That was very nice of you to post my letter to the editor of the Enterprise Record (Chico, CA)
This is what we witnessed this evening:
http://ninaglitter.blogspot.com/2011/03/after-dinner-chemtrails.html
Thursday, March 10, 2011
After Dinner Chemtrails: Chico, Calif Tonight
Received this post and link tonight... thanks Nina!
That was very nice of you to post my letter to the editor of the Enterprise Record (Chico, CA)
This is what we witnessed this evening:
http://ninaglitter.blogspot.com/2011/03/after-dinner-chemtrails.html
That was very nice of you to post my letter to the editor of the Enterprise Record (Chico, CA)
This is what we witnessed this evening:
http://ninaglitter.blogspot.com/2011/03/after-dinner-chemtrails.html
USA Today Article on GeoEngineering
Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Updated 2/25/2011 9:38:04 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-25-geoengineering25_CV_N.htm
Scientists call it "geoengineering," but in plain speak, it means things like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades.
Each brings its own set of risks, but in a world fretting about the consequences of global warming, are these ideas whose time has come?
With 2010 tying as the world's warmest year on record and efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions looking stymied, calls are rising for research into engineering our way out of global warming — everything from launching solar shade spacecraft to genetically engineering green deserts. An international consortium of 12 universities and research institutes on Tuesday, for example, announced plans to pioneer large-scale "ocean fertilization" experiments aimed at using the sea to pull more greenhouse gases out of the sky.
Once the domain of scientists' off-hours schemes scrawled on cocktail napkins, such geoengineering is getting a serious look in the political realm.
"We're moving into a different kind of world," says environmental economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University. "Better we turn to asking if 'geoengineering' could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity."
A National Academy of Sciences' best estimate has global warming bumping up average temperatures by 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions that are largely responsible, most from burning the modern economy's main fuels, coal and oil, look set to continue to rise for the next quarter-century, according to Energy Information Agency estimates.
"That's where geoengineering comes in," says international relations expert David Victor of the University of California-San Diego. "Research into geoengineering creates another option for the public."
Geoengineering takes its cue from the natural experiment that actually had made the only dent in global warming's rise in the last two decades — the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted more than 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide 21 miles high, straight into the stratosphere. The stratosphere suspended those sulfur particles in the air worldwide, where the haze they created scattered and reflected sunlight away from the Earth and cooled global atmospheric temperatures nearly 0.7 to 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit in 1992 and 1993, before finally washing out, according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimates. Firing about half that much sulfur into the stratosphere every year for 30 years would help stabilize global warming's rise, National Center for Atmospheric Research climate scientist Tom Wigley estimated in a much-debated 2006 Science journal report.
Humanity would effectively become addicted to sky-borne sulfates to keep the cooling on track. The tradeoff is that rain and snow patterns would likely shift, a 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study found, consigning hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet in Africa and Asia to recurring drought.
No longer eyed askance
"Geoengineering is no longer a taboo topic at scientific meetings. They are looking at it as one more policy prescription," says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch, author of Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope — Or Worst Nightmare — For Averting Climate Catastrophe. "But it is yet to become a household word."
That may be changing, as the terms of debate about geoengineering become clear. On the pro-research side, this October the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology called for more research into geoengineering, "to better understand which technologies or methods, if any, represent viable stopgap strategies for managing our changing climate and which pose unacceptable risks." On the more cautious side, a United Nations Environment Programme species conservation meeting in Nagoya, Japan, ended that same month with a call for, "no climate-related geoengineering activities," without environmental and scientific review.
What are the actual geoengineering proposals? Broadly, they come in two flavors: those that deal with greenhouse gases directly by soaking up carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas with the biggest warming impact); and those that seek to limit the sunlight that warms those greenhouse gases. Here's a sampling, from the deep ocean to deep space:
•Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of forestation. The increased mass of the plankton's cells would swell with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish, belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn't worked very well in small trials.
