Where is the Stratosphere today?

Met Watch

Moderator
Someone correct me if I get this wrong, but cold air sinks and compresses, so the air will slowly "fall" towards the surface. On really cold days like you get here in North Dakota, the stratosphere will be even lower than you see it now.

Take a look at those maps in January, and then compare them to the summer. I can almost guarantee you that you will see higher numbers during the summer months, since the warmer temps allow air to rise...and hence, the level of the stratosphere rises.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A big part of both the temperature and the location of the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere) is the jet stream, which wiggles about all over the place. It's not a simple linear relationship between temperature and tropopause, there's also the complex interaction between areas of high and low pressure, solar heating, the effects of ocean and land topography, and the Coriolis effect.

So yeah, it can get colder because of cold air coming from the north, but of course on average it gets colder because it's winter, and that cooling effect on average lowers the tropopause. There's a complex interaction between rising warm air, and falling cold air.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html

 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
I can offer such a portal... you can use it or reject it... it's up to you
There are a couple of points you seem eager to miss.

a) Smoke doesn't make things clear. It obscures.

b) What it obscures (among many others) is the fact that you are WRONG.

Just as those that oppose evolution are entirely wrong.

And there is no arbitration to be made between a RIGHT ANSWER and a WRONG ANSWER. Ever...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There are a couple of points you seem eager to miss.

a) Smoke doesn't make things clear. It obscures.

b) What it obscures (among many others) is the fact that you are WRONG.

Just as those that oppose evolution are entirely wrong.

And there is no arbitration to be made between a RIGHT ANSWER and a WRONG ANSWER. Ever...
I am not offering answers . . . I am offering unrestricted ability to present your evidence where Chemtrail believers are participating . . . you can use your skills of persuasion to convince them they are wrong . . . I will not restrict you or allow people to harass you while on my Thread . . .
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
David Keith on the Australian ABC last night. Not really supportive of your theory George...


[video]http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm[/video]

[h=2]Transcript[/h] TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada.

David Keith, thanks for joining us.

DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.

TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?

DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions.

And that fear was broke a few years ago and so now kind of all the research is pouring out really because effectively had been suppressed, not by some terrible suppressor, but by a fear of talking about it.

TONY JONES: So what do you think would actually drive the world's superpowers or a collective of nations to decide to actually do this, to go ahead and begin the process of planning and preparing for a geoengineering project?

DAVID KEITH: Very, very hard to guess. I mean, essential thing to say about this is that technology is the easy part; the hard part is the politics. Really deeply hard and almost unguessable. At this point we have no regulatory structure whatsoever and no treaty structure, so it's really unclear what would - how such a thing would be controlled.

TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously consider this? Is it 10, 20, 30, 50 years?

DAVID KEITH: Well, forced is a very fuzzy word, so a popular thing to say in this business is to say that we would do it in the case of a climate emergency. But that's kind of easy to say. In a case of emergency we should do all sorts of wild things, but it's not clear what an emergency is. So I'm a little sticky with the word forced. But I think it could happen any time from a decade from now to many, many decades hence.

The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not. And I'm somebody who advocates that we do do such research.

And one thing that research may show is that this doesn't work as well as we think. And my view is: whether you're somebody who hopes this will work or hopes it doesn't, more knowledge is a good thing.

TONY JONES: So if you were given the go-ahead to do research and the funds to do it, because I imagine it would be very expensive, what would you actually do?

DAVID KEITH: It's not very expensive actually to begin to do little in-situ experiments. So I am working on one and many other people are. So what we would do - the experiment that I'm most involved with would look at a certain aspect of stratospheric chemistry, of the way that the ozone layer is damaged and we'd be looking at whether or not and how much increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, which may happen naturally, and also the increase of sulphate aerosols if we geoengineered might damage the ozone layer.

Basically, how much damage there would be and how we could fix it. And that experiment would be done in a very, very small amount of material; we're talking, like, a tonne of material, so small compared to what an aircraft does travelling across the Pacific. And the cost of it would be a few millions to 5 million kind of money, which on the scale of big atmospheric research projects is actually not that much. I mean, the total climate research budget is billion class.

TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles?

DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, "What's the very most likely thing to work right now?" that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done.

