Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some things happen every year. A tree grows a bit and forms a new tree ring, snow falls in the arctic and creates a layer of ice, sediment settles in a lake, forming a layer of sediment called a varve.

Each of those things is in some ways a history record. Each encapsulates, in various ways, what happend that year. Ice cores contain tiny bubbles which contain a tiny sample of the atmosphere from hundreds and thousands of years ago. Tree rings vary in thickness. Varves contain whatever particulates settled into the lake that year.

We can look at these things and find a record of things like the metal smelting activities of the Roman Empire, but also of even of quite recent events. Examples:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112074
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0013932775900555
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ba-1987-0216.ch012
http://hero.epa.gov/index.cfm?action=reference.details&reference_id=364710
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969702000323

Here (from the above link) were see the history of lead in the deposits of four swedish lakes. A huge spike in the 20th Century is followed by rapid decline as leaded gasoline is phased out.



Although here's a slightly different story:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/newrec/2417/tmpl/story.7.html

So could this be used to prove or disprove the covert-geoengineering hypothesis? Could the work already have been done?
 
Last edited:

Steve Funk

Active Member
As a forester, I think tree rings are not promising in temperate zones because the amount of aluminum deposited would not significantly change the soil, and the tree roots could be functioning several feet deep. Possibly in a tropical forest with acid soils and shallow rooted trees, tree rings could show you something.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
(And just to be clear, the "admin over there", Uncinus, is me, Mick, the admin over here)
 
As a forester, I think tree rings are not promising in temperate zones because the amount of aluminum deposited would not significantly change the soil, and the tree roots could be functioning several feet deep. Possibly in a tropical forest with acid soils and shallow rooted trees, tree rings could show you something.
I would be interested to see if the roots would absorb the heavy metals at all. I know that a lot of things are not absorbed by roots because complex molecules which are too large to fit through the uptake port in the root will not be absorbed by the root. This would leave only what was absorbed through the bark.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
In his recent video interview, Francis Mangels mentions a recent article in the February 2012 Scientific American magazine titled:

Swept from Africa to the Amazon

The article says:
Scientific American said:
Joseph R. McConnell of the Desert Research Institute–Reno in Nevada has been working on precisely that question of cause and effect. To get answers, he analyzes the dust embedded in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica. He begins by taking ice cores, anywhere from 20 meters to three kilometers long, depending on how far back in time he wants to probe. Then he flies them to his lab. He has two$400,000 machines—high-resolution mass spectrometers—to measure the concentrations of elements found in the ice. These elements include aluminum and rare-earth elements such as cerium found in dust but not in sea salt, industrial pollution, or emissions from volcanoes and forest fires.

The machines work like this: glacial water from the ice cores is injected into a plasma that is as hot as the sun’s surface—about 6,000 kelvins. “This vaporizes almost everything, and we count the ionized atoms of each leftover element based on their atomic mass and electrical charge,” McConnell says. “It’s extremely sensitive. Some elemental concentrations are as low as parts per quadrillion. We’ve applied it to shallow ice cores covering the recent centuries and just now are applying it to deep ice cores spanning the last ice age.”

What McConnell is trying to measure is dust levels over time so that he can figure out what might have caused them to rise and fall. From his results it would seem that desertification and changes in land use in Patagonia (including the expansion of sheep farming in the early 20th century) correspond with a doubling in dust levels in Antarctica during that period. It might be tempting to argue for a simple process of cause and effect: overuse of land leads to desertification, which produces more dust, which then fuels climate change. McConnell warns, however, that “there are a lot of drivers of dust.”
http://bibliotecaearth.net/2012/01/26/swept-from-africa-to-the-amazon-2/
Dr. McConnell's website has a link to his paper at his website:
http://www.dri.edu/joe-mcconnell?start=3

McConnell, J.R., A.J. Aristarain, J.R. Banta, P.R. Edwards, and J.C. Simoes, 2007.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
"20th century doubling in dust archived in an Antarctic peninsula ice core parallels climate change and desertification in South America."

