Chemtrails again

by **utpk** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:54 am

I've been watching the skies since I first heard about this about three years ago. I've also read about the "natural" explanations of this phenomenon. I don't want to sound like a debunker, but I've noticed that there's really easy way that anyone could actually tell just by looking that these trails are "chemtrails" rather than just "contrails". I do think that there's been some evidence gathered that would indicate that there is some kind of spraying. But, really, we can only know for a fact with each individual spraying/contrail sighting if some tests have been taken on that exact particular sighting. Unless someone has some better explanation whereby they can demonstrate that one can visually observe and inspect these "trail" formations and categorically state that there's some exceptional visible feature that warrants calling an individual "trail" a "chemtrail". I'm not convinced that there is such an observable signature that would reliably indicate a "chemical" nature to these trails. Having said that,... I do believe there are cases that have happened. I'm worried that our ordinary contrails might be chemtrails. I've seen some mighty strange ones in the skies over Huntsville, Alabama, in the past three years that I've been looking, including the so-called "clover-leaf" formation. And many, many times I've seen these "contrail" formations appear in the Western sky near sunset that persist and spread and have multiple sundog-type phemomena within them ( sundogs are those rainbow-like cirrhus cloud appearances, but these contrail sundogs are different: they don't just appear as haloes around the sun, they often appear as a rainbow-like smear within the upper clouds). I think there's a real phenomena here, I just think we have to be careful in labeling every natural contrail as a chemtrail. Keep looking up.

by **utpk** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:55 am

in the second sentence above, I meant "there's really NO easy way"

