J
Joe
Guest
That doesnt prove a thing . I heard the Antarctic ice has grown . Doesnt prove its man made as well .
How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
- Status
Boston
Active Member
No, what proves its man made is the mass isotopic balance ratios. and you heard correctly on the Antarctic ice, however, thats ice extent not mass. The mass is shrinking, Most of the ice shelves are melting from underneath. The thing to remember is that the arctic is an ocean surrounded by land whereas the antarctic is land surrounded by ocean, and its a lot lot colder. So a few degrees warming won't have as dramatic an effect on the antarctic as the arctic.
Cheers
B
Cheers
B
J
Joe
Guest
David Fraser
Senior Member.
J
Joe
Guest
Well thank you , and Cheers to you as well
Boston
Active Member
This site is run by one of the authors of the IPCC Gavin Schmidt, or at least past author, not sure about his involvement this time around. Its a pretty good resource.
see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
The mass balance of the carbon isotopes is just one way to measure just how much of the recent CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. There's a whole slew of ways to figure it out.
see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.
Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
—————————
The mass balance of the carbon isotopes is just one way to measure just how much of the recent CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. There's a whole slew of ways to figure it out.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
(reply to Boston)
Which part of the atmosphere does the CO2 end up hanging out at?
The recent NASA study http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ showing how Co2 in the upper atmosphere reflects incoming solar energy was used as evidence by infowars and others to say that Co2 keeps the earth cool.
http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books/
Which part of the atmosphere does the CO2 end up hanging out at?
The recent NASA study http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ showing how Co2 in the upper atmosphere reflects incoming solar energy was used as evidence by infowars and others to say that Co2 keeps the earth cool.
http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books/
My understanding is that it may reflect a certain amount of *incoming* heat, but it also traps a large amount of *outgoing* heat.Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center.
The thread is here if you want to address it particularly.“Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Active Member
CO2 like any gas doesn't really hang out anywhere, it diffuses throughout the atmosphere, and that atmosphere gets "thicker" as it gets closer to the surface of the planet. Yup some lighter gasses rise and some heavier gasses sink but there's also a lot less molecules of gas in the ever rarefying higher atmosphere than lower. The measurements of CO2 are taken from a number of different sampling sites like Mauna loa observatory for instance is on the top of a volcano, about 12,000 feet up. The thing about CO2 is that its size and shape make it a very good reflector of certain wavelength associated with radiant heat, like what reflects back up off the planet and out into space. Its not such a great reflector of a few other wave lengths, like the more energetic wave forms than radiant heat, like solar radiation. Its a better insulator in certain wave lengths, than others, no ones saying tho that it doesn't also reflect some energy back out to space, its just that its not as much as it reflects back down to the ground. So your basically right in that
I"m supposed to be going out, but I'll take a look at that thread when I get a chance
Edit, so I read the NASA article ( sorry but I didn't bother with the one from infowars ) I don't see what the problem is. The function of the thermosphere is pretty well understood, its an area of rarefied gas that gets really hot sometimes. All the gasses up there shed the vast majority of the heat they absorb back into space. Its mostly space with a little bit of atmosphere thrown in. If it weren't for the magnetosphere, the ionosphere and the thermosphere, we'd cook in so much radiation we'd still be pond scum. I guess I'm not quite sure why someone would interpret that as somehow disproving how CO2 works in the rest of the atmosphere. A greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas, no matter how you slice it. Its a physical property, in the case of CO2 discovered in something like 1760 or something like that. It was if I remember the first gas to be studied and its properties described. Hell way back in about 1890 a guy named Arrhenius calculated what doubling CO2 would do to the atmosphere, even those numbers are still proving themselves good today. So its not like it was rocket science to discover the greenhouse effects of CO2. Its actually really really old stuff.
