It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Are They Spraying Anything?

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

You think soil testing is a valid air test?

You think testing pond sludge is a valid air test?
You think testing for 2 or three substances in rain water is a valid test to show "high levels" of contamination? How can it be when other "safe" contaminants were not tested for? We have no way of knowing how much "bad" stuff there was in comparison to the harmless stuff. The water tests (all of them) are pointless. They show nothing except that there is aluminum in dust.

The only thing approaching an air test tells us there was a very small amount of aluminum in the sample taken.

Who cares. Useless banter. Classic deflection to create irrelevant argument.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

The odds are very good.

Since the production of contrails depends upon atmospheric conditions and atmospheric conditions are not homogeneous, it makes sense that contrails would form or not form in the same parcels of air.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

See it all the time....

What are the odds the condensation trails would start and stop all in such close proximity?

Trying to think of an analogy....the reason is, of course, the relative humidity in the atmosphere isn't the same, everywhere. Sometimes, it can much the same, for very wide-spread distances. Other time, there can be sharp changes, in short distances. Small "pockets", if you will. Dozens of miles wide, thousands of feet thick of all sorts of various shapes.

Analogy is a rough road, with dips and high spots, after a rainstorm. And, the resulting puddles left over....that is describing a "flat" surface, and doesn't picture it exactly, though. Temperatures can vary greatly too...air is, after all, a "fluid" (it mimics the same physical dynamics of fluids). There can be a great deal of mixing, and chaotic changing fact, there is. All of the time.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by Phage

It's likely that planes flying in such close proximity (area of the sky rather) wouldn't be in the same parcels of air actually. Just that many being that close they would undoubtedly be aware of each other and flying at several different altitudes.

Anyway.. as I have said before I don't really believe too much in this conspiracy, I just saw a lot of them and wanted to share my picture.

edit on 2-3-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by ResearchMan

The problem with what you propose is that there would be no way to attribute an increase (if there were one) to "chemtrails". What else has increased in those 90 years? Industrial activity, automobile traffic, people.

The point of showing the old data is that aluminum is commonly found at the levels found in the tests used in the movie. The movie makes it sound like they are very high levels. They aren't. The movie is preying on ignorance.
edit on 3/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I have heard of condensation trails, but these trails have a start and a stop. What are the odds the condensation trails would start and stop all in such close proximity?

The odds are unity - it is a certainty that contrails will start and stop whenever the atmospheric conditions require that they start or stop.

It is exactly the same reason why other atmospheric phenomena starts and stop - such as clouds or rain or hail or snow or updraughts or downdraughts or wind - because the conditions require it.

Next time there is broken cloud in het sky look at it and realise that the clouds are forming where conditions are right for them, and not forming where conditions are not right for them.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

"Parcels" of air have three include the vertical. 1,000 feet is now the standard vertical minimum separation distance, at all altitudes. You can fit a LOT of airplanes into a volume that is 50 by 100 miles....or 100 by 100 miles.... by 4,000 - 5,000 feet (about a mile) or more "thick" (high)......
edit on 2 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:36 PM
Looking at the test results I came up with another point of analysis. Some of the water tests do include testing for barium. In itself the water tests don't tell us much but they can be useful because we can compare the barium levels to the aluminum levels.

There is a single soil test for barium, the one near Sisson Elementary School. Here aluminum tested at 1.05% and barium tested at 0.01%. As we know, that aluminum level is actually quite low. Barium makes up about 0.03% of the Earth's crust so the level shown in the test does not seem to be unusual either. But the important thing is the ratio between the aluminum level and the the barium level. The barium level is 0.78% of the aluminum level.

Now, looking at all the samples which were tested for both barium and aluminum, and comparing aluminum to barium in the samples we find that the ratios have a standard deviation of only 0.03. This is a good indication that the source of the contaminants in the water (and sludge) samples is the local environment. It's very likely to be dust and dirt from the area. Dust and dirt which do not contain unusual levels of aluminum or barium.

edit on 3/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Doesn't really make much of a point though as I would expect that, if a thousand feet is the minimum, that distance of separation would create drastically different environments and effects on the plane.

Either way I don't care too much to think on it, this is the first and likely last chemtrail thread I will post in.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:04 PM

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by weedwhacker

Doesn't really make much of a point though as I would expect that, if a thousand feet is the minimum, that distance of separation would create drastically different environments and effects on the plane.

Either way I don't care too much to think on it, this is the first and likely last chemtrail thread I will post in.

You are right..
Actually someone, may have been weedwhacker, recently posted a vid of 3 jets flying in formation to prove that very thing..
That is that even over a very small area contrails production varies dramatically..
All 3 contrails stopped at vastly different times although the planes were quite close together..

Seems their arguments alter to suit the question..

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop



1.) - To protect us from solar flares
2.) - To obscure the sky i.e.- planet x, ufo, etc...
3.) - To enhance weather modification
4.) - Depopulate / Eugenics.

Stratospheric Geo Engineering
Stratospheric Geo Engineering
Stratospheric Geo Engineering
Stratospheric Geo Engineering
Stratospheric Geo Engineering

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by crompton
This post is so funny it is tragic.
I have spent my entire life (45 years) doing outdoor pursuits, fishing, cycling, photography etc and do not have any memories or photographic evidence from the 1970s or 80s of this phenomenon.
I can only assume that the 10 persona shills are actively trying to debunk the whole chem-trail story as this is their mission for the time being.
How anyone can say that persistent chem-trails are "normal" shows that the never bothered looking at the sky as a child or are only in their teens now.
Sunny days used to be normal but now any chance of a wholly sunny day is blotted out with thin ribbons of plane exhaust, looking at this logically does this mean that 21st century planes are less efficient than 1960s and 70s ones. Surely if this is vapour we are seeing then an awful lot of heat is being wasted from the planes engines, even more than super-sonic planes such as Concorde which most definitely did not leave "persistent contrails".
Any jet engine engineers care to comment on why this might be?