So we have big volcanoes that put sulphur in the stratosphere and we know something about the bad impacts of that and we know something about what it does to cool the planet. And so it seems pretty likely that since we'd be putting in much less than nature puts in, at least for the first half century or more, that we could actually do something and control the risks.

TONY JONES: Yes, I guess you mentioned volcanic activity and that's what scientists are basing, I suppose, their knowledge on now. What we've seen from volcanic activity is - and you can go back to '91 and Mount Pinatubo, which actually caused a fairly sudden drop in global temperatures because it blanketed the atmosphere in that way, but it also had, evidently, climate change effects itself, so there are clearly dangers here.

DAVID KEITH: For sure. There are a bunch of dangers. There are both the dangers of kind of side effects like ozone loss or interfering with atmospheric chemistry in other ways. There's the basic fact that this is not a perfect compensation for CO2.

So for example, carbon dioxide makes the ocean more acidic and doing these things to cool the planet will do nothing to correct that. So in the end we will have to cut emissions no matter what, but the fact that we have to cut emissions in the long run doesn't mean that we might not want to do things in the short run that actually provide real protection, if in fact they do, protecting people from heat stress or protecting the Arctic from melting.

So I think we need to get out of the kind of extreme either/or that says you only do this if you can't cut emissions. That's nonsense. Cutting emissions we need to do in order to reduce the risks over the next century or two, but we still might want to do some of this in order to reduce the risks over the next half century and those are really quite distinct things.

TONY JONES: Let's talk about the risks of actually doing it on a global scale because you've been pretty frank about that. You've actually said you could easily imagine a chain of events that would extinguish life on Earth. Now what would be that potential chain of events from using this kind of technology?

DAVID KEITH: Yes, I probably got quoted a little out of context there. I think there are sort of theoretically possible ways that could happen, but I don't think there's socially plausible way it could happen. So, you might in principle be able to put up enough reflective aerosols - probably not sulphates, actually; I think it won't work with sulphates - but some other engineered aerosol.

And if you did that for 100 years and reflected away sort of 8 per cent of the sunlight, whereas the amount people are talking about doing is more like 1 per cent, then in principle you could actually freeze the oceans over, as happened some good chunk of a billion years ago, and that would be devastating. But I think that the chance of people doing that would sort of be a global suicide is so remote as not to be a serious worry.

I think the reason I've occasionally said that is that it illustrates the kind of power that this technology grants us. And I think for better, for worse, what this technology gives us is this enormous kind of leverage and power to alter the climate and to do it with a very small amount of money or material and that power should frighten us, I think, and it presents real deep problems for governance.

So unlike the problem of CO2 emissions, which is changing the climate, but which is a product of human actions all over the planet. Every individual person flying or driving a car or using electricity around the planet contributes to carbon dioxide.

If you talk about putting sulphates or some other engineered particle in the stratosphere, the issue is that a very small number of people in principle could do it and have this kind of huge leverage to affect the whole climate in this profound way. And that's what raises the very hard challenge of governance.

TONY JONES: Yes, is there a fear raised by what you're saying that some country, a superpower, China, for example, has been suggested, could actually do something like this unilaterally and thereby create conflict over the whole idea of geo-engineering?

DAVID KEITH: Yes, it's certainly possible. So, there's no question it's technically possible to do it unilaterally. So, the actual materials you need, the aircraft and engineering you need to do this are something that would be in reach easily of any of the G20 states. It's not hard to do. You could buy the equipment from many aeronautical contractors.

So in that sense it could be done unilaterally. I think that there are scenarios under which it would happen in the real world unilaterally, but I don't think we should - I mean, I think you can exaggerate that possibility.

But, you know - so, for example, I think if nothing was done to manage emissions and if climate impacts really fell strongly on, say, India - which might actually happen from heat stress on crops - you could imagine India doing it unilaterally. But there's a kind of a hard and an easy unilateralism.

So if a country in a really kind of wanton way just starts it with no consultation, that would be clearly ugly, bad, could create conflict, but I think there are also kinds of unilateralism where you're not formally doing it in a legal multinational way, but where you do it with lots of consultation. And in that situation what might happen is a small number of countries might do it and many other countries might publicly say, "We wish we were involved in the decision," and privately say, "We're pretty happy somebody's doing this because actually it will reduce climate risk and then this other group will take the liability."

