Chemtrails and Climate Change

Unusually for me, today I watched a 40-minute YouTube video about chemtrails. In fact I watched it twice. H/T the Tap blog.

I know next to nothing about chemtrails. It’s one of those conspiracy things which I’m usually instantly suspicious of. Much as I have a low opinion of the government, I don’t think they’re spraying us with poison to kill us all off.

But listening to retired USDA Biologist (and gardener) Francis Mangels talking about Geoengineering provided a rather different perspective. He came over as being sincere and knowledgeable. He had noticed that his California garden’s soil PH had been changing, and found his rainwater was sometimes full of aluminium and strontium and barium, and determined that it was being sprayed by jets. Why? Well, not to poison everybody. But instead to produce a reflective high cloud which would reduce global warming. There’s a patent that the US military bought (shown on the video) about doing exactly that.

And that made quite a lot of sense to me. Because I’ve occasionally tinkered with my own simple computer simulation model of climate behaviour over the past year or two. But I got a bit stuck trying to model the atmospheric absorption and re-emission of photons, and let it drop. But one of the things I did find was that the model was very sensitive to high clouds which reflected back sunlight:

But this simple model seems to be highly responsive to changing the parameters. If, for example, I reduce cloud cover from 70% to 0%, the mean air temperature shoots up by 35 degrees, because clouds are no longer reflecting solar radiation into space, and both air and ground are being warmed a lot more.

Cloak the earth in clouds, and enough sunlight will be reflected away to cool the planet. So spraying highly reflective aluminium (or strontium titanate) nano-particles high in the atmosphere would indeed have a cooling effect.

So maybe that’s what the chemtrails are all about? It’s not about poisoning everybody, but cooling the planet. And if the US and UK governments believe (and they do seem to believe) that global warming is happening, and want to do something about it quickly, spraying clouds of reflective particles in the atmosphere with military jets looks like quite a good solution.

Mangels went on to say, quite late in the video, that apart from changing soil PH, the spraying also affected the US climate, and resulted in less rain over California, and a lot more over the Eastern US states. It made for drought in the west, and floods in the east. I found myself wondering whether it was also managing to cross the Atlantic and produce the dull, wet, overcast summers we’ve had for the past 5 years here in the UK. Mangels said the stuff could stay in the atmosphere for 3 or more days, and maybe that’s enough time for it to arrive over Britain.

And maybe it’s actually worked to reduce global temperatures? One of the strongest arguments against global warming is that there simply hasn’t been any for the past 13 years. But what if that’s because the earth’s atmosphere has been seeded with reflective aluminium clouds for long enough to prevent the temperature rising? What if the global warming had been real, but the measures taken against it had been effective? That would be an interesting turn-up.

If it has been, then it doesn’t look like it’s a good long term solution. According to Mangels, the spraying wasn’t something that couldn’t be reversed. The higher levels of aluminium and strontium in the soil were there to stay. And this affected plant growth. If it carried on, the price of food would start rising. The spraying also damaged the ozone layer, and resulted in more UV at the planet’s surface. And there were the increased droughts in the western USA and increased floods and tornadoes in the eastern USA.

Mangels didn’t talk much about global warming, but he mentioned a ‘tipping point’ with global warming which we were at right now, so I guess he believes it’s real.

Anyway, chemtrails started making a bit of sense to me. And they started making sense as a concerted government response to the perceived threat of AGW. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions was going to be a very difficult (if not impossible) long term solution, but spraying reflective clouds of aluminium was something that could be done immediately. So the US government (and probably the UK government and several other governments) went ahead and did it. And they started doing so maybe a decade ago. And maybe this has been having global effects on climate, making everything cooler and wetter (like here in the UK). And that’s maybe why Global Warming got re-branded as Climate Change. Because the result is that we no longer have a global warming problem, but a climate change problem (and maybe a few other new problems as well) instead. It probably doesn’t improve anyone’s health to live under a constant shower of aluminium and strontium and barium and arsenic. And that may be why the health authorities have been getting jittery and expecting all sorts of epidemics. And why tobacco is being framed (once again) as the cause of all of them.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. At most, if the spraying is really happening, governments will have been acting secretly in response to a publicly widely-advertised perceived real threat. But that’s nothing new. When they were testing nuclear weapons back in the 1950s, they didn’t tell everyone about it, and it created fall-out all over the USA and all over the world in the 50s and 60s. But the Soviet threat was publicly widely advertised too, and it was a real threat.

