Alex Jones On Chemtrails

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
I know that the other more ludicrous forums do not get this type of attention and makes me wonder if they doth protest too much?

The reason I pick Chemtrails is that it seemed like a nice clean subject that should be easily amenable to science, but not quite as patently ridiculous as the flat Earth, or the Moon moving. It's an attractive subject to debunk precisely because it isn't ludicrous (well, comparatively speaking). I felt like you should be able to simply explain the science and history of contrails and all should be well. It did not quite work out, but it still seems like a tangible subject.

Originally posted by Uncinus
It's an attractive subject to debunk precisely because it isn't ludicrous (well, comparatively speaking). I

Then why do you?
I'm pretty much sitting on the fence with chemtrails. Geo-engineering is something that really exists and chemtrails have been researched along with others like HAARP, cloud seeding and, like Corruption Exposed pointed out, meteorology that is tightly linked with the researches of geo-engineering.

I'm not saying they spray over our heads everyday and that it's 100% sure it's to kill us all but the idea of it being used to counter climate change is not ludicrous, has you said.

You shouldn't fight against it so much because there is something that is not being told to the public, that you can count on it. You deserve to know to the truth and we all do.

Alex is correct about the fact that the reflectivity of Earth is increasing, and many scientists find it very hard to explain. I believe it can be explained by the following PDF documents which I recommend for download. I believe they are intentionally injecting reflective aerosols/particulates into the atmosphere to counter the effects of global warming.

Solar radiation management methods work to reduce or divert the amount of incoming solar radiation by making the Earth more reflective (i.e., enhancing albedo) and do not have any effect on GHG emission rates.49 SRM methods involve modifying albedo via land-based methods such as desert reflectors, cloud-based methods such as cloud whitening, stratosphere-based methods such as aerosol injection, and spaced-based methods such as shields. The effectiveness of an SRM method depends on its geographical location, the altitude at which it is applied (surface, atmosphere, space), and the radiative properties of the atmosphere and surface.

Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy

However, there are very big drawbacks with solar radiation management techniques. The climate is a very complex system and when you start messing up with one element in the system, you may end up with unintended consequences. For instance, the Met Office has conducted a study which shows that making clouds more reflective in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, can lead to a reduction in rainfall over the Amazon rainforest by 30% which could prove dramatic for the Amazon rainforest. However, there are other clouds you can seed with maybe less of an impact. So clearly there are large uncertainties on the risks associated with solar radiation management techniques.

Geoengineering - Olivier Boucher, Head of Climate Chemistry & Ecosystems

There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, despite uncertain and very negative potential consequences, geoengineering might be needed to avert or reverse some dramatic change in the climate system, such as several meters of sea level rise that could impose disaster on hundreds of millions of people.

Unilateral Geoengineering

Geoengineering—which I shall take to be the deliberate modification of the climate by means other than by changing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases—sounds like an idea conceived in Hollywood.1 To most people, the suggestion seems crazy if not dangerous (Schelling 1996). For better or worse, however, it is a concept that needs to be taken seriously. As I shall explain in this paper, its future application seems more likely than not. This is partly because the incentives for countries to experiment with geoengineering, especially should climate change prove abrupt or catastrophic, are very strong. It is also because the incentives for countries to reduce their emissions are weaker. Geoengineering and mitigation are substitutes.

THE INCREDIBLE ECONOMICS OF GEOENGINEERING

Continued from last post...

Reflective stratospheric aerosols. The suggestion to inject sulfate aerosols goes back to at least SMIC (1971), Budyko (1974), and Dyson and Marland (1979). Such a human volcano could lead to to significant backscattering of solar radiation. Broecker (1985) estimated the amount of sulfur required that needed to be carried aloft by special aircraft, and how this sulfur could be added as a component of existing jet fuel and emitted by commercial aircraft, NAS (1991) evaluates various lofting schemes, including balloon systems and launch by artillery pieces. Alternatively, the sulfur could be emitted at the surface as COS and allowed to mix upward and be transformed to SO4.

