Historical Aerosol Thickness Debunks "Chemtrails are Geoengineering"

[George B]

George, my years of experience have shown me that the same situation exists worldwide in every part of society its just a part of the nature of humans.
We have documented deceit and manipulation within the chemtrails promotion power structure which, besides being morally wrong, wasting people's money(look at John Whyte who's out $10's of thousands), generates great negativity, and amounts to a actual threat to human life.

Why do you accept their deceit and manipulation by being a "chemtrails advocate"?

Why not actively join the fight against this?

Is it because you have, some time ago, fallen prey to this deceit and manipulation?

If so, having the knowledge you do now, you should be all the more against them, why not use that knowledge for good, to allow others so manipulated to rise up the ladder and free themselves?

1) I never fell into their deceit because I never listened to them from the beginning . . . I don't even know to this day who they are . . . including this "John Whyte" . . .
2) My position is based almost entirely on research and testimony from the government, historical accounts, the scientific community, legal sources, theUN (IPCC) , international Sources, NASA, NOAA, DoE . . . etc. I have learned more about the Chemtrail community from this Forum than from any other source .. . I don't watch their videos and I don't visit their websites . . .
3) The shock I received was from things not directly related to Chemtrails . .. things like Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin incident hoax, Rescinded laws from the 1990s allowing testing of Bio-Chemical and Radiological agents on US Citizens and Military, the dumping of aerosols like Zinc Cadmium Sulfide on the US Midwest,Canada, and the UK in the 1950-60s and not finding about it and other human experimentation until 1995 when a partisan Congress blew the lid off it during Congressional testimony.
4) You have to understand this all happened while I was working for the jokers at a very high level . . . risking my life and the life of others in the defense of a machine that allowed this type of behavior . . . that stings and I no longer doubt the level of crap they are capable of . . . in the name of national security or whatever . . .
5) President Eisenhower was correct when he warned the entire country and world of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex when he departed the Presidency . . . they are real and they are nasty . . . and I have no doubt if they felt ICAAIP was needed for profit or to protect their power or their neck they would have no problem doing it under a veil of secrecy and intimidation . . . I have had a personal taste of both . . .
6) Can I prove people are spraying things in the atmosphere in secrecy . . . no. . . do I think it is possible . . . yes . . . do I think they have the technology, the will, the budget . . . yes . . .
7) Because of the above . . . I can not tell someone else who feels as I do that there is nothing to be concerned about . . . your government and the other players in the world are only concerned for your welfare . . . sorry . . . I will share the facts as I know them and I often try to point obvious things to people . . . like persistent contrails did exist before and how they form and create cirrus cloud banks, etc. . . . I never allow people to even suggest violence on any of my Threads and would immediately report such posts if they did . . .

 

[George B]

I have no reason to dispute that, especially in the light of the party convention last week.

But why implicate this lying with regard to a hypothetical secret program, of all things possible - something invisible, impractical, unprovable and obviously without any effect?

Isn't that a distraction from the lies that are really damaging, like the one that the rich must get even richer in order to improve the situation for the not-rich-at-all?

If it were not for all the research I have done over the last three years for and by myself . . . I might agree with you; however, it is all way too plausible for me to say it is just a lie . . . sorry . . .

 

[JFDee]

If it were not for all the research I have done over the last three years for and by myself . . . I might agree with you; however, it is all way too plausible for me to say it is just a lie

Natural laws are hard to lie about. Too many universities around the globe, too many scientists eager to call you out.

Not plausible at all.

 

[George B]

Natural laws are hard to lie about. Too many universities around the globe, too many scientists eager to call you out.

Not plausible at all.

And what data from what university precludes the existence of an ICAAIP? And what natural law keeps people from experimenting with geoengineering?

 

[JFDee]

And what natural law keeps people from experimenting with geoengineering?

None, but it would be noticed by someone.

Or are you seriously presuming that every single atmospheric scientist is in on it? From New Zealand to China?

