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

[George B]

Wow. . . This Forum is so slow on either my IPad or PC . . .I can't even respond except once in a while and no Reply with Quotes. . .

 

[George B]

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.

What if I told you unless you reduced the rate of global warming by one degree C within six months or 4.5 billion people would die . . . how would you do the mitigation then. . . .????

 

[George B]

Originally Posted by George B
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!

Not at all . . . I am just trying to emphasize that the injection of Sulfur Compounds into the stratosphere is the only generally accepted method known to quickly deal with global warming . . . While not perfect, most geo-engineers have said as much. . . .so if we are in crisis and the authorities do not want to spook the herd. . . What would You do????

 

[George B]

Originally Posted by GeorgeB1) 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.

1) The people really looking are a very, very, small group of Chemtrail Advocates . . . no one else might . . .
2) Aircrews need not know anything . . .
3) Whistleblowers have come forward in several stories and have been completely ignored by the public media . . .
4) As far as keeping things under secrecy . . . have you heard of the CIA, MAFIA, Undercover agents, F117, Stealth Technology development, Skunk Works, Manhattan Project, and on and on and on . . .

 

[George B]

​

See video at 4.21 minutes . . .

Why does NASA want to know what people see . . . ? Seems time-lapse Photography, remote video cameras, weather data, coupled with satellite images would be all they need . . . anyone for an answer . . . by the way the British Authorities have also requested assistance as well . . .

 

[MikeC]

Not at all . . . I am just trying to emphasize that the injection of Sulfur Compounds into the stratosphere is the only generally accepted method known to quickly deal with global warming . . . While not perfect, most geo-engineers have said as much. . . .so if we are in crisis and the authorities do not want to spook the herd. . . What would You do????

What I would do is evaluate ALL the evidence and knowledge if that decision had to be made, not just that proposed by conspiracy believers, and not use hypothetical fantasy scenarios to try to justify a belief that there is a secret programme going on.

I'm done with you - you started fine - but are now just spamming drivel that is neither useful nor informative, and personally I've got you filed as troll.

 

[SR1419]

Why does NASA want to know what people see . . . ? Seems time-lapse Photography, remote video cameras, weather data, coupled with satellite images would be all they need . . . anyone for an answer . . . by the way the British Authorities have also requested assistance as well . . .

really?

Its called empirical data and is a pretty standard tool for scientific research.


BTW- why do you call yourself a "chemtrail advocate"? It makes it seem as if you are in favor of a purposeful "spray" campaign.

Are you?

Also- can you please provide source material to the "whilsteblowers" you keep mentioning...

thanks!

 

[Mick West]

​

See video at 4.21 minutes . . .

Why does NASA want to know what people see . . . ? Seems time-lapse Photography, remote video cameras, weather data, coupled with satellite images would be all they need . . . anyone for an answer . . . by the way the British Authorities have also requested assistance as well . . .

Interesting. This is the "argument from incredulity" - if you can't figure out what it's for, then it must be suspicious.

Can you really not see why this program would be useful? Come on George, you are an intelligent enough guy. What would be the use of hundreds of thousands of observations of contrail formation from thousands of points across the country, for several years?

Think about it. (or look it up).

http://scholar.google.com/

 

[Noble1965]

Originally Posted by GeorgeB1) 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 . . .




1) The people really looking are a very, very, small group of Chemtrail Advocates . . . no one else might . . .
2) Aircrews need not know anything . . .
3) Whistleblowers have come forward in several stories and have been completely ignored by the public media . . .
4) As far as keeping things under secrecy . . . have you heard of the CIA, MAFIA, Undercover agents, F117, Stealth Technology development, Skunk Works, Manhattan Project, and on and on and on . . .

3) BS! There are NO "chemtrail" whistle blowers...Only people who CLAIM to be...and who have convinced you they are. They are LIARS!

 

[Billzilla]

What if I told you unless you reduced the rate of global warming by one degree C within six months or 4.5 billion people would die . . . how would you do the mitigation then. . . .????

I'd say that impressive claims require impressive proof.
You could raise the temperature of the planet 10deg and there'd still be many hundreds of millions of people that would survive.

 

[George B]

What I would do is evaluate ALL the evidence and knowledge if that decision had to be made, not just that proposed by conspiracy believers, and not use hypothetical fantasy scenarios to try to justify a belief that there is a secret programme going on.