Geoengineering the Climate

Owen B. Toon (2000, p. 1763) explains that submicrometer-sized particles possibly affect the Earth’s climate as much as does the accumulation of greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere over the past 100 years. Aerosols both scatter light back into space and cause an increase in the number of water droplets in clouds enough to be possibly canceling out the greenhouse effect entirely (Toon, 2000, p. 1763). Toon shows satellite pictures of ship tracks caused by particles emitted from ships’ smokestacks that subsequently cause the formation of new clouds where humidity was high but an absence of aerosols had prevented clouds from forming (Toon, 2000, p. 1765).

Spontaneous Geoengineering

Solar Radiation strategies do not modify CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Instead, they reflect incoming radiation to reduce the atmosphere’s solar energy content and restore its natural energy balance. Proposed reductions of solar radiation absorption are usually 1–2% 10; around 30% is already reflected naturally by the earth’s surface and atmosphere.11 The methods are space, land, or ocean-based and involve either introducing new reflective objects within or outside of the atmosphere, or an increase in the reflectivity or albedo 12 of existing structures and landforms. SRM could reduce increases in temperature, but it may not address the non-temperature aspects of greenhouse-induced climate changes. SRM strategies would generally take effect more quickly than CDR strategies. However, once started, some would likely require constant maintenance and/or replenishment to avoid sudden and drastic increases in temperature.

GEOENGINEERING: PARTS I, II, AND III

I think Alex Jones is honest about his opinions, good and bad. I think he's a man on a mission. I think he's been taking crap for so long that it's amazing he's still going. I think that his views might not be 100 percent on, but after checking a lot of the sources, and learning more myself, I have to agree with a lot of his theories and ideas. I think we're screwed beyond belief. I think that Alex isn't in it "for the money" as much as it's lauded on sites all over that...

Alex Jones Makes Money!

WOW!!!! You mean, wait. In a world where you have to make money to eat or have a place to put your stuff, he makes MONEY! It's insane! What an outrage! Who does he think he is!!!!!



Yes, because we live in a world where you have to have money, it's so wonderfully easy to label someone based on that. I think Alex could have made millions of personal money to work for many other places, a long time ago. Like Ron Paul, someone who stuck to their guns.

I think all the Alex Jones haters are not nearly as good at critical thinking as they might like. I think that if he's even 75 percent right, we're all completely hosed already, and it just gets better every day! Non-stop fun!

I remember when there were not trails in the sky. I remember when all the people made a huge deal about it when it started, but it's like history has been respun because it's like nobody ever noticed. Like you're supposed to just sleep it all away, don't worry, it's all good, everything is normal or we'd tell you!

I'm amazed at how well deception has worked. It's amazing really.

reply to post by jameshawkings


Er, I've seen clouds like that all my life, I remember staring at them intently as a child baffled by the pattern they made. I don't know how old you are but I'm nearly 50. How long has HAARP existed for?

To call evidence presented to you 'fake' without being able to show why is rather offensive. To call it fake because it does not fit your own preconception is narrow minded and paranoid. Which was it for you?

reply to post by waynos


Funny noone i know of has seen these patterns in the far past... however everyone Is baffled by constant new unseen before patterns and behaviours in the skies.

Nobody Ever saw in person a large indestructable trail from a plane around these parts and now we see alll types of bizarre lines,trails, distortions and incomprehensible weather.

I work outside and its too obvious many things have changed ,

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


I'm not that old, only 43, but I spent my youth staring at the sky, night and day. I love kites, and I was always outside when I could be. I lived all over the USA in those days. I saw the skies all over, from the big city, to the small towns, to nowhere. I do not remember seeing these, certainly not like this.

Just a couple days ago we literally went from blue sky, to planetrails so many and so crossed as to block out the skies after just about two hours. I watched it happen. Nothing like that ever happened when I was 10. No freakin' way.

No matter what "proof" is brought up, until the government gets on TV's across the land and says "We've been spraying this stuff for decades! It's real! Look, we're doing it!" There are a lot of people just to terrified to give it a fair shake. It's a terrifying subject.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thank you for the further information...I will need to do some more research...

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Since there was no reports (to my knowledge or memory) of a moon-size light, am I to take it the test was never performed?

reply to post by muzzleflash


Well, I was all set to agree with your assertion the activities you listed can be categorized as geo-engineering, but I then read this...

The modern concept of geoengineering (or climate engineering) describes deliberately manipulating the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. Other uses of the word sometimes occur.

I did not see all of them listed...but I do not want to argue over semantics...

reply to post by thejlxc


reply to post by GrinchNoMore



For both, re: the observations of more persistent contrails (which are what you described) it IS more common, today, than many years ago......because of different jet engine designs!!

It is that simple! They are still nothing but contrails.....and, they are no different from cirrus clouds. And, they will ONLY form when conditions are suitable....so, not every day.

Now, one could "argue" that it is disagreeable to make more clouds by artificial means....but, it is merely a by-product of our technology and modern times (airplane travel), and the ever-increasing need for greater fuel efficiency, because of high fuel prices. The more fuel-efficient engines produce more prominent contrails....and, compared to older engines, in a wider range of temperature/humidity conditions.

It is THAT simple!!

reply to post by Paul Rubino


Re: the YouTube video...

For those who cannot watch for whatever reason, just from the first several minutes. It refutes the claims made by the likes of Alex Jones (who is shown ranting, as usual) and others....including Rosalind Peterson.

Shows examples of contrails from years ago (1960s, for instance. We also know of examples from the 1940s....of persistent contrails) and directly contradicts the claims and assertions made by modern-day know-nothings.

reply to post by ProudBird

Shows examples of contrails from years ago (1960s, for instance. We also know of examples from the 1940s....of persistent contrails) and directly contradicts the claims and assertions made by modern-day know-nothings.

The problem is, almost all of these clips were close up and lasted no more than a minute. In my opinion, if the contrail is still in the air and holding form over a long distance moderately well after 30 mins there's a very good chance it's not a simple vapor trail. I highly doubt different types of engines can miraculously produce long lasting vapor trails that hold their form for ridiculous amounts of time. A vapor trail is a vapor trail. When I was reading through the documents I presented above, I learned that if they were releasing aerosols the change in chemistry would cause the contrails to hold their form much longer, I think that's what we are seeing here.

"Some of these trails left by aircraft are toxic substances sprayed on an unsuspecting populace by our Government."

I don't really think that is correct either. By poisoning the air, the elite are also poisoning themselves and their own children. In fact, I think the only way they could get a reasonable number of pilots to conduct these sprayings, is if the pilots believed they were helping the planet by reversing global warming. Judging by your avatar and username I assume you are a pilot or something, and that is why you are so skeptical about chemtrails. That's perfectly reasonable, but many pilots believe in aliens too. No one is perfect. There's a good chance I'm wrong about using aerosols to reverse global warming, that's why I always keep my mind open to other possibilities.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
In my opinion, if the contrail is still in the air and holding form over a long distance moderately well after 30 mins there's a very good chance it's not a simple vapor trail.

Why is that your opinion? It seems to fly in the face of science. Vapor trails are clouds. They last as long as clouds do.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

The problem is, almost all of these clips were close up and lasted no more than a minute.

Are you referring to the video by "Paul Rubin", above?

The "short" time then contrails, and resulting clouds are shown in that video is irrelevant ....no one is going to insist on watching a 45-minute video of non-stop contrails-that-become-cirrus.

It made the point by showing what people who shout "Chemtrails!" are seeing.....the lingering effects of a contrail that persists (because conditions are suitable for it to persist) and sometimes morph into cirrus...and more cirrus. I said "morph", but really...the contrail IS cirrus, as soon as it forms. It will change shape, though....thus, "morph".

The video also included text clippings examples of reports from decades ago.....of the same thing being fear-mongered today, by the hoaxers and con-artists. Contrails that lingered, and contributed to an eventual overcast sky of high clouds, mostly cirrus. Though, since the conditions that allow the contrails to linger usually mean approaching weather changes, then of course, other clouts will develop too. Stratocumulus, alto stratus, etc. All can become thick and heavy enough to be overcast too

reply to post by Uncinus

Why is that your opinion? It seems to fly in the face of science. Vapor trails are clouds. They last as long as clouds do.