I"m supposed to be going out, but I'll take a look at that thread when I get a chance
Edit, so I read the NASA article ( sorry but I didn't bother with the one from infowars ) I don't see what the problem is. The function of the thermosphere is pretty well understood, its an area of rarefied gas that gets really hot sometimes. All the gasses up there shed the vast majority of the heat they absorb back into space. Its mostly space with a little bit of atmosphere thrown in. If it weren't for the magnetosphere, the ionosphere and the thermosphere, we'd cook in so much radiation we'd still be pond scum. I guess I'm not quite sure why someone would interpret that as somehow disproving how CO2 works in the rest of the atmosphere. A greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas, no matter how you slice it. Its a physical property, in the case of CO2 discovered in something like 1760 or something like that. It was if I remember the first gas to be studied and its properties described. Hell way back in about 1890 a guy named Arrhenius calculated what doubling CO2 would do to the atmosphere, even those numbers are still proving themselves good today. So its not like it was rocket science to discover the greenhouse effects of CO2. Its actually really really old stuff.
Belfrey
Senior Member.
Their main mistake (regarding the Infowars interpretation of that NASA study) appears to be that they read that CO2 in the thermosphere blocks incoming infrared energy from the sun, and thought that this meant that CO2 has a net cooling effect. But the way that the greenhouse effect actually works (as I understand it) is that energy in the visible light spectrum passes through the thermosphere, warms the earth's surface, and thus gets radiated as infrared (heat) energy, which is then re-radiated by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The amount of IR energy that comes up from the earth's surface in this way is vastly greater than the incoming amount of IR light being blocked.
J
Joe
Guest
[h=1]'Winter' - maybe even snow - to return for Memorial Day weekend[/h]By Ian Johnston, Staff Writer, NBC News
Memorial Day weekend is expected to feel more like “winter” for areas of the eastern U.S., according to forecasters at weather.com, with snow possible for parts of the Northeast.
The National Weather Service issued flash flood warnings for parts of Massachusetts and Texas early Friday as much of the country continued to be hit by miserable weather. The warnings are only issued when there is the potentially for “rapid” and “life threatening” flooding.
The Tri-State area was also hit by heavy rainfall and thunderstorms through the night,NBCNewYork.com reported.
View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.
Memorial Day weekend is expected to feel more like “winter” for areas of the eastern U.S., according to forecasters at weather.com, with snow possible for parts of the Northeast.
The National Weather Service issued flash flood warnings for parts of Massachusetts and Texas early Friday as much of the country continued to be hit by miserable weather. The warnings are only issued when there is the potentially for “rapid” and “life threatening” flooding.
The Tri-State area was also hit by heavy rainfall and thunderstorms through the night,NBCNewYork.com reported.
What do you think of this article?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalarwar06.htm
What I see in South Texas are Cumulus or sometimes Cumulonimbus clouds and you're expecting to see rain and and pretty frequent you will see trails sprayed 12 to 24 hours before. These trails turn into spidery type clouds and when they mix with the other 2 types of clouds it just blows them apart. I had watch Ben Livingston Father of Weaponized weather and he stated for cloud seeding you have to release the nuclei at a certain right angle or it'll blow the top off the cloud.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalarwar06.htm
What I see in South Texas are Cumulus or sometimes Cumulonimbus clouds and you're expecting to see rain and and pretty frequent you will see trails sprayed 12 to 24 hours before. These trails turn into spidery type clouds and when they mix with the other 2 types of clouds it just blows them apart. I had watch Ben Livingston Father of Weaponized weather and he stated for cloud seeding you have to release the nuclei at a certain right angle or it'll blow the top off the cloud.
Met Watch
Moderator
You mean, cirrus clouds, which you'll often see before a frontal passage, and then the storms, just ahead or in the vicinity of a passing frontal boundary?
And what does this have to do with climate change?
J
Joe
Guest
Yea the more time goes by the more trails I see causing a whiteout the more I believe they are manipulating our weather and climate . Man Made Climate change caused by Geoengineers . Debunkers need not try to convince me otherwise . Iv never seen so much grey skies in Florida . Sunshine State ?
Here are reports of actual weather modification in action, so it seems to me that it shows all that would have to go into it. (And, so far as I know, there's no evidence that anything of this sort being done on a widespread scale in America.)
Other colleagues told me they found it remarkable that the clouds seemed almost to be held back from the square, even though there were still some around the edges.