I'm a simple soldier. Being a soldier, I see things simply. Phage has explained how contrails are a mystery. How can we simple soldiers hope to tackle 'chemtrails' when we cannot even grasp what is a contrail?

I saw some asperatus cloud images in a thread here at ats. Without phage telling us how these clouds are nothing new, that the'yve been around for 50 years or so, but nobody had cameras to take snaps, we'd all believe the sky was falling!

Yet your words elicited a response from my memories, memories of blue skies. I awoke this morning and regarded a few of those wisps you mentioned, whereupon those same thoughts you had, came into my mind. It's very rare to have a clear sky, and in my opinion, technology has much greater influence than we will ever know, regarding everything, even things you cannot conceive of. Chemical spraying is much simpler than what's cooking in the labs right now. Nonetheless this doesn't prove they are spraying things.

I suggest we first unravel what is the mystery of contrails before we start trying to spell bigger words.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop

You forgot the null hypothesis - chemtrails do not exist.

(OK - strictly statistically speaking that isn't a null hypothesis......but it is close enough, it is null, and it is a hypothesis so shoot me! :p)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop

Unlimited Release
Printed October 2010

Unintended Consequences of Atmospheric
Injection of Sulphate Aerosols

Barry Goldstein, Peter H. Kobos, and Patrick V. Brady
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0754
Most climate scientists believe that climate geoengineering is best considered as a potential
complement to the mitigation of CO2 emissions, rather than as an alternative to it. Strong
mitigation could achieve the equivalent of up to −4Wm−2 radiative forcing on the century
timescale, relative to a worst case scenario for rising CO2. However, to tackle the remaining
3Wm−2, which are likely even in a best case scenario of strongly mitigated CO2 releases, a
number of geoengineering options show promise. Injecting stratospheric aerosols is one of the
least expensive and, potentially, most effective approaches and for that reason an examination of
the possible unintended consequences of the implementation of atmospheric injections of
sulphate aerosols was made. Chief among these are: reductions in rainfall, slowing of
atmospheric ozone rebound, and differential changes in weather patterns. At the same time,
there will be an increase in plant productivity. Lastly, because atmospheric sulphate injection
would not mitigate ocean acidification, another side effect of fossil fuel burning, it would
provide only a partial solution.
Future research should aim at ameliorating the possible negative unintended consequences of
atmospheric injections of sulphate injection. This might include modeling the optimum rate and
particle type and size of aerosol injection, as well as the latitudinal, longitudinal and altitude of
injection sites, to balance radiative forcing to decrease negative regional impacts. Similarly,
future research might include modeling the optimum rate of decrease and location of injection
sites to be closed to reduce or slow rapid warming upon aerosol injection cessation. A fruitful
area for future research might be system modeling to enhance the possible positive increases in
agricultural productivity. All such modeling must be supported by data collection and laboratory
and field testing to enable iterative modeling to increase the accuracy and precision of the
models, while reducing epistemic uncertainties.

Geoengineering is the “... large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or
counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry” (National Academy of Sciences
1992), in particular to mediate the effects of elevated greenhouse gas, especially carbon dioxide,
concentrations. The surface temperature of the Earth results from the net balance of incoming
solar (shortwave) radiation and outgoing terrestrial (longwave) radiation. One category of
geoengineering options attempts to rectify the current and potential future radiative imbalance
via either: (1) reducing the amount of solar (shortwave) radiation absorbed by the Earth, or (2)
increasing the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the Earth. The shortwave options (1)
can be subdivided into those that seek to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the top of
the atmosphere, and those that seek to increase the reflection of shortwave radiation (albedo)
within the atmosphere or at the surface (e.g. Lenton and Vaughan 2009).
Most climate scientists believe that climate geoengineering is best considered as a potential
complement to the mitigation of CO2 emissions, rather than as an alternative to it. Strong
mitigation could achieve the equivalent of up to −4Wm−2 radiative forcing on the century
timescale, relative to a worst case scenario for rising CO2. However, to tackle the remaining
3Wm−2, which are likely even in a best case scenario of strongly mitigated CO2 releases, a
number of geoengineering options show promise. Only placing sunshades in space or
increasing planetary albedo by injecting stratospheric aerosols have the potential to roughly
cancel the projected mitigated CO2 radiative forcing. (Lenton and Vaughan 2009). The costs of
constructing and placing sunshades into orbit are obviously much greater than land-based
injection of inexpensive sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere. The ability to rapidly “titrate”
sulphate atmospheric concentrations is also a distinct advantage when attempting to control
complex and interacting global systems. Because it is the most likely form of geoengineering to
be implemented, an examination of the possible unintended consequences of the implementation
of atmospheric injections of sulphate aerosols is needed.
A change in one factor in any dynamic and tightly coupled complex system may well influence
other factors. The resulting changes in these other factors may be positive and the intended
result of the action upon the system, or negative and not the intended consequence. This is
certainly true of geoengineering which acts upon the entire earth, including land, sea and air.
The possible unintended consequences of sulphate aerosol injection discussed in this report
1. Changes in amount and location of global precipitation,
2. Changes in the color and brightness of the sky,
3. Delay in the mitigation of ozone loss,
4. Increase in acid rain,
5. Rapid warming if atmospheric sulphate aerosol injection abruptly stopped,
6. Decreasing insolation for energy production from solar thermal and photovoltaic
7. Increase in plant productivity,
8. Differential change in regional climates,