I'm done with you - you started fine - but are now just spamming drivel that is neither useful nor informative, and personally I've got you filed as troll.

Wow! You guys are tough. . . .I have been here 15 days and I am already a Troll. . . .seemed to me . . . what I asked was a reasonable question. . . You ask me questions and I have tried to honestly answer them . . . You think I like to be slammed for my beliefs. . . .

Look . . .if you have done contingency planning or risk analysis this is how it is done. . . High, Moderate, low risk . . . High, Moderate, Low probability of happening. . . .what methods used to prevent, limit occurrence or mitigate results if possible . . .

So you would evaluate the the options fine, that of course makes sense . . . What I am asking is within the options you
are familiar with . . .which one would you select. . . ??? . . .

 

[George B]

I'd say that impressive claims require impressive proof.You could raise the temperature of the planet 10deg and there'd still be many hundreds of millions of people that would survive.

It was a hypothetical. . . .I don't believe that is going to happen. . . Seems some scientists are more concerned than I am about global warming. . . .however, governments and militaries think in contingencies. . . .what ifs. . . They have staffs that do nothing but risk assessment and computer simulations. . . .

 

[George B]

3) BS! There are NO "chemtrail" whistle blowers...Only people who CLAIM to be...and who have convinced you they are. They are LIARS!

Noble, whistleblowers are almost always called liars or fear they will be called liars. . . . Now a hoax is different. . . You are saying all the Chemtrail informants who say they have inside information are hoaxes. . . Is that right?

 

[Billzilla]

It was a hypothetical. . . .I don't believe that is going to happen. . . Seems some scientists are more concerned than I am about global warming. . . .however, governments and militaries think in contingencies. . . .what ifs. . . They have staffs that do nothing but risk assessment and computer simulations. . . .

If you want a very real 'what if' - apologies for the thread drift - we really need to have a far better global asteroid detection and deflection network.
Statistically we will be hit by something big enough to wipe us all out pretty much any time, and we can currently do absolutely zero about it.

 

[George B]

Can you really not see why this program would be useful? Come on George, you are an intelligent enough guy. What would be the use of hundreds of thousands of observations of contrail formation from thousands of points across the country, for several years?

Actually I don't. . . .the noise from all those unqualified observers would be useless except for only a few things. . .
A. Publicity and education . . .
B. Confirmation of what is scientifically verified by photo and atmospheric data is also visible and when it is visible to the average citizen watching . . .that is it . . . .

 

[George B]

If you want a very real 'what if' - apologies for the thread drift - we really need to have a far better global asteroid detection and deflection network.
Statistically we will be hit by something big enough to wipe us all out pretty much any time, and we can currently do absolutely zero about it.

That is a valid concern and I am not convinced we have not addressed those issues with at least an attempt at a space based weapon system. . . Covert of course . . . And is probably a break in the provisions of international treaties. . . .

 

[Mick West]

Did you even look up the reasons why they do it? It's quite well explained.

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/datacomp.html

The Students' Cloud Observations On-Line (S'COOL) data are invaluable to the CERES project. Students from over 500 schools around the world collect data at close to the same time the CERES instrument is passing overhead. These observations are used as the "ground truth" to compare to the cloud data derived for CERES. The ground truth data are used throughout the validation process to help verify the cloud identification used by CERES. If there is a discrepancy in the two sets of data, the specifics of the data are analyzed to try to explain why there is not a perfect match. The reason for S'COOL is to help better understand all the data that are received from CERES and create a more solid, sound set of data for use in statistical studies.

And more formally:

http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/validation/pdf/ceresval_r4.0_over.pdf

3.6.5 S’COOL: Education Outreach and Cloud Validation
One of the more exciting new initiatives started by Lin Chambers and Dave Young of the
CERES team is to involve elementary and high school children in the CERES cloud validation
program. The basic concept is that schools sign on to the program, obtain basic training in
performing surface cloud observations (sky cover, type, altitude), they log onto the CERES web
site to get predicted satellite overpass times, the class conducts cloud observations at the time of
the TRMM, Terra or Aqua satellite overpass, and then they either fax or use the web to submit
their observations to the CERES S’COOL program (Students Cloud Observations OnLine). This
program already has over 600 schools participating in 45 different countries, on all continents.
This effort will continue to expand in the future, and provide not only educational outreach, but
also surface observations that CERES will compare to our satellite based retrievals. These are
expected to be particularily useful for clear-sky determination.

Details of the education aspect:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.32.2162&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Detains of the ground truth aspect:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2951&rep=rep1&type=pdf


Do you suspect their explanation?

I find this aspect of the theory interesting (hence I'm back in the thread, for this). I was repeatedly asked about this in an interview I did a few weeks ago. I explained it was a combination of NASA's education objectives, and hard science with ground truth calibration. The fact that it was asked about indicates it's a "talking point" in the chemtrail crowd. But it's something that has a very clear and simple explanation - but the suspicious people seem determined to never accept the simplest explanation, if it does not help bolster their world view.

 

[George B]

Mick, I have never seen it on any check list . . . It is my own suspicious nature. . .

 

[Noble1965]

Noble, whistleblowers are almost always called liars or fear they will be called liars. . . . Now a hoax is different. . . You are saying all the Chemtrail informants who say they have inside information are hoaxes. . . Is that right?

Of course...

But, they could be other [chemtrailers]...who don't know it's a hoax/urban legend...and are just USING The gullibility of people to recruit them into the hunt...

 

[Jay Reynolds]

​

See video at 4.21 minutes . . .

Why does NASA want to know what people see . . . ? Seems time-lapse Photography, remote video cameras, weather data, coupled with satellite images would be all they need . . . anyone for an answer . . . by the way the British Authorities have also requested assistance as well . . .

Dr. Lin Chambers knows all about the chemtrails hoax.
You chemtrails believer people are laughing stocks at NASA, and have been for over a decade.
NASA scientists once were shocked that you people were drumming up such a hokey conspiracy theory, they saw it as a great failure to impart scientific knowledge, understanding of the principles of the scientific method, and critical thinking.

Nowadays, they realize how many idiots thrive by supposition, speculation, and suspicion, and how many other idiots follow along as if they had large rings in their noses.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Noble, whistleblowers are almost always called liars or fear they will be called liars. . . . Now a hoax is different. . . You are saying all the Chemtrail informants who say they have inside information are hoaxes. . . Is that right?

Show me a genuine "whistleblower" who has actually brought out something confirmable, something with names, dates, documents, shipment numbers, aircraft tail numbers, anything that is actually useful.

Show me, George, even one, I'd like to see one.

 

[George B]

Dr. Lin Chambers knows all about the chemtrails hoax.
You chemtrails believer people are laughing stocks at NASA, and have been for over a decade.
NASA scientists once were shocked that you people were drumming up such a hokey conspiracy theory, they saw it as a great failure to impart scientific knowledge, understanding of the principles of the scientific method, and critical thinking.

Nowadays, they realize how many idiots thrive by supposition, speculation, and suspicion, and how many other idiots follow along as if they had large rings in their noses.

I am very aware of NASA's position on the conspiracy. . . I have corresponded with them directly regarding persistent contrail prediction models and contrail induced cirrus cloud complexes. . . Like the following over the UK . . .



http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Haywood09JGR.pdf

 

[George B]

Show me a genuine "whistleblower" who has actually brought out something confirmable, something with names, dates, documents, shipment numbers, aircraft tail numbers, anything that is actually useful.

Show me, George, even one, I'd like to see one.

I can't . . . However, I am not surprised . . . I am sure there are several conspiracies in the same boat. . .it would be nice if there were such evidence but some conspiracies last for decades and even centuries without much of anything but word of mouth, supposition, and speculation . . .

 

[George B]

Manhattan Project: *The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. The project was led by the United States, and included participation from the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. *


The project’s roots lay in scientists’ fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret. *With the total involved, this makes it one of the largest conspiracies in history. *Entire towns were built for short periods of time, employing people, all under secrecy and top national secrecy at that. *The government never admitted to it, the media never reported on it, and people had no idea for over 25 years. *Project research took place at over thirty sites across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now the Hanford Site, the uranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory. The MED maintained control over U.S. weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947. *http://blog.cytalk.com/2010/01/33-c...out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

 

[George B]

really?

Its called empirical data and is a pretty standard tool for scientific research.


BTW- why do you call yourself a "chemtrail advocate"? It makes it seem as if you are in favor of a purposeful "spray" campaign.

Are you?

Also- can you please provide source material to the "whilsteblowers" you keep mentioning...

thanks!

Sure empirical data from school children. . .

I prefer Chemtrail Advocate over [chemtrailer]. . . .and yes, if I can stop a process like global warming that might be threatened the entire biosphere I would be an advocate. . . . I am sure you might have a suggestion on what I should call conspiracy theorists . . .

Whistleblowers. . . I did earlier . . . This forum has discussed most of them already. . . If I find one they haven't . . .I will present it. . . .

 

[Mick West]

Why can't you get empirical data from school children? Did you read the paper with the early results? Sounded like good science to me, and good educational outreach.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2951&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

[George B]

To recap so far what we have established in the last 15 days . . .

1) The rate of global warming has changed

2) NOAA published an article showing an decrease in the rate of Global Warming via an increase in aerosols in the stratosphere the sourceas either from natural or anthropomorphic sources.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html

"The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoin gresearch, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles."

3)There is no hard scientifically verifiable evidence which proves the existenceof an Intentional Aerosol Injection Program accomplished by aircraft . . .

4) Commercial long haul aircraft are capableof flight in the high troposphere and lower stratosphere . . .

5)Jet fuel may contain Sulfur Compounds that have been found to be around 500ppm; however, the maximum allowed under by environmental guidelines is 3,000ppm . . . Page 12
(http://www.cgabusinessdesk.com/document/aviation_tech_review.pdf )

6) Crude oil can containas much as 12,000 ppm Sulfur Compounds
. . . . . . ( http://www.bellfuels.com/lowsulfur.html )

7) The Intentional Injection of SulfurCompounds in the Stratosphere to reduce the effects of global warming is a common proposal or option discussed and evaluated by the pioneers in geo-engineering to include the more recent research proposals even today . . .

8) The Sun has a cycle where there are times when it has fewer sun spots and solar storms and times when it is at maximum .. . we are soon expecting a solar maximum and it was originally thought to be potentially very intense and serious . . . in response NASA built an early warning system in the hope to avert the energy grid from becoming a casualty .. .

9) The US government and military sometimes work in secrecy and have accomplished several important military projects under such cover . . . these projects have sometimes included multiple locations and thousands of personnel . . . military as well ascivilian . . .

10) The US has cooperative treaties with othercountries to allow the flight of a limited number of foreign aircraft under strict guidelines tomonitor military operations and treaty compliance . . .

11) Flight plan information about military,diplomatic, and other aircraft are/ or may be blocked form immediate access by the general public . . .

Not greatbut it is a start . . .

 

[Mick West]

To recap sofar what we have established in the last 15 days . . .
1) The rateof global warming has changed

Wait. Where did you establish that? I thought recent research showed it was constant.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1.

When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.​

 

[George B]

I guess it is just how you want to phrase the issue . . . I could have combined #1 and #2 together but just started the first on the list . . . you object to my wording?

"A recent increase in the abundance of particles high in the atmosphere has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade, according to a new study led by NOAA and published today in the online edition of Science . . " http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html

 

[George B]

MICK, I don't disagree that there were some sound looking data; however, I don't think this is the normal way scientifically verifiable data is normally collected . . . and most researchers would never use high school students . . .

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper reports on initial comparisons using a
surface observer ground truth dataset obtained for
validation of the CERES cloud properties by globally
distributed K-12 observers. While the dataset illustrates
some of the pitfalls of using a student observer network,
it also demonstrates that useful information can be
obtained. This is just the beginning and additional
comparisons will continue to be analyzed as new
CERES data are processed and as new observations
are received.

 

[Mick West]

So the rate of global warming has not changed?

 

[George B]

Good night . . . need some rest . . . I will check back in the morning . . .

 

[Mick West]

MICK, I don't disagree that there were some sound looking data; however, I don't think this is the normal way scientifically verifiable data is normally collected . . . and most researchers would never use high school students . . .

Nobody said it was normal. But it does happen. And it produced good science.

But you just said it was suspicious, implying it was part of some conspiracy.

 

[George B]

Yes, MICK it has changed . . . if it had not been for what NOAA indicated below . . . the rate would have been higher . . . Yes, the direction of the global warming is trending in the same direction . . . but without the Aerosols highlighted by NOAA the rate of change would have been higher . . . so it is slower . . .