•Forestation. Intense planting of trees and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of 192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement. More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air.
•Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight. Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of "spray ships" could increase clouds themselves. Cost-effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions, instead of where it's needed.
•Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes.
•Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about 1.4 degrees.
"Most of the technologies are not yet proven and are at the theoretical or research phase," an August Congressional Research Service report noted.
On the environmental side, cutting temperature increases through these techniques may still shift rain and snow patterns, leaving the planet cooler, but it could also trigger droughts across vast swaths of farmland in Africa and India. Further, ocean fertilization could contribute to mass killing of sea life and releases of methane greenhouse gas, while using sulfur aerosols could bring not only drought but also enlarged ozone holes.
Leaving aside the environmental risks each one carries, the estimated costs tend to increase with how quickly each method removes carbon or deflects sunlight. The space reflectors would top the bill at a cost of several trillion dollars over 25 years.
"Geoengineering technologies, once developed, may enable short-sighted and unwise deployment, with potentially serious unforeseen consequences," said a 2009 American Meteorological Society statement. Turning over weather management to human beings raises, "legal, ethical, diplomatic, and even national security concerns," the statement added. Deflected storm tracks could result in floods such as the ones hitting Australia last month or Pakistan last year. And simply cutting temperatures won't stop the rise in ocean acidification arising from increased carbon dioxide levels in the air, which may affect marine life underlying the ocean food web.
Simply putting a worldwide price on carbon emissions from smokestacks and letting the marketplace lead to lower carbon emissions would likely be cheaper and more sensible than geoengineering, says Barrett, the economist. "But let's face it. We're talking about (geoengineering) because we don't have a price on carbon."
That's why geoengineering could happen before a global climate treaty ever passes the U.S. Senate, suggests Victor. International climate talks rest on getting 192 self-interested and short-sighted nations to cooperate in ways that will benefit some and cost others, particularly coal-powered ones such as the United States and China. But with geoengineering, you only need one nation to start "hacking," or geoengineering, the planet.
"It would be not at all surprising to wake up one morning and discover that Chinese testing (of geoengineering) has begun on a large scale," Victor says. "That would freak everyone out and create huge international tensions."
No international treaty governs geoengineering, other than a 2008 amendment to ocean pollution agreements limiting ocean fertilization to research studies.
Still a foreign concept to many
A Yale University survey of 1,001 people nationwide last year found that 1% could correctly describe geoengineering. The field needs to be researched, suggests climate scientist Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C., before opinions harden without accurate information. Geoengineering at this point looks like one of many options in addressing climate change, MacCracken adds. "You can only geoengineer so much before the side effects become so much worse than the cure that it doesn't make sense to bother."
He and others argue geoengineering research should begin in earnest, before some abrupt climate change, such as Greenland's ice sheet melting precipitously, stampedes the world into an overreaction and rush to costly technology as a quick, untested fix.
"No research is really going on in a lot of these areas," he says, raising the prospect of a lot of fruitless or counterproductive climate engineering efforts suddenly sprouting in a global panic about collapsing ice sheets decades from now.
Global warming by itself is a kind of geoengineering, noted as far back as 1896 by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, who calculated that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (the most noted greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels would likely warm the atmosphere by 9 degrees. Arrhenius supposed that would take thousands of years to happen, based on fossil fuel use rates at the turn of the century. Instead, the global average temperature has warmed about 1.4 degrees since he made his estimate, as carbon dioxide levels have increased tremendously, and his 9-degree increase is now within the range of forecasts for 2100.
"I think it is settled that some climate engineering research will go forward," Kintisch says. "We haven't seen it enter the national debate yet. Hard to know what will happen when it does. That may be the biggest question."
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Updated 2/25/2011 9:38:04 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-25-geoengineering25_CV_N.htm
Scientists call it "geoengineering," but in plain speak, it means things like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades.
Each brings its own set of risks, but in a world fretting about the consequences of global warming, are these ideas whose time has come?