9. Worsening of negative health effects,
Changes in amount and location of global precipitation
Model simulations show that the temperature response pattern due to greenhouse gas forcing and
due to solar insolation reduction (such as sulphate aerosol injection) is similar despite the
imbalance in spatial and temporal distribution of the forcing (See below). The response of the
hydrological cycle to sulphate aerosols, however, shows distinct differences. The hydrological
sensitivity, defined as the change in global mean precipitation per one degree temperature
change, is considerably higher for aerosol than for greenhouse gas forcing (Liepert, Feichter et
al. 2004). This is because the aerosol forcing primarily affects the surface radiation budget,
whereas a major part of the greenhouse gas forcing is felt within the troposphere. Surface waters
and moisture in the land and air evaporates less if solar insolation is reduced and precipitation
declines accordingly (Feichter and Leisner 2009).
Trenberth and Dai (2007), analyzed observed precipitation following the eruption of Mount
Pinatubo in June 1991 and found a substantial decrease in precipitation over land and a record
decrease in runoff and river discharge into the oceans in the period October 1991 to September
1992. They conclude that major adverse effects, including drought, could arise from solar
insolation reduction. Eliseev et al. (2009) concluded that when the global mean surface air
temperature is stabilized by sulphate aerosol injection, global precipitation decreases by about
10%. Globally averaged precipitation was calculated to decrease during the twenty-first century
by 12–13 cm/year relative to 2000–2010 for the case of complete mitigation of global warming.
Despite a very similar globally averaged value, geographical patterns of precipitation change
differ between different latitudinal distributions of sulphate aerosols. For the uniform latitudinal
distribution of stratospheric sulphates, annual precipitation decreases by 5–10 cm/year compared
to the first decade of the twenty-first century in the tropical areas and in the southern storm
tracks (Eliseev, Chernokulsky et al. 2009).
Similar precipitation response has been calculated by Brovkin et al. (2009) . Marked reduction
in precipitation over the tropical west Pacific as a response to the combined anthropogenic and
geoengineering forcing was also simulated by Robock et al. (2008), and the reduction of
precipitation over the near-equatorial continental areas under a similar scenario was predicted by
Matthews and Caldeira (2007). For the case of complete global warming mitigation in the
twenty-first century and for the triangular latitudinal distribution of stratospheric sulphates
peaked at 50◦N or at 70◦N, annual precipitation was predicted to decrease by 5–10 cm/year
relative to 2000–2010 in the northern subtropics (in particular, in the region of the South-Asian
monsoon) and respectively increase by 5–10 cm/year in the southern storm tracks. The
predicted precipitation decrease in the south-east of Asia is in agreement with the suppression of
summer monsoon there. A similar precipitation decrease was also simulated by Brovkin et al.
(2009) and Eliseev et al. (2009).
As noted, application of geoengineering in the case of complete mitigation of globally averaged
warming results in a decrease of global precipitation by about 10% relative to the mean value for
the years 2000–2010. In absolute units, the largest decrease of annual precipitation is simulated
in the tropics and in the Southern Hemisphere storm tracks. This agrees with other empirical and model-based studies (Groisman 1985; Matthews and Caldeira 2007; Trenberth and Dai 2007;
Robock, Oman et al. 2008; Brovkin, Petoukhov et al. 2009; Eliseev, Chernokulsky et al. 2009).
A substantial precipitation decrease in the Amazon and Congo valleys may trigger a dieback of
tropical forests with corresponding suppression of carbon uptake from the atmosphere (see e.g.
Cox, Betts et al. 2004) which would result in additional greenhouse warming. The latter, in turn,
would require additional sulphur emissions to mitigate the additional warming (Eliseev,
Chernokulsky et al. 2009).
Changes in the color and brightness of the sky
To compensate for a doubling of CO2, which causes a greenhouse warming of 4 W/m2, the
required continuous` stratospheric sulphate loading would be a sizeable 5.3 Tg S (1 Tg=112 g),
producing an optical depth of about 0.04. The Rayleigh scattering optical depth at 0.5 μ m is
about 0.13, so that some whitening on the sky, but also colorful sunsets and sunrises would
occur. It should be noted, however, that considerable whitening of the sky is already occurring
as a result of current air pollution in the continental boundary layer (Crutzen 2006).
Absorption by carbon in single and composite particles decreases as the wavelength is increased
in the visible band, thus resulting in redshifts of the color of the sky. Single atmospheric soot
grains are very absorbing, but when they interact with sulphate droplets they become even more
absorbing. Single sulphate droplets contribute very little to light absorption. As a rule of thumb,
carbon dims and redshifts daylight through selective absorption, whereas sulfuric acid enhances
the aforesaid effect of carbon on light through microlensing (Dogras, Ioannidou et al. 2004).
Delay in the mitigation of atmospheric ozone loss
Crutzen (2006) calculated that roughly 5.3 Tg of stratospheric sulfur (S) would counteract
surface warming due to doubled atmospheric CO2. This assumed that volcanic-sized particles
require injections of 2 Tg S/year to maintain the effect. Rasch et al. (2008), calculated that an
injection of 1.5 Tg S/year, using particles considerably smaller than those assumed by Crutzen
(2006), would achieve the same radiative effect. Smaller aerosols are expected to cool more
efficiently than large aerosols because of the dependence of backscattering on particle size.
Furthermore, smaller aerosols have a smaller effect on stratospheric temperature. Murphy
(2009) suggests that any intentional enhancement of the stratospheric aerosol layer would need
to produce particles between about 0.2 and 1 μm in diameter: smaller particles do not efficiently
scatter light, and larger particles are quickly lost from the stratosphere due to gravitational
settling. Tilmes et al (2008) concluded that the continuous injection of an amount of sulfur large
enough to compensate for surface warming caused by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 would
strongly increase the extent of Arctic ozone depletion during the present century for cold winters
and would cause a considerable delay, between 30 and 70 years, in the expected recovery of the
Antarctic ozone hole.
Increase in acid rain