"has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade"

 

[George B]

Let's talk about a bit about computer assisted risk assessment, decision analysis, regression analysis, Linear programming and your government and *Decision trees used by the big boys. . . And how this relates to my believing there may well be a Intentional Aerosol Injection Program . .

.I know historically how 'they' got some of their empirical information and can give non-classified examples. . . .First let me explain my experience. . . .I was a junior task scientist 30 plus years ago . . I got to search for sources of measurable valid data that could be entered into computer models *. .

. I got the enviable task of entering the data . . . Trouble shooting, running and debugging the computerized regression analysis program *. . . . *This analysis resulted in output which weighted the contribution of each data category, we called them dimensions, against an outcome of a *one or a zero *. . . one meaning something would happen and a zero meaning something did not happen. . .

.1) With this information we would then go to the Senior Scientists and they would validate our findings. . . They recommend changes including new data sets, directed the elimination of data sets that yielded no contribution or those they felt were imbedded in other data or were redundant, etc. . . We would repeat the process until we had a condensed set of the*best data available that best predicted known outcomes. . . .either through a positive correlative loading or through a negative correlative loading. . . . By-the-way, I am doing this from memory of over thirty years ago and not re-introducing myself to the vocabulary or the new concepts that have arisen since . . . I am sure they are far beyond what I am describing. . .


.2) The next step was to use the weightings from the regression analysis *which became an algorithm to run a liner programming model to maximize a prediction of future outcomes based on different input parameters usually a three set model. . . High, Medium, and Low*

.3) The analysis would then be reviewed by the Senior Scientists to see if anything did not pass the common sense test, political correctness test, future funding sensitivity test, will we be reorganized and/or all fired next month test. . . And if it passed those tests and reviews it would be packaged with the appropriate boilerplate, peer reviewed, *classification analysis accomplished and recommended (No Classification, *or Classified . . . . Confidential, Sensitive, . . . Secret, etc.) *. . .it would then leave our little world as an officially published technical report and usually never to be seen again except in our library, in the Air University, or cited as evidence or referenced by some other researcher . .

. *4) Occasionally we would be summoned to brief the high level decision makers. . . Congressional and Senate Staffers, Four Star Generals and Admirals and their Staff, etc. . . That is when the XXXXX would hit the fan. . . .if our findings did not fit the prevailing conventional wisdom we paid a heavy price. . . However in the end we sometimes hit a home run *. . . A somewhat sad note . . . my little organization no longer exists. . . It was either sent deep into black operations, engulfed by a larger paramecium, or was simply outsourced to RAND Corp. . . .

 

[Mick West]

What was your "little organization" called?

 

[George B]

Originally Posted by George B

MICK, I don't disagree that there were some sound looking data; however, I don't think this is the normal way scientifically verifiable data is normally collected . . . and most researchers would never use high school students . . ..

Nobody said it was normal. But it does happen. And it produced good science.But you just said it was suspicious, implying it was part of some conspiracy.

In my experience with published research one might use HS students as subjects of the research but never use them to collect or identify data used for such purpose. . . So is it suspicious to me. . . .Yes. . . The reasons as I implied above are the following:
1) Publicity
2) Public Relations
3) Education
4) Encourage future scientists and potential employees
5) Indoctrination and propaganda
6) Forgot the most important one. . . NASA and the UK authorities want to see what people are able to see and react to not what a photo or video represents. . .

 

[Mick West]

Yes, MICK it has changed . . . if it had not been for what NOAA indicated below . . . the rate would have been higher . . . Yes, the direction of the global warming is trending in the same direction . . . but without the Aerosols highlighted by NOAA the rate of change would have been higher . . . so it is slower . . .

"has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade"

But other studies say the rate has not changed. All this study says is that their measurements suggest the global warming would be slight higher without SSAs (which have been increasing on average since the 1960s).

While subject to much more instrumental uncertainty, Fig. 4 also suggests that the
underlying increase in the “background” aerosols from the
very low values indicated by observations around 1960 to the
higher levels observed around 2000 probably reduced the
global warming that would otherwise have occurred between
1960 and 2000 by about –0.05°C.

So you are suggesting that there's been a secret program of increasing fuel sulphur content for the last 50+ years?

 

[George B]

I do not want to say what the organization was in public. . . Because my identity may be able to be deduced from that but would share with you privately. . . If you will not share with others. . .

 

[Mick West]

What's the big deal with hiding your identity?