Again, not plausible at all.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

1) I never fell into their deceit because I never listened to them from the beginning . . . I don't even know to this day who they are . . . including this "John Whyte" . . .
2) My position is based almost entirely on research and testimony from the government, historical accounts, the scientific community, legal sources, theUN (IPCC) , international Sources, NASA, NOAA, DoE . . . etc. I have learned more about the Chemtrail community from this Forum than from any other source .. . I don't watch their videos and I don't visit their websites . . .
3) The shock I received was from things not directly related to Chemtrails . .. things like Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin incident hoax, Rescinded laws from the 1990s allowing testing of Bio-Chemical and Radiological agents on US Citizens and Military, the dumping of aerosols like Zinc Cadmium Sulfide on the US Midwest,Canada, and the UK in the 1950-60s and not finding about it and other human experimentation until 1995 when a partisan Congress blew the lid off it during Congressional testimony.
4) You have to understand this all happened while I was working for the jokers at a very high level . . . risking my life and the life of others in the defense of a machine that allowed this type of behavior . . . that stings and I no longer doubt the level of crap they are capable of . . . in the name of national security or whatever . . .
5) President Eisenhower was correct when he warned the entire country and world of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex when he departed the Presidency . . . they are real and they are nasty . . . and I have no doubt if they felt ICAAIP was needed for profit or to protect their power or their neck they would have no problem doing it under a veil of secrecy and intimidation . . . I have had a personal taste of both . . .
6) Can I prove people are spraying things in the atmosphere in secrecy . . . no. . . do I think it is possible . . . yes . . . do I think they have the technology, the will, the budget . . . yes . . .
7) Because of the above . . . I can not tell someone else who feels as I do that there is nothing to be concerned about . . . your government and the other players in the world are only concerned for your welfare . . . sorry . . . I will share the facts as I know them and I often try to point obvious things to people . . . like persistent contrails did exist before and how they form and create cirrus cloud banks, etc. . . . I never allow people to even suggest violence on any of my Threads and would immediately report such posts if they did . . .

I actually doubt that you haven't been influenced by chemtrail conspiracy theories. I say that because I have looked at your earliest writing at other forums and can clearly see the influence. From what you've written above, if it is genuine, much of your motivation is that you have a grudge against something or somebody. There is palpable resentment in your words, but you are living in the past and this is a sign of weakness and makes you blind to what others see, which is the present state of things. You need to get over this and only then will you be able to begin to live in the present.

It may surprise you to know that such grudge motivation isn't uncommon among chemtrail promoters. William Thomas wanted to be a military pilot, but ran away to Canada to avoid the draft. Carnicom's family was abandoned by his military father.

You might read this and consider how to let this go:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/2010/07/8-Ways-to-Stop-Holding-a-Grudge.aspx

 

[George B]

None, but it would be noticed by someone.

Or are you seriously presuming that every single atmospheric scientist is in on it? From New Zealand to China?

Again, not plausible at all.

If one does not believe it exists or because of peer pressure one finds it silly to even contemplate . . . the evidence is easy to overlook . . . it is just part of the back scatter, background noise . . . it is just those little known and forgotten tropical volcanoes that NOAA refers to or an underestimated coal burning in China, India, etc. or some other anthropomorphic source in the Troposphere that somehow got pushed into the Stratosphere by some mechanism not totally understood yet . . .

There are success stories regarding the lowering of ground based ozone, sulfur compounds, lead, etc. . . . the sky (primarily Troposphere) appears to be clearing over North America and Northern Europe . . . and the global diming seemed to be abating in the 1990s . . . but something changed . . . a return to some atmospheric cycle, more dust storms, more coal burning than thought, more volcanic eruptions than estimated, What? Can some other unexplained, unaccounted for manmade source be part of the puzzle??

 

[George B]

I actually doubt that you haven't been influenced by chemtrail conspiracy theories. I say that because I have looked at your earliest writing at other forums and can clearly see the influence. From what you've written above, if it is genuine, much of your motivation is that you have a grudge against something or somebody. There is palpable resentment in your words, but you are living in the past and this is a sign of weakness and makes you blind to what others see, which is the present state of things. You need to get over this and only then will you be able to begin to live in the present.

It may surprise you to know that such grudge motivation isn't uncommon among chemtrail promoters. William Thomas wanted to be a military pilot, but ran away to Canada to avoid the draft. Carnicom's family was abandoned by his military father.

You might read this and consider how to let this go:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/2010/07/8-Ways-to-Stop-Holding-a-Grudge.aspx

It is rather simple . . . you are right . . . I don't turst "THEM" . . . I was highly rewarded by them some of my friends were destroyed . . . they are capable of what I am suspecting . . . and they have been involved in other programs similar in nature to the conspiracy . . . I have found no evidence they are not engaged in geoengineering . . . the trails in the sky are just a distraction to the whole issue . . . the people that I know were involved in the massive secretive programs such as SDI and Manhattan Project are the same people involved with the early development of the concept of geoengineering and weather modification . . .their favorite solution to global warming became sulfur compound injection into the stratosphere . . . they suggested it first . . . they computer modeled it . . . the only question is did they do it?

