|
Post by halva on Oct 31, 2006 22:37:00 GMT -5
This Saturday is the International Day of Mobilization against Climate Change. We should not be participating in demonstrations as members of the public along with everyone else. Our message must be directed at other participants in the demonstrations: that governments are not apathetic. They don't need us to give them advice about climate change. They are already acting on climate change, without asking us. By filling the skies with reflective particles, which just happen to have side effects worse than the original problem.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 31, 2006 22:53:50 GMT -5
Back to the subject: Global Dimming by Daniel Waldron Most of us have heard of global warming and the dangers that it holds for the human race and the planet. However, far fewer are aware of a process called global dimming which also threatens the lives of billions of people and paints an even darker picture of the damage capitalism is doing to our world. Global dimming means that the amount of light energy reaching the earth's surface is decreasing, and decreasing rapidly, the evidence suggests. Until recently, it was largely rejected as a theory by the scientific community. If our planet is getting warmer, as we know it is, how can less energy from the Sun be getting into our atmosphere? However, concrete evidence produced independently by scientists across the globe has forced most cynics to accept that global dimming is a real process with serious climatic consequences. Research carried out by measuring the rate of evaporation of water has showed that between the 1950s and 1990s, the level of light energy reaching the planet's surface had dropped by 10% in the USA, 16% in Britain and Ireland and almost 30% in Russia. This dramatic global trend could not be denied. It then became vital to find out what was causing this change. Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan had become aware of the decrease in sunlight reaching the Earth's surface in the mid-90s. For him there was one obvious potential culprit behind this change - pollution. He decided that the Maldives was the ideal place to find out. This chain of islands in the Indian Ocean seems unpolluted, but while the south of the country receives pure, uncontaminated air from the Antarctic, the northern islands receive a stream of air from India full of visible particles of pollution, such as soot and sulphur. He set up Project INDOEX, which became a multinational effort, to see if the different levels of air pollution in the Maldives would correspond with varying levels of sunlight penetrating the atmosphere. The results were conclusive. The area of the Maldives in the stream of polluted air received 10% less light energy from the sun than the unpolluted south. Through this research, scientists became aware that visible airborne pollutants such as ash, soot and sulphur dioxide were responsible for global dimming because of their effect on cloud formation. Clouds form when moisture in the air condenses around visible particles, normally pollen grains or sea salt. However, man-made air pollution means that there are now far more of these particles for moisture to condense around. This means that clouds in polluted air are made up of many more, much smaller droplets of water than would naturally be the case. The droplets in the clouds thus have a larger surface area overall, causing them to reflect much more light energy from the sun away from earth. Global dimming has the potential to radically change the planet's rainfall patterns. It contributed to the horrific famine in Ethiopia in 1984, which took the lives of over a million people. Ethiopia lies in the sub-Saharan region of Africa known as the Sahel. This area is dry for most of the year. Agriculture is reliant upon the summer monsoon, which occurs when the sun warms the oceans to the north of the equator, drawing with it a belt of rain. However, air pollution over the Sahel carried from Europe and America prevented this from happening. For 20 years in the 1970s and 1980s, the rain belt moved southwards rather than into the Sahel, leading to huge human suffering. Scientists fear that, if allowed to continue, global dimming could have even more dire consequences. An area of Asia with a population of 3.6 billion is also dependent on the same seasonal monsoons. If these were affected over a period of time, billions of lives could be lost. Fortunately, visible air pollution can be easily and relatively cheaply tackled. Due to public pressure, some small steps towards doing so have been taken by governments in Europe. It means fitting scrubbers in power stations, catalytic converters in cars and using fuels with a low sulphur content. However, these measures on their own can potentially do more harm than good. Despite the threat to life on our planet that global dimming posed, it has actually been slowing the rate of global warming. The large increase in reflection of the sun's energy means that less heat energy is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than would otherwise be the case. Thus, tackling global dimming without significantly decreasing carbon dioxide emissions could in fact speed up climate change. This was shown in the summer of 2003, with forest fires in Portugal, glaciers melting in the Alps and people dying in their thousands in France. Dr. David Travis