Eh I have gotten into this conversation before, probably with you. Yes, clouds and contrails are both made of vapor, but they still behave very differently. In some cases, parts of the contrail may develop into full blown clouds, but contrails typically dissipate. That is the main difference. Contrails don't have the critical mass a cloud has, they can't hold their form like a cloud does. I just personally don't believe tiny vapor trails could naturally hold their form for so long. In my personal experience (similar to many others here) contrails now last much longer than they used to, and I simply can't believe that is caused by a change in engine design, it's a change in the vapor trail chemistry.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I highly doubt different types of engines can miraculously produce long lasting vapor trails that hold their form for ridiculous amounts of time.

You can "doubt" all you want to....OR, read the technical articles that explain this.

In any case, it is a combination of those engine designs, and the increase in the numbers of airplanes. Also, as is continually being pointed out, the contrails, when formed (and if it is humid enough that they don't sublimate quickly), are clouds. Clouds! Is this to suggest that clouds cannot "hold their form for ridiculous amounts of time"??

When I was reading through the documents I presented above, I learned that if they were releasing aerosols the change in chemistry would cause the contrails to hold their form much longer, I think that's what we are seeing here.

Fantasy.

But, benefit of the doubt... use logic and reason. And, observation. Contrails form IN the exhaust, directly from the engines. The only "stuff" going into the engines for combustion are fuel and air. Ambient air, sucked in from the surroundings.

The contrails exit the engines, directly aft. The fuel CANNOT be altered, for many reasons that seem to have to be repeated. Density of fuel, changing weight....those would be noticed. Engines cannot just accept any foreign material, without adverse effects, damage, wear-and-tear, etc.

Finally....the internal temperatures of combustion. What sort of added-in "aerosol" product can withstand the combustion process? Heat in the engines is well above the "normal" temperature of Jet fuel when burned at one atmosphere of pressure. Because, the air is compressed greatly, when it gets to the combustion stage....the temps in there can be 3000° C.

The "chemistry" that results is well known, and has been linked to repeatedly. By far the greatest amount of resulting chemicals are molecules of the chemical "H2O".

Think about it.......

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


What's so bad about that though? I mean, oxygen is toxic in high enough quantities. It's why your whole body needs to carefully control and regulate it and your blood dies and becomes rock in it. As long as it's not en mass and managed well, engineer away. We should learn to control the weather.

reply to post by ProudBird

The fuel CANNOT be altered, for many reasons that seem to have to be repeated. Density of fuel, changing weight....those would be noticed. Engines cannot just accept any foreign material, without adverse effects, damage, wear-and-tear, etc.

Fantasy you say? The following is a report written in 1991 by the University of California and funded by the United States Government. If they were thinking about this as early as 1985, how can you really claim with such certainty they haven't perfected the method? And what says they need to use commercial airplanes anyway? They could use specially made planes if they really needed to.

Reflective stratospheric aerosols. The suggestion to inject sulfate aerosols goes back to at least SMIC (1971), Budyko (1974), and Dyson and Marland (1979). Such a human volcano could lead to to significant backscattering of solar radiation. Broecker (1985) estimated the amount of sulfur required that needed to be carried aloft by special aircraft, and how this sulfur could be added as a component of existing jet fuel and emitted by commercial aircraft, NAS (1991) evaluates various lofting schemes, including balloon systems and launch by artillery pieces. Alternatively, the sulfur could be emitted at the surface as COS and allowed to mix upward and be transformed to SO4.

Geoengineering the Climate

The "chemistry" that results is well known, and has been linked to repeatedly. By far the greatest amount of resulting chemicals are molecules of the chemical "H2O".

I just spent 20 minutes looking back through the documents, but I can't find the piece of information I'm looking for, but I assure you it's there. Almost all of those documents are from University and Government websites, and in one of them there is a technical description of how the aerosol would cause the particles in the vapor to be more attracted to each other, or something along those lines. I really wish I could find it, but I have other work to do at the moment, so it'll have to wait.