By the time of the fly-past around 11am, the skies were clear until air force jets left behind lines of coloured smoke-trails. Now, six hours later, Beijing is still enjoying perfect conditions.
What happened? According to Chinese Meterology News, there were four attacks on a bank of clouds that approached Tiananmen from the south-west between 7.30am and 9.05am. In total 432 rockets were fired to achieve the desired result.
Xinhua news agency reports that the authorities also had the capacity to delay rainfall.
"Only a handful countries in the world could organise such large-scale magic-like weather modification," it quoted Cui Lianqing, a senior air force meteorologist as saying.
But cloud seeding is generally considered far too imprecise a technique to guarantee the results seen today, which begs several questions. If clearing the skies is this easy, why don't the authorities do it all the time? Is it the cost? Concern about over-use of chemicals? Or were the authorities just lucky today?
China's 'weather modification' works like magic
Given the dynamic nature of the system, we probably don't really know what Chinese attempts at weather modification might be causing around the rest of the world. They get rain, we get drought? Then we get a lot more rain? Unlikely. So let's blame a butterfly flapping their wings in a rain forest instead, etc.Chinese authorities didn't become such meteorological control freaks overnight. Chinese research into weather control dates back to 1958. Forty years later, the government-run Weather Modification Program launches thousands of specially designed rockets and artillery shells into the sky every year in an attempt to manipulate weather conditions.
Run by the Weather Modification Department, a division of the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, the program employs and trains 32,000 to 35,000 people across China, some of them farmers, who are paid to handle anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers [source: Aiyar]. These heavy-duty weapons launch pellets containing silver iodide into clouds. Silver iodide is thought to concentrate moisture and cause rain, a process known as cloud seeding. China has invested heavily in this technology, using more than 12,000 anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers in addition to about 30 planes [source: Aiyar].
With a population of more than 1.3 billion, China requires vast amounts of water. The government practices cloud seeding to try to produce rain for farmers, stave off drought, clear away air pollution and smog, fill water basins and, of course, produce a picture-perfect opening Olympic ceremony.
Can China control the weather?
In any event... according to some artists you can drive a different car and you'll have saved the world and prevented imaginary natural catastrophes in the future in some small, infinitesimal and seemingly almost invisible way. So there you go, you probably just saved the entire world if you want to imagine things in that way. If we are to imagine things like that then I just changed the temperature of the entire planet to a small and almost invisible degree by breathing. (It's such a small degree that you probably can't even see it, see?) But the catastrophic result, it's a big imaginary disaster! So now I just took a deep breath and prevented a big disaster to some almost infinitely small degree too. Imagine that! Yet who will pay me a carbon credit for taking a deep breath and the small degree to which I just prevented imaginary famines and catastrophic events in the future too? Is the profit from taking a deep breath so small, that I can't even be paid for it?
Maybe everyone should be paid for taking a deep breath before studying an issue like climate change.
Last edited:
scombrid
Senior Member.
The other than this week with westerly winds and a non-stop flow of cirrus clouds associated with the trough that's been in the area and the air pollution that is drifting down from the continent, the skies have been crazy blue this summer between daily storms. Last week with deep southeasterly flow was just ridiculously clear air between storms. I went up the fire tower the other day and you could see the color of the condos over in Daytona Beach. Super clear with very little particulate load in the air. I was out on a boat one night a couple of weeks ago and we spotted 10+ satellites in the first couple hours after sunset. Granted we were up between Palatka and Welaka where it is pretty dark. But this is Florida and even in a remote area there is still light pollution. With all the light pollution it has to be damn clear to see the night sky that well. If there is any haze at all, the glow from Gainesville, Palatka, JaX, etc... makes it hard to see the night sky.
Worth a mention:
I wish more modern people would imagine that they could dance in a certain pattern and change the weather, that might be more entertaining.
There again, I guess some of these movies are entertaining. So at least there is that.