McConnel's paper covers the time period 1832 to 1991, with the actual collection of the core being in 1998, so while the time period of the research predates the onset of claimed geoengineering, it does provide clear long term evidence of the background atmospheric deposition of aluminum in Antarctica. From the graph below, I'd estimate the average aluminum flux (the rate of deposition of elemental aluminum) at present in Antarctica is somewhere between 2-3 mg/m2​/yr (milligrams per square meter per year).

Hope this helps to understand the subject.

McConnell.jpg

You won't find this sort of information at any "chemtrails" website.

They have been loathe to admit that any aluminum should ever be found in the atmosphere.
Mangels' citation of the article above, however, shows us that he has come to begrudgingly understand that aluminum is indeed a large part of ordinary atmospheric aerosols.

As I understand it, when Mick began to discuss real science at the recent 'Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails' conference, the chemtrails promoter Dane Wigington had two words to say about that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2 mg/m2​/yr over the entire planet is approx 1,000,000,000 Kg per year. That's about one million tons of Aluminum per year falling out of the sky from natural causes.

Total aluminum production worldwide is 41,400,000 tons.

Surface area of earth = 500,000,000 km2, = 500,000,000,000,000 m2.
So 500,000,000,000,000 * 0.000002 = 1,000,000,000

Of course the aluminum deposition is not actually aluminum metal, it's the aluminum in mineral dust - but that's what their tests show. That's actually what I was trying to talk to Dane about, as he seemed to be thinking the tests showed actual metal. He politely told me he'd prefer not to talk about it, as it would just lead to arguing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A related calculation, and also related to varves, is the loading of Lake Michigan with aluminum - not just from deposition, but from run-off:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22-c6.pdf
That's 5,000 tonnes of aluminum per year, just in Lake Michigan, at 58,000 km2. A simplistic extrapolation to the surface for the planet gives 50 million tonnes of aluminum. Obviously that's not correct as it's not deposition, but it does illustrate the plausibility of the 1 million ton deposition worldwide.
 
"He has two$400,000 machines—high-resolution mass spectrometers—to measure the concentrations of elements found in the ice. These elements include aluminum and rare-earth elements such as cerium found in dust but not in sea salt, industrial pollution, or emissions from volcanoes and forest fires.

Is this statement saying that sea salt, industrial pollution, forest fire smoke and volcanic emissions contain no aluminum or rare-earth elements? Or that the ice contained no aluminum or rare earth elements? Or both?

Woah, I wish I had time to go to conferences to debunk stuff... I don't even have time to go to conferences on things that I agree with!
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Just a little backgrounder on the global dust budget:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_dust_budget

Recent studies estimate that global dust-emission rates falls within a range from less than 1000 to 3000 teragrams (Tg) yr–1, and about 80% of the dust is from the Northern Hemisphere. Estimates show a wide range of values, reflecting differences in modeling procedures, model resolution, the considered time scale, and specification of the source areas. The world's largest source of dust is the Sahara Desert, and the estimated range of dust emission from the Sahara Desert is from 160 to 760 Tg yr–1, ranging from one-third to over half of the total global dust emission.
The chemtrails promoters frequently claim that 20 million metric tons of aluminum oxide is being "sprayed".
20 million metric tons equals 20 teragrams, 1% of the average annual ordinary dust rate.

One of the problems with using ice cores, etc. to assess whether or not geoengineering is taking place is that there is no clear and direct connection between a purported geoengineering program and whatever happens to be in the air. There is no way to show a causality for what is seen which can be directly attributed to airplanes. What is seen could be just a general change in flux or an extraordinary event such as a volcanic eruption. In the above graph from McConnell, you can clearly see both a general change over the 20th century as well as significant spikes due to volcanism, both of which are mentioned in the paper.

Besides being readily available and abundant, and despite the protestations of chemtrails promoters about the supposed toxic effects of aluminum, biology tells us that life evolved and exists quite well with a ubiquitous and constant flux of this element. If aluminum were available in a cationic form this may not be so, but the facts are that it is not commonly found in that available state and life has evolved means of preventing what is available from becoming a detrimental accumulation.
These facts about aluminum have stymied the chemtrails promoters, and they flee from any discussion of it except when stooping to the lowest forms of sensationalism to create a bogeyman out of this ordinary element.