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:18 pm

Ok, here goes..I wish I could have been more thorough, but I'm at work and had to prepare this pretty quick. Keep in mind that this is my opinion only, and when it's all said and done, the truth is that I don't feel any closer to knowing what's going on than I did when I started out..I'm sure some of you can relate to that. So.. Sometime around 1997-1998 people began noticing contrails persisting and spreading out in a blanket blotting out the Sun. Despite the fact that persistent contrails can be seen as far back as WWII photos, all kinds of theories about what was causing this exploded online, and some of them seem to be warrented. I am by no means an authority, but I'm offering my own thoughts on the Usual Suspects and the problems for and against them. Tangent One: HAARP <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hig...ch_Program</a> Some people associated it with HAARP, especially when taken into account that the HAARP patent mentions a barium release as an enhancing agent for HAARP's efficacy. Feel free to confirm this for yourself using Patent Number: 4686605 in the US Patent Office's website. HAARP is still in the process of being upgraded, and it's claimed that it doesn't have enough output to directly influence anything, but I'm not in a position to prove or disprove this, and info online is sketchy at best. All I can say about HAARP is that it appears to be Tesla's legacy, and Tesla needs no introductions. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla</a> Bernard Eastlund was the original patent applicant, but I believe the technology is now operated under license from Raytheon. Bernard Eastlund also has some publications relating to weather control: "ESEC has recently completed a contract with the European Space Agency to review the weather modification potential of the HAARP facility in Alaska and to perform numerical simulations of tornado suppression with high power electromagnetic radiation produced with Solar Power Satellites. Two papers, available below, have been published. They are: * SYSTEMS CONSIDERATIONS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION EXPERIMENTS USING HIGH POWER ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION, published in Proceedings of "Workshop on Space Exploration and Resources Exploitation-EXPLOSPACE," 20-22 October, 1998, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. * MESOCYCLONE DIAGNOSTIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE THUNDERSTORM SOLAR POWER SATELLITE CONCEPT, Published in the Proceedings of "The Second Conference on the Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS for Disaster Management," January 19-21, 1999."  <a href="http://www.eastlundscience.com/currentd.html">www.eastlundscience.com/currentd.html</a> *note - One interesting thing about these "newest" papers is that they are dated all the way back to 1998-99. Hardly recent.. There's a growing online awareness of weathermod, but aside from the pedestrian crap like killing fog and seeding a raincloud, I haven't come across a super-duper smoking gun. That said.. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the barrage of accusations that Katrina was generated or guided by HAARP. I lack cold hard evidence of this despite all the anomolous images seen by everyone, but in particular, I'm more than a bit dismayed when I see people like Hoagland and Stevens reaching a large audience pushing agendas where we(whatever part of we that may be) are fighting a 'Weather War' with Japanese Yakuza 'leasing' Cold War Russian technology that are hell-bent on getting even with us for Hiroshima..Hoagland emerged in the enmod scene with his Captain's Blog and appeared to serve as a diffusing agent deflecting attention away from our own technology to the point where he stated that Hurricane Wilma, a hurricane which has shown attributes NEVER seen before, like going from Tropical Storm to Cat 5 in 24 hours, was assaulted by the Boys in Blue in an attempt to WEAKEN it.. Sure, buddy. Last I saw, Hoagland, after infecting who knows how many people with this doo-doo meme is nowhere to be found, and his 'crew', are now running amok without their Captain. See the last blog's comments for yourself: <a href="http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm">www.enterprisemission.com...weblog.htm</a> Hoagland at one point in his blog suggested that the blog itself was an "experiment". I believe that the experiment was to Infect and Disperse.. Mission Accomplished, Captain. If weathermod is real, we're being led in the wrong direction, plain and simple. I won't make any friends by saying this, but I most certainly do NOT believe what I'm told from Hoagland and Stevens. Tangent Two: A biologically targeted release. I tend to rule this out mainly for the reason that if it was a material intended to kill us, we'de already be dead. The sheer amount of stuff that has been seen for so long if of biological nature would have to be the most in-effective kill agent ever made if so. There ARE cases where the Military has admitted using 'inert' substances over cities in the past, alledgedly to test aerosol dispersal for 'Defense Purposes'..You have individuals like Clifford Carnicom who present a wealth of data suggesting this and more: <a href="http://www.carnicom.com/">www.carnicom.com/</a> The only problem here is that there is to date no one who has reproduced any of his data independantly, which scours the scientific process. I'm not saying I don't believe what he's saying, I'm just saying it can't be taken as evidence until his experiment results are reproduced by a seperate scientific body. So far, zilch. One topic I'll comment about from his site is airborne webstrands, and this leads me closer to what I actually believe is going on: Tangent Three: Global Warming Mitigation Here's the Big One. There is more suggestive data regarding this than anything else you'll find