But if you watch some of the Youtube videos of people that think weather modification is happening in America they'll look at small sets of apparent contrails that one can hardly even see and seem to imagine them as "chemtrails" capable of creating or manipulating a whole weather system? Seems to me that's like imagining that you can drive a different car to lessen the strength of storms and prevent natural catastrophes in the future, as people in Hollywood tend to.The Beijing Weather Modification Office spent a lot of time researching how to prevent rain in the city during the Aug. 8 opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics. The government even guaranteed clear skies for the event -- a promise it managed to deliver on. The feat only took the launch of 1,104 rain dispersal rockets from 21 sites in the city to pull off [source: O'Neill].
I wish more modern people would imagine that they could dance in a certain pattern and change the weather, that might be more entertaining.
People always want to be paid, don't they? Actually, I might pay to see Al Gore dance around with some jewelry on. I wouldn't expect much of a change in the weather in reality after he was done dancing, though....Native American dances, describes the "Rain Dance of Zuni."[2] Feathers and turquoise (or any sort of blue shade) are worn during the ceremony to symbolize wind and rain respectively. Many oral traditions of the Rain Dance have been passed down[3] In an early sort of meteorology, Native Americans in the midwestern parts of the modern United States often tracked and followed known weather patterns while offering to perform a rain dance for settlers in return for trade items. This is best documented among Osage and Quapaw Indian tribes of Missouri and Arkansas. --Wikipedia
There again, I guess some of these movies are entertaining. So at least there is that.
Bread and circus, indeed. It all has to be paid for by the peasants, though. After all, they're the people (red state rubes) that create the bread and food and therefore the ability of the artists and the ruling classes living in cities (blue state types in America) to entertain them with the idea that they can save the world and so forth. American peasants are often recalcitrant about saving the entire world or bringing about world peace and so forth, though.... due to those crazy conspiracy theorists, no doubt.
But look at it this way, making movies to try to get people to engage in a "shared sacrifice" to change the weather based on relatively useless behaviors or rituals is probably better than the ancient Aztec version where they literally sacrificed people to try to make the sun move across the sky each day. Those closer to the top probably thought bigger back then, saving the planet? No, why not try to save the sun! Apparently the priests of knowledge closer to the top of a more literal and brutal pyramid scheme in that day came to a conclusion along these lines: Save the sun, let us kill your own! They even had their own stadiums for games down below to keep people occupied in the meantime. But no evidence on whether or not there was a Red Team and a Blue Team, as far as I know.
When it's not a game, there's always the threat of other tribes in reality according to game theories. Same old, same old:
But look at it this way, making movies to try to get people to engage in a "shared sacrifice" to change the weather based on relatively useless behaviors or rituals is probably better than the ancient Aztec version where they literally sacrificed people to try to make the sun move across the sky each day. Those closer to the top probably thought bigger back then, saving the planet? No, why not try to save the sun! Apparently the priests of knowledge closer to the top of a more literal and brutal pyramid scheme in that day came to a conclusion along these lines: Save the sun, let us kill your own! They even had their own stadiums for games down below to keep people occupied in the meantime. But no evidence on whether or not there was a Red Team and a Blue Team, as far as I know.
When it's not a game, there's always the threat of other tribes in reality according to game theories. Same old, same old:
I say that we all drive different cars to try to create storms over Russia! Just kidding. But people have been known to like to engage in relatively useless rituals, so there is that.Reinforcing the sense of urgency, President Eisenhower’s special committee on weather modification submitted its final report in January 1958, just months after Sputnik’s launch. The committee’s chairman, retired Navy Captain Howard T. Orville, said at a press conference that he suspected that the Soviets already had begun a large, secret program on weather control. Despite routine dismissals of the idea throughout the decade by meteorologists, the high-level committee ranked weather control ahead of hydrogen bombs and satellites in military significance. Orville urged the government to support research on controlling large-scale weather systems, not just rainmaking. He further suggested that finding ways to manipulate the heat balance between the sun and earth might be the key to weather and climate control. The earth already had been heated up by man’s efforts, by introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. This carbon dioxide helped to trap the heat and create, as the New York Times put it, a “greenhouse effect.” It might be possible to harness this greenhouse effect. “If such steps are feasible,” journalist John Finney reported, “then New York City might be put under a few hundred feet of ice or a few hundred feet of water depending on whether the temperature was raised or lowered.” We Tried to Weaponize the Weather
Last edited:
Boston
Active Member
I've always thought people should stop and think as well as take that deep breath before speaking about something which they've never studied
The harsh reality is that the science of climate change goes back well over a hundred years, but it wasn't until the realization and realities began to effect the bottom dollar of the worlds largest financial interests we started to see the attacks against the science erupt though the social media. The simple fact is that regardless of financial consequences the science exists and is extremely "robust"
Leave off the political diatribe and what have you, irrefutable scientific data.