got a glimpse of how rapidly global warming could take hold without the counterweight of global dimming. Based in Wisconsin, USA, he noticed a strange change in the weather in the three days after the September 11th attacks. During this period, all air travel was grounded inside the US. There were no contrails of planes crossing the sky. For these three days, the sky was unusually clear and the days unusually warm. Dr. Travis gathered data from weather station across the United States. He noticed that the days were warmer and the nights were cooler. Comparing the temperature range during these three days with that of the previous three, there was a leap of 1 degree centigrade. While this doesn't sound like much, it represents the biggest temperature swing in the last thirty years. This shows what unrestrained global warming will mean for our world - a move to a climate of extremes. Obviously, what we have to do is tackle both global warming and global dimming in tandem by rapidly cutting emissions of both carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as well as visible particles such as soot and sulphur dioxide. However, despite huge public pressure, governments are much less willing to seriously combat the causes of global warming than of global dimming. To do so would require a huge reduction in the use of fossil fuels, such as oil, and developing an energy supply based on alternative, renewable energy sources. The opulent capitalists who control the world's oil reserves don't want their "black gold" to lose its huge value and profitability. They have used their wealth and economic influence to pressurise governments to hold back environmental measures aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions. They have also stunted the development of the use of renewable energy. The Kyoto Agreement that some governments around the world signed up to in 2001 commits them to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by 1-3% on 1990 levels by 2012. This will have little to no effect, as most serious environmental experts suggest we need to cut the emissions by 60-80%. However, even this derisory target was too much for Bush to agree to. The Bush administration has frequently denied that global warming is taking place, despite the ever-growing mountain of evidence, and has suggested that if global warming is taking place, perhaps it isn't a bad thing. It seems that common sense is a rare commodity in the White House. It is no coincidence that Bush's biggest financial backers by far are oil barons who have a symbiotic relationship with the Republican Party. The United States produces 25% of the world's carbon dioxide with only 5.5% of its population. Without their participation and that of China, the world's fastest growing economy, no agreement on carbon dioxide emissions could ever be enough to save our planet. Even at the current level of global dimming, by 2030 the ice caps could begin to melt, leading to a rise in sea levels of around 8 metres over a long period of time, causing huge flooding. The drying of the Amazon Basin would make the rainforests susceptible to fire. This huge release of carbon dioxide would speed up global warming even further. In a century, the world could be 10 degrees hotter. Ireland would have a climate similar to that of North Africa today. Countries that are already hot would become virtually uninhabitable. Some scientists believe it would result in the greatest mass extinction since the evolution of life and that five billion people could die. This is a nightmarish scenario for the future of our world. However, global warming is only one symptom of capitalism's disregard for our environment. Thousands of species across the world are endangered by the destruction of their environment in the name of profit. Large sections of the Amazon rainforest have been "slashed and burned" to provide land for cattle ranches, with the meat produced often being supplied to huge corporations like McDonald's. This method removes huge amounts of nutrients from the earth, making the land infertile, robbing many unique species of their environments, destroying plants with potential medical properties and, of course, decreasing the planet's capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There is currently a huge depopulation going on in our seas due to over-fishing and marine pollution. For example, it is estimated that the humpback whale population is only 20,000. It stood at around 1.5 million in 1800. This depopulation has serious direct consequences for humanity, since around 70% of the world's population is reliant upon seafood as its primary source of nutrition. Capitalism's over-riding driving factor is profit. This system will bring our planet to the brink of destruction and destroy the lives of billions if allowed to continue. We need a socialist solution to these problems. With the world's resources taken into democratic public ownership on the basis of a planned economy, people's needs can be met, technology advanced and the quality of life of the mass of humanity vastly improved, without destroying our environment. For example, on the basis of socialism, renewable energy infrastructure could be rapidly developed, eventually replacing fossil fuels completely, without threatening the livelihoods of working class people. However, this future has to be fought for and the fight must start now.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 31, 2006 23:11:50 GMT -5