With 2010 tying as the world's warmest year on record and efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions looking stymied, calls are rising for research into engineering our way out of global warming — everything from launching solar shade spacecraft to genetically engineering green deserts. An international consortium of 12 universities and research institutes on Tuesday, for example, announced plans to pioneer large-scale "ocean fertilization" experiments aimed at using the sea to pull more greenhouse gases out of the sky.
Once the domain of scientists' off-hours schemes scrawled on cocktail napkins, such geoengineering is getting a serious look in the political realm.
"We're moving into a different kind of world," says environmental economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University. "Better we turn to asking if 'geoengineering' could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity."
A National Academy of Sciences' best estimate has global warming bumping up average temperatures by 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions that are largely responsible, most from burning the modern economy's main fuels, coal and oil, look set to continue to rise for the next quarter-century, according to Energy Information Agency estimates.
"That's where geoengineering comes in," says international relations expert David Victor of the University of California-San Diego. "Research into geoengineering creates another option for the public."
Geoengineering takes its cue from the natural experiment that actually had made the only dent in global warming's rise in the last two decades — the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted more than 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide 21 miles high, straight into the stratosphere. The stratosphere suspended those sulfur particles in the air worldwide, where the haze they created scattered and reflected sunlight away from the Earth and cooled global atmospheric temperatures nearly 0.7 to 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit in 1992 and 1993, before finally washing out, according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimates. Firing about half that much sulfur into the stratosphere every year for 30 years would help stabilize global warming's rise, National Center for Atmospheric Research climate scientist Tom Wigley estimated in a much-debated 2006 Science journal report.
Humanity would effectively become addicted to sky-borne sulfates to keep the cooling on track. The tradeoff is that rain and snow patterns would likely shift, a 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study found, consigning hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet in Africa and Asia to recurring drought.
No longer eyed askance
"Geoengineering is no longer a taboo topic at scientific meetings. They are looking at it as one more policy prescription," says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch, author of Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope — Or Worst Nightmare — For Averting Climate Catastrophe. "But it is yet to become a household word."
That may be changing, as the terms of debate about geoengineering become clear. On the pro-research side, this October the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology called for more research into geoengineering, "to better understand which technologies or methods, if any, represent viable stopgap strategies for managing our changing climate and which pose unacceptable risks." On the more cautious side, a United Nations Environment Programme species conservation meeting in Nagoya, Japan, ended that same month with a call for, "no climate-related geoengineering activities," without environmental and scientific review.
What are the actual geoengineering proposals? Broadly, they come in two flavors: those that deal with greenhouse gases directly by soaking up carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas with the biggest warming impact); and those that seek to limit the sunlight that warms those greenhouse gases. Here's a sampling, from the deep ocean to deep space:
•Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of forestation. The increased mass of the plankton's cells would swell with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish, belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn't worked very well in small trials.
•Forestation. Intense planting of trees and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of 192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement. More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air.
•Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight. Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of "spray ships" could increase clouds themselves. Cost-effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions, instead of where it's needed.
•Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes.
•Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about 1.4 degrees.
"Most of the technologies are not yet proven and are at the theoretical or research phase," an August Congressional Research Service report noted.
On the environmental side, cutting temperature increases through these techniques may still shift rain and snow patterns, leaving the planet cooler, but it could also trigger droughts across vast swaths of farmland in Africa and India. Further, ocean fertilization could contribute to mass killing of sea life and releases of methane greenhouse gas, while using sulfur aerosols could bring not only drought but also enlarged ozone holes.
Leaving aside the environmental risks each one carries, the estimated costs tend to increase with how quickly each method removes carbon or deflects sunlight. The space reflectors would top the bill at a cost of several trillion dollars over 25 years.