Grudge . . . ? No . . . feeling that the entire Nation including myself has been fed BS and treated like mushrooms . . . Yes!!! . . .LoL!!!

 

[Jay Reynolds]

. . the only question is did they do it?

That is what this thread is all about. The data show they didn't.

I forgot to mention, both Rosalind Peterson and Francis Mangels sued the US government over personnel matters, Michael J. Murphy hasn't shown anything about his background, which is rather suspicious, and I suspect he is a grudge case too.

You've already started the first two steps in getting over your grudge, George. Keep working at it.

 

[George B]

I actually doubt that you haven't been influenced by chemtrail conspiracy theories. I say that because I have looked at your earliest writing at other forums and can clearly see the influence.

Care to give some examples . . . I would be interested . . . much of the early posts were in regards to a formal debate between myself and 'The Guy' . . . I presented evidence during the debate that were from original sources . . . such as patents etc. . . . just becasue others used similar data to support their positions does not mean I got the material from them or endorse their positions . . . if you will look closely the vast majority of videos, etc. are from my own construction or have nothing to do with the chemtrail conspiracy movement . . . the rare videos used was from NASA, History-Science-Discovery Channel, etc. I used a study by Purdy to a certain degree . . . I got it from the Auburn University website on animal medicine . . . I later found out it was not peer reviewed . . . when you are the only researcher it will happen occasionally . . . and in 2009 was really the first time in my life I used the internet to do significant research . . . it has been a learning curve that many of you have known the pitfalls for a grater time . . .

 

[George B]

That is what this thread is all about. The data show they didn't.

I forgot to mention, both Rosalind Peterson and Francis Mangels sued the US government over personnel matters, Michael J. Murphy hasn't shown anything about his background, which is rather suspicious, and I suspect he is a grudge case too.

You've already started the first two steps in getting over your grudge, George. Keep working at it.

And there is where we totally disagree . . .

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, I'm not sure the amateur psychology stuff is useful Jay. Delving into subconscious motivation smacks of an ad hominem argument, and will only lead to conflict, not illumination.

 

[George B]

Yeah, I'm not sure the amateur psychology stuff is useful Jay. Delving into subconscious motivation smacks of an ad hominem argument, and will only lead to conflict, not illumination.

Thanks Mick . . . I was about to psychoanalyze Jay . . . but now I won't . . . LoL!!!

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Probably a good chapter for my book, "Why In The World Do They Hold On To Such Crap?"

 

[Steve Funk]

In Fleming's book "Fixing the Sky . . ." one of the 17 reasons listed why we should not start a solar radiation management programer is "The end of optical, terrestrial astronomy." The reflective particles would reflect starlight at night as much as sunlight during the day. I looked briefly for research on whether astronomical observation at Mauna Loa has been hindered by decreasing visibility since 1995, but did not find anything direct. The only references were to the solar transmission studies mentioned by Jay at the beginning of this thread. ie, it has been affected by volcanoes, but there is no long-term trend.

 

[George B]

In Fleming's book "Fixing the Sky . . ." one of the 17 reasons listed why we should not start a solar radiation management programer is "The end of optical, terrestrial astronomy." The reflective particles would reflect starlight at night as much as sunlight during the day. I looked briefly for research on whether astronomical observation at Mauna Loa has been hindered by decreasing visibility since 1995, but did not find anything direct. The only references were to the solar transmission studies mentioned by Jay at the beginning of this thread. ie, it has been affected by volcanoes, but there is no long-term trend.

And thus one more issue that doesn't preclude preemptive geoengineering . . . I have found nothing to date which does . . .

 

[Steve Funk]

On the contrary, if there is no long-term trend of reduced effective solar transmission, it does indeed preclude preemptive geoengineering. I am just hoping to find additional corroborating evidence in the form of night time observations.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Anyone can purchase their own sun photometer equivalent to that used worldwide by the Aeronet:
http://www.cimel.fr/photo/sunph_us.htm

 

[MikeC]

And thus one more issue that doesn't preclude preemptive geoengineering . . . I have found nothing to date which does . . .

Have you found anything that shows that it is actually happening?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The claim that contrails people see are part of geoengineering is further disputed simply by observing the altitude of the aeroplanes being observed. The photos shown generally coincide with ordinary flight altitudes, by ordinary commercial flights, and by ordinary commercial type planes.

Despite these facts, the claims persist, but would the above factors even be observed if such a plane were involved in geoengineering?