Last edited:
No, I'm not talking about Cirrus clouds. I know that they are at high altitudes. When there is a forecast of possible rain, there are contrails sprayed at low altitudes & the rainclouds disappear to make it short and sweet & I take pictures.
What it has to do with climate change is that they are manipulating the weather for it not to rain, at least here where we have a drought. I've been trying to catch the plane that emits these trails at home but they do it in the early morning. However, 3 weeks ago I saw a big 3 propeller military plane flying very low and slow in another city and I thought it was odd it was flying that low because the navy base is still 13 miles away. It suddenly dips even more and I could see an aerosol spraying out of the wings and then it slowly goes up in altitude. I was in heavy traffic and couldn't get into the right lane quick enough to take pics with my phone.
The only reason I can see for this, is for them to ram this "Climate Change" global tax BS. I know of farmers in this area that have lost their crops. Farmers are losing their land.
Anyway, I've been taking pics for the last 9 months.
Anyway, the sun is also getting hotter. This one article where this person has solar panels has had an increase in the last couple years. Can't find the article just now.
Also pertaining to climate change the govts use of rockets, spaceships, nuclear explosions has eaten up 10 % of the ozone. The 10% ozone article I'm not finding.
http://willheegaard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/facing-existential-risk4.pdf
So are you stating weather modification is not in use?
http://www.tdlr.state.tx.us/weather/weatherfaq.htm
Weather Modification is big business.
http://www.weathermodification.com/
https://www.google.com/search?q=tex...XDOis8AHSqIHwCg&ved=0CD8QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=634
No, I just pointed out that China is using it.
Weather modification has been used in the US (and many other countries) for decades. One of the biggest bits of bunk about weather modification is that people think it's something new, or that it's geoengineering.
Where you state you've never seen so many grey skies are you stating...cloud seeding for rain? In South Texas, especially on Sunday mornings there are alot of criss cross trails over the area. I also see these trails before a forecast POSSIBILITY of rain and the rain is diminished or we don't have any at all. Twice in the last 4 months there was thundering and lightening at night where it knocked out the electricity where 1 time it didn't even rain and the other time, just a few sprinkles and I'm wondering what the hell is this? When I get better pics or video, I'm sending them to the local news channel. I'm not telling them that the govt is suppressing the rain cause they'll probably think I'm crazy but I found this article and I see the criss cross patterns.
http://www.joelskousen.com/World/2002briefs.html
Contrails cannot be shut on and off at will, nor abruptly, as witnesses have seen in numerous sightings of chemical spraying by aircraft. I personally have seen this type of on/off spraying in Utah by two military tankers flying in loose formation. When numerous witnesses called KSL--TV in Salt Lake City to investigate, KSL dutifully parroted the government’s official response: that the aircraft was a government contractor flying a Lear jet and doing experiments on ice crystal formation. Baloney! As one of those witnesses, and an experienced pilot, I can tell you those two huge military tanker aircraft were not tiny Lear jets. The government is lying--but at least, in this case, they didn’t try to outright deny what hundreds of people were watching, as they usually do. They simply tried to take advantage of public ignorance of aircraft recognition, feeding them a phony but marginally plausible excuse.
7) Aircraft dispersing chemtrails always fly back and forth over a set area, creating circular or zig-zag patterns of vapor in the sky. Often many chemtrail aircraft can be seen in one area, flying in crisscross patterns laying down vapor trails before flying off over the horizon. Large airliners operating under Air Traffic Control fly on set airways and do not make such patterns in the sky. Government representatives have tried to pass off reports of crisscross chemtrail patterns as merely the convergence of airliner contrails at normal air traffic intersections, but this is false. For one thing, almost all airways in the US run in straight lines. Neither do airliners fly in close formation with other aircraft. In addition, chemtrail sightings almost never come close to normal airway intersections, lest they interfere with normal traffic or be observed by other airline passengers.