"Geoengineering technologies, once developed, may enable short-sighted and unwise deployment, with potentially serious unforeseen consequences," said a 2009 American Meteorological Society statement. Turning over weather management to human beings raises, "legal, ethical, diplomatic, and even national security concerns," the statement added. Deflected storm tracks could result in floods such as the ones hitting Australia last month or Pakistan last year. And simply cutting temperatures won't stop the rise in ocean acidification arising from increased carbon dioxide levels in the air, which may affect marine life underlying the ocean food web.
Simply putting a worldwide price on carbon emissions from smokestacks and letting the marketplace lead to lower carbon emissions would likely be cheaper and more sensible than geoengineering, says Barrett, the economist. "But let's face it. We're talking about (geoengineering) because we don't have a price on carbon."
That's why geoengineering could happen before a global climate treaty ever passes the U.S. Senate, suggests Victor. International climate talks rest on getting 192 self-interested and short-sighted nations to cooperate in ways that will benefit some and cost others, particularly coal-powered ones such as the United States and China. But with geoengineering, you only need one nation to start "hacking," or geoengineering, the planet.
"It would be not at all surprising to wake up one morning and discover that Chinese testing (of geoengineering) has begun on a large scale," Victor says. "That would freak everyone out and create huge international tensions."
No international treaty governs geoengineering, other than a 2008 amendment to ocean pollution agreements limiting ocean fertilization to research studies.
Still a foreign concept to many
A Yale University survey of 1,001 people nationwide last year found that 1% could correctly describe geoengineering. The field needs to be researched, suggests climate scientist Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C., before opinions harden without accurate information. Geoengineering at this point looks like one of many options in addressing climate change, MacCracken adds. "You can only geoengineer so much before the side effects become so much worse than the cure that it doesn't make sense to bother."
He and others argue geoengineering research should begin in earnest, before some abrupt climate change, such as Greenland's ice sheet melting precipitously, stampedes the world into an overreaction and rush to costly technology as a quick, untested fix.
"No research is really going on in a lot of these areas," he says, raising the prospect of a lot of fruitless or counterproductive climate engineering efforts suddenly sprouting in a global panic about collapsing ice sheets decades from now.
Global warming by itself is a kind of geoengineering, noted as far back as 1896 by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, who calculated that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (the most noted greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels would likely warm the atmosphere by 9 degrees. Arrhenius supposed that would take thousands of years to happen, based on fossil fuel use rates at the turn of the century. Instead, the global average temperature has warmed about 1.4 degrees since he made his estimate, as carbon dioxide levels have increased tremendously, and his 9-degree increase is now within the range of forecasts for 2100.
"I think it is settled that some climate engineering research will go forward," Kintisch says. "We haven't seen it enter the national debate yet. Hard to know what will happen when it does. That may be the biggest question."
Chemtrails Over Las Vegas
I’ve been watching planes overfly my house in SW Las Vegas for some time, starting with a pair of Leupold 10x42 binoculars and most recently I’ve been photographing the planes with my Canon 20D. All of the planes chemtrailing in the Las Vegas area are commercial jets.
Starting around dawn on Sunday, February 13, 2011 we got heavily chemtrailed by jets flying in all directions. I stepped out of the house to check the sky around 7:30 AM and this is what I saw.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133030156
Looking southwest toward LAX where a majority of the spray planes come from.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133030155
Looking northeast where the LAX planes fly out of the Las Vegas area.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133030154
Looking east, almost all the clouds are CTs.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133030153
Looking east again.
I ran back inside and started Flight Aware and Flight Explorer, grabbed my cameras and waited for a plane to fly overhead. While waiting I took these photos.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133030152
A shot almost straight up at the expanding CTs.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133030151
Looking northeast at trails left by planes as I was starting up the software.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133030150
Looking southwest toward LAX at CTs left by prior planes, that's my tree in the front yard on the right.
I could see a plane out of LAX chemtrailing as it entered the Las Vegas area. This plane was going to fly right over the top of my house.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133030149
The plume the coming plane left as it chemtrailed over Las Vegas.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028449
COA556 B738 LAX-Cleveland--a close up of the plane as it flew over the top of my house.