SciTecLibrary.ruLOOK FORWARD TO A DARKER WORLDPublishing date: May 25, 2004 It's official: the world is getting darker. Scientists now agree that as cloud cover and particles in the atmosphere increase, the amount of radiation reaching us from the Sun is falling. And although they are nervous about raising the idea, they think the effect may help protect us from global warming. The phenomenon, called global dimming, has been quietly discussed in scientific circles for the past decade or so. Since the late 1950s, scientists have observed a 2-4% reduction each decade in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, which is thought to be caused by particles and clouds in the atmosphere scattering the light. But previous studies have been confined to the Northern Hemisphere, so many scientists have questioned whether this is a localized effect, or if it even exists at all. Advocates of the idea now have the evidence they need to convince the sceptics. A presentation by Australian scientists to the Joint Assembly of the American and Canadian Geophysical Unions in Montreal on Monday has shown that the effect is also found south of the equator. The researchers found that evaporation rates in Australia have fallen significantly over the last 30 years, a sure sign that less thermal radiation is reaching the surface. "This proves that it is a global phenomenon," says Michael Roderick, an environmental scientist at the Australian National University, Canberra, who led the research. But Roderick is not dismayed by the result. He has recently advised the Australian government that global dimming may be a good thing. "The standard dogma is that Australia will dry out [with global warming], but that's just not right. The world is actually getting less arid," he insists. In fact, Roderick sees global dimming as part of a negative feedback loop that allows the atmosphere to regulate itself. Burning fossil fuels not only increases carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere; it also pumps tiny particles into the air. At the same time, higher temperatures increase the amount of cloud cover. The clouds and particles help to block the Sun's rays, and the scattered light they allow through actually boosts plants' absorption of carbon dioxide, the principle greenhouse gas. This helps to keep carbon dioxide levels stable, argues Roderick, protecting the planet from runaway global warming Grey expectations "Diffuse light is like putting plants on steroids," Roderick explains. Scattered light takes a zigzag path, bathing every part of a plant's leaf in light instead of just one surface. Even if the overall amount of light is lower, this increases the plant's rate of photosynthesis and more carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The only plants that might suffer are those in northern European greenhouses, because they are so desperate for light that any reduction could affect their growth. This week's conference is the first time that all the leading scientists in the field have met, and it puts global dimming firmly on the research map. But Shep Cohen from the Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences in Bet Dagan, Israel, says that some of his colleagues are still anxious about discussing the effect in public, in case it is seen as an excuse not to worry about global warming. However, Cohen points out that understanding global dimming is essential for working out the best strategies for tackling pollution and climate change. For example, the half measure of filtering out particles while continuing to pump carbon dioxide into the air could destabilize the relationship between the two and actually increase global warming, he warns.
|
|
|
Post by marklookingup on Nov 1, 2006 10:27:57 GMT -5
Climate scientists? I see a conflict of terms eg, army intelligence, senate ethics, jumbo shrimp.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 1, 2006 12:09:48 GMT -5
posted by Mark: "Climate scientists? I see a conflict of terms eg, army intelligence, senate ethics, jumbo shrimp."
Then what are we left with but nihilism? I can't believe that all or even most scientists are quacks. Now when all these microbiologists defy statistics by dropping like flies, that gets me thinking that non-scientists are out to discredit science by stacking the field with their own people. I go with Swampgas' idea that a good litmus test for scientists or anybody making claims is who are such ideas supporting? If the work is done in good faith, in the pursuit of knowledge, then such efforts to me are on the up and up. However, when other "scientists" come out calling global warming a hoax for instance, and then one finds out that such a person is working for "The Man", well, then I am very cynical about those results.
Here's an unscientific example. When cigarette companies come out with ads deploring smoking, what is one to make of this? Are they trying to get Congress to lay off with punitive damages? Are they trying to find an escape valve by which they can market their lung pollution to other countries and less so here in America? Or in some cynical way are such ads actually promoting youth smoking in some subliminal way?
However, I refuse to lump all scientists into being disinformation dispensers. I refuse to believe that it is so easy to buy and sell "truths".