I was replying to Joe. He was writing about weather modification.
It's a human attempt at categorization so that's unlikely.
There is no climate science view of a CO2 crisis to attack. There are only people who think that there is a crisis, as usual. One day they'll even be correct, no doubt.
I think the juxtaposition between the panicky "chemtrail" types and "climate crisis" advocacy is interesting. Essentially, many seem to be engaged in the time honored practice of saying that the sky is falling* and that we should try to hold it up in some way. Perhaps it's just that some seem to fall more toward the rural peasant side of things (chemtrailers) and others seem to be more likely to be scientists working for universities/corporations/governments (climate crisis).
But for the sake of argument let's say that there is a crisis that will get here before the petrodollar hits the fan or wars really do cause "climate change" and so forth.
So.... what do you think that we should do about it?
*Whatever happened to the Ice Age we were supposed to be living in by now, anyway?
New findings of "atomic timekeeping" suggest that North America may be headed into another major Ice Age, a Government geologist said today.
(Get Out the Ear Muffs: New Ice Age Forecast
The New York Times; Nov. 11, 1956, pg. 40)
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 (AP)
Such changes imply that the world is becoming warmer. But no one is sure of the extent of these changes. ...new research suggests that the melting of the Arctic's floating ice may have the paradoxical effect of bringing, in perhaps as little as several hundred years, the start of a new Ice Age.
(Science, Worrying About a New Ice Age
By Walter Sullivan
The New York Times; Feb 23, 1969, pg. E10)
(Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing: Major Cooling May Be Ahead
By Walter Sullivan
The New York Times; May 21, 1975, pg. 45)
(New Ice Age by 1995?
By Larry Ephron
The New York Times; Jul. 1988, pg. A16)
Last edited by a moderator:
SR1419
Senior Member.
Sure they can.
Well, technically you are correct because its not "at will" - its simply a function of air temp.
...if it takes a certain temp for a contrail to form...what do you think would happen if the plane flew through a warmer patch of air? What would happen to the contrail?
Contrails are clouds.
Do clouds start and stop abruptly?
Why is there a cloud in one spot but a foot away no cloud?
Who is turning the clouds on and off "at will"?
A great site to check before posting about climate change is:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
They list most of the usual misconceptions and some rebuttals. Here's the one for the "Ice Age Predicted" bunk.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Please try to avoid spreading old bunk.The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
False.
...due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
Stop. If there actually had been an Ice Age by 1995 then it would have been perfectly predictable, in retrospect... and those articles would be cited with approval, no doubt.
Anyway, maybe people are basically just destroying their environment at the serf or peasant level. Seems unlikely unless you're one of the ones cutting down a rain forest, though. I think it's more likely that we'll see ships burning a lot of oil and possibly wars creating "climate change" for the sake of the petrodollar and the ruling class before we see climate crises or natural catastrophes due to American serfs driving the wrong cars and so forth. (Or serfs failing to engage in relatively useless rituals given to them by the ruling class and so forth. More rain dances! Or people could have Al Gore ride around the country like a corpulent Bishop to sell them indulgences for their crimes against Mother Nature. There again, he sold his network to oil producing nations... might show which way the trends are going?)
[Admin: off-topic material removed]
So what is it that you want done in your campaign to save the earth or save civilization this time? After all, if it involves putting central bankers in jail and focusing on local forms of independence and sustainability (natural gas?) then I might support it even if you haven't necessarily made the case for people (let alone the serfs) being totally responsible for "climate change."
Last edited by a moderator:
To be clear, I'm not a "denier" of anthropogenic climate change per se. It seems like a halfway decent theory sometimes.
