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
Detailed measurements from a Greenland ice core showed pollutants from burning coal--the toxic heavy metals cadmium, thallium and lead--were much higher than expected. The catch, however, was the pollutants weren't higher at the times when researchers expected peaks."Conventional wisdom held that toxic heavy metals were higher in the 1960s and ‘70s, the peak of industrial activity in Europe and North America and certainly before implementation of Clean Air Act controls in the early 1970s," said Joe McConnell, lead researcher and director of DRI's Ultra-Trace Chemistry Laboratory.
"But it turns out pollution in southern Greenland was higher 100 years ago when North American and European economies ran on coal, before the advent of cleaner, more efficient coal burning technologies and the switch to oil and gas-based economies," McConnell said.
In fact, the research showed pollutants were two to five times higher at the beginning of the previous century than today. Pollution levels in the early 1900s also represented a 10-fold increase from preindustrial levels.
Content from External Source
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0013932775900555
The precise measurement of heavy metal levels within successive annual growth rings of trees presents, at first sight, an attractive and straightforward means for producing a detailed history of heavy metal pollution. However, before serious consideration is given to such a technique, many processes relating to the uptake, transport and deposition of heavy metals within trees must be understood.A brief survey of the pathways of metal uptake into trees is made, and consideration given to the external and internal factors which may operate in regulating metal entry. As the transport of metals within the tree is important, both pathways of metal transport, and the forms taken by metals during transport, are described.The regulation and patterns of metal deposition are fully considered, and emphasis is placed on internal factors which may regulate the rate of deposition, and the quantity of metal deposited, in a particular annual growth ring. The problem of possible lateral movement of metals between growth rings is also considered. Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding the potential of tree-ring analyses for producing pollution histories.
Content from External Source
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ba-1987-0216.ch012

Retrospective measurements of dated sediment cores can be used to determine the effect of regulations to control environmental inputs of hazardous chemicals. Sediment cores have been used to reconstruct histories of environmental contamination by mercury, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT, octachlorostyrene, pH, and carbon particles. These measurements have shown that most anthropogenic chemicals first appeared in sediments at the turn of the century at the time of the industrial revolution in most of North America. Industrial growth after World War II also resulted in inputs of pollutants such as PCBs and dioxins. Recent decreases in the levels of several contaminants may have occurred because of environmental awareness and the onset of environmental regulations. Inputs of banned pollutants continue, however, because of recycling of contaminants in the environment and long-range atmospheric transport.
Content from External Source
http://hero.epa.gov/index.cfm?action=reference.details&reference_id=364710

Laminated sediments from Bolterskardet Lake on Svalbard provide a new 150-year record of heavy metals in the Arctic. Independent data of 137Cs and 210Pb indicate that these laminations are annually deposited varves. The high sedimentation rate and varved sediments make Lake Bolterskardet a good site for studying history of heavy metal pollution in the region. A suite of heavy metals (Pb, As, Cd, Cu, Cr, Co, Ni, and Sn) were studied. The variations of Cu, Cr, Co, and Ni concentrations show an inverse pattern with the median grain size. It suggests that the particle size has a significant role in the accumulation and enrichment of heavy metals in the sediments. In the concentration profiles of studied heavy metals, only Pb concentrations show a significant increase from the lower parts to the upper parts of the core. Profiles of "total," "lithogenic," and "anthropogenic" Pb flux also show an increasing pattern. Anthropogenic Pb flux varies between 0.1 µg cm-2 yr-1 and 12.3 µg cm-2 yr-1, with a mean value of 2.4 µg cm-2 yr-1. The anthropogenic Pb fluxes were relatively low at around 0.7 µg cm-2 yr-1 prior to 1945, slowly increased after 1945, and reached a sidestep (between 1940s and 1970s) with mean value of 1.8 µg cm-2 yr-1. Second high value period was between 1980s and 1990s with mean value of 5.9 µg cm-2 yr-1.
Content from External Source
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
In sediment core samples taken from the lake, Columbia scientists have found evidence that incinerators-not leaded gasoline-were the main culprit in spewing lead into New York air.Because the lake has never been dredged, it holds a 130-year history of the city's heavy-metal emissions deposited in thin layers. By correlating the sediment layers to individual years, the scientists saw that the peaks in sediment lead levels did not match the pattern of leaded gasoline use, which was widely expected.
"Urban lakes act like big bucket collectors for atmospheric fallout," said Steve Chillrud, geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and principal author on the paper, which appears in the March 1 issue of Environmental Science and Technology. "As soon as we saw the lead data, we got really excited," said Chillrud. "The sediment record showed that the highest atmospheric lead levels occurred before the maximum use of leaded gasoline."
Despite the excitement, the scientists had a mystery on their hands. The sediment history, which started from the 1860s, showed that the lead levels were highest in the 1930s to early 1960s, after which levels tapered off. In contrast, the maximum use of leaded gasoline was in the late 1960s and early 1970s, until health concerns about smog and childhood lead poisoning resulted in the phase-out of leaded gasoline. This phase-out had previously been linked to a known decrease in human blood lead levels, but the environmental monitoring had only begun in the 1970s. The Columbia scientists began to think that the strong correlation between leaded gasoline and airborne lead in New York City was erroneous.
The scientists, looking for clues that would guide them to an earlier source of lead, measured other metal concentrations in the sediment, collected samples of Central park soil cores and learned about the history of the lake from Central Park Conservancy records. "We had really large amounts of heavy metals, so we were looking for something that could put a huge amount of pollution into the air," said Chillrud.
Chillrud was reluctant to let go of the leaded gasoline explanation, but when he also found high levels of tin in the sediment, he knew that he had to look elsewhere. "It was a big clue; automobiles just don't produce tin in large amounts," he said.
Chillrud and Lamont colleague Jim Simpson collaborated with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute geochemist Richard Bopp, who had been at Lamont from 1971-1990. They considered smelters, but the main metal refining plants were in New Jersey and the scientists' previous work had shown that New Jersey smelter emissions decreased after the 1930s. Several pieces of the puzzle pointed toward incinerators, both municipal and residential/commercial, as another possible source. The incinerator record to support their ideas was the missing link. Bopp suggested calling a former graduate student of his, Dan Walsh, who had an interest in New York City's history of waste management and was currently the Department of Environmental Conservation's chief scientist at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island.
"Steve called me up and told me that his results were surprising," remembers Walsh. "But as soon as he explained the pattern, it made great sense to me. It fit the incineration pattern, hand in glove."
Walsh sent Chillrud the incineration data he had collected for his Ph.D. from incinerators in New York, which were progressively closed in the 1960s, and the Lamont scientists were amazed how well his data matched theirs.
Content from External Source

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

Steve Funk

Senior 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)
 

SeriouslyDebatable

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.

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
The atmospheric loading of aluminum to Lake Michigan was estimated to be 5 million kg/year, of which 74% was to the southern basin where the influence of agricultural and industrial activity (e.g., steel manufacturing and cement production) was greatest (Eisenreich 1980).
Content from External Source
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.
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
"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
"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.
Content from External Source
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
The atmospheric loading of aluminum to Lake Michigan was estimated to be 5 million kg/year, of which 74% was to the southern basin where the influence of agricultural and industrial activity (e.g., steel manufacturing and cement


production) was greatest (Eisenreich 1980).
Content from External Source
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. . . .
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active 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.
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active 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.
 

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

Senior 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.
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
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...
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active 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.
 

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:

mauna loa3.jpg


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

“Stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade,” Daniel said. “The increase in aerosols since 2000 implies a cooling effect of about 0.1 watts per square meter – enough to offset some of the 0.28 watts per square meter warmingeffect from the carbon dioxide increase during that same period.”


The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, 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.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html


Content from External Source
 

Jay Reynolds

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

“Stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade,” Daniel said. “The increase in aerosols since 2000 implies a cooling effect of about 0.1 watts per square meter – enough to offset some of the 0.28 watts per square meter warmingeffect from the carbon dioxide increase during that same period.”


The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, 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.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html
Content from External Source

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:
Hofmann and coworkers (12–14) argued that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer increased by 5- 9%/year through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and again at about 5-7% in the 2000s.

However, in the 1990s stratospheric aerosols decreased by similar magnitudes. Other authors (15) recently noted the likely importance of volcanoes, suggesting that changes in the “background” were variable, and that trends were sensitive to the time interval considered.
Content from External Source
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:

In order to better evaluate the importance of the rock- and
soil-dust contribution to metals in the Muztagh Ata firn/ice
during the studied period, the crustal enrichment factors
(EFc) of heavy metals are calculated. EFc is defined as the
concentration ratio of a given metal to that of Al (which is
generally regarded as a good proxy of rock and soil dust),
normalized to the same concentration ratio of the upper
continental crust given by Wedepohl (1995).

Content from External Source
 
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:
Hofmann and coworkers (12–14) argued that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer increased by 5- 9%/year through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and again at about 5-7% in the 2000s.

However, in the 1990s stratospheric aerosols decreased by similar magnitudes. Other authors (15) recently noted the likely importance of volcanoes, suggesting that changes in the “background” were variable, and that trends were sensitive to the time interval considered.
Content from External Source
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!!


Reduced sun spots

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/...ding-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/

Currently, the sun is in the midst of the period designated as Cycle 24 and is ramping up toward the cycle’s period of maximum activity. However, the recent findings indicate that the activity in the next 11-year solar cycle, Cycle 25, could be greatly reduced. In fact, some scientists are questioning whether this drop in activity could lead to a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 when the sun showed virtually no sunspots.




-------
Little Ice Age


The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. A causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters has recently been made using data from the NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment which shows that solar UV output is more variable over the course of the solar cycle than scientists had previously thought, and a UK scientific team published in the Nature Geoscience journal a link that ties this variability to terrestrial climate impacts in the form of warmer winters in some places and colder winters in others.[3] The winter of 1708–9 was extremely cold.[4]


The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period roughly spanning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.


The concept became notable after John A. Eddy published a landmark 1976 paper in Science titled "The Maunder Minimum".[1] Astronomers before Eddy had also named the period after the solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851–1928) who studied how sunspot latitudes changed with time.[2] The periods he examined included the second half of the 17th century. Edward Maunder published two papers in 1890 and 1894, and he cited earlier papers written by Gustav Spörer.


Like the Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.


During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000-50,000 spots in modern times.[citation needed]


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum#section_2
Content from External Source
 

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:
Hofmann and coworkers (12–14) argued that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer increased by 5- 9%/year through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and again at about 5-7% in the 2000s.

However, in the 1990s stratospheric aerosols decreased by similar magnitudes. Other authors (15) recently noted the likely importance of volcanoes, suggesting that changes in the “background” were variable, and that trends were sensitive to the time interval considered.
Content from External Source
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 . . .

14. D. J. Hofmann, J. Barnes, M. O’Neill, M. Trudeau, R.Neely, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L15808,


GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L15808, 5 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL039008


Increase in background stratospheric aerosol observed with lidar at Mauna Loa Observatory and Boulder, Colorado


David Hofmann
Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA




The stratospheric aerosol layer has been monitored with lidars at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and Boulder in Colorado since 1975 and 2000, respectively. Following the Pinatubo volcanic eruption in June 1991, the global stratosphere has not been perturbed by a major volcanic eruption providing an unprecedented opportunity to study the background aerosol. Since about 2000, an increase of 4–7% per year in the aerosol backscatter in the altitude range 20–30 km has been detected at both Mauna Loa and Boulder. This increase is superimposed on a seasonal cycle with a winter maximum that is modulated by the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) in tropical winds. Of the three major causes for a stratospheric aerosol increase: volcanic emissions to the stratosphere, increased tropical upwelling, and an increase in anthropogenic sulfur gas emissions in the troposphere, it appears that a large increase in coal burning since 2002, mainly in China, is the likely source of sulfur dioxide that ultimately ends up as the sulfate aerosol responsible for the increased backscatter from the stratospheric aerosol layer. The results are consistent with 0.6–0.8% of tropospheric sulfur entering the stratosphere.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039008.shtml
Content from External Source
Multiple instruments have been used at Mauna Loa for estimating or measuring total aerosol optical depth and atmospheric transmission. Here we present observations taken there on the cleanest days, when much of the aerosol burden likely resides in the stratosphere. Figure 2 shows three independent data records that all indicate increases in aerosol optical depth (or, equivalently, decreases in transmission) at Mauna Loa from the late 1990s to the late 2000s: from ground-based transmission data using the pyrheliometer ratioing methodology (20, 21), a Precision Filter Radiometer [1999 to date (22)], and a stratospheric lidar (14). Figure 2 compares these data to the mean tropical and global stratospheric aerosol optical depths from combined satellite observations by the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) II (1990–2005), Global Ozone Monitoring by Occultation of Stars (GOMOS, 2002-2009) and the CALIPSO lidar (2006–2010), see (16, 17, 23–25); the overlapping periods of the different satellite instruments allow accurate quantification of the trends over time (17). The four independent data sets from satellite, lidar, total transmission, and aerosol optical depth as shown in Fig. 2 jointly support the view that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer has changed significantly over about the past decade [see (25)].

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/solomon-07-22-11.pdf

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/#References
Content from External Source
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
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:

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
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:
Top