|
|
|
Post by marklookingup on Nov 1, 2006 22:13:51 GMT -5
posted by Mark: "Climate scientists? I see a conflict of terms eg, army intelligence, senate ethics, jumbo shrimp." Then what are we left with but nihilism? I can't believe that all or even most scientists are quacks. Now when all these microbiologists defy statistics by dropping like flies, that gets me thinking that non-scientists are out to discredit science by stacking the field with their own people. I go with Swampgas' idea that a good litmus test for scientists or anybody making claims is who are such ideas supporting? If the work is done in good faith, in the pursuit of knowledge, then such efforts to me are on the up and up. However, when other "scientists" come out calling global warming a hoax for instance, and then one finds out that such a person is working for "The Man", well, then I am very cynical about those results. Here's an unscientific example. When cigarette companies come out with ads deploring smoking, what is one to make of this? Are they trying to get Congress to lay off with punitive damages? Are they trying to find an escape valve by which they can market their lung pollution to other countries and less so here in America? Or in some cynical way are such ads actually promoting youth smoking in some subliminal way? However, I refuse to lump all scientists into being disinformation dispensers. I refuse to believe that it is so easy to buy and sell "truths". _________________________________________________ My point was that for any scientist to be 'baffled about less sunlight reaching Earth' has to be living in a vacuum. Today, for example, our skies in the Pac. NW. were covered, I mean COVERED, from every direction, all fu@#ing day. I just looked up at the moon, and there's a fresh fat one that just got sprayed. I am not baffled. I can see the whitish tint that seems to be a permanent change to our 'blueist skies you've ever seen are in Seattle'. By the way, this onslaught today was leading in the dramatic weather change that is due tonight.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 1, 2006 23:11:22 GMT -5
Here in Aigina, as in much of Greece the last days, there was heavy rain, which cleared up yesterday leaving brilliant blue skies that showed the beauty of this magnificent landscape in all its glory.
This lasted through morning. By midday the planes were out on in force and there was significant cloud cover a few hours later. Sunset saw a significant level of the familiar murkiness.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 1, 2006 23:30:51 GMT -5
My point was that for any scientist to be 'baffled about less sunlight reaching Earth' has to be living in a vacuum. Today, for example, our skies in the Pac. NW. were covered, I mean COVERED, from every direction, all fu@#ing day... I see your point. I agree. WTF??? How come if there has been such a cut back on air pollution, why are the skies becoming darker? I think this is why scientists on the whole have been so confused over global dimming, that they needed the data pushed in their faces to see that we are losing sunshine at an alarming rate. The only explanation in my opinion is that past dimming has been due to air pollution. Since the late 90's, when the skies should have become clearer, we're getting too much cloud cover. The only logical explanation to me are the plane emissions. This is why the BBC documentary was somewhat a breakthrough for the chemtrail awareness movement. Plane emissions are contributing greatly to the dimming of the skies. There was no tipping point in 1997 that has led to widespread grey white fake cloud cover to form. It's the chemtrails. If there was a logical explanation like jet fuel or something else, that would have been exposed already. The problem is that there are clandestine chemtrail operations going on, and they are most to blame for the excessive global dimming. The problem for those who want to market pollution is that no one wants their "good pollution". Even if sulfates and other particles radiatively force away solar energy, there is still going to be a net warming effect. We need an FDR to bring us some new deals, and soon. Go Democrats!
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Nov 1, 2006 23:40:27 GMT -5
The only time in history that dimming occurred at this rate was in England at the end of the 1800s while burning coal. Pollution was also the root cause.
Band-Aids never work, and pollution to stop an effect accelerated by Global Warming and pollution is Bizarro World.
Hopefully, the Democrats will displace the Neo-Cons, but let's not expect a miracle with them. Many of them serve the same master, except on the flip side of the same coin.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 2, 2006 0:15:24 GMT -5
The Representatives are where the good ones are. It's tough to find a decent senator.
It's gonna be interesting though, see who wins, see if there's any cheating going on. It'd be nice if there was a full Democratic sweep, then hearings, impeachments, President Pelosi, no more war, Jerry Brown type innovations.
The Daily Show made a lot of sense tonight. They were going over the Kerry thing, talk about a stiff neck, and they showed GW making jokes about no wmd's under carpets and whatnot. Damn hypocrites.
House looks guaranteed. I see plenty of Dems doing well for senate. I guess if we win both, GW can't veto impeachment votes. After Tuesday maybe keep an eye out for hearings and impeachments. It could be hitting the fan for the fascists. Knock on wood.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 2, 2006 0:16:49 GMT -5
Oops. Feingold fought the Patriot Act, Patrick Leahy, Kennedy, Boxer fought for the Ohio vote in 2004, there are some good ones.
|
|
|
Post by marklookingup on Nov 2, 2006 12:47:55 GMT -5
And as for Rep. Jay Inslee, he still will not acknowledge anything to do with cts, geo-eng, weath-mod, etc. I think he's bought and paid for.