Kravitz et al. (2009) calcualted that the additional acid deposition that would result from
geoengineering (using sulphate aerosols) will not be sufficient to negatively impact most
ecosystems. With the exception of waterways, every region has a critical loading value a full
order of magnitude above the total amount of acid deposition that would occur under the
geoengineering scenario. Even waterways would receive at most 0.05 mEq/m2/acre in additional
sulphate deposition meaning only those waterways most sensitive to small amounts of additional
deposition would be negatively impacted.
Rapid warming if stratospheric sulphate aerosol injection stops
If geoengineering proceeds for a finite time interval and ceases afterwards, a large disparity
between the applied radiative forcing and current state of the climate system develops. Even
larger surface air temperatures (SAT) changes are predicted to occur after the geoengineering
stops at the regional level. One of the models used by Eliseev et al. (2009) shows that for
complete CO2 mitigation, these SAT changes could be as large as 3 K/decade in the interiors of
Eurasia and North America for the uniform latitudinal distribution of stratospheric sulphates, and
up to 5 K/decade for other distributions with a maximum at 70◦N (Eliseev, Chernokulsky et al.
Brovkin et al. (2009) calculated that within 30 years after the emissions breakdown, the Arctic
region would be 6–10◦C warmer in winter while northern landmasses would be roughly 6◦C
warmer in summer. This warming would be much more rapid than one of the most abrupt and
extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal
Maximum (PETM) event about 55 Myr ago, when sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and
8◦C over a period of a few thousand years (Zachos, Pagani et al. 2001). In one simulation by
Brovkin et al. (2009) a warming of similar magnitude was predicted to occur within a few
decades. An unprecedented abruptness of climate change as a consequence of a failure in
geoengineering was stressed recently by Matthews and Caldeira (2007) who pointed out that the
warming rates in this case could be up to 20 times greater than present-day rates.
Decrease in the amount of power production from concentrating solar
Light scattering calculations based on data from the Mauna Loa, Hawaii Observatory (with a
data record spanning the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo), show that stratospheric aerosols reduce direct
sunlight by about 4 W for every watt reflected to outer space. The balance becomes diffuse
sunlight. One consequence of deliberate enhancement of the stratospheric aerosol layer would
be a significant reduction in the efficiency of solar power generation systems using parabolic or
other concentrating optics. The impact on concentrating solar power is surprisingly large: peak
power output was reduced by about 20% during a year when the stratospheric aerosol layer from
the Mt. Pinatubo eruption reduced total sunlight by less than 3% (Murphy 2009).
Because flat solar hot water and photovoltaic panels utilize diffuse as well as direct sunlight, the
performance losses are not as large as for concentrating solar collectors. However, the
performance loss will still exceed the reduction in total sunlight because a tilted panel does not capture diffuse sunlight as efficiently as direct sunlight. A potentially important effect is that any
shift from direct to diffuse sunlight makes a passive solar design less effective: in winter diffuse
sunlight is harder to capture with south-facing windows, and in summer, shading windows with
overhangs is less effective (Murphy 2009). Murphy (2009) used observations of direct solar
energy generation in California after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption and showed that generation
went from 90% of peak capacity in non-volcanic conditions to 70% in summer 1991 and to less
than 60% in summer 1992.
Increase in plant productivity
An unintended positive consequence of geoengineering – increased plant productivity - might
also occur. Gu et al. (1999; 2002; 2003), Roderick et al. (2001), and Farquhar and Roderick
(2003) suggested that increased diffuse radiation allows plant canopies to photosynthesize more
efficiently, increasing the CO2 sink. Gu et al. (1999) actually measured this effect in trees
following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption. While some of the global increase in CO2 sinks following
volcanic eruptions may have been due to the direct temperature effects of the eruptions, Mercado
et al. (2009) showed that the diffuse radiation effect produced an increase sink of about 1 Pg C/yr
for about one year following the Pinatubo eruption. The effect of a permanent geoengineering
aerosol cloud would depend on the optical depth of the cloud, and these observed effects of
episodic eruptions may not produce a permanent vegetative response as the vegetation adjusts to
this changed insolation. Nevertheless, this example shows that stratospheric geoengineering may
provide a substantial increased CO2 sink to counter anthropogenic emissions. This increase in
plant productivity could also have a positive effect on agriculture (Mercado and al. 2009).
Regional imbalances in weather impacts
If the injected sulphate aerosols are not uniform throughout the atmosphere, whether due to
inadequate placement, due to non-uniform mixing by winds, or due to differential removal by
wet deposition, some regions of the earth could experience more extreme drought and other
regions could potentially experience floods. Even if uniformly distributed, shortwave radiation
management to stabilize climate in one region might amplify the impact of increasing GHG
concentrations elsewhere (Blackstock, Battisti et al. 2009). Indeed, even in the case of complete
global warming mitigation, substantial anomalies of annual mean surface air temperature (SAT)
develop in different regions. Their magnitude basically increases with time in accordance with
growth of the sulphur emissions in the stratosphere. The geographical pattern of these anomalies
depends on latitudinal distribution of atmospheric sulphates (Eliseev, Chernokulsky et al. 2009).
For both uniform and triangular latitudinal distributions of atmospheric aerosols, the SAT
response on geoengineering mitigation consists of anomalies of one sign in the northern middle
latitudes and anomalies of another sign in the middle and subpolar latitudes of the Southern
Hemisphere (Eliseev, Chernokulsky et al. 2009).
Feichter and Leisner (2009) caution that it should be kept in mind that the concept of solar
insolation reduction does not neutralize the greenhouse effect which acts on long-wave radiation
and, thus, unintended regional climate response may occur. As demonstrated by Govindasamy et
al. (2003) green house gas warming is effective at all latitudes and throughout the year, while an
enhanced short wave albedo cools preferentially where and when the sun shines most.