Even though it may be hopeless trying to tease out a likely small additional atmospheric flux of aluminum from a purported geoengineering program, there is a way in which such a geoengineering program, if it existed, could be measured.

There is direct evidence which can tell us whether or not geoengineering is taking place.

The purpose for geoengineering is alleged to be for amelioration of a global warming process, to reverse such a process due to CO2​ increase with the intended effect being a reduction in solar transmission leading to a diminishment of solar flux at the earth's surface. If geoengineering were happening, such a diminishment of solar transmission would necessarily occur.

If the effect of geoengineering could or could not be seen in meaurements of solar transmission, you have real empirical evidence whether or not geoengineering is taking place. Fortunately for us, yet unfortunately for the chemtrails promoters, such evidence does exist, and it clearly shows that geoengineering is not taking place:

mauna loa3.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Is this statement saying that sea salt, industrial pollution, forest fire smoke and volcanic emissions contain no aluminum or rare-earth elements? Or that the ice contained no aluminum or rare earth elements? Or both?
Hmm, I think he's just saying that cerium is found in dust but not in sea salt. Both cerium and aluminum would be found in all the other things.

I suspect the point of mentioning it is that you can use the presence of cerium to determine how much came from sea-salt.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A related calculation, and also related to varves, is the loading of Lake Michigan with aluminum - not just from deposition, but from run-off:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22-c6.pdf
That's 5,000 tonnes of aluminum per year, just in Lake Michigan, at 58,000 km2. A simplistic extrapolation to the surface for the planet gives 50 million tonnes of aluminum. Obviously that's not correct as it's not deposition, but it does illustrate the plausibility of the 1 million ton deposition worldwide.
So the deposition of Aluminum within the environment is massive . . . has someone calculated the necessary concentration of Aluminum injected into the (troposphere, stratosphere or above) to alter the earth's albedo? Assume there is no significant increase in deposition over the last decade or if there was. . . How could you conclude what the source was? Aluminum could be used in combination with let us say sulfur compounds and many more and therefore the increase might be statistically negligible . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So the deposition of Aluminum within the environment is massive . . . has someone calculated the necessary concentration of Aluminum injected into the (troposphere, stratosphere or above) to alter the earth's albedo? Assume there is no significant increase in deposition over the last decade or if there was. . . How could you conclude what the source was? Aluminum could be used in combination with let us say sulfur compounds and many more and therefore the increase might be statistically negligible . . .
But as Jay shows above, the Earth's albedo does not seem to have changed.

You have a theoretical scheme in mind, right? Why not do the math for your scheme, and see what the change in deposition would be? Would it (acid rain?) affect tree rings? Is there any signature that would appear in varves?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But as Jay shows above, the Earth's albedo does not seem to have changed.

You have a theoretical scheme in mind, right? Why not do the math for your scheme, and see what the change in deposition would be? Would it (acid rain?) affect tree rings? Is there any signature that would appear in varves?
I will address this later I have to run; however, I will make one comment now . . . you are all assuming the geoengineering attempt would be effective if it were attempted . . . think about it . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I will address this later I have to run; however, I will make one comment now . . . you are all assuming the geoengineering attempt would be effective if it were attempted . . . think about it . . .
Right, so now we have a secret geoengineering project that is both undetectable and not working? Isn't that really the same as it not existing? Why would you give such a thing a 30% probability, if the observable evidence is exactly the same as it not happening?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Of course the aluminum deposition is not actually aluminum metal, it's the aluminum in mineral dust - but that's what their tests show. That's actually what I was trying to talk to Dane about, as he seemed to be thinking the tests showed actual metal. He politely told me he'd prefer not to talk about it, as it would just lead to arguing.
I imagine he didn't want to talk about doing some testing for silica, either. That is why I sought Wigington's original wide spectrum dust lab tests. By now, he knows that there is a fairly close relationship between elemental aluminum and elemental silica from aluminosilicate mineral dust. By showing only tests of elemental aluminum, they have cherry-picked their results to confirm their hypothesis.