online. In particular, there's the paper from Edward Teller, who was alledgedly commissioned by the US Government to find a solution to Global Warming, the same Global Warming, coincidentally, that the current Administration denies as valid. Teller's Livermore Labs report is available in PDF if you do some digging around; I have it on a different machine. He wasn't the first to suggest introducing particulates, that honor goes to Dyson: <a href="http://www.hooverdigest.org/981/teller.html">www.hooverdigest.org/981/teller.html</a> Teller's paper goes into great detail explaining cost vs benefit, and concludes that it would be far cheaper to introduce aluminum particulates into the atmosphere than it would be to regulate Radiative Forcing(man-made climate change). He suggested passing talcum-fine aluminum through the airplane's engines wouldn't effect performance, but if even 1% of the Sun's light was delected, Global Warming would be mitigated. The next interesting paper was published by the National Academies Press. "Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base " is authored by the "Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy": <a href="http://www.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html">www.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html</a> You can view a good majority of this publication online, but I went ahead and purchased it. Of special interest is chapter 28, or Geoengineering: <a href="http://www.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/433.html">www.nap.edu/books/0309043...l/433.html</a> Here you will see several proposed mitigation suggestions, ranging from seeding Iron in the oceans to firing laser beams to particulate dispersion via aircraft to spiking coal used in powerplants to sulfer dispersion by ocean craft. One difficulty in browsing this publication is there's a limit to how much text each page is available to browse, so you're going to see that a significant amount of text is absent, hence my purchase of the PDF. Some interesting quotes: "OCR for page 454 Page 454 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 198<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required. The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated. However, if the requirement is to mitigate the 1989 U.S. emissions of CO2, 500 times less dust is needed, the cost is about $10 million per year, and implementation would require about 1 percent of the ton-miles flown in 1987." and: "The SO2 could also be emitted from power plants. These plants could be built out in the ocean near the equator (the Pacific gives more room than the Atlantic) and could furnish power for nearby locations (e.g., South America). Transmission or use of the power in the form of refined materials, or possibly by the use of superconducting power transmission systems, could be considered. It would likely require eight large power plants using "spiked" coal (with 4 times the normal amount of sulfur), at a cost of $2 to $2.5 billion per plant. Most of the cost might be borne by those buying the power; so imagining a cost of, at most, 10 percent per year (the interest on the investment), total cost would be $2 billion per year (with the above conversion, $2 × 109/3890 × 106 × 300 image $0.0005/t CO2)." and: "Once a decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and begin to operate in a year or so, and mitigation effects would be immediate. If the system were stopped, the mitigation effect would presumably cease very rapidly, within days or weeks, as extra CCN were removed by rain and drizzle. Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust (or possibly soot) in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere. Such dust would have a visible effect, particularly on sunsets and sunrises, and would heat the stratosphere at the altitude of the dust." Of special note is the following: "Assume a fleet of ships, each carrying sulfur and a suitable incinerator. The ships are dedicated to roaming the subtropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans far upwind of land while they burn sulphur. They are vectored on paths to cloud-covered areas by a control center that uses weather satellite data to plan the campaign. In addition to choosing areas that contain clouds, it would be important to distribute the ships and their burning pattern so as not to create major regional changes, or the kind of change with a time or space pattern likely to force unwanted wave patterns." For a long time now, people have observed through satallite images what are commonly refered to as "Ship Tracks" off the Pacific Ocean: <img src="http://sickle666.com/Chem/Satalitte/Pacific_07_17_05.jpg"/> <img src="http://sickle666.com/Chem/Satalitte/Pacific_07_17_05_close_up.jpg"/> These Ship Tracks have to date been unobserved in the Atlantic, at least by me personally, and I'm not aware of anyone else who has seen them there. They've also been seen off the coast of west Europe via MODIS images(do a search for ship tracks): http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/ It's suggestive to me that these tracks are instigating artificial Cirrus formation that will carry over onto the US continent courtesy of the Gulf Stream. Keep in mind that these 'tracks' are relatively gigantic in proportion to the ones we see over our cities; a trail that large would cover your entire field of view. The report after implying we're crafty enough to fuck with nature than goes on to ominously warn of the consequences of a natural introduction of sulfur during a mitigation activity: "The principal characteristic of chaos instability, for example, is that the behavior of states with only slightly different initial conditions may be totally different. This is frequently expressed by the statement that "the alighting of a butterfly may change the future of the earth." However, in the sense that we know something of the effects of various kinds of events on parts of the