Globally averaged annual changes in air surface temperature are zero, but regional and seasonal
temperature changes are substantial. During winter, polar regions are warmer by up to 2◦C in
both the northern and southern hemispheres. The aerosol forcing is almost absent in high
latitudes during winter time when the solar radiation flux is very small, while the longwave
radiative CO2 forcing is active during all seasons. In summer, negative radiative forcing of
aerosols leads to about 1◦C cooling over North America and Eurasia. At the same time, a
warming of 0.5–1◦C is calculated over the Tibetan plateau and North Africa. These regions have
a relatively high surface albedo and adding an aerosol layer does not make their planetary albedo
higher, but lower. Aerosols over bright surfaces increase the multiple scattering of light between
the surface and the atmosphere thereby enhancing the absorption of solar radiation. As a result,
the air temperature over the regions with high surface albedo increases. In monsoon regions in
East and South-East Asia, cooling leads to a reduction in precipitation. This is caused by a
reduction in monsoon intensity associated with surface cooling and a reduced temperature
gradient between ocean and land. In southern Europe and subtropical North America, summer
aridity is increased as well. Precipitation is predicted to be lowered over tropical land masses
during all seasons, except for tropical Asian regions during June–August (Brovkin, Petoukhov et
al. 2009).
Rasch et al (2008) calculated that sulphate mass formed in the stratosphere is concentrated in low
and in high latitudes. In mid-latitudes and the subtropics sulphate concentrations are lower
because downward transport into the troposphere takes place in these latitudes. Although the
sulphate amount is higher in winter, the forcing is highest when solar insolation is at maximum.
In summer, radiative forcing is highest in Polar Regions. The regional pattern of the temperature
response due to sulphate injections is similar to that due to an increase of greenhouse gases with
stronger cooling over the continents and at polar latitudes and less cooling over the oceans.
These regional differences could lead to regional climate “winners” and “losers” should such
geoengineering occur, exacerbating possible societal disruptions.
Negative health effects
Fossil fuel burning releases about 25 Pg of CO2per year into the atmosphere, which leads to
global warming. However, it also emits 55 Tg S as SO2 per year (Stern 2005), about half of
which is converted to sub-micrometer size sulphate particles, the remainder being dry deposited.
Recent research has shown that the warming of earth by the increasing concentrations of CO2 and
other greenhouse gases is partially countered by some backscattering to space of solar radiation
by existing sulphate particles, which act as cloud condensation nuclei and thereby influence the
micro-physical and optical properties of clouds, affecting regional precipitation patterns, and
increasing cloud albedo (e.g. Rosenfeld 2000; Ramanathan, Crutzen et al. 2001).
Anthropogenically enhanced sulphate particle concentrations thus cool the planet, offsetting an
uncertain fraction of the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas warming. However, this
fortunate coincidence is “bought” at a substantial price. According to the World Health
Organization, the pollution particles currently affect health and lead to more than 500,000
premature deaths per year worldwide (Nel 2005).