If they tested for silica as well as aluminum and found it in proportions known to be associated with aluminum in minerals, it would be all over.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Right, so now we have a secret geoengineering project that is both undetectable and not working? Isn't that really the same as it not existing? Why would you give such a thing a 30% probability, if the observable evidence is exactly the same as it not happening?
Quickie . . . Even rockets sometime fail to launch (actually launch but not deploy) . . . Ask Raytheon. . . LoL!!!

also, a well thought plan would nudge the planet toward change not a wholesale push that would more likely have catastrophic side effects. . . . Logical. . . .
 
"If the effect of geoengineering could or could not be seen in meaurements of solar transmission, you have real empirical evidence whether or not geoengineering is taking place. Fortunately for us, yet unfortunately for the chemtrails promoters, such evidence does exist, and it clearly shows that geoengineering is not taking place"

Failure to observe something, only proves one thing. That you have failed to observe something.
We have no data about these tests, only the conclusion. Was the test taken on a clear day, or a contrail/chemtrail filled day? The conclusion of that test has evidence that exists which needs further evaluation because (in your post) it is not corroborated with test input data nor are there multiple independent sources.
 
I would also like to mention that (assuming they are spraying) attempting to guess why they are spraying is speculative. It may not be for geoengineering purposes at all, or it could have multi-faceted purposes... So testing for the result of an assumed goal has a fundamental flaw and can not provide direct evidence which can tell us whether or not chemtrail spraying is taking place.

P.S. looks like registration kicked in and I can post immediately now.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"If the effect of geoengineering could or could not be seen in meaurements of solar transmission, you have real empirical evidence whether or not geoengineering is taking place. Fortunately for us, yet unfortunately for the chemtrails promoters, such evidence does exist, and it clearly shows that geoengineering is not taking place"

Failure to observe something, only proves one thing. That you have failed to observe something.
We have no data about these tests, only the conclusion. Was the test taken on a clear day, or a contrail/chemtrail filled day? The conclusion of that test has evidence that exists which needs further evaluation because (in your post) it is not corroborated with test input data nor are there multiple independent sources.
Actually there's a vast amount of the tests Jay refers to - the Mauna Loa observations. We just don't have much in the way of info about the tests the chemtrail theorists have done - at least not any info that demonstrates they are particularly meaningful.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I would also like to mention that (assuming they are spraying) attempting to guess why they are spraying is speculative. It may not be for geoengineering purposes at all, or it could have multi-faceted purposes... So testing for the result of an assumed goal has a fundamental flaw and can not provide direct evidence which can tell us whether or not chemtrail spraying is taking place.

P.S. looks like registration kicked in and I can post immediately now.
This Thread is about geoengineering as the target of debate . . . just saying . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would also like to mention that (assuming they are spraying) attempting to guess why they are spraying is speculative. It may not be for geoengineering purposes at all, or it could have multi-faceted purposes... So testing for the result of an assumed goal has a fundamental flaw and can not provide direct evidence which can tell us whether or not chemtrail spraying is taking place.
Sure - they might be spraying in an undetectable or unnoticeable manner. But the chemtrail theory says that it is both noticeable (visible trails), and detectable (increased levels of things, changes in the environment).

What we are doing here is debunking those claims. Nobody can debunk something that leaves no trace and is not having any noticeable effect.
 

Steve Funk

Active Member
Originally posted by seriously debatable:
"I would be interested to see if the roots would absorb the heavy metals at all. I know that a lot of things are not absorbed by roots because complex molecules which are too large to fit through the uptake port in the root will not be absorbed by the root. This would leave only what was absorbed through the bark."
Some trees are aluminum accumulators and some are aluminum excluders. The term "aluminum excluders" is relative, and even the excluders will have some aluminum in their tissues. see this link: http://www.eplantscience.com/botani...nts/aluminum/aluminum_accumulating_plants.php

Aluminum is not considered a heavy metal under most definitions, but there is no standard definition of heavy metal, so people sometimes refer to it as a heavy metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_(chemistry)

Bark is part of the tree's defense system against pollutants, and is unlikely to absorb of aluminum.
 
mmm well geoengineering would be cooling the planet or something similar, but polluting of the soil would be closer defined as sabotage.
The issue is chemtrails. There are many theories tied to that, including geoengineering, but not limited to that. Some people think it is to protect us in some way from the anticipated and alleged return of nibiru (planet x) So there is no reason to limit the debate and discuss a narrow spectrum of ideas. Just sayin...
 