|
|
|
Post by chickenlittle on Nov 2, 2006 17:16:10 GMT -5
Right on Mark!!!!!They would have to be blind not to see what we have witnessed in the PNW this last week especially!!! chicky
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 7, 2006 0:21:56 GMT -5
Scientists are baffled because the skies should be getting clearer. The story of global dimming emerged because the few scientists who thought outside the box saw it was happening and then provided the hard science. I realise I can be naive at times, quite the debunker on other occasions. Yet this Will Thomas person seems legit. I know Lou and his lady friend helped put together a good story earlier in the game. There was talk of a deep sky, perhaps Lou, if you have any thoughts on Will Thomas, the Deep Sky thing, it'd be appreciated. I sincerely think if people do their homework they will see that chemtrail believers have sound theories to go with the photographic and eyewitness evidence. I tend to have trouble with Rense, Carnicom, and now CTC. I think that somehow those places have been overrun with disinfo. A lot of truths are there, but the places are set up for the good stuff to be overshadowed by the tinfoil. Anyway, I just think that if people really attack the materials, they will be able to get over any doubts that chemtrails are real. Here is a good one by Will Thomas. Scientist Says Chemtrails, Shuttle Launches Endangering Earth Aug 7th 2006 (excerpt) Preface - Total article 3230 words. A Canadian atmospheric scientist warns that chemtrails, airliners and shuttle launches are weakening the stratosphere and destroying Earth’s ozone layer—threatening all life on Earth. It was one of those messages that phones are notorious for delivering—the kind of call that cancels the sleep and makes flu symptoms worse. But this time, the health of the entire planet was at stake. A concerned Canadian scientist named Neil Finley was on the line to inform me that high-altitude jet traffic, space launches and chemtrails are threatening to destroy not only Earth’s protective radiation shielding—but the stratosphere itself. This wasn’t entirely news. Ken Caldeira, the scientist at the Lawrence Livermore atom bomb laboratories who had run Edward Teller’s computer simulations for an atmospheric “sunscreen” had earlier told me that a program involving the spraying of millions of tons of sunlight-reflecting chemicals high in the stratosphere could “destroy the ozone layer.” What was news was an atmospheric scientists expressing concern over chemtrails. CHEMBOWS On June 16, 2006, while driving on Highway 1 near Victoria, British Columbia, ” Finley related, “I stopped to view a huge, white, flat cloud—incredibly white, incredibly wide. It was shocking to see.” Sunlight reflected from that massive unnatural cloud through his tinted sun visor “occulted” the sun, as he described it, into prismatic bars: “all pink, green and purple.” Such “birefringence,” Finley explained, “never happens with water vapor, because color separation only occurs in a crystal index of refraction.” Say again? Such prismatic interferences with wavelengths of light only occur with “extremely, extremely fine solid material,” Finley tried again. These fine, suspended particles “causes interference patterns around each particle, changing the color of the light.” Finley said he was specifically referring to the chemicals artificially released into the sky by “tankers”. While water vapor freezing into high-altitude ice crystals can put “sundogs” around the sun and an occasional halo around the moon, the oily rainbow colors much more commonly seen in jet-trails and artificial clouds are chemical signatures, he related. EARTH’S OZONE LAYER STILL SHREDDING These chlorine chemicals cascading directly into the ozone layer from airliners, chemtrail tankers and other military aircraft flying above 13 kilometers—as well as nearly continuous solid-fuel rocket launches from Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg Air Force Base are chewing up Earth’s remaining ozone layer. After years of misleading media reports hailing Earth’s “recovering ozone layer”, we are still “on the cusp” of ozone recovery, says atmospheric researcher Elizabeth Weatherhead at the University of Colorado and lead author of the most recent ozone study. [Nature May 4/06; CBS/AP June 1/06] The Associated Press and CBS News now confirm that Earth's sunscreen “appears poised” for the recovery they’ve been long reporting. Unless, that is, rapid Greenhouse Warming continues to skew atmospheric temperatures and circulations patterns, the rapid rise of methane gas from billions of cows and megatons of melting permafrost, a steep rise in nitrous oxide emissions from more than 5 million high-altitude jet airliner flights annually—and a projected 1,468 orbital rocket launches between 1998 and 2010 added to 3,174 launches already made from 1991 to 1997—“affect the outcome.” [CSIRO Telecommunications and Industrial Physics, Australia Feb 28/02] Guess what? Last winter, the protective ozone layer over the Arctic thinned to the lowest levels since records. At high altitudes, 50% of the protective layer was destroyed. ICE CLOUDS COMMETH What’s going on? While increased greenhouse gases in the air trap more