I say no. I base my basic information on comments made by probably the most famous contrail researcher, one who allied with me during 2000-01 to set the record straight, Dr. Patrick Minnis, who said:

Because of my experience with meteorology, I am continuously baffled by the complexity of our atmosphere and of man's attempts to conciously alter it successfully for a particular goal. As I think I mentioned in the last email, the theories such as those you mention below (Teller) are still pie in the sky.

The best way to get a scattering effect that wil do anything is to load up the stratosphere with submicron sized particles. To accomplish anything noticeable in terms of a climate effect you would have to loft material equivalent in weight/particle number to that injected by a volcano of the magnitude of El Chichon or greater, more like Pinatubo in size.

That would mean the planes would have to deposit 20,000,000 tons of material in the stratosphere every 2 or 3 years. To keep it up there, it would be best to place it in the Tropics meaning they would have to reach altitudes of 55,000 to 60,000 ft. To match the Pinatubo output, this means for the miltary's C-141B Starlifter with a capacity of 34.3 tons, it would require only 20,000,000 / 34.3 = 582,030 flights in the course of say, 3 years or roughly 195,000 flights each year or 531/day just to go up and spray a bunch of junk into the stratosphere. How much fuel do you think that would require?

If the military had 747s, then the number would drop by a third. But here is the problem. The volcanos put the material at altitudes above 60,000 ft. There are very few planes that can reach those altitudes and cargo planes are not included in that bunch. Most of them fly below 45,000 ft.

They could only reach the stratosphere in polar regions and over the US during the winter.

http://rense.com/general9/naschem.htm

Some explanation based on this schematic:



As you can see, the general circulation of our atmosphere, known as Brewer-Dobson circulation, has rising air at the equator. The tropopause is the boundary beween the troposphere and the stratosphere. As the image shows, tropopause altitude varies from the equator, at around 18 km(~60,000 ft) to around 10 km (33,000 ft) near the poles.

There is a good reason why an effective geoengineering program would be done near the equator, and generally higher up in the stratosphere, at least 60,000 feet.

As the schematic shows, rising air at the equator leaves the troposphere and enters the stratosphere headed poleward. Geoengineering near the equator would mimic Pinatubo, which is in the Philippines near the equator, and which lofted material int the stratosphere, where it spread through Brewer-Dobson circulation northward, as well as longitudinally around the globe.

However, careful examination of the schematic shows why near-pole geoengineering faces severe problems. Stratospheric circulation near the poles returns stratospheric air to the troposphere itself! The air near the poles generally circulates around the ples, but then drives downwards.

Geoengineering material delivered near-pole does not remain suspended or spread globally, it tends to return to the troposphere where it falls or rains out. Most references to near-pole geoengineering are actually discussing this problem with the idea, with it's lack of effectiveness and consequent pollution. Others are discussing how near-polar geoengineering could be used specifically to ameliorate a polar melt-down event.

What is the relevance of these facts to the claims that contrails seen generally below 40,000 feet in the midlatitudes?

Simple. Geoenginering, to be effective, would necessarily take place where the material would stay up. Anything else is "pie-in-the-sky" as Dr. Minnis said. As far as I knw, no one knows exactly what geoengineering would look like, but one thing for sure is that unless you can change the earth's atmospheric circulation, it won't be taking pace at less than 18km.

2.2. Altitude and latitude
To a rough approximation the circulation of air in the stratosphere rises from the tropics and descends at middle and
high latitudes. Lifetime of air in the stratosphere is longest in the 'overworld' corresponding to potential temperatures
above that of the tropical tropopause and shorter in the 'middle world' roughly corresponding to altitudes between
the tropical and polar tropopause heights where air in the stratosphere mixes more rapidly with tropospheric air (Holton
et al 1995). These considerations suggest that long lifetimes and even distribution of stratospheric aerosol can be most
easily achieved by delivering material in the tropics above the tropical tropopause (Robock 2008, Pierce et al 2010).
Models of stratospheric aerosol have confirmed this theoretical insight and suggest that delivery between 18 and
25 km altitudes within a latitude range between roughly 30N and 30S are sufficient to obtain long aerosol lifetimes (Rasch
et al 2008a, 2008b, Pierce et al 2010). We note that Katz (2010) ruled out aircraft in large measure because the paper
assumed that aerosols needed to be lofted to 30–50 km, although no supporting argument or citations were provided.
http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/159.McClellan.2012.CostAnalysisOfStratosp.e.pdf

Since the contrails observed are far below, nearly half the altitude of 60,000 ft. and additionally since the aircraft currently available cannot even reach the altitudes where geoengineering would be effective or even practical, there is little reason to suspect them to be geoengineering.