Ok we have vast amounts of tests... from the Mauna Loa observations. Still that is only one source and that means it is not independently verified. Now that's 1 for 1 on the scale. Can you add weight to your side and give the input data and the collection method they used when performing those vast amounts of tests? Otherwise these tests are not indisputable.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So there is no reason to limit the debate and discuss a narrow spectrum of ideas. Just sayin...
Nobody is limiting the debate. But just because I'm not discussing Niburu it does not then follow that other debunkings should be dismissed.

We debunkers debunk specific claims. We don't debunk amorphous claims like "something might be being sprayed, sometimes, somewhere, somehow, with some effect".

So if someone claims that aluminum levels have increased, we debunk that. If someone claims contrails don't normally persist, we debunk that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok we have vast amounts of tests... from the Mauna Loa observations. Still that is only one source and that means it is not independently verified. Now that's 1 for 1 on the scale. Can you add weight to your side and give the input data and the collection method they used when performing those vast amounts of tests? Otherwise these tests are not indisputable.
Which tests are you referring to? The chemtrail believer tests? This type of thing?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/31...ounty-Florida-Test-Positive-for-Aluminum-quot
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
"If the effect of geoengineering could or could not be seen in meaurements of solar transmission, you have real empirical evidence whether or not geoengineering is taking place. Fortunately for us, yet unfortunately for the chemtrails promoters, such evidence does exist, and it clearly shows that geoengineering is not taking place"

Failure to observe something, only proves one thing. That you have failed to observe something.
We have no data about these tests, only the conclusion. Was the test taken on a clear day, or a contrail/chemtrail filled day? The conclusion of that test has evidence that exists which needs further evaluation because (in your post) it is not corroborated with test input data nor are there multiple independent sources.
I didn't fail to observe anything . The claim is that geoengineering is taking place. I observed data which shows no geoengineering is taking place.
Period.
There are plenty of data to support these tests.
Here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/11...bunks-quot-Chemtrails-are-Geoengineering-quot
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Just a little backgrounder on the global dust budget:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_dust_budget



The chemtrails promoters frequently claim that 20 million metric tons of aluminum oxide is being "sprayed".
20 million metric tons equals 20 teragrams, 1% of the average annual ordinary dust rate.

One of the problems with using ice cores, etc. to assess whether or not geoengineering is taking place is that there is no clear and direct connection between a purported geoengineering program and whatever happens to be in the air. There is no way to show a causality for what is seen which can be directly attributed to airplanes. What is seen could be just a general change in flux or an extraordinary event such as a volcanic eruption. In the above graph from McConnell, you can clearly see both a general change over the 20th century as well as significant spikes due to volcanism, both of which are mentioned in the paper.

Besides being readily available and abundant, and despite the protestations of chemtrails promoters about the supposed toxic effects of aluminum, biology tells us that life evolved and exists quite well with a ubiquitous and constant flux of this element. If aluminum were available in a cationic form this may not be so, but the facts are that it is not commonly found in that available state and life has evolved means of preventing what is available from becoming a detrimental accumulation.
These facts about aluminum have stymied the chemtrails promoters, and they flee from any discussion of it except when stooping to the lowest forms of sensationalism to create a bogeyman out of this ordinary element.

Even though it may be hopeless trying to tease out a likely small additional atmospheric flux of aluminum from a purported geoengineering program, there is a way in which such a geoengineering program, if it existed, could be measured.

There is direct evidence which can tell us whether or not geoengineering is taking place.

The purpose for geoengineering is alleged to be for amelioration of a global warming process, to reverse such a process due to CO2​ increase with the intended effect being a reduction in solar transmission leading to a diminishment of solar flux at the earth's surface. If geoengineering were happening, such a diminishment of solar transmission would necessarily occur.

If the effect of geoengineering could or could not be seen in meaurements of solar transmission, you have real empirical evidence whether or not geoengineering is taking place. Fortunately for us, yet unfortunately for the chemtrails promoters, such evidence does exist, and it clearly shows that geoengineering is not taking place:

View attachment 774

I don't think the debate is over . . . some conflicting data below . . .