heat in the lower atmosphere, sunlight reflected back into space by artificial clouds formed by chemtrails, airline exhausts and solid-fuel rocket launches is causing the upper stratosphere (between 14 and 26 kilometres above the Earth) to get much colder. Winter stratospheric ice clouds trap vast expanses of ozone-eating chemicals—and they are increasing in size and frequency. From the end of November 2005 to the end of February 2006, there were more ozone-destroying ice clouds that lingered for longer periods than ever previously recorded. In late March, when ozone depletion was at its worst, ice clouds drifted over the UK and Europe as far south as northern Italy—frying exposed life forms below. On April 26, 2005, scientists told a meeting in Vienna that "the atmospheric lifetime of these [ozone depleting] compounds is extremely long and the concentrations will remain at dangerously high levels for another half century." As Professor John Pyle explains, “We thought things would start to get better because of the phasing out of CFCs and other chemicals because of the Montreal protocol, but this has not happened. The pollution levels have leveled off but changes in the atmosphere have made it easier for the chemical reactions to take place that allow pollutants to destroy ozone. With these changes likely to continue and get worse as global warming increases, then ozone will be further depleted even if the level of pollution is going down.” RADIATION DAMAGE For each 1% drop in ozone levels, about 1% more UV-B reaches the Earth's surface. [WMO 2002] A reduction in ozone of 1% leads to increases of up to 3% in some forms of non-melanoma skin cancer. [UNEP 1998] The UN environment program estimates that for every 1% thinning of the ozone layer there is a 2% to 3% rise in skin cancer. It can also cause cataracts--even if dark glasses are worn. Since some species are more vulnerable than others, an increase in UV exposure has the potential to cause a shift in species composition and reduce diversity in ecosystems. Excess UV radiation cuts photosynthesis in plants, reducing the size and yield of winter wheat and other crops. Over half of all new cancers are skin cancers. One person dies of melanoma every hour. More than 1 million new cases of skin cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2004The incidence of melanoma more than tripled among Caucasians between 1980 and 2003. [Rachel’s Jan 5/87] NO PLANKTON = NO PEOPLE Onboard a plant that is mostly seawater, the microscopic plants that underpin all life in the oceans are being starved as global warming halts the vital up welling of nutrients from the deep sea. Now, increased solar radiation streaming through the holes left rocket launches and airline flights are also frying the oceanic plankton that provide most of our spaceship’s oxygen, while scrubbing huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere. “Reducing the world's populations of phytoplankton would significantly impact the world's carbon cycle,” warns the Guardian, by leaving more carbon in the air. [Independent Jan 19/06; Guardian Apr 27/05] In November 2005, starvation from lack of plankton led, in turn, to catastrophic collapse in sea and bird life along America's Northwest Pacific seaboard and in the North Sea. [Independent Nov 13/05] CHEMTRAILS THREATEN EARTH The chemtrail saga began in August 1997, when the late Dr. Edward Teller presented a paper prepared by the US government’s National Academy of Sciences to the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies in Sicily. Teller predicted, “Increases in average world-wide temperature of the magnitude currently predicted can be canceled by preventing about 1% of incoming solar radiation” from reaching the Earth. “The total cost of such an enhanced scattering operation would probably be at most $1 billion per year.” But chemtrails are wrecking the atmosphere. Radar observations reported by Air Traffic Controllers tracking US air force tankers and their lingering chemical plumes over Edmonton, Canada and every major airport in the USA report specially sequestered altitudes for these chemical lay downs at 37,000 feet—right at the floor of the stratosphere, which until recently began about 13 kilometers above the surface of the Earth. The 7-10 million tons of aluminum oxide Teller urged to be added to jet fuel as a protective “sunscreen” are being released into an ozone layer that, if compressed at sea level would be no thicker than the gap in a spark plug (approximately 0.1 inch thick). [www.ucsusa.org] Exactly as Caldera’s models forecast, chemtrails are reflecting enough sunlight from this planet’s upper atmosphere to cool the stratosphere and form giant ice-clouds that concentrate megatons of long-lingering ozone-destroying chemicals. Finley has discovered that a 3-degrees Fahrenheit temperature drop per decade at an altitude of 40 km has resulted in “about a 10% cooling of the stratosphere.” GOING UP After a year or two, Finley said, millions of tons of aluminum oxide in chemtrails and solid-fuel rocket exhausts falls downward to form a new boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere above. According to Finley, these aluminum oxide deposits are allowing the troposphere