geophysical system, we do know a good deal about this. For example, we know something of the effect of the dust and aerosols resulting from volcanic eruptions on the climate system and on atmospheric chemistry, and we know something of the effect of industrial sulfur emissions on the climate system. It seems reasonable to assume that mitigation systems that put dust or aerosols into the atmosphere at altitudes and in quantities that are within the bounds of the natural experiments or of previous experiments would not produce instabilities or effects that had not been produced before." Elsewhere in the report and not found in the available text online is a discussion regarding the utilization of available commercial aircraft and having the fuel burned richer to generate soot. At this point, and after everything I have read, I'm most inclined to believe that this is what's happening. I don't think we're being 'sprayed', I think the persistent contrails are an enriched exhaust made specifically for generation of artificial Cirrus, which provides you with Global Dimming. There's one problem with all this though, and what makes it hard for me to accept all this: Persistent contrails also form at night: <img src="http://sickle666.com/Chem/mine/night/11-23-05/06.jpg"/> Artificial Cirrus is directly implicated in blocking captured infrared heat from radiating back out into space at night. Cirrus clouds themselves are suspected of being a major insulator of trapped heat, so why make more of them? That's when you start asking yourself Tin-Hat questions about things like Terra-Forming..And why someone would want the place hotter.. And that's where I cease discussions, but keep this in mind: From the IPCC's report "Aviation and the Global Atmosphere": This image depicts current persistent contrail coverage & the bottom one demonstrates a 2050 projection. <img src="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/images/avf3-24.jpg"/> Root: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm The above is taken from chapter 3. From Chapter 3's executive summary: In the future, contrail cloudiness and radiative forcing are expected to increase more strongly than global aviation fuel consumption because air traffic is expected to increase mainly in the upper troposphere, where contrails form preferentially, and because aircraft will be equipped with more fuel-efficient engines. More efficient engines will cause contrails to occur more frequently and over a larger altitude range for the same amount of air traffic. For the threefold increase in fuel consumption calculated for a 2050 scenario (Fa1), a fivefold increase in contrail cover and a sixfold increase in radiative forcing are expected. The contrail cover would increase even more strongly if the number of cruising aircraft increases more than their fuel consumption. For other 2050 scenarios (Fc1 and Fe1), the expected cirrus cover increases by factors of 3 and 9, respectively, compared to 1992. Higher cruise altitudes will increase contrail cover in the subtropics; lower cruise altitudes will increase contrail cover in polar regions. Future climate changes may cause further changes in expected aircraft-induced cirrus cover. From the exectutive summary of chapter 3: "Contrails cause a positive mean radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. They reduce both the solar radiation reaching the surface and the amount of longwave radiation leaving the Earth to space. Contrails reduce the daily temperature range at the surface and cause a heating of the troposphere, especially over warm and bright surfaces. The radiative effects of contrails depend mainly on their coverage and optical depth."  http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/032.htm So, by their estimations, contrail persistence will only be increasing whether these trails are benign, malignant, act of nature or man-made mitigation.. _______________________________________________ As far as my mentioning the webstrands, I have a pet theory I've nursed for some months based on observations by others and myself. People on the west coast have complained about a web-like material that occassionally blankets everything at ground level. It falls from the sky. Until 3 months ago, I had never noticed this, but by accident I started seeing strands of a super-fine material up to 40 feet long coming down here in Georgia. It's pretty hard to see if you don't have it between you and direct sunlight, but sunsets and rises will show this material all over the place when it's around. It's several time thinner than human hair, and doesn't stick the way spider silk does. I've looked into it being a product of arachnids in a ballooning phase, and as far as I can tell, the period that activity takes place is limited to a couple of weeks out of the year, and this material has been seen consitently now for at least 3 months. It also seems to increase in amount the further west one is located. My un-educated guess is this material is introduced in the ship tracks in the Pacific and hitches a ride on the Jet Stream landing along the way. It's almost weightless, and stays aloft surprisingly well. It's been known for some time that spider silk has been successfully bio-engineered. Maybe this material is coated in the particulates that provide the sunscreen effect if that's what it's actually for, I don't know..but trust me, it's up there whatever it is. I've filmed it, and so has a good friend of mine in Texas. It can be seen especially easy on cloudless days by blocking the solar disc and looking at the immediate area around the Sun's Corona. As I said, it's a pet theory only, but I find it pretty compelling. As far as the Chemtrails are concerned, there's so much more to say about them, but I'm running short on time, so hopefully the discussion will continue moving forward and I can jump back in when possible. *phew* Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A> at: 12/11/05 12:11 am