Lastly, although not an unintended consequence, the fact that sulphate aerosol injection does not
address ocean acidification, another consequence of CO2 loading of the atmosphere, must be
noted. Presently, ocean pH is buffered by, in part, by reactions involving CO2 dissolution into
the ocean and calcite dissolution/growth. Each reaction depends on both atmospheric CO2 levels
and temperature. In the past, CO2 and temperature were themselves linked; with sulphate
injection, they will not be. Decoupling of temperature and CO2 would therefore lead to different,
and potentially less predictable changes in ocean pH in the future.
Characterizing the economic impacts of climate change is highly dependant upon the scale and
resolution of what impacts analyses consider. For example, economic impacts can often be
divided into direct effects on the production of goods and services (G&S), direct impact on
nonmarket G&S, indirect impacts within the regional economy, and indirect impacts that operate
through other regions of the world (Abler, Shortle et al. 2000). By region, economics often
refers to either a reasonably geographically isolated portion of several economies (e.g., the
Austrialasia subcontinent) or simply a singular country. This division of definitions is important
for global discussion regarding the impact of climate change because it helps put the ‘costs’ or
‘benefits’ of climate change into context in terms of impact (e.g., $), and nonmarket effects. A
key example of the direct and indirect effects of say, a decreasing regional supply of
precipitation will directly affect the region or country within the preceipitation’s extent (e.g.,
local drought), yet it may also affect other regions or countries if say, this particular region
undergoing a chronic or permanent drought was a productive staple agricultural basin for many
parts of the world. Market impacts often referred to as ‘primary’ economic sectors include
agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Examples of nonmarket impacts include ecosystem damage,
impacts to humans such as potential changes in morbidity and hardship due to pollution,
migration, political instability (Abler, Shortle et al. 2000).
Changes in amount and location of global precipitation
The effects of a potential change in precipitation tied to an increase in extreme weather patterns
has been developed by Rose et al. (2000). Rose et al. (2000) found that using an Input Output (IO)
model for a 5.2% decrease in forestry production, the regional economy may see a reduction
of only 0.0035% which represents approximately $62.9 million ($US=1995). For context, the
Mid-Atlantic Region (MAR) of the United States under consideration by Rose et al. (2000)
represented 13% of the total national output in 1995. The low percentage of economic impact
due to a decrease in the forestry sector’s productivity is primarily due to the nature of the
regional model, relative size of the forestry sector in the region, and it’s ties with the global
economy. Also, it is important to note that this represents the economy at a single point in time
and that the additive (and potentially cumulative) effects across the decades is to be determined
(Rose, Cao et al. 2000).
For larger, more rural regions of the world that could be affected by increase prevelance of fire,
the consequences of changes in climate may be more acute. The work of Sedjo (2010) suggest
that for larger geographic region, such as the forests of Brazil fires in the Amazonian regions
may require and additional annual $2 million to combat these fires. However, the overall neteconomic effect of climate change to changes in the rainforest remain to be determined (Sedjo
Lastly, reductions (or substantially shifted) in precipitation leading toward higher degrees of
drought-like phenomenon will also lead to groundwater loss thereby detrimentally affecting
water-stressed (e.g., due to population growth) and relatively poor regions of the world (Ranjan,
Kazama et al. 2006).
Delay in the mitigation of ozone loss
The impact of additional sulfate aerosols in the upper atmostphere may contribute to additional
ozone loss whether through natural (e.g., volcanoes) or anthropogenic (geoengineering) means.
Rasch et al. (2008) describe reduction in the ozone column of 2 percent in the tropics following
the Mount Pinatubo eruption and 5 percent in the ligher lattidudes. Kelfkens et al. (1990)
concluded that, for a 1% decrease in the total column atmosphere ozone, an increase of nonmelanoma
skin cancer may be 2.7%. While ozone layer degradation affects many regions
throughout the world, Australia has been particularly affected due to its proximity to the
Antacrtica ‘ozone hole’. Certain regions of Australia has been measured to have an incident rate
of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer of 20 – 2055 incidents per 100,000 population as
compared to 8 – 407 in some regions of the U.S., and 3-128 in certain areas of Europe. Given
the high incidence of of skin cancer, Australia instituded several pulic awareness programs to
focus on skin cancer prevention. The ‘Slip, Slop, Slap’ campangin of the 1980s, and the
‘SunSmart’ campangin later may now prevent up to 28,000 disability-adjusted life-years (e.g.,
benefit) as compared to the cost of the campaigns. The general return on this government
investment has been described to be 2.30 $AU (2003 levels) for every dollar invested (Ting-Fang
Shih, Carter et al. 2009).
Rapid warming if atmospheric sulphate aerosol injection abruptly
The introduction of sulphate aerosols beyond current rates of emissions result in either a decrease
in the insulating capacity of the atmostphere – thereby leading to global cooling, or increase the
global temperature due to an overcapacity of atmospheric aerosols (e.g., based on expanded SO2
emissions) (Ward 2009). Alternatively, as pointed out by Kunzig (2008), deploying large-scale
sulfur aerosols may have a direct effect on decreasing insolation in the short term. However,
drastic consequences including rapid, relatively large global warming may result if and when the
continual deployment of sulur aerosols stops abrubly. One can imagine many scenarios that may
lead to such an abrubt stop including global economic depressions, wars, acute and therefore
abrubt use of the funding used for sulfur aerosols being diverted to address pandemics, and many
others. Thus, as discussed by Robock et al. (2008) and many others in the research community,
it is not necessarily the global warming that has dire consequences for humanity, rather, it is the
speed of and region in which it occurs and thereofore allows for subsequent adaptation.
Increase in plant productivity
One concern of reducing the relative solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface due to
geoengineering is the effects on plant productivity. In theory, a decrease in solar radiation, at
first glance, could decrease photosynthesis in select regions of the world that may or may not be
offset by increases in traditionally less productive regions. Stanhill and Cohen (2001) reviewed
data from the global network of the surface radiation balance published by the World Radiation
Center, also sponsored by the World Meterological Organization. Their findings suggest a 10-
20% decrease in solar radiation reaching the earth may only have a minor effect on plant
productivity and subsequent crop yields. The degree of water stress in the affected regions will
drive plant productivity moreso than these potential decreases in solar radiation.
Differential change in regional climates
According to Chhetri (2008), an underlying notion as to the extent of climate change impacts on
agriculture is the combined effects of the physical changes of the climate as well as society’s
ability to innovate and adapt to it. Central to their thesis is the direction and size of feedbacks
amongst the climate-technologial interaction. Specifically, when climate changes give farmers
the appropriate signals to induce innovation, their ability to undertake such innovations is a
function of their ability (e.g., socioeconomic) to adapt to change. A more salient example is the
dominantly rain-fed rice cultivation in Nepal. Due to limited irrigation infrastructure, one may
suspect limited flexibility for agricultural innovation. Chhetri’s examination of the district data,
however, supports a hypothesis that innovation, spurred in part through programs instituted in
the 1990s, has allowed less productive sites to ‘catch up’ to their more productive counterparts
more quickly than one might otherwise have thought.
To address a more global perspective on the ability to adapt in a timely manner to climate change
Fisher et al. (2005) developed a global integrated assessment model. Global simulations suggest
that agricultural production in developing countries may decrease 5-10% along with similar
reductions in developed regions of North America and Russia. The number of undernourished
people of the world, changing from a base level of roughly 800 million people, may change 0 –
15% in the decades following substantial climate change. The variability in climate change
effects between regions will likely be substantial especially in damange to arable land and water
resources which will thereby affect food production. Fisher et al. (2005) highlight the
importance of enhancing individual nations’ ability to adapt to climate change.
The risks of unintentional consequences of geoengineering can be minimized by targeting
research in several areas. New computer simulations should better quantify the potential
economic consequences of changes in precipitation, potential changes in the ozone layer. The
research should address these unintended consequences in three stages by answering the
questions, (1) Will the said change be an acute or chronic global effect, (2) What are the direct
and indirect effects on the biosphere of these changes and (3) Are these changes reversible in a
time scale relevant to humanity (e.g., 100’s of years vs. several millenia)? An example of an
acute change would be the unintended effects of immediately turning off injection of sulphate reversible relative to other effects such as affecting the ozone layer. A chronic effect may be
changes in global precipitation patterns because, from an anthropogenic standpoint, many
societies may not have adequate water supplies with the underlying political stability it may
provide for generations to come.
Research should also include lab-scale, paper-based scenario studies (e.g., input output-like
economic impact scenarios) and larger, field experiments such as those associated with
atmospheric studies in the arctic. Future research should include modeling the optimum rate and
particle type and size of aerosol injection, as well as the latitudinal, longitudinal and altitude of
injection sites, to balance radiative forcing to decrease negative regional impacts. Similarly,
future research might include modeling the optimum rate of decrease and location of injection
sites to be closed to reduce or slow rapid warming upon aerosol injection cessation.
A last area for future research would be system modeling to enhance the possible positive
increase in agricultural productivity. All such modeling must be supported by data collection
and laboratory and field testing to enable iterative modeling to increase the accuracy and
precision of the models, while reducing epistemic uncertainties.
Abler, D., J. Shortle, et al. (2000). "Characterizing regional economic impacts and responses to
climate change." Global and Planetary Change 25: 67-81.
Blackstock, J. J., D. S. Battisti, et al. (2009). Climate Engineering Responses to Climate
Emergencies (Novim, 2009), archived online at:
Brovkin, V., V. Petoukhov, et al. (2009). "Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur
injections: earth system vulnerability to technological failure." Clim. Change 92: 243-
Chhetri, N. B. (2008). Understanding the Process of Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change:
Analysis of Climate-Induced Innovation in Rice Based Cropping System of Nepal -
Interim Report IR-08-028, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysi.
Cox, P. M., R. A. Betts, et al. (2004). "Amazonian forest dieback under climate–carbon cycle
projections for the 21st century." Theor. App. Climatol. 78: 137-156.
Crutzen, P. J. (2006). "Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: A contribution
to resolve a policy dilemma? ." Climatic Change 77: 211-219.
Dogras, C. K., M. P. Ioannidou, et al. (2004). "Analytical study of the changes in the color of
daylight due to sulfate droplets and soot grains in the atmosphere, ." Journal of
Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer 84: 223-238.
Eliseev, A. V., A. V. Chernokulsky, et al. (2009). "Global warming mitigation by sulphur
loading in the stratosphere: dependence of required emissions on allowable residual
warming rate, ." Theor Appl Climatol DOI 10.1007/s00704-009-0198-6
Farquhar, G. D. and M. L. Roderick (2003). "Pinatubo, diffuse light, and the carbon cycle "
Science 299: 1997-1998.
Feichter, J. and T. Leisner (2009). "Climate engineering: A critical review of approaches to
modify the global energy balance." Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 176: 81-92.

