Sounds like a subject for a new Thread . . .
Personally, I think that is correct with regard to the quantity aspect. It's so very easy today to spread rumours and false accusations, and to build up interest groups around them. This was a lot harder 20 years ago.
Actually, that's a very good example what happens if you have only your naked-eye observation to explain things. Similarly bogus theories will come up today if people are refusing to accept verified scientific knowledge.
Originally Posted by Steve Funk
Science is an adversarial process. A scientist writes up his research and submits it to the peer review committee of a journal. The research is attacked and defended, before and after publication, until it either becomes settled science or is discredited. On the internet, comments are the nearest equivalent to peer review. Most chemtrail sites do not allow comments with dissenting points of view, and their research is typically posted anonymously. Hence, chemtrails is more like a religion.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2011-lo-rez.pdf
Page S50 . . .
The complete apparent transmission (AT) record (Fig.
SB2.7a) shows the extended impact of three major explosive
volcanic eruptions (Agung, 1964; El Chichón, 1982; and Pinatubo,
1991). These injected large quantities of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) into the stratosphere, where it was converted to sulfate
aerosol and remained for many months while spreading around
the world
Evidence of the 1991 Pinatubo volcanic eruption in South Polar snow
J. Cole-Dai, Ellen Mosley-Thompson and L.G. Thompson
Abstract:
Traces of tephra and increased sulfate (SO2-4) concentrations were identified in the 1992-1994 snow
layers in 2 firn cores from South Pole. The deposition of the Pinatubo SO2-4 aerosol was delayed
due to the long transport to the high south latitudes and its initial existence at high altitudes in the
Antarctic atmosphere. Electron microscopic analyses show that the element composition of the
tephra is identical to that of volcanic ash found near the Pinatubo volcano in Philippines. Detailed
stratigraphic snow sampling resolved the Pinatubo signal from that of Cerro Hudson eruption during
August 1991 in Chile. The South Pole sulfate flux from Pinatubo is calculated to be (10.9±1.1) kg
km-2, while the Hudson sulfate flux is (3.2±1.1) kg km-2. This information will be useful for
estimating the magnitudes of the past volcanic eruptions recorded in Antarctic ice cores.
Siderophile metal fallout to Greenland from the 1991 winter eruption of Hekla
(Iceland) and during the global atmospheric perturbation of Pinatubo
http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Gabrielli et al Chemical Geology 2008.pdf
During the following years (1992–1995) the global atmosphere was under the influence of the large
perturbation produced by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (Philippines) in June 1991. Relatively high Ir and Pt
concentrations with super-chondritic ratios are recorded especially during summer 1993. We discuss if this
can be interpreted as the possible stratospheric input of Pinatubo's aerosol or fallout of extraterrestrial origin.
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/...e_core_impurities/impurities_volcanic_origin/
Ice core impurities of volcanic originWhen large volcanic eruptions occur, huge quantities of acids are introduced into the atmosphere and distributed over vast areas. In ice cores, volcanic layers can sometimes be identified by volcanic ash particles (tephra), but more often the layers only contain elevated concentrations of acids seen in the ice cores as mainly sulphate and sometimes fluoride. In Greenland the nearby Icelandic and Alaskan volcanoes have a strong imprint in the ice cores. However, if the volcanic eruptions are strong enough to inject acids into the stratosphere, also volcanoes from the tropics or even the southern hemisphere can be identified in Greenland. Examples of well-known historic volcanoes that have left a clear fingerprint in all Greenland ice cores are Tambora, Indonesia (1815), Krakatau, Indonesia (1883), Katmai, Alaska (1912), El Chichón, Mexico (1982), and Mount Pinatubo, Philippines (1991).
Factors influencing the amounts of SO2 in the stratosphere were described and modeled by Bluth and others (1997). For eruptions in the last 25 years, El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo emitted the greatest amounts of SO2 into the stratosphere. El Chichon produced 7 Mt of SO2 and Mount Pinatubo produced 20 Mt. Both of these volcanoes are at low latitudes but they both had high eruption rates.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/151
The eruption of El Chichon, Mexico, in 1982 conclusively demonstrated this idea was correct. The explosive eruption injected at least 8 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, and it was followed by a measureable cooling of parts of the Earth's surface and a warming of the upper atmosphere. A similar-sized eruption at Mount St. Helens in 1980, however, injected only about 1 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere. The eruption of Mount St. Helens injected much less sulfur into the atmosphere--it did not result in a noticeable cooling of the Earth's surface.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/s02aerosols.php
2) Within the same article cited above are definitive statements that stratospheric particulate (aerosols) increased during the late 1990s - 2000s effectively reversing the negative trend in the early 1990s using three different methods . . .
"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. "
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/solomon-07-22-11.pdf
"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
So as a scientist you can say without question the increase in sulfur concentration in the stratosphere is accounted for by coal burning from China and previously unaccounted for volcanic eruptions not to mention normal atmospheric variations . . . and that the anthropomorphic unknown contributions they all hedge with can not be from a geoengineering source . . .???
Because any well thought out covert plan would try to accomplish the following:
The satellite observations displayed in the bottom panel ofFig. 2 show increases in stratospheric aerosols from 2000–2010 of about 7% per year, which implies a change in globalradiative forcing (Fig. 3) of about –0.1 W/m2 [see (25) forinformation on optical parameters used]. As a point ofcomparison, over the decade since 2000, carbon dioxideincreased by about 0.5% per year (2), leading to a change inradiative forcing of about +0.28 W/m2. Thus, the rapid ratesof observed change of stratospheric aerosol imply decadalchanges in radiative forcing that are significant compared tothose of the much larger but more slowly varying abundanceof carbon dioxide since 2000.
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/solomon-07-22-11.pdf
Yes, especially when the scientists don't recognize geoengineering as a potential source of stratopheric aerosols . . . of course they are going to fill the gap with the sources they recognized to exist . . . that is common sense . . . and since SO2 cannot be fingerprinted or would be extremely difficult or impossible to fingerprint . . . geoengineering could be in operation and could not be tracked back to its source . . .
Sometimes controversial topics play on peoples emotions, however I did not directly insult you. Telling me where to stick something however, is not very polite. When I said science has been politicized, I did not give an example. Here is one. I did not mean all scientists are politicized. This woman is a good example of a non politicized scientist. However, people do sometimes have a political agenda whether they are a scientist or not.
Yeah, big difference. Chemtrail believers are not an authority.
Would it be possible to identify some of the scientists that do take geoengineering into account . . . ??