Using Flight Aware and Flight Explorer I was able to identify exactly which plane was chemtrailing at 7:54AM as it overflew my house. You can see from the photo that the plane is all white on the bottom with two black circles in mid-section. The black circles are the wheels and characteristic of the Boeing 737-800 or B738. Around 7:54AM there were two B738s in the air around Las Vegas, one was a Continental Airlines B738 and the other was a Delta Airlines B738. Continental uses an all white paint scheme on the bottom of their planes while Delta uses a blue oval on the bottom of their planes. So the plane was Continental Flight 556 out of Los Angeles going to Cleveland.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028388
The Flight Aware info for Continental 556.
I was able to ID four other planes that were chemtrailing.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028387
AirTran--TRS890.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028386
The Flight Aware info for TRS890.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028385
Virgin--VRD404
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028384
The Flight Aware info for VRD404.
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028383
Delta--DAL1212
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028382
The Flight Aware info for DAL1212
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028380
Air Canada--ACA790
http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/image/133028379
The Flight Aware info forACA790
Ken Bradley
Monday, March 7, 2011
Man-Made ChemClouds Followed by Chemical Sunset
Where? Today in Panama City Beach, Florida. Wonder if any of the college Spring Breakers are hip to the chemtrail crimes going on over their heads?
"Persistent Contrails"??
Received this report today - thanks Ken!
NOTE: Here's an example of NASA's brainwashing: http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/contrails.html
This report summarizes my latest thinking based on observations of planes overflying the southwest Las Vegas area and documentation produced by various sources.
Many anti-chemtrail activists are uncomfortable with the term chemtrail and some prefer the term persistent contrail to describe the pluming and persistence phenomenon of jet exhaust. Calling what we see in the sky a persistent contrail is simply not valid based on the current state of atmospheric science. Take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWvwaOgP564 if you haven’t already watched this YouTube video and you can also visit http://www.watchthesky.org/ for additional information on why persistent contrails cannot form in the atmosphere.
The author of the video and the web site mentioned above says that persistent contrails cannot form unless the temperature is less than -40 degrees Celsius and the humidity is 60% or greater. This is basically true but since modern jet aircraft cruise between 32,000 feet and 39,000 feet the conditions for persistent contrails at those altitudes are less than -46 degrees Celsius and 60% or greater humidity. These conditions are mentioned in various documents produced by the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA. When we see the pluming and persistence phenomenon are these conditions met? The answer is no and therefore by the definition of persistent contrails they cannot exist. So what is it that we are seeing? As uncomfortable as this is going to make a portion of the activists I’ll refer to what we are seeing as chemtrails.
To prove the above point for yourself take a look at http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html and pick a sounding’s site close to where you are located. Data for a day is composed of two soundings, one at 00Z(ulu) and 12Z(ulu). To get data for a particular day choose data between 12Z on the day in question and 00Z on the next day. This is to adjust for Zulu or GMT time. Then look at the data between 195 hPa (39,000 feet, 390C) and 274 hPa (32,000 feet, 320C) and see if the relative humidity is 60% or greater when you see chemtrails in the sky.
For example, Saturday, 3-5-2011, was the worst day yet in Las Vegas for chemtrailing. The chemtrailing started at dawn and went to dusk. Every plane flying in the Las Vegas airspace was chemtrailing and spraying the old style, very persistent and very pluming chemtrails that spread out and completely covered the sky from horizon to horizon. It was a total overcast sky produced by chemtrails. Looking at 12Z data for 3-5-2011, 4AM local time, and 00Z data on 3-6-2011, 4PM the previous day(3-5-2011) local time, for site VEF we see the conditions at altitude at 4AM ranged from -62.7 degrees C and 38% humidity at 390C to -43.3 degrees C and 41% humidity at 320C and at 4PM the data ranged from -61.7 degrees C and 34% humidity at 390C to -41.7 degrees C and 41% humidity at 320C. Based on the criteria of less than -46 degrees C and 60% or greater humidity what we saw in Las Vegas on 3-5-2011 wasn’t persistent contrails, they were chemtrails.