 

[George B]

The claim that contrails people see are part of geoengineering is further disputed simply by observing the altitude of the aeroplanes being observed. The photos shown generally coincide with ordinary flight altitudes, by ordinary commercial flights, and by ordinary commercial type planes.

Despite these facts, the claims persist, but would the above factors even be observed if such a plane were involved in geoengineering?

I say no. I base my basic information on comments made by probably the most famous contrail researcher, one who allied with me during 2000-01 to set the record straight, Dr. Patrick Minnis, who said:



Some explanation based on this schematic:

View attachment 988

As you can see, the general circulation of our atmosphere, known as Brewer-Dobson circulation, has rising air at the equator. The tropopause is the boundary beween the troposphere and the stratosphere. As the image shows, tropopause altitude varies from the equator, at around 18 km(~60,000 ft) to around 10 km (33,000 ft) near the poles.

There is a good reason why an effective geoengineering program would be done near the equator, and generally higher up in the stratosphere, at least 60,000 feet.

As the schematic shows, rising air at the equator leaves the troposphere and enters the stratosphere headed poleward. Geoengineering near the equator would mimic Pinatubo, which is in the Philippines near the equator, and which lofted material int the stratosphere, where it spread through Brewer-Dobson circulation northward, as well as longitudinally around the globe.

However, careful examination of the schematic shows why near-pole geoengineering faces severe problems. Stratospheric circulation near the poles returns stratospheric air to the troposphere itself! The air near the poles generally circulates around the ples, but then drives downwards.

Geoengineering material delivered near-pole does not remain suspended or spread globally, it tends to return to the troposphere where it falls or rains out. Most references to near-pole geoengineering are actually discussing this problem with the idea, with it's lack of effectiveness and consequent pollution. Others are discussing how near-polar geoengineering could be used specifically to ameliorate a polar melt-down event.

What is the relevance of these facts to the claims that contrails seen generally below 40,000 feet in the midlatitudes?

Simple. Geoenginering, to be effective, would necessarily take place where the material would stay up. Anything else is "pie-in-the-sky" as Dr. Minnis said. As far as I knw, no one knows exactly what geoengineering would look like, but one thing for sure is that unless you can change the earth's atmospheric circulation, it won't be taking pace at less than 18km.


Since the contrails observed are far below, nearly half the altitude of 60,000 ft. and additionally since the aircraft currently available cannot even reach the altitudes where geoengineering would be effective or even practical, there is little reason to suspect them to be geoengineering.

Theory and practice are rarely the same . . . Dr Minnis however knowledgeable was not consulted if intentional sulfur injection has taken place . . . there are multiple proposals, cost analysis and speculation within the geoengineering community in contrast to Dr Minnis recommendations . . .

Cost Analysis Final Report
Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary
Contract Number: __UC01-001______
Aurora Report Number: ____AR10-182__ October 30, 2010


http://www.agriculturedefensecoalit...2010_AR10_182_University_of_Calgary_Keith.pdf

[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/geo_current_116/116J_2010_Aurora_Flight_Sciences_Geoengineering_Cost_Analysis_Final_Report_October_30_2010_AR10_182_University_of_Calgary_Keith.pdf[/FONT]


2 Geoengineering Concept of Operations
This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft opera- tions, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also ex- amined.


For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized. Transit operations are not economical as the leg length is dictated by the distance between bases (for 8-base operations, legs are approximately 5,000 km) causing release rates to be low and fuel costs to be high.


A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:


x Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
o $0.8B for acquisition and $1B for one year of operations o 0.66M tonnes fuel burned per year


x Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
o $1.4 B for acquisition and $2.8B for one year of operations o 1.6M tonnes fuel burned per year


x Transit: 747s transiting from 4 bases
o 48 airplanes, payload dispersed over 11,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.005 kg/m flown
o $2.8B for acquisition and $4.5B for one year of operations o 3.24M tonnes fuel burned per year

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Theory and practice are rarely the same . . . Dr Minnis however knowledgeable was not consulted if intentional sulfur injection has taken place . . . there are multiple proposals, cost analysis and speculation within the geoengineering community in contrast to Dr Minnis recommendations . . .

Cost Analysis Final Report
Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary
Contract Number: __UC01-001______
Aurora Report Number: ____AR10-182__ October 30, 2010


http://www.agriculturedefensecoalit...2010_AR10_182_University_of_Calgary_Keith.pdf

George, your link says the following:

1.2
This study does not examine effectiveness or risks of injecting material into the stratosphere for SRM. Its goal is simply to compare a range of delivery systems on a single cost basis

.