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:08 am

More from the "Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base": <a href="http://books.nap.edu/catalog/1605.html">books.nap.edu/catalog/1605.html</a> From the GeoEngineering chapter: Please note that Ramanathan's comments are dated all the way back to 1988. Scinece afficiandos may recognize Dr Ramanathan as a head coordinitor for the current Asian Brown Cloud study: <a href="http://www.rrcap.unep.org/abc/impactstudy/Executive%20Summary.pdf">www.rrcap.unep.org/abc/im...ummary.pdf</a> Brown haze composition * black carbon and ash * sulfates * nitrates * mineral dust * 75% of the cloud is man-made __________________________________________ "SCREENING OUT SOME SUNLIGHT Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and surface features would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar radiation reaches the earth's surface and a purposeful change in albedo would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan (198<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> , an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many ''mirrors" or a cloud of dust. Preliminary characterizations of some of the possibilities that might be considered are provided below." and: "The assumption that a 1 percent decrease in sunlight is equivalent to mitigating the greenhouse effect of 1000 Gt of carbon (or 4000 Gt CO2) is key for all of the estimates that follow.6 Ramanathan's increase of 0.5 percent in planetary albedo quoted above as sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling is used here and below as a 1 percent screening effect for estimating purposes. Using Figures 3.1 and 3.2 of the report of the Synthesis Panel (Part One), we see that the total change in greenhouse gases since before the Industrial Revolution until 2030 may be equivalent to about 3.3 W/m2, or slightly less than 1 percent of the 349 W/m2 of solar insolation." and: "Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2 g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 μm increases the planetary albedo by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar flux reaching the surface. Since an approximately 1 percent change in solar flux is required, and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest that, at these loadings, the dust effects may reasonably be extrapolated downward linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust loading of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26 μm." and: "The dust in Ramaswamy and Kiehl's model is distributed between 10 and 30 km in the stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on radiative forcing of a global distribution of additional dust would be somewhat greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight is effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease slightly the equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have some effect on weather intensity. Presumably, this effect can also be studied with global climate models." and: "The economics of keeping 1010 kg of dust in the stratosphere is determined by the lifetime of the dust aloft and the means used to put the material there. A dust lifetime in the stratosphere of 2 years is assumed, requiring that 1010 kg be placed in the stratosphere 20 times during the 40 years until 2030." and: *THIS IS IMPORTANT* "Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 × 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted. However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years. An estimate (National Research Council, 1985) for the half-life of smoke is 1.4 × 10-7/s.14 This gives a half-life of 83 days, or a little less than one-quarter of a year. Thus the amount of fuel to be turned into soot continuously for complete mitigation (1012 t C) is closer to 40 percent than to 1 percent. That seems impractical. However, if the amount of mitigation required is equivalent to the 1989 U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases equivalent to CO2 (8 × 109 t CO2), the amount of soot required would be 500 times smaller, and the required soot corresponds to less than 0.1 percent of the fuel burned. If 1 percent of the fuel were used, about 25 × 109 t CO2/yr could be mitigated. In 1987, 16 percent of the cash operating expenses of airlines were spent on fuel (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 198<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . Because the operating revenue in that year was $45,339 million, the approximate cost of the particulate emissions from jet engines for mitigation of the 1989 U.S. CO2 equivalent emissions would be about $7 million, or about $0.001/t CO2/yr plus the capital costs of adjusting the aircraft engines. This provides a cost range of $0.001 to $0.1/t CO2/yr. An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year. In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million" and: "(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 198<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton- miles will be required. The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated. However, if the requirement is to mitigate the 1989 U.S. emissions of CO2, 500 times less dust is needed, the cost is about $10 million per year, and implementation would require about 1 percent of the ton-miles flown in 1987. If 10 percent of the ton-miles flown in 1987 were used, the system could mitigate 80 Gt CO2. These costs should probably be increased by the cost of delivered dust (say, $0.50/kg) and of delivery systems in the aircraft, but better-than-average freight rates could probably be arranged. Thus the costs appear to be about $0.0025/t CO2. Clearly, the amount of dust required could be greater by a factor of 10, and the cost would be $0.025/t CO2. This provides a cost estimate in the range of $0.003 to $0.03/t CO2." And: "It may also be sensible to consider using ships that pump a seawater aerosol into the air above the ocean, thus increasing the density of sea salt aerosol crystals, which can act as CCN (Latham and Smith, 1990)." (This proposal recently landed in a Popular Science special reprot of radical mitigation schemes this year. It showed these radical new ship designs spouting seawtare to be used as CCN)cloud condensation nuclei.) and: "Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust (or possibly soot) in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons." and: "(Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere." and of special note: "Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented." Poignantly, all thes hairbrained scemes are more attractive that telling demanding the facist checkwriters to use their own available reseach and money to find an internal solution to what will ultimately render the earth in to a Veus-like State.. *more to come soon* Comments are by all means welcome and encouraged. I appluud the Rigorous Methodolgy employed by this community, and you feedback is important to what I have come to undetastand.. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A> at: 12/11/05 12:13 am

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:27 am

Buzzwords from people inclined to do their own searches: Radiative Forcing (man-made climate change) Dircet Forcing (deliberate man-made forcing, ala 'chemtrails', as well as other more esoteric methods such as seeding iron to instgate plankton blooms(not 100% proven to back-fire) Ramanathan - Old Schoool component of climate change/mitigation. Edward Teller - Professor Emiretus of Lawrence Livemore Labs Operation Cloverleaf - I doubt that needs an introduction, but I consider it disinfo. Anual Morbidity reports from the CDC showing the drastic spike in lower resperitory failure as a leading cause of death increasing each year till it now stands at No# 3 or No #2. _______________________________ I'll be back with more discussion when I can. I encourage discussion on any/all of the subjects I have raised here. My next post will be a dissection of Teller's famous 'Earth needs a Sunscreen paper'. Congrats on getting this far; I haven't touched 10% of the releveant chemtrail discussions.

by **sussurus2** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:32 am

Thanks for the very informative overview. I admire the depth & breadth, as well as your inclusion of multiple perspectives without too much specific judgement or advocacy one way or another. Up until reading your posts here, the info at the below URL had been the very best I could find in terms of summary info, with multiple theories posted in one place. And its where I referred the (all too few) folks who I spoke with about CT's who wanted to know more: <a href="http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/pointstoponder.html">www.holmestead.ca/chemtra...onder.html</a> I tend to agree with their thesis that the CT phenomenon is probably choice D) All of the above. Or most of the above. With different folks running their own parts of that show, for their own purposes. Sometimes it's "good" sometimes it's "bad." But to me it's all bad in that it is secret, and assumes such a paternalistic (and that is being kind) egotism of "we know what's good for you, but if you knew what we were doing & why you would all panic." That's at BEST the situation. The alternatives are likely far worse. **** Some rehash from former posts on the topic, from my personal experience as a former...not debunker...disbeliever. Like "why would I waste my time reading that CT $&#!? Clearly that's BS..." As life's ironies sometimes go, it was in fact right about the time I was deciding all of the CT stuff was BS, that on a Saturdy I watched with dismay and growing disquiet as my family and some out of town guests of ours walked through the neighborhood, trail after trail being laid overhead. [Not quite hours later, and a formerly CRYSTAL CLEAR nice blue day was full of low, hazy clouds.] And tha damned planes made no sound. Just like I'd read on various boards. They were low enough that you should have heard something, felt something even remote & tenuous. But nothing. That freaked me out. [Anyone else have this experience? Anyone actually heard one of those planes make sound?] And the trail cloud lines were showing behind the planes at an altitude far lower than could resonably ever be expected to have contrails (especially on a day with the warm weather/medium humidity combo we had). And thicker by far than the contrails I knew growing up. Contrails happen at high altitude where it is COLD. They are thin white lines [ice crystals formed around the exhaust of the plane is what I learned as a kid?], that dissipate relatively quickly behind the plane before you even lose sight of it. They don't persist long after the plane has left over the horizon. How would I know? I grew up on air force bases. Childhood included airshows & watching SR-71's climb STRAIGHT UP until you couldn't see them any more, or getting buzzed by freaking F-4's even on the weekends. And when I wasn't there I was living right under the flightpath of a major metro airport. All over the world. I ALWAYS look at planes, and am always looking at the sky, its reflexive for most military brats. I never saw anything like this until this year. Mark Nine's book was kind of enlightening too. For those who don't know him, former Nena Hagen band member, who took photos worldwide of the trails, and released a book & calendar. Not bad activism, I have to say. Well done lad. Chemtails are waaay too low to be contrails, and they don't dissipate & disappear, they spread & grow in various ways that you come to recognize after you've watched them for a few months. So this is one recognition out of many this past year & a half that I was dragged to, in disbelief. And one that I'm now most puzzled, and infuriated by, as I see them laying tracks on an almost daily basis. Only that first day did I see the clear tic-tac-toe grid laid out, everything since then has been very acute angle vectors, up to three in a Z or V pattern, which seem to be about building a spreading bank, as opposed to a grid. I've not just seen them here in town, but even when on vacation several states away. It is particularly puzzling to see that in that state, the trails were laid only over water. Here, they always seem start them right at the waterline so they are over land. Whether they lay them parallel to the coast, or come in perpendicular. And I watch them lay them so that they'll blow in from the coast, so that by the time they get here, they'll look like those fakey "clouds" they resolve into. Did I mention that my son, and almost all the kids in his preschool class, have what the mom's have described as "chain smoker" coughs? And they're not sick. No fever. It's been almost two months of this, and worst at night before he goes to sleep. The week he was not in school, and mostly indoors, it disappeared. By the end of the first week back at school, the cough was back. I estimate that it's a very short time before folks with more means than we have begin really triangulating their attentions on this issue. With data gathering in aggregate that is more effective than everybody capturing stills with a digital camera and posting them to a web board. Not that your photos weren't great. It's just that they look just like my photos, taken on opposite sides of the country. You have an opinion on the orbwars site & thesis? Seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm curious if anyone else arrived there as well. Thanks again, S.