Another reason not to use the word persistent contrail is that at any time the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA can simply say they were wrong in defining the conditions necessary to form persistent contrails and simply say that persistent contrails can form at 5% humidity or some other low ball number.
Basically the term persistent contrail was cooked up because the planes were chemtrailing and the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA had to come up with some concept to explain the pluming and persistence phenomenon of chemtrails. Then they had to dummy up some pseudo-scientific conditions and explanation for persistent contrail formation. This then could be used against chemtrail observations and would allow the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA to say that chemtrails are a hoax. But, as has been proven, persistent contrails are a hoax.
NOTE: Here's an example of NASA's brainwashing: http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/contrails.html
There’s No Such Thing as a Persistent Contrail
by Ken Bradley
by Ken Bradley
This report summarizes my latest thinking based on observations of planes overflying the southwest Las Vegas area and documentation produced by various sources.
Many anti-chemtrail activists are uncomfortable with the term chemtrail and some prefer the term persistent contrail to describe the pluming and persistence phenomenon of jet exhaust. Calling what we see in the sky a persistent contrail is simply not valid based on the current state of atmospheric science. Take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWvwaOgP564 if you haven’t already watched this YouTube video and you can also visit http://www.watchthesky.org/ for additional information on why persistent contrails cannot form in the atmosphere.
The author of the video and the web site mentioned above says that persistent contrails cannot form unless the temperature is less than -40 degrees Celsius and the humidity is 60% or greater. This is basically true but since modern jet aircraft cruise between 32,000 feet and 39,000 feet the conditions for persistent contrails at those altitudes are less than -46 degrees Celsius and 60% or greater humidity. These conditions are mentioned in various documents produced by the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA. When we see the pluming and persistence phenomenon are these conditions met? The answer is no and therefore by the definition of persistent contrails they cannot exist. So what is it that we are seeing? As uncomfortable as this is going to make a portion of the activists I’ll refer to what we are seeing as chemtrails.
To prove the above point for yourself take a look at http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html and pick a sounding’s site close to where you are located. Data for a day is composed of two soundings, one at 00Z(ulu) and 12Z(ulu). To get data for a particular day choose data between 12Z on the day in question and 00Z on the next day. This is to adjust for Zulu or GMT time. Then look at the data between 195 hPa (39,000 feet, 390C) and 274 hPa (32,000 feet, 320C) and see if the relative humidity is 60% or greater when you see chemtrails in the sky.
For example, Saturday, 3-5-2011, was the worst day yet in Las Vegas for chemtrailing. The chemtrailing started at dawn and went to dusk. Every plane flying in the Las Vegas airspace was chemtrailing and spraying the old style, very persistent and very pluming chemtrails that spread out and completely covered the sky from horizon to horizon. It was a total overcast sky produced by chemtrails. Looking at 12Z data for 3-5-2011, 4AM local time, and 00Z data on 3-6-2011, 4PM the previous day(3-5-2011) local time, for site VEF we see the conditions at altitude at 4AM ranged from -62.7 degrees C and 38% humidity at 390C to -43.3 degrees C and 41% humidity at 320C and at 4PM the data ranged from -61.7 degrees C and 34% humidity at 390C to -41.7 degrees C and 41% humidity at 320C. Based on the criteria of less than -46 degrees C and 60% or greater humidity what we saw in Las Vegas on 3-5-2011 wasn’t persistent contrails, they were chemtrails.
Another reason not to use the word persistent contrail is that at any time the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA can simply say they were wrong in defining the conditions necessary to form persistent contrails and simply say that persistent contrails can form at 5% humidity or some other low ball number.
Basically the term persistent contrail was cooked up because the planes were chemtrailing and the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA had to come up with some concept to explain the pluming and persistence phenomenon of chemtrails. Then they had to dummy up some pseudo-scientific conditions and explanation for persistent contrail formation. This then could be used against chemtrail observations and would allow the Air Force/NASA/NOAA/EPA/FAA to say that chemtrails are a hoax. But, as has been proven, persistent contrails are a hoax.