Fisher, G., M. Shah, et al. (2005). "Socio-economic and climate change impacts on agriculture:
an integrated assessment, 1990–2080." Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society
360 2067-2083.
Govindasamy, B., K. Caldeira, et al. (2003). "Geoengineering Earth’s radiation balance to
mitigate climate change from a quadrupling of CO2." Global Planet. Change 37: 157.
Groisman, P. Y. (1985). "Regional climatic consequences of volcanic eruptions." Soviet
Meteorol. Hydrol. 10: 39-45.
Gu, L., D. Baldocchi, et al. (2002). " Advantages of diffuse radiation for terrestrial ecosystem
productivity." J. Geophys. Res. 107: 4050.
Gu, L., D. Baldocchi, et al. (2003). "Response of a deciduous forest to the Mount Pinatubo
eruption: Enhanced photosynthesis, ." Science 299: 2035-2038.
Gu, L., J. D. Fuentes, et al. (1999). "Responses of net ecosystem exchanges of carbon dioxide to
changes in cloudiness: Results from two North American deciduous forests.", J. Geophys.
Res. 104: 31,421–431,434.
Kelfkens, G., F. R. de Gruijl, et al. (1990). "Ozone Depletion and Increase in Annual
Carcinogenic Ultraviolet Dose. ." Photochemistry and Photobiology 52: 819-823.
Kravitz, B., A. Robock, et al. (2009). " Sulfuric acid deposition from stratospheric
geoengineering with sulfate aerosols." J. Geophys. Res. 114: D14109.
Kunzig, R. (2008). "A Sunshade for Planet Earth." Scientific American(November).
Lenton, T. M. and N. E. Vaughan (2009). "The radiative forcing potential of different climate
geoengineering options." Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9: 5539-5561.
Liepert, B., J. Feichter, et al. (2004). "Can aerosols spin down the water cycle in a warmer and
moister world?" Geophys. Res. Lett. 31: L06207.
Matthews, H. D. and K. Caldeira (2007). "Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary
geoengineering." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104: 9949–9954.
Mercado, L. M. and e. al. (2009). "Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land
carbon sink." Nature 458: 1014-1018.
Murphy, D. M. (2009). "Effect of stratospheric aerosols on direct sunlight and implications for
concentrating solar power " Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 2784-2786.
National Academy of Sciences (1992). Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation,
Adaptation, and the Science Base. Washington, D.C.
Nel, A. (2005). "Air pollution-related illness: Effects of particles." Science 308: 804.
Ramanathan, V., P. J. Crutzen, et al. (2001). "Aerosols, climate and the hydrological cycle."
Science 294: 2119-2124.
Ranjan, P., S. Kazama, et al. (2006). "Effects of climate change on coastal fresh groundwater
resources." Global Environmental Change 16: 388-399.
Rasch, P. J., P. J. Crutzen, et al. (2008). "Exploring the geoengineering of climate using
stratospheric sulphate aerosols: The role of particle size." Geophys. Res. Lett. 35:
Rasch, P. J., S. Tilmes, et al. (2008). "An overview of geoengineering of climate using
stratospheric sulphate aerosols." Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. A366: 4007-4037.
Robock, A., L. Oman, et al. (2008). "Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical
and Arctic SO2 injections." J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113: D16101.
Roderick, M. L., G. D. Farquhar, et al. (2001). "On the direct effect of clouds and atmospheric
particles on the productivity and structure of vegetation." Oecologia 129: 21-30.