Your citation does not examine effectiveness. My citation did.

Your other citations have problems I discussed above.
The first one is: "The Unintended Consequences of Sulfate Aerosols in the Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere"
It speaks of bad juju if you do the experiment as stated in the lower stratosphere

The experiment I propose will be designed to test specifically for those consequences which might result from a geoengineering scheme meant to increase the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic.(pg 12)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...64DwDg&usg=AFQjCNFPdQ5nx5zwqgq_U1wyJnhZBU3eBQ

Your other citation does mention altitudes for geoengineering as low as 10km if aerosols were continually dispersed on a DAILY basis, but that particular case was, as I stated above, only intended to be effective for the arctic area.

The smaller value of 3 Tg per year was also chosen by Robock et al., since the goal of the original experiment was to limit the climate response only in the Arctic.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Data sources/Robock aciddeposition.pdf

George, don't presume to speak for "The Geoengineering Community". You don't appear to have a firm understanding of their published material or basic atmospheric science. At least I've taken university classes in meteorology and oceanography. Take on my challenge to ask Robock himself. He isn't in some ivory tower and might enjoy helping you understand. Some of the "Community" even post on a public forum. Take my suggestion and ask them if Jay Reynolds was telling you the truth. LMK

Lastly, Dr. Minnis was consulted about the idea that "chemtrails" was geoengineering. That was between 1999 and 2001.
All the reasonable and most of the unreasonable chemtrail advocates of that time, after some reflection, dropped out and haven't been heard from. They became informed, thought about it, and hopefully watch folks like you and shake their heads.

 

[George B]

George, your link says the following:

.

Your citation does not examine effectiveness. My citation did.

Your other citations have problems I discussed above.
The first one is: "The Unintended Consequences of Sulfate Aerosols in the Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere"
It speaks of bad juju if you do the experiment as stated in the lower stratosphere



Your other citation does mention altitudes for geoengineering as low as 10km if aerosols were continually dispersed on a DAILY basis, but that particular case was, as I stated above, only intended to be effective for the arctic area.



George, don't presume to speak for "The Geoengineering Community". You don't appear to have a firm understanding of their published material or basic atmospheric science. At least I've taken university classes in meteorology and oceanography. Take on my challenge to ask Robock himself. He isn't in some ivory tower and might enjoy helping you understand. Some of the "Community" even post on a public forum. Take my suggestion and ask them if Jay Reynolds was telling you the truth. LMK

Lastly, Dr. Minnis was consulted about the idea that "chemtrails" was geoengineering. That was between 1999 and 2001.
All the reasonable and most of the unreasonable chemtrail advocates of that time, after some reflection, dropped out and haven't been heard from. They became informed, thought about it, and hopefully watch folks like you and shake their heads.

I am very aware of the problems with implementing an intentional injection program . . . more than you might realize . . . I have personally corresponded for example with Minnis of NASA myself regarding several issues . . . my point is and has been . . . you are basing your position on the premise that a decision maker will weigh all the scientific discussion available (presently avaiable) before proceeding . . . this is not necessarily true for the following reasons:

1) The decision point (probably in the 1990s) to proceed with preemptive geoengineering was before many of the publically available computer simulations was available . . . the group deciding was insular . . . most likely at LLNL . . .
2) The urgency to act to mitigate global warming was much higher in the 1990s than it is now . . . after conflicting arguments have received more attention . . .
3) The people making the decisions were the same group in power that decided to invest billions in SDI for example . . .
4) To proceed they would use available capabilities . . . even if not optimal . . . the space program is a good analogy . . . we didn't wait for better and more capable computing power or throw weight to launch missions to the moon . . . high risk but if successful the benefits outweighed possible failure . . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

It is clear that there is no substance in your response, George.
You have lost this argument.
Bye-Bye.

 

[George B]

It is clear that there is no substance in your response, George.
You have lost this argument.
Bye-Bye.

Good bye . . . It is obvious you have no response for my arguments . . .

 

[Jazzy]

Good bye . . . It is obvious you have no response for my arguments . . .

George, your argument, against the EVIDENCE that there is nothing unusual in the air, bears no relationship to that evidence.

 

[George B]

George, your argument, against the EVIDENCE that there is nothing unusual in the air, bears no relationship to that evidence.

That is funny . . . my position is a covert program would seek to remain within the limits of background noise . . . that is the only way to maintain secrecy . . .

 

[Mick West]

That is funny . . . my position is a covert program would seek to remain within the limits of background noise . . . that is the only way to maintain secrecy . . .

Your position is pretty pointless really.

You think they might be doing it because it was discussed a few decades ago, and it might be needed, but there's no way of knowing, because they would do it in a way that left no evidence, or it might not have worked very well.

What is there even to discuss?

 

[George B]

Your position is pretty pointless really.

You think they might be doing it because it was discussed a few decades ago, and it might be needed, but there's no way of knowing, because they would do it in a way that left no evidence, or it might not have worked very well.

What is there even to discuss?

It may be difficult to discuss but it just might be the truth . . .

 

[Mick West]

It may be difficult discuss but it just might be the truth . . .

It's not difficult at all. You simply posit that there's a secret program going on. You suggest ways this might be done. If a valid object is raised, then you just adjust the theory. It's a trivial exercise in procrustean science.

All things "just might be the truth".

 

[George B]

It's not difficult at all. You simply posit that there's a secret program going on. You suggest ways this might be done. If a valid object is raised, then you just adjust the theory. It's a trivial exercise in procrustean science.

All things "just might be the truth".

You think that is what I am doing . . . that is a plausible observation . . . however, because of who I have identified as the decision makers (SDI crowd) and their think tank . . . LLNL , the potential timeline, their propensity and ability to act despite scientific and political criticism . . . I think it quite possible . . . it would be a good and cheap insurance policy . . . no harm no foul . . .

 

[Mick West]

You think that is what I am doing . . . that is a plausible observation . . . however, because of who I have identified as the decision makers (SDI crowd) and their think tank . . . LLNL , the potential timeline, their propensity and ability to act despite scientific and political criticism . . . I think it quite possible . . . it would be a good insurance policy . . . no harm no foul . . .

So basically you think there's a possibility something is happening that we can't detect.

So what?

What's the point? You are basically arguing a tautology.

 

[George B]

So basically you think there's a possibility something is happening that we can't detect.

So what?

What's the point? You are basically arguing a tautology.

Unlike the restrictive box I think you have constructed around your activities on this Forum (you have a mission . . . I am not criticizing your effectiveness or its value and I am not arguing against your tactics and strategy to accomplish it) I don't lock myself into a tight set of rules . . . IMO the scientific method does not deal well with historical human behavior, international interactions and behavior, political intrigue or survivalist motivation . . . I deal in understanding the mentality, motivation and actions of the preceding generation and my own . . . we are most capable of doing everything I am suggesting . . .

I repeat what I said in #63 above . . .

I am very aware of the problems with implementing an intentional injection program . . . more than you might realize . . . I have personally corresponded for example with Minnis of NASA myself regarding several issues . . . my point is and has been . . . you are basing your position on the premise that a decision maker will weigh all the scientific discussion available (presently avaiable) before proceeding . . . this is not necessarily true for the following reasons:

1) The decision point (probably in the 1990s) to proceed with preemptive geoengineering was before many of the publically available computer simulations was available . . . the group deciding was insular . . . most likely at LLNL . . .
2) The urgency to act to mitigate global warming was much higher in the 1990s than it is now . . . after conflicting arguments have received more attention . . .
3) The people making the decisions were the same group in power that decided to invest billions in SDI for example . . .
4) To proceed they would use available capabilities . . . even if not optimal . . . the space program is a good analogy . . . we didn't wait for better and more capable computing power or throw weight to launch missions to the moon . . . high risk but if successful the benefits outweighed possible failure . . .

 

[MikeC]

That is funny . . . my position is a covert program would seek to remain within the limits of background noise . . . that is the only way to maintain secrecy . . .

And also a way to achieve nothign at all.

As has been pointed out before, if you are undetectable then you are achieving nothing measureable - so the programme is pointless, and hiding it is not required.

Ther is some irony in you complaining about Mick being "in a box" when your pet conspiracy is one that achieves nothing and needs no hiding because it is no different from "background noise"!

 

[George B]

And also a way to achieve nothign at all.

As has been pointed out before, if you are undetectable then you are achieving nothing measureable - so the programme is pointless, and hiding it is not required.

Ther is some irony in you complaining about Mick being "in a box" when your pet conspiracy is one that achieves nothing and needs no hiding because it is no different from "background noise"!

But it did and does accomplish a purpose . . .

1) It is an insurance policy . . . it can be used to maintain an operational infrastructure and budget line capable of turning the trend of warming toward the direction desired . . .seems to me a small insurance premium to pay when the castrophe avoided might be draconian at least from the perspective of policy makers in the 1990s. . .

2) It also proves it can be done . . . there is discussion about the only way to see if geoengineering works is a full scale implementation . . . that is what was possibly accomplished . . .

A Test for Geoengineering?

Science 29 January 2010:

Vol. 327 no. 5965 pp. 530-531

DOI: 10.1126/science.1186237

1. Summary
   
   
   Scientific and political interest in the possibility of geoengineering the climate is rising (1). There are currently no means of implementing geoengineering, but if a viable technology is produced in the next decade, how could it be tested? We argue that geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation. The initial production of aerosol droplets can be tested on a small scale, but how they will grow in size (which determines the injection rate needed to produce a particular cooling) can only be tested by injection into an existing aerosol cloud, which cannot be confined to one location. Furthermore, weather and climate variability preclude observation of the climate response without a large, decade-long forcing. Such full-scale implementation could disrupt food production on a large scale.
   http://m.sciencemag.org/content/327/5965/530.short

3) It maintains power, cash flow, leverage and a way to remain on top . . . just like SDI was going to do . . . covert and black programs are powerful gravity centers . . . much money and job security . . .

 

[George B]

And also a way to achieve nothign at all.

As has been pointed out before, if you are undetectable then you are achieving nothing measureable - so the programme is pointless, and hiding it is not required.

Ther is some irony in you complaining about Mick being "in a box" when your pet conspiracy is one that achieves nothing and needs no hiding because it is no different from "background noise"!

I personally witnessed a 3 million dollar program turn in to a 2 billion dollar program and accomplished the same result (very little) . . . except it gave members of the Industrial Military Complex a bunch of money and prestige . . .

 

[Gunguy45]

Well come on George...... you are long retired, right.....just tell us what it was....what program and when?

I mean, sure I saw stupidity in the military....we had to do all our own overhauls on our electronics one time during an shipyard period. They told us "What parts do you need...we need to order them now". We said..."It's electronic modules....we won't know what we need til we get them on the bench." Not good enough to them....so we just ordered every module for every radio, every tube for everything that still used them, cables, headsets, handsets, etc, etc, etc. Did we need them all? Of course not....but boy did we have spare parts for the next 2 years! lol

Btw..that was an overhaul of the USS Schenectady in about 1980.

 

[MikeC]

I personally witnessed a 3 million dollar program turn in to a 2 billion dollar program and accomplished the same result (very little) . . . except it gave members of the Industrial Military Complex a bunch of money and prestige . . .

and what was it's aim? how much cover up went into it (doesn't sound like a lot?) Was it for chemtrails/geoengineering?

no-one said that programes that don't accomplish much never exist - but you have suggested that this programme you have hypothesised was INTENDED to accompish so little as to be undetectable above teh background, and then also to be super-secret.

so again - why bother to try to conceal something that can't actually be detected because it can't actually achieve anything??

 

[George B]

and what was it's aim? how much cover up went into it (doesn't sound like a lot?) Was it for chemtrails/geoengineering?

no-one said that programes that don't accomplish much never exist - but you have suggested that this programme you have hypothesised was INTENDED to accompish so little as to be undetectable above teh background, and then also to be super-secret.

so again - why bother to try to conceal something that can't actually be detected because it can't actually achieve anything??

1) The aim had nothing to do with chemtrails . . . there was much secretive manipulation behind the scenes though . . . the project was not classified . . .
2) Projects that are black, covert, secret, etc. normally never see their objectives revealed to the public and are legion . . . in fact I would say most. . . the motive for secrecy range from legit national security issues to political embarrassment issues . . . but once projects are classified as such usually don't get their classification lifted (ever) or only decades later after all involved are dead or out of danger of being accountable . . . it is called CYA . . .

 

[George B]

Well come on George...... you are long retired, right.....just tell us what it was....what program and when?

I mean, sure I saw stupidity in the military....we had to do all our own overhauls on our electronics one time during an shipyard period. They told us "What parts do you need...we need to order them now". We said..."It's electronic modules....we won't know what we need til we get them on the bench." Not good enough to them....so we just ordered every module for every radio, every tube for everything that still used them, cables, headsets, handsets, etc, etc, etc. Did we need them all? Of course not....but boy did we have spare parts for the next 2 years! lol

Btw..that was an overhaul of the USS Schenectady in about 1980.

I am not that long retired and the people and project are still active . . . so for obvious reasons I wish to remain elusive . . .