Chemtrail Comments From Canada
Sun 06 Mar 2011
Visible Invisible: The Green Sheep Who Wouldn't Look Up
written by Creative Commons
Geoengineering According to Elizabeth May - Green Party
by Es-tee A. Miller
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/8244-visible-invisible-the-green-sheep-who-wouldnt-look-up.html
Hi Es-tee; my name is Paul and I am administering Elizabeth's facebook account. I do appreciate your concern with this issue, but I'm not sure what you feel that we can do about it, if indeed it is actively being carried out as you say. I apologize for removing you from our friend lists, but as there is currently insufficient evidence backing up your theory about geoengineering, we can't have chemtrail videos being posted on this page. As I'm sure you're well aware, most people do not respond well to this issue. I hope you will understand.
Sincerely, Paul
My response:
Hi Paul; I'm actually quite shocked that Elizabeth May has someone administering her Facebook Page that is so ignorant of current environmental concerns. Where do you live by the way?
Elizabeth lives on an Island where all you have to do is look up to verify that my videos and photographs of Military jets spraying on a daily basis is a reality.
Do you remember the last time we had any real sunshine on the Island or anywhere on the westcoast for that matter. Your statement of "insufficient evidence backing up my "theory" of geoengineering not only blew me away but many others judging by the comments I'm getting on my Facebook Page after posting your ludicrous response for all to see. I'm quite serious when I say get your head out of the dark abyss where you have shoved it and "LOOK UP".. Your response has generated a horrified reaction worldwide.
Sincerely,
E. Miller
May 15th, 2010 six U.S. military jets sprayed us like bugs in Saanichton on Vancouver Island.
Tons of ?? falling from the skies.. air became blue and hazy. Vancouver Island, B.C.
These are the kind of clouds that develop overtop my house in Colwood, B.C. after a heavy day of spraying.
Yes! it's that low. My backyard!
One of many jets I've caught spraying over Metchosin and Colwood on Vancouver Island.
Several jets laying a grid like formation over top of my house.
Black Fog in Colwood after heavy aerosol spraying by jets.
TURN AROUND ELIZABETH..YOU'LL SEE THE CHEMTRAILS.
Visible Invisible: The Green Sheep Who Wouldn't Look Up
written by Creative Commons
Geoengineering According to Elizabeth May - Green Party
by Es-tee A. Miller
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/8244-visible-invisible-the-green-sheep-who-wouldnt-look-up.html
Hi Es-tee; my name is Paul and I am administering Elizabeth's facebook account. I do appreciate your concern with this issue, but I'm not sure what you feel that we can do about it, if indeed it is actively being carried out as you say. I apologize for removing you from our friend lists, but as there is currently insufficient evidence backing up your theory about geoengineering, we can't have chemtrail videos being posted on this page. As I'm sure you're well aware, most people do not respond well to this issue. I hope you will understand.
Sincerely, Paul
My response:
Hi Paul; I'm actually quite shocked that Elizabeth May has someone administering her Facebook Page that is so ignorant of current environmental concerns. Where do you live by the way?
Elizabeth lives on an Island where all you have to do is look up to verify that my videos and photographs of Military jets spraying on a daily basis is a reality.
Do you remember the last time we had any real sunshine on the Island or anywhere on the westcoast for that matter. Your statement of "insufficient evidence backing up my "theory" of geoengineering not only blew me away but many others judging by the comments I'm getting on my Facebook Page after posting your ludicrous response for all to see. I'm quite serious when I say get your head out of the dark abyss where you have shoved it and "LOOK UP".. Your response has generated a horrified reaction worldwide.
Sincerely,
E. Miller
May 15th, 2010 six U.S. military jets sprayed us like bugs in Saanichton on Vancouver Island.