I can’t say that I’m totally convinced that the spraying is actually happening. Far from it. I’ve never seen a chemtrail (unless that’s what the cloud over the UK was today). But I can see a good reason now why such spraying might be happening, which doesn’t involve the government trying to kill everyone. And it’s one which might explain why global warming hasn’t been happening, but climate change is.

As a smoker who only ever sits outside pubs these days, I watch the sky closely anyway. Maybe I’ll watch it a bit more closely now.

About these ads

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Chemtrails and Climate Change

  1. Tony says:

    They had to change the old “Global Warming” and replace it with something as you rightly pointed out, even the dumbest of people could see through that one. So they changed it to “Climate Change” and suckered the drones with it because as we all know the climate is always changing. It’s brilliant, the gift that keeps on giving!

    Same for the superbly coined phrase “War On Terror” another gift that just keeps on giving, slowly eroding peoples rights as it goes along.

    It is never-ending and they can use both phrases for as long as they like.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I understand what you mean, because the climate is indeed always changing. But if they have been spraying reflective aluminium particles in the atmosphere to prevent global warming, and this ‘cure’ is causing climate change in the form of drought in the western USA and floods in the eastern USA, this will be anthropogenic climate change, ACC. And that’s a new concept (for me at least).

  2. Read Crichton’s “State Of Fear” if you haven’t already: I believe way back then he’d hooked on to the “Oh, we’ll just call it ‘Climate Change’ ” scam.

    I don’t buy the chemtrails thing at all though. Big secret conspiracies just don’t work too well: as I emphasized in Brains, one of the things that made the Antis so successful before they even got hold of hundreds of millions of dollars was that they were NOT an “organized conspiracy” so much as just a collection of nuts coming from all different angles at the same enemy.

    There’s also an interesting question out there: if the Brits and Americans were REALLY doing this thing to fight GW, wouldn’t they be BRAGGING about it? “Hey! Looky Us! We’s savin’ Da Whole WORLD!!!”

    – MJM

    • Frank Davis says:

      State of Fear is unobtainable in England. I asked the local library, and they’d never had a copy. I asked at a local secondhand book store, and they didn’t know of it either. And it’s a book I really want to read.

      I don’t buy the chemtrails conspiracy either. That’s a conspiracy by governments to kill us all off, and I don’t believe it. But I can believe the idea that governments have been sufficiently alarmed about global warming, and the need to do something about it quickly, to start spraying reflective aluminium nano-particles into the atmosphere to fix the problem. Because my (very simple) computer simulation models tell me it works to fix the problem.

      There’s also an interesting question out there: if the Brits and Americans were REALLY doing this thing to fight GW, wouldn’t they be BRAGGING about it? “Hey! Looky Us! We’s savin’ Da Whole WORLD!!!”

      Because they didn’t think people would take kindly to being showered with aluminium and strontium in that noble cause. And because governments do most things in secret, if they can. Like testing nuclear weapons.

      It’s this whole goddamn secrecy trip of theirs that will be their undoing. If they’d done what you’re suggesting, they’d be in the clear.

      • Al….. If I remember rightly (no pun intended) Al is linked with Alzheimers, which in the same period, has seen MASSIVE increases.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Funny you should mention that, because I vaguely remembered something like that too. But Alzheimers has been rising for decades, I believe, not just the last 10 years.

        • Aye Frank. But the rate of increase has increased dramatically.

          So much so, that our….”Government” are pumping million after million into training nurses to deal with it.

