not change unless and until real data is observable, measureable and separable from natural background noise .. so the insistence from the consensus of opinion on the Forum to use only the scientific method sets the standard too high for a theory which is in its infancy . . .

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

In fact the scientific method CAN be used to show the existence of the supposed programme - arguments otherwise are excuses to avoid doing so.

George B · Mar 1, 2012

MikeC said:
You highlighted part of my post here I said:

Occasional flights are not going to achieve anything significant tho, and you still don't have any evidence even of that let alone anything more - it is nothing more than something you think could be done.

As I said - all sorts of things COULD be done.

If all you are here to do is highlight things that COULD be done then fair enough - but it seems a fairly pointless exercise

O.K. you tell me what else can be done in short order . . . in weeks or months to mitigate global warming . . . ? Something that the infrastructure is almost completely there and ready . . . ???

MikeC · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
O.K. you tell me what else can be done in short order . . . in weeks or months to mitigate global warming . . . ? Something that the infrastructure is almost completely there and ready . . . ???

?? I thought you were discussing the conspiracy that currently secretly sprays stuff in the atmosphere - not prospective plans that would almost certainly be public knowledge should they ever be implemented.

And where did "weeks or months" come into it?

This is just another attempt by you to shift the goalposts!

Billzilla · Mar 1, 2012

George B said:
O.K. you tell me what else can be done in short order . . . in weeks or months to mitigate global warming . . . ? Something that the infrastructure is almost completely there and ready . . . ???

Thorium nuclear fission reactors. Much, much safer than uranium reactors and the half-life of the spent thorium is not something like a hundred thousand years like for uranium, but more like 300 years.
Dense Plasma Fusion reactors. Not ready right now but they should be ready for commercial use in about a decade. (so about 120 months)
Both those power supplies have zero emissions, can provide all the base load we would ever need without having to resort to any solar panels or windmills.

Battery technology is hopefully getting close to being able to make a power cell that is vastly better than what we have, though I don't have any firm examples yet sorry. (maybe graphene-based ones) If they work as hoped, you will be able to have a car that can go the distance like a petrol-fuelled one.
Aircraft are a bit more of a problem due to the endurance needed so I can't see kerosene-fulled jets being replaced any time soon - So you're going to have to put up with contrails painting lines in the sky, which is likely to happen more often as the climate changes.

I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Senior Member.

Senior Member.

Senior Member.

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Closed Account

Senior Member.

Senior Member.

New Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Administrator

Senior Member.

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Closed Account

Closed Account

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

New Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Closed Account

Closed Account

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Closed Account

Closed Account

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Closed Account

Senior Member.

Similar threads