I just think that perspective and the "deniers" should be allowed and not "overwhelmed," especially when the whole process of saving civilization usually becomes big business. But given the title of this thread, it looks like the campaign is already under way to get a movement going in the bowels of the body politic here. So now you're just debating what techniques to use. I have a suggestion, you should avoid "denier" claims. But that's just me. Carry on. You might even be correct to try to get a movement going, after all.
(A more interesting thread of thought to me might involve debunking some climate change studies... as surely there must be a few with mistakes and so forth.)
I just think that perspective and the "deniers" should be allowed and not "overwhelmed," especially when the whole process of saving civilization usually becomes big business. But given the title of this thread, it looks like the campaign is already under way to get a movement going in the bowels of the body politic here. So now you're just debating what techniques to use. I have a suggestion, you should avoid "denier" claims. But that's just me. Carry on. You might even be correct to try to get a movement going, after all.
(A more interesting thread of thought to me might involve debunking some climate change studies... as surely there must be a few with mistakes and so forth.)
Last edited:
The point is that although there were predictions of an ice age, those predictions were greatly outnumbered by predictions of global warming.
Hence your question "*Whatever happened to the Ice Age we were supposed to be living in by now, anyway? " is bunk. It's a deliberate framing of the issue to cast doubt on climate science.
Eugenics is off-topic.
Hence your question "*Whatever happened to the Ice Age we were supposed to be living in by now, anyway? " is bunk. It's a deliberate framing of the issue to cast doubt on climate science.
Eugenics is off-topic.
Avoiding the consensus of scientists in the past with respect to eugenics is a deliberate way of framing scientific consensus and "overwhelming" amounts of scientific literature as having credibility per se... simply because a consensus exists and a lot of literature begins to be produced when people conclude that they need to save civilization from the "feeble minded" or save the planet from peasants and so forth. I think it's interesting how few into the idea of saving the planet from American serfs seem to conclude that they might need to save the planet from the wars being created by global bankers and America's ruling class too.
Anyway, what is it that you want everyone to do once you make sure that they're not "denier" or convince them?
Anyway, what is it that you want everyone to do once you make sure that they're not "denier" or convince them?
Scientists also used to think the world was flat. You were making a very specific claim about predictions of an ice age at a specific time. Your claim was incorrect.
I want people to promote and support legislation that will reduce carbon emissions, like the clean air act reduced particulate pollution.
I want people to promote and support legislation that will reduce carbon emissions, like the clean air act reduced particulate pollution.
No they didn't. Enough said.
It looks like your target for a "shared sacrifice" that actually isn't shared is basically American serfs and what remains of their wealth then. I could be wrong. Other scenarios. You could try to shut down the military industrial complex or do an environmental impact study on the wars being created by oligarchs. (After all... what's the military that's protecting the oil trade routes and so forth running on, ponies pooping rainbows of solar powered sunshine?) You could promote natural gas cars, given that we can see the Bakken fields from space now due to the fact that natural gas is dirt cheap. You could advocate that they bring the troops home to build natural gas distribution centers and perhaps win the hearts and minds of Americans by building schools, roads and bridges too.
In any event, what "legislation that will reduce carbon emissions" do you have in mind? The clean air act was fine but you're talking about a global problem now, unlike acid rain and so forth.
I wish there was a ROFLMAO button, (in a nice way), I would have clicked it.
You may be interested to know that the biggest impact on the Antarctic ice is actually from volcanic activity in the area and not as suggested because of man.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1541
http://iceagenow.info/2012/05/hidden-volcanoes-ice-melting-antarctic-glaciers/
Scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands. Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface — some up to 3km high. They found 5km diameter craters left by collapsing volcanoes and 7 active volcanoes visible above the sea as a chain of islands.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...dersea-volcanoes-antarctica-science-tsunamis/Scientists find “big variations in the temperature in the mantle across parts of Antarctica.”
“Scientists have used radar and other imaging technology to uncover some astounding finds under the East Antarctic Ice Sheet,” says this article on Live Science. “A vast mountain range that rivals the Alps, and Lake Vostok, one of Earth’s largest lakes.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Good question. Guess there will need be much more research but the melt water is definitely lubricating the ice sheets and speeding up ice flow. But as you say... is it new?
- Status
Similar threads