          I decided sometime ago to change my main job direction. (Due to the fact the bastard “Government” have decided to “privatise” most of our work. How the HEL can you privatise “info gathering”?)

          And am starting on one of those very course on the 27th.

  3. Pingback: Chemtrails and Climate Change | Frank Davis | Definition Of Global Warming

  4. Woodsy42 says:

    State of fear is available as an ebook from Amazon, and no doubt from pirated sources too.

  5. jaxthefirst says:

    There’s another possible reason for the existence of Chemtrails, which Leggy had a very interesting video about in one of his recent posts (about a week ago, I think – maybe a bit longer – sorry, don’t know how to do links properly). It’s all about money and the control of agriculture in order to “corner the market in corn,” as the old song has it, and it, too, is presented by some pretty sensible people ranging from small-scale farmers to scientifically-minded meteorologists. It’s worth a look if you’re a bit interested – there are some common elements mentioned in that video and yours.

    But the two reasons aren’t mutually exclusive. Even if spraying is happening primarily in order to fend off the threat of “global warming,” opportunism on the part of the huge Agribusinesses in the US and elsewhere in response to the resulting “climate change” certainly isn’t out of the question.

  6. Rose says:

    “Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7819201/Nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation.html

    Not that the sun going through a deep solar minimum for the last few years has had anything to do with the fact that there has been no warming of course. : )

    Whatever happened to global warming? – 2009

    “The title of this may be a surprise. So might the fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not last year, or 2007, but 1998. For the last decade we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml

    Still, when the Sun wakes up again the Warmists can all pop out and tell us that it’s all our fault.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Yes, the sun has been very quiet for the past few years. And there’s evidence (from China) that the little ice age of 200 or so years ago was also during a solar minimum with few sunspots – the presence of sunspots being the principle indicator of solar ‘activity’.

      Soon and Briggs WUWT.

  7. Margo says:

    Highly likely there’s spraying going on, I’d say, Frank, and for the purpose of combating weather effects of melting ice caps (for which see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011 Arctic Sea Ice is melting at its fastest pace in almost 40 years (complete with graph) – and loads of other sites. And yes – secret, because it’s experimental and may have detrimental health effects, which are to be blamed on smoking and ‘lifestyle’ as usual.

  8. Margo says:

    And for more complicated and worrying news about chemtrails, see http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/08 No Place to Hide – Fukushima Fallout Findings Widespread.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Simons back at work again! Prohibition and they are working hard to get it pushed

    Tobacco ban backed for next generation

    SOUTH Australians born after 1999 should never be allowed to buy tobacco, a survey on attitudes towards smoking has found.
    More than two-thirds of the 2500 respondents to the adelaidenow survey believed smokers should not be allowed smoking breaks at work but if they were, 93.1 per cent believe non-smokers should get them as well.
    Of the 29.3 per cent of respondents who smoked, the poll found 30 per cent of those were spending $50-$100 on cigarettes each week. A further 14.1 per cent spent more than $100 on their addiction each week.
    Last month, a motion calling for a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after 1999 was passed in Tasmania’s Upper House.
    The adelaidenow survey found 67.7 per cent of respondents would support the same proposal in South Australia.
    Kathryn Barnsley, who advised parliamentary leaders in Tasmania on tobacco control, said more must be done to prevent children taking up the habit.
    “Smoking is a paediatric disease,” Ms Barnsley said.
    “It is taken up by children, they become addicted and find it hard to quit as adults.” She said tobacco use should be phased out by 2020 and heavily addicted smokers given access to tobacco under a licensing scheme.
    Cancer Council SA chief executive Professor Brenda Wilson said most smokers were addicted in their teens.
    “Cancer Council SA will continue to advocate for measures that are not only aimed at preventing young people taking up the habit but which also assist people in quitting, such as a full ban on smoking in alfresco drinking and dining settings.”
    Opposition health spokesman Martin Hamilton-Smith said banning smoking would not work.
    “I think education programs and other measures would be far more effective at getting the anti-smoking message through,” he said
    Health Minister John Hill said the display of menthol “capsule” cigarettes would soon be banned in SA.
    From January 1, 2015, cigarettes will be banned from display in all retail outlets in South Australia.

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/tobacco-ban-backed-for-next-generation/story-e6frea83-1226471374394?from=public_rss

  10. garyk30 says:

    “Kathryn Barnsley, who advised parliamentary leaders in Tasmania on tobacco control, said more must be done to prevent children taking up the habit.”

    Why?????

    Smokers and never-smokers have almost the same chance of dying from the smoking caused diseases.

    Data from Doll’s doctors study shows that:

    85% of current smokers deaths were from the diseases that are claimed to be caused by smoking.

    85% of the ex-smokers deaths were the same.

    84% of the never-smokers deaths were the same.

    Current smokers have the same chance of dying from a disease caused by smoking as does an ex-smoker and ONLY 1.01 times the chances of a never-smoker!!!

    TC antis claim there are, in the UK, 100,000 smokers’ deaths per year from those diseases; but, if all smokers quit, there would be ZERO decrease in that number for quite a while.

    Since 84/85 = 99%, it would take 40-50 years( all ex’s dead) before that number dropped to 99,000.

  11. Junican says:

    From Harley’s link:

    An online survey by David Hammond and team, from the University of Waterloo, of 640 Brazilian smoking and nonsmoking women aged 16-26 years showed that the highest appeal ratings were given for branded cigarette packs.

    Indeed, regular branded cigarette packs were given a mean appeal rating of 6.0 out of 10.0 compared with plain cigarette packs labeled with the name and description of the cigarette brand at 4.3, and plain packs that contained no description, at 3.4.”

    So this study (conducted on-line, note, and only of women) showed that these youngsters (erm…up to 26?) liked packets which are not all the same? And, by some curiously twisted logic, this shows that having packets which are all the same will put them off smoking? Is there some intermediate step going from the design of the packet to stopping smoking which the researchers have somehow accidentally left out?

    As for the phrase, “Evidence is mounting up…… where is the mountain?

    • garyk30 says:

      “having packets which are all the same will put them off smoking?”

      No mention seems to have been made about buying.

      All this proves is that young women like/prefer pretty things.

      It does not mean they will not take plain things; otherwise, most of us men would not be married!!!!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Being a fine specimen of a biker stud Mrs Harley made no qualms about dragging me down the alter drunk off my heels……Awaking in a bedchamber full of perfume,flowers and pillows…..I thought I had died and went to that great Ho-House in the sky! Agast I was married to the most precious woman alive………yes dear,Im on that Honey do slave list right now!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Mountains of JUNK SCIENCE! They have no evidence and they know it. But since when do they need evidence when its the actual government passing the bans. Its all nice icing for a 800 pound gorilla thats going to get his way regardless.

  12. cherie79 says:

    I remember reading a book many years ago that said control the weather and you control the world. Seemed a bit fantastic but imagine constant rain or snow and it doesn’t seem impossible.

  13. gchagnon says:

    What in the World Are They Spraying?

    Why in the World are They Spraying?

    Who is Spraying? coming next year or so….

  14. I’m all for doing something about global warming but spraying our air with hazardous metals isn’t it. After each big spray, I feel ill the next day or two, and sometimes it can take 3 days to recover.

    The stuff just knocks the wind out of you – the throat swells up and you feel listless and tired. A day in the coutnry can sort it all out, and sometimes fruit helps. But how angry it makes me that these nerds are tinkering with our air, with the classic scientific excuse: “we wanted to see what would happen.”

  15. The other point is, if you live anywhere near a town or city in the UK you only have to lift your head and look up, to see massive criss-crossing of chemtrails in the sky. September 8th was terrible, 16th likewise, and in mid-August in London, the sky was literally obliterated into a milky white mess. You can even email the minister for chemtrails – Gregory Barker office@bbca.uk.com – who apparently is overseeing this stupid attempt at climate change. Which will end, like everything the government does, in disaster. No that they care! They’ll be retiring abroad

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s