 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
I don't think the debate is over . . . some conflicting data below . . .

There is no conflict, George, and we've been over this before ad infinitum. The actual article is entitled, "The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change". This variability is persistent, it has been observed for decades.

The paper actually says:
See, George, since the background decreased 5-9%/year during the decade of the 1990's that would have taken it down 50-90%, a doubling would not actually be a great deal after such a decrease, which is why they stated these results are "sensitive to the time interval considered", and only were able to say that such an increase only "implies a cooling effect".

When scientists use the word "implies", do you know what that means?

Even if aerosols did increase back to a background state, where they have remained persistently variable for 40+ years, as my graph shows, solar transmission did not decrease, as it necessarily would if geoengineering were taking place! It is time to get over this, George, it was a closed case years ago in 2007 when I brought it out, and remains possibly the best documented of all reasons why the idea of a current geoengineering program being underway has no merit whatsoever. It's not my fault that the data doesn't agree with your James Bond Fantasy, get over it.

Find some very recent ice core data for Seriouslydebatable to look at, ride that jackass on over to the library and do something productive for a change.:)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Li and others: Changes of atmospheric heavy metals in a high-elevation ice core 157

http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.igsoc.org/ContentPages/351394965.pdf



That's from China. One interesting point it makes (that I've also seen mentioned elsewhere) is that aluminum is so ubiquitous in dust that the measure of aluminum is really just a measure of how much dust there is in the sample (although the amount varies with location). So other metals are actually measured relative to aluminum:

 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There is no conflict, George, and we've been over this before ad infinitum. The actual article is entitled, "The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change". This variability is persistent, it has been observed for decades.

The paper actually says:
See, George, since the background decreased 5-9%/year during the decade of the 1990's that would have taken it down 50-90%, a doubling would not actually be a great deal after such a decrease, which is why they stated these results are "sensitive to the time interval considered", and only were able to say that such an increase only "implies a cooling effect".

When scientists use the word "implies", do you know what that means?

Even if aerosols did increase back to a background state, where they have remained persistently variable for 40+ years, as my graph shows, solar transmission did not decrease, as it necessarily would if geoengineering were taking place! It is time to get over this, George, it was a closed case years ago in 2007 when I brought it out, and remains possibly the best documented of all reasons why the idea of a current geoengineering program being underway has no merit whatsoever. It's not my fault that the data doesn't agree with your James Bond Fantasy, get over it.

Find some very recent ice core data for Seriouslydebatable to look at, ride that jackass on over to the library and do something productive for a change.:)

If the most recent meeting . . . Jun 14, 2011 – The American Astronomical Society meeting in Los Cruces, NM meeting of the solar physics division of the American ... is correct geoengineering for the purpose of global warming may be moot . . . LoL!!


 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
George, maybe you could address Jay's analysis, seeing as it was address to you, and you quoted it - then changed the subject.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, maybe you could address Jay's analysis, seeing as it was address to you, and you quoted it - then changed the subject.
I am still researching the issues . . . I am trying to get a full copy of the article but only have the abstract . . . he has me at a disadvantage; however, I will answer when I have sufficient information . . . I didn't realize that "paper actually says" was a hot link . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There is no conflict, George, and we've been over this before ad infinitum. The actual article is entitled, "The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change". This variability is persistent, it has been observed for decades.

The paper actually says:
See, George, since the background decreased 5-9%/year during the decade of the 1990's that would have taken it down 50-90%, a doubling would not actually be a great deal after such a decrease, which is why they stated these results are "sensitive to the time interval considered", and only were able to say that such an increase only "implies a cooling effect".

When scientists use the word "implies", do you know what that means?

Even if aerosols did increase back to a background state, where they have remained persistently variable for 40+ years, as my graph shows, solar transmission did not decrease, as it necessarily would if geoengineering were taking place! It is time to get over this, George, it was a closed case years ago in 2007 when I brought it out, and remains possibly the best documented of all reasons why the idea of a current geoengineering program being underway has no merit whatsoever. It's not my fault that the data doesn't agree with your James Bond Fantasy, get over it.

Find some very recent ice core data for Seriouslydebatable to look at, ride that jackass on over to the library and do something productive for a change.:)
I think the conclusions from your analysis is incorrect . . .