Tons of ?? falling from the skies.. air became blue and hazy. Vancouver Island, B.C.
These are the kind of clouds that develop overtop my house in Colwood, B.C. after a heavy day of spraying.
Yes! it's that low. My backyard!
One of many jets I've caught spraying over Metchosin and Colwood on Vancouver Island.
Several jets laying a grid like formation over top of my house.
Black Fog in Colwood after heavy aerosol spraying by jets.
TURN AROUND ELIZABETH..YOU'LL SEE THE CHEMTRAILS.
Ventura County, Calif Reader Responds to Contrails Article
Chemtrails
Posted March 7, 2011 at 9:18 a.m.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/mar/07/chemtrails/
Re: your March 4 article, “Jet contrails spur ecological fears”:
I have been observing the chemtrail spray program since the end of 1999, when spraying first began in Washington state (spraying began earlier in California), where I observed chemtrail activity for six years. In 2006, I began observing chemtrail activity in Southern California. Since 2009, I have taken photos of chemtrail spray activity over Ventura County. All 166 pages (so far) of chemtrails can be viewed on my Webshots album at http://outdoors.webshots.com/album/569521832jLreYV .
I am far from alone in my view that these miles-long, expanding trails, which sometimes are switched off and on (just watch to see that wispy cloud effect), and which then become what we call “chemclouds,” are the action of the chemtrail spray program, a global program.
Many have written to our local, state and national representatives, NOAA, ecology, weather departments, universities and military, and many who are supposed to be representing us. Our numerous inquiries have seldom been addressed.
The difference between jet aircraft with their normal short, quickly dissipating, comet-like contrails, and the chemtrail spray planes, spewing out miles-long trails can easily be observed. There are several days during the year in which the spray planes are spraying elsewhere and in which chemclouds sprayed elsewhere have not blown into an area and only normal air traffic can be seen. Anyone looking at the sky then might ask: There are absolutely no contrails in the sky today. Has all air traffic been grounded?
They might well ask: Why are there a number of days when not a single so-called contrail can be observed, and other days when the sky is absolutely jammed-packed full of these “contrails” crisscrossing in every direction, often showing giant X-marks, with aircraft at times clearly being seen making turns?
Here's to looking up!
- Ellyn Sutton,
Simi Valley
Posted March 7, 2011 at 9:18 a.m.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/mar/07/chemtrails/
Re: your March 4 article, “Jet contrails spur ecological fears”:
I have been observing the chemtrail spray program since the end of 1999, when spraying first began in Washington state (spraying began earlier in California), where I observed chemtrail activity for six years. In 2006, I began observing chemtrail activity in Southern California. Since 2009, I have taken photos of chemtrail spray activity over Ventura County. All 166 pages (so far) of chemtrails can be viewed on my Webshots album at http://outdoors.webshots.com/album/569521832jLreYV .
I am far from alone in my view that these miles-long, expanding trails, which sometimes are switched off and on (just watch to see that wispy cloud effect), and which then become what we call “chemclouds,” are the action of the chemtrail spray program, a global program.
Many have written to our local, state and national representatives, NOAA, ecology, weather departments, universities and military, and many who are supposed to be representing us. Our numerous inquiries have seldom been addressed.
The difference between jet aircraft with their normal short, quickly dissipating, comet-like contrails, and the chemtrail spray planes, spewing out miles-long trails can easily be observed. There are several days during the year in which the spray planes are spraying elsewhere and in which chemclouds sprayed elsewhere have not blown into an area and only normal air traffic can be seen. Anyone looking at the sky then might ask: There are absolutely no contrails in the sky today. Has all air traffic been grounded?
They might well ask: Why are there a number of days when not a single so-called contrail can be observed, and other days when the sky is absolutely jammed-packed full of these “contrails” crisscrossing in every direction, often showing giant X-marks, with aircraft at times clearly being seen making turns?
Here's to looking up!
- Ellyn Sutton,
Simi Valley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