by **chillin** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:28 pm

There have been times that I wanted to point out to people that something seems to be happening in the sky, but what would be the point? They'll either think I'm nuts or maybe believe it. If they believe it and ask what it's all about... do I say: "Don't worry, the best we can guess is that our existence on the planet is doomed because of solar radiation and we're trying to mitigate it a bit." ??? What is that going to do to most people's minds? Actually, I don't know why it doesn't bother me more than it does... things are mostly business as usual except on days when I look up and think 'WTF?!?'

by **yablonsky** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:22 am

<a href="http://www.911busters.com/chem_trails/MOV/aerosol_crimes.html">www.911busters.com/chem_t...rimes.html</a> (appropriate supplement to this thread i would think - though i'm sure redundant or familiar to you knowledgeable of the issue)

by **thurnandtaxis** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:01 am

I don't know of what really, but wednesday morning I was in the Pasco/Hernando County area of Florida and saw the craziest grid I've ever seen. There were literally tic-tac-toe boards in the sky. They dissipated slowly to form what ended up looking like linear formations of cirrus clouds. And the horizon held a milky white haze. I literally watched as two trail spewing planes crossed each other's flight paths at a 90 degree angle within a minute of each other. It seemed like it would have been a very clear day otherwise as I realized that every cloud pattern I saw was the result of the gradual, lingering, dissipation of these trails which were all over the sky and in various stages of dispersion. WTF!!! I've never seen any thing like this before. I am now convinced. Chemtrails NOT Contrails! I tell you if I lived here in FL I'd definately start experimenting with cloudbuster type technology just to see if there'd be any results...

by **marykmusic** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:12 am

So where DO you live? And now that you've seen the Beast, you will recognize it at home, too. --MaryK

by **mother** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:05 pm

Sometimes they really get to me, like today. This day began brilliant cerulean blue after a huge rain and sleet storm yesterday. Everything was so clean and crisp. Then around noon the spraying began, so now for miles and miles the sky looks like cheap school paste. It is so sad, particularly when the days are so short this time of year and light clear skies are so precious and rare.

Chemtrails again

Re: Yes, last clear day here in SF Bay Area...

Re: Yes, last clear day here in SF Bay Area...

Dissemination of publically accesable data

My continuing attempts at informational dispersion..

Re: My continuing attempts at informational dispersion..

Re: My continuing attempts at informational dispersion..

Screening out some sunlight

Re: Screening out some sunlight

I'm a believer

Re: I'm a believer

me, too

Who is online