1) The background scatter is variable . . . no doubt . . .
2) The decade of 1990s may have had a dip in particulate; however, I saw nothing in Hoffmann's article to support that (though it was stated so in your cited article) . . . even so . . . ICAAIP is not thought to have started until late, late 1990s or early 2000s . . . which could have been the trigger . . . maybe the authorities were motivated by this clearing of the atmosphere in the 90s and a fear the trend would continue . . .
3) Within the article from NASA/NOAA you cited is definitive statements that stratospheric particulate (aerosols) increased using three different methods . . . from the late 1990s to the late 2000s. . . this fits exactly what I would expect if a well tuned rational ICAAIP was initiated in the late 1990s . . .

 
Actually there's a vast amount of the tests Jay refers to - the Mauna Loa observations. We just don't have much in the way of info about the tests the chemtrail theorists have done - at least not any info that demonstrates they are particularly meaningful.
Ok we have vast amounts of tests... from the Mauna Loa observations. Still that is only one source and that means it is not independently verified. Now that's 1 for 1 on the scale. Can you add weight to your side and give the input data and the collection method they used when performing those vast amounts of tests? Otherwise these tests are not indisputable.
Which tests are you referring to? The chemtrail believer tests? This type of thing?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/31...ounty-Florida-Test-Positive-for-Aluminum-quot
Ok we have vast amounts of tests... from the Mauna Loa observations. Still that is only one source and that means it is not independently verified. Now that's 1 for 1 on the scale. Can you add weight to your side and give the input data and the collection method they used when performing those vast amounts of tests? Otherwise these tests are not indisputable.
:p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't fail to observe anything . The claim is that geoengineering is taking place. I observed data which shows no geoengineering is taking place.
Period.
There are plenty of data to support these tests.
Here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/11...bunks-quot-Chemtrails-are-Geoengineering-quot
The claim is that chemicals or metals are being sprayed by planes into the atmosphere. The point of the quote by Einstein is that NOBODY can observe EVERYTHING. There is always information that you do not have when you make your decision, you just have not observed it. I did not intend to offend you. P.S. I noticed you label people "chemmies" who adhere to the chemtrail theory. That is kind of offensive, don't you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ben Geddy Happy to have found this site and Mick thru JRE! Practical Debunking 4
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Chemtrails and the Anti-Vaccine Movement Contrails and Chemtrails 34
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Demythologizing Prince's reference to "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 5
ParanoidSkeptic Chemtrails: Experiments on the Public Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Article: "Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School" Contrails and Chemtrails 92
skephu Chuck Norris on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
JFDee Debunked: Lichens and Moss on Trees Caused by Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Sausalito Spectral analysis of alleged "chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Safya Yassin, Missouri ISIS supporter and chemtrails believer arrested for threats Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Dan Page idea: a "Debunked" Stamp Practical Debunking 9
Z 3 military helicopters Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
MikeG Giant Snowflakes [Rimed Dendrites] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Balance Blatant photoshop deceit of BP refueling tank Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Dan Page Claim: Mobile app uses atmospheric data to prove chemtrails vs contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
MikeG Futurism and Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
MikeG Accidental Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeG Debunked: HAARP Caught in Action Contrails and Chemtrails 28
Ray Von Geezer Ian Simpson / Look-up.org.uk debunks chemtrails & geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 13
skephu Parallel lines of clouds (Virginia Beach) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ray Von Geezer George Monbiot in the Guardian on "Chemtrails" & Look-up.org.uk Contrails and Chemtrails 26
Dan Page Is Belief in "Chemtrails" Growing? Contrails and Chemtrails 63
P Hi all, I'm new to this forum, so still trying to find my way around. I wanted to comment regarding Contrails and Chemtrails 2
MikeG Common Core and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
Mick West Mick West on the Pat Walsh Show, KFBK Sacrament, Talking About Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
TEEJ "Airline Pilot" at Climate Engineering Awareness Day - Carlow, Eire, 22nd August 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Mick West Debunked: Rise In Respiratory Mortality from 4th to 3rd Cause of Death. "Chemtrail Flu" General Discussion 13
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top