where we live, and where weather is formed, to push higher into a weakened stratosphere. Storm clouds are characteristically flat on their “anvil” tops because they are hitting the bottom of stratosphere. As the stratosphere weakens, storm tops broaden and rise. As convection updrafts drill upwards from 13 to14 to 15 kilometers, more moisture is sucked higher, where, Finley explained, “incredibly low temperatures holds hail up there become baseball-size killer stuff”—just like the monster hail that hammered Arizona, stripping paint off cars and causing flash floods, in late July 2006. During the past three decades, researchers have measured a cooling of the stratosphere and a warming of the lower troposphere. These changes could affect the height of the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Such a change could, in turn, affect the height of convection currents within the troposphere, such as those associated with thunderstorms, and could possibly affect the intensity of those storms. It might also alter the positions of the planet's jet streams and thus the movement of weather systems. [www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca] The upwards-expanding troposphere is especially invasive of the stratosphere in the hot tropics, Finley added, “where typhoons and hurricanes form.” Comparing the chemtrail and shuttle-shredded ozone layer to “a tire being eroded to core,” Finley warned that an atmospheric “blowout” could be fatal to life on Earth. CHEMTRIALS: “A DETONATOR TO DYNAMITE” Stratospheric cooling resulting from reflected sunlight is not the only atmospheric threat posed by chemtrails, whose microscopic particle irritants are also linked to severe human health affects on the ground. According to the Space And Missile Systems Center Air Force Materiel Command, “Worldwide use of CFCs over the last several decades has resulted in the introduction of about 25 million tons of CFCs to the atmosphere.” But as ultraviolet radiation from sunlight breaks down these chlorine molecules, about 300,000 tons of chlorine atoms are liberated into the stratosphere each year. Now comes the Catch-22 of ozone depletion: The destruction of atmospheric ozone results in no net loss of the chlorine required to cause the destruction. This means that the same chlorine molecules are available to restart the destruction cycle! [Space And Missile Systems Center Air Force Materiel Command Nov 1/94] “And that pool of more than half a century’s accumulated chlorine emissions is enormous,” Finley observed. This anxious atmospheric scientist cautioned that by reactivating this atmospheric reservoir of ozone depleting chlorine, the aluminum oxide found in lab tests of chemtrails fallout is acting “like a detonator to dynamite.” rest of article (e.g. effects of rocket launches)
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 7, 2006 20:29:42 GMT -5
Socrates wrote, ""I realise I can be naive at times, quite the debunker on other occasions. Yet this Will Thomas person seems legit. I know Lou and his lady friend helped put together a good story earlier in the game. There was talk of a deep sky, perhaps Lou, if you have any thoughts on Will Thomas, the Deep Sky thing, it'd be appreciated." _________________________________________________ I don't know what I could add about Will Thomas that he himself has not stated, Will is a professional, an investigative journalist and anyone wishing to see his credits and credentials can do so at the following link,.... www.willthomas.net/About_Thomas/index.htm. On a more personal note I have found Will to be very knowledgeable but not in a "better than every one else sense", matter of factly Will Thomas is a very down to earth and practical person who is very likeable. I have said in other post that after 9/11 that our contacts within the FAA, "Deep Sky" in particular, among others met with stiff new security measures implemented by the FAA that cracked down on just what information ATC personnel could and could not disclose to the public, with these new rules in place, ATC personnel can not talk openly about any military operations or exercises that may be taking place within there ATC controlled airspace, most calls to airport ATC facilities with regard to there being any military operations in a given area are being directed to the TSA. The atmosphere among ATC personnel that we have contact with is one of towing the company line for fear of loosing there jobs or worse being charged with violating new national security regulations, our ATC friends can not even supply us with internal FAA memoranda as it is coded via wording for each individual airport and would identify which airport it came from if published, the bad guy's would then have an easy time identifying the person responsible for the leek of that information.
We know that the memos are coded because we compared four of them from various airports and they all had the same information in them but the information in each memo was worded slightly different, now, why would an FAA general memo sent out to all national airports be worded differently for individual airports, that makes no sense unless ( some agency) is trying to track that information. (This is MIB - SPOOK shit.)