TONY JONES: And final question, because you probably - if someone decided to do this, even if a group of nations decided to do this, there'd be tremendous scepticism in the public and you would, I imagine, get widespread protests, particularly when people realise that with sulphate particles in the atmosphere you'd actually change the colour of the sky, which has a really big psychological effect on people, you would imagine.

How serious first of all would that change of colour be if you really were able to do it on a global scale and would you expect protests?

DAVID KEITH: I think the change of colour would probably be invisible. I think it wouldn't happen. So people have published papers where they get that, but only where they assume a quite large amount of geoengineering. They assume that geoengineering compensates all of the effect of climate change, which I think is a kind of nonsense policy.

So in a more plausible policy where you gradually wrap this up, compensating only part of the global warming (inaudible), to kind of balance risks and benefits and where you gradually use more advanced particles, maybe starting in 50 years, I think you never see a change in colour.

So I think that's a bit of a unlikely circumstance. But I do think it's clear that people will protest because there are going to be winners and losers, just as there are under climate change. So it's important to say that putting CO2 in the atmosphere, which we're doing, creates winners and losers and this will again.

TONY JONES: David Keith, we'll have to leave you there. Fascinating to hear from you. We thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to us.

DAVID KEITH: Thanks very much.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
David Keith on the Australian ABC last night. Not really supportive of your theory George...


[video]http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm[/video]

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada.

David Keith, thanks for joining us.

DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.

TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?

DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions.

And that fear was broke a few years ago and so now kind of all the research is pouring out really because effectively had been suppressed, not by some terrible suppressor, but by a fear of talking about it.

TONY JONES: So what do you think would actually drive the world's superpowers or a collective of nations to decide to actually do this, to go ahead and begin the process of planning and preparing for a geoengineering project?

DAVID KEITH: Very, very hard to guess. I mean, essential thing to say about this is that technology is the easy part; the hard part is the politics. Really deeply hard and almost unguessable. At this point we have no regulatory structure whatsoever and no treaty structure, so it's really unclear what would - how such a thing would be controlled.

TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously consider this? Is it 10, 20, 30, 50 years?

DAVID KEITH: Well, forced is a very fuzzy word, so a popular thing to say in this business is to say that we would do it in the case of a climate emergency. But that's kind of easy to say. In a case of emergency we should do all sorts of wild things, but it's not clear what an emergency is. So I'm a little sticky with the word forced. But I think it could happen any time from a decade from now to many, many decades hence.

The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not. And I'm somebody who advocates that we do do such research.

And one thing that research may show is that this doesn't work as well as we think. And my view is: whether you're somebody who hopes this will work or hopes it doesn't, more knowledge is a good thing.

TONY JONES: So if you were given the go-ahead to do research and the funds to do it, because I imagine it would be very expensive, what would you actually do?

DAVID KEITH: It's not very expensive actually to begin to do little in-situ experiments. So I am working on one and many other people are. So what we would do - the experiment that I'm most involved with would look at a certain aspect of stratospheric chemistry, of the way that the ozone layer is damaged and we'd be looking at whether or not and how much increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, which may happen naturally, and also the increase of sulphate aerosols if we geoengineered might damage the ozone layer.

Basically, how much damage there would be and how we could fix it. And that experiment would be done in a very, very small amount of material; we're talking, like, a tonne of material, so small compared to what an aircraft does travelling across the Pacific. And the cost of it would be a few millions to 5 million kind of money, which on the scale of big atmospheric research projects is actually not that much. I mean, the total climate research budget is billion class.

TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles?

DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, "What's the very most likely thing to work right now?" that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done.

So we have big volcanoes that put sulphur in the stratosphere and we know something about the bad impacts of that and we know something about what it does to cool the planet. And so it seems pretty likely that since we'd be putting in much less than nature puts in, at least for the first half century or more, that we could actually do something and control the risks.

TONY JONES: Yes, I guess you mentioned volcanic activity and that's what scientists are basing, I suppose, their knowledge on now. What we've seen from volcanic activity is - and you can go back to '91 and Mount Pinatubo, which actually caused a fairly sudden drop in global temperatures because it blanketed the atmosphere in that way, but it also had, evidently, climate change effects itself, so there are clearly dangers here.

DAVID KEITH: For sure. There are a bunch of dangers. There are both the dangers of kind of side effects like ozone loss or interfering with atmospheric chemistry in other ways. There's the basic fact that this is not a perfect compensation for CO2.

So for example, carbon dioxide makes the ocean more acidic and doing these things to cool the planet will do nothing to correct that. So in the end we will have to cut emissions no matter what, but the fact that we have to cut emissions in the long run doesn't mean that we might not want to do things in the short run that actually provide real protection, if in fact they do, protecting people from heat stress or protecting the Arctic from melting.

So I think we need to get out of the kind of extreme either/or that says you only do this if you can't cut emissions. That's nonsense. Cutting emissions we need to do in order to reduce the risks over the next century or two, but we still might want to do some of this in order to reduce the risks over the next half century and those are really quite distinct things.

TONY JONES: Let's talk about the risks of actually doing it on a global scale because you've been pretty frank about that. You've actually said you could easily imagine a chain of events that would extinguish life on Earth. Now what would be that potential chain of events from using this kind of technology?

DAVID KEITH: Yes, I probably got quoted a little out of context there. I think there are sort of theoretically possible ways that could happen, but I don't think there's socially plausible way it could happen. So, you might in principle be able to put up enough reflective aerosols - probably not sulphates, actually; I think it won't work with sulphates - but some other engineered aerosol.

And if you did that for 100 years and reflected away sort of 8 per cent of the sunlight, whereas the amount people are talking about doing is more like 1 per cent, then in principle you could actually freeze the oceans over, as happened some good chunk of a billion years ago, and that would be devastating. But I think that the chance of people doing that would sort of be a global suicide is so remote as not to be a serious worry.

I think the reason I've occasionally said that is that it illustrates the kind of power that this technology grants us. And I think for better, for worse, what this technology gives us is this enormous kind of leverage and power to alter the climate and to do it with a very small amount of money or material and that power should frighten us, I think, and it presents real deep problems for governance.

So unlike the problem of CO2 emissions, which is changing the climate, but which is a product of human actions all over the planet. Every individual person flying or driving a car or using electricity around the planet contributes to carbon dioxide.

If you talk about putting sulphates or some other engineered particle in the stratosphere, the issue is that a very small number of people in principle could do it and have this kind of huge leverage to affect the whole climate in this profound way. And that's what raises the very hard challenge of governance.

TONY JONES: Yes, is there a fear raised by what you're saying that some country, a superpower, China, for example, has been suggested, could actually do something like this unilaterally and thereby create conflict over the whole idea of geo-engineering?

DAVID KEITH: Yes, it's certainly possible. So, there's no question it's technically possible to do it unilaterally. So, the actual materials you need, the aircraft and engineering you need to do this are something that would be in reach easily of any of the G20 states. It's not hard to do. You could buy the equipment from many aeronautical contractors.

So in that sense it could be done unilaterally. I think that there are scenarios under which it would happen in the real world unilaterally, but I don't think we should - I mean, I think you can exaggerate that possibility.

But, you know - so, for example, I think if nothing was done to manage emissions and if climate impacts really fell strongly on, say, India - which might actually happen from heat stress on crops - you could imagine India doing it unilaterally. But there's a kind of a hard and an easy unilateralism.

So if a country in a really kind of wanton way just starts it with no consultation, that would be clearly ugly, bad, could create conflict, but I think there are also kinds of unilateralism where you're not formally doing it in a legal multinational way, but where you do it with lots of consultation. And in that situation what might happen is a small number of countries might do it and many other countries might publicly say, "We wish we were involved in the decision," and privately say, "We're pretty happy somebody's doing this because actually it will reduce climate risk and then this other group will take the liability."

TONY JONES: And final question, because you probably - if someone decided to do this, even if a group of nations decided to do this, there'd be tremendous scepticism in the public and you would, I imagine, get widespread protests, particularly when people realise that with sulphate particles in the atmosphere you'd actually change the colour of the sky, which has a really big psychological effect on people, you would imagine.

How serious first of all would that change of colour be if you really were able to do it on a global scale and would you expect protests?

DAVID KEITH: I think the change of colour would probably be invisible. I think it wouldn't happen. So people have published papers where they get that, but only where they assume a quite large amount of geoengineering. They assume that geoengineering compensates all of the effect of climate change, which I think is a kind of nonsense policy.

So in a more plausible policy where you gradually wrap this up, compensating only part of the global warming (inaudible), to kind of balance risks and benefits and where you gradually use more advanced particles, maybe starting in 50 years, I think you never see a change in colour.

So I think that's a bit of a unlikely circumstance. But I do think it's clear that people will protest because there are going to be winners and losers, just as there are under climate change. So it's important to say that putting CO2 in the atmosphere, which we're doing, creates winners and losers and this will again.

TONY JONES: David Keith, we'll have to leave you there. Fascinating to hear from you. We thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to us.

DAVID KEITH: Thanks very much.
Very interesting interview . . . however, I have agreed not to continue this discussion . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
It must suck to be David Keith right now. The death threats, dehumanizing, and scorn against him thrown out all across the web is the direct result of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. I have to place the majority of the blame on the producers of "What In The World Are They Spraying" and "Why In The Word Are They Spraying". They began a concerted effort to target the man. The clips shown in the movie were highly edited out of context and put back together in a dishonest way to make him seem to say something he didn't actually say. It was dishonest to do that, but it was done on purpose, and made worse in the second film by even more selective editing.

In the video below, this guy explains the reaction which the movie intended to cause.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
Intense.

And interesting, too. What strikes me with that monologue (video above) is this contrast: He talks about the various "spraying" he has seen as already taking place, yet in every place where he recounts David Keith's he recounts them in the future tense (as DK does).

Is it really such a short jump in reasoning to project "we could do it; it is feasible" into "we are doing it, and we have been doing it"? This chap doesn't address that gap in the "evidence". And neither do other proponents of "the chemtrails".
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Intense.

And interesting, too. What strikes me with that monologue (video above) is this contrast: He talks about the various "spraying" he has seen as already taking place, yet in every place where he recounts David Keith's he recounts them in the future tense (as DK does).

Is it really such a short jump in reasoning to project "we could do it; it is feasible" into "we are doing it, and we have been doing it"? This chap doesn't address that gap in the "evidence". And neither do other proponents of "the chemtrails".
When he "projects" DK he is offers himself up for inspection. Not a pretty sight.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
K I miss my sister. Where do I start? Escaping The Rabbit Hole 27
JKL George H. W. Bush "can't remember" where he was on Nov. 22, 1963 Quotes Debunked 11
FatPhil Given a photo of a building, where was it taken from? Tools for Investigating and Debunking 1
banditsat12oclock Where did UFO reports go between 1969 and 2007? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
Mick West Nanothermite on 9/11 - Where did the idea come from? 9/11 32
Rory Where online is debunking most effective? Practical Debunking 14
Mick West Where are you on the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale? Practical Debunking 28
SFX Where to ask questions about posting? Site Feedback & News 5
Trailspotter Where did the third trail go? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Where and How could the Wallace Experiment Easily Be Repeated? Flat Earth 252
R Occasions where you don't engage a misconception CT? Practical Debunking 18
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Whitebeard Magic Hills Where Cars Roll "Uphill" Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Converting mb (pressure) to altitude, and sites where this is useful Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Where are the AE911 models? 9/11 79
Mick West Debunkers, Skeptics and Conspiracists: Where are you on the political compass? General Discussion 252
Tazmanian Where did the explosions come from? Boston Marathon Bombings 46
George B Contrails in the Stratosphere Contrails and Chemtrails 49
Mick West RT Promoting Flat Earth? Flat Earth 31
deirdre PSA: Mick West discusses Flat Earth on Joe Rogan (JRE) show today Flat Earth 8
steve holmes Why only one contrail today? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Mick West Why Were There Contrails Today, But Not Yesterday? It's the Weather! Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Critical Thinker Psychology Today article: 'Reasoned Sense would be better than Common Sense' Practical Debunking 0
Critical Thinker Article in Psychology Today: The Art of Positive Skepticism Practical Debunking 0
PowerSlug Russia Today..... Trustworthy? General Discussion 118
AluminumTheory Conspiracists and Skeptics: (in your opinion) What is Wrong with the World Today? General Discussion 4
Neil Pennington No planes today Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Related Articles





























Related Articles

Top