Rose, A., Y. Cao, et al. (2000). "Simulating the economic impacts of climate change in the Mid-
Atlantic region." Climate Research 14: 175-183.
Rosenfeld, D. (2000). "Suppression of rain and snow by urban and industrial air pollution."
Science 287: 1793-1796.
Sedjo, R. A. (2010). Adaptation of forests to climate change, Resources for the Future. DP 10-
Stanhill, G. and S. Cohen (2001). "Global dimming: a review of the evidence for a widespread
and significant reduction in global radiation with discussion of its probable causes and
possible agricultural consequences." Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 107: 255-278.
Stern, D. I. (2005). "Global sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000." Chemosphere 58: 163-175.
Tilmes, S., R. Muller, et al. (2008). "The Sensitivity of Polar Ozone Depletion to Proposed
Geoengineering Schemes." Science 320: 1201-1204.
Ting-Fang Shih, S. R. Carter, et al. (2009). "Economic evaluation of skin cancer prevention in
Australia." Preventative Medicine 49: 449-453.
Trenberth, K. E. and A. Dai (2007). "Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the
hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering." Geophys. Res. Lett. 34: L15702.
Ward, P. L. (2009). "Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change in four ways " Thin Solid
Films 517: 3188-3203.
Zachos, J., M. Pagani, et al. (2001). "Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to
present." Science 292: 686-693

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:26 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

That doesn't work though because if these are commercial planes I can't imagine they are flying that close at the same altitude so this isn't the conditions being right in a small pocket that all planes are passing through.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop

You forgot the null hypothesis - chemtrails do not exist.

(OK - strictly statistically speaking that isn't a null hypothesis......but it is close enough, it is null, and it is a hypothesis so shoot me! :p)

Stratospheric GeoEngineering does not exist? Well then apparently a lot of scientists need to rewrite these papers buddy. Personally, I am a firm believer in eugenics in order to preserve a species. I just hate when the portion of the species you are trying to eradicate is so profoundly stupid that they can not distinguish plane exhaust from chemical cocktail of poisons.

Get busy reading the below link....

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop

This is why I don't post in these threads.

There could be 100 logical and more likely reasons.
Are these just the four conspiracies you can think of to tie it into?

Hell for all I know they are trying to wipe out the emerald ash bore.
Or likely it is nothing at all.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by starless and bible black

Perhaps we should explore contrails a bit.
But, in the mean time, I will pass on the vaccines, the fluoride, the GMO foods and the global warming scam just to name a few.
I will question why the federal reserve has the exclusive rights to print money and pass it out to their friends to buy whatever they want in their efforts to control us. Trillions of dollars in top secret projects.
Which, brings us coincidentally back to chemtrails.
You can't escape it, soldier, by being simple. At some point, you have to just trust your instincts.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by Phage
If chemtrails do not exist why do you even put so much effort in debunking them? Your the one who started this thread to begin with, yet all I see is anyone with a different opinion you kinda pounce on them. This site is meant for open discussion. Why do you put so much time into telling people it doesn't exist? The literal meaning of crazy is to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Im really just asking. I hope you don't think I am putting you down because I am not.
edit on 2-3-2011 by Novatrino because: added abit more

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by Novatrino

Whom have I pounced upon? Like you say, this is a discussion. I'm holding up my end of the discussion.

Now, do you have any comments about the topic to add to the discussion or are you going to continue to talk about me?

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in