So, you can see even asking air port personnel about "Military operations" in a given area is being closely monitored by the FAA , TSA and no doubt the DHS and FBI as well, obviously they want to know who is calling and asking questions that they do not want to answer.
The last time that S.T. Brendt talked with "Deep Sky" she asked the question, what does national security have to do with ATC personnel telling the public "yes or no" with regard to there being a military operation going on in a local given area, "Deep Sky's" reply was, you got me but they really don't want us talking about it, at all.
As things stand at this time, neither "Deep Sky" or any of our other ATC contacts dare to try and pass us any information, that's who closely they are being watched, we had been hoping for some very critical information when all HELL broke loose with 9/11 and Bush and Company going full out nuts in the aftermath, now we got stuck with the fake Texan again and our chances of obtaining anymore information from our ATC contacts is zero to none, their all walking on eggshells while working.
"Deep Sky" and all ATC personnel have a load of stress to deal with in their line of work normally, now with Big Brother breathing down their necks that stress is like ten fold, it's tough to say the least.
Well, there you have the short answer on "Deep Sky" and what I might be able to add,.....Not much I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 7, 2006 22:27:41 GMT -5
They don't like moving alot.Part of the 'Master Plan', is the sacrifice of the U.S. ,to all those pissed-off and pissed-on countries.The U.S. is just like Germany in the late 1930's,only they have learned from their mistakes.Most didn't move here because they knew they'd have to move again.This country will be attacked.This country will use the fema-aka-re-education camps.Germany never lost WWII,they used and abused us.Now they have no use for us. This alleged victory of Germany is slow in manifesting itself, and remember that Marx always saw "the ruin of the contending classes" as a possible alternative to the "dictatorship of the proletariat". And it is Europeans, not Americans, who are to blame for the slowness. Since 9/11 the best voices in the US have not found European audiences.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 9, 2006 0:06:07 GMT -5
Anyone notice the ads lately for coal? Aah, the marketing of pollution continues. Anyway, back to global dimming- Global Dimming and climate modelsRealClimate.Org: Climate Science from Climate Scientists Guest posting from Beate Liepert (LDEO) 17 Apr 2006 On April 18th PBS will air the NOVA documentary “Dimming the Sun” which stirred up lively discussions among scientists and non-scientists when originally shown by BBC in the UK (under the name 'Global Dimming' – see our previous posts). The NOVA version has been thoroughly re-edited and some of the more controversial claims have apparently been excised or better put into context [and we look forward to seeing it! - Ed.]. Global dimming is the phenomena of an observed reduction (about 1-2% per decade since ~1960) of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth caused by air pollution (aerosols – small particles) and cloud changes. Some of this solar energy is reflected back out to space and this cooling effect is believed to have counteracted part of the greenhouse gas warming. The original version of the film focused mainly on the observational recognition of global dimming, but one aspect did not receive much attention in the film - namely the oft-claimed lack of global dimming in climate models. This led some to assume that climate modelers were ignoring air pollution other than greenhouse gases emissions from fossil fuel burning. Another implication was that climate models are not capable of adequately simulating the transfer of sunlight through the atmosphere and the role of clouds, sunlight extinction of aerosols and aerosol effects on clouds etc, and therefore model projections should not be trusted. The NOVA version will address this issue more prominently by adding an interview with Jim Hansen from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Along this line, I’d like to elaborate on aerosols in climate models in more detail. It is indeed true that the first climate change simulations were predominantly concerned with greenhouse gas forced climate change. Albeit very early papers argue that man-made aerosol changes might cause a cooling (Rasool and Schneider, Science 1971 and Bryson, Science 1974). And already in 1990, J. Hansen and A. Lacis (Science 1990) published a paper where they explicitly discuss the importance of anthropogenic aerosol forcing: “Sun and Dust versus Greenhouse Gas Forcing”. The authors list direct effects of increasing concentrations of light scattering sulfate aerosols, light absorbing carbonaceous aerosols like soot and even aerosol effects on cloud properties (indirect aerosol effects). Finally they conclude that “… solar variability will not counteract greenhouse warming and that future observations will need to be made to quantify the role of tropospheric aerosols … ”. The surface dimming effect was not yet considered an important climate factor. Back then, state-of-the-art climate models changed the reflectivity at the top of the atmosphere to account for the climate effect of increases in man-made aerosol emissions. Using cloud properties from independent climate simulations and weather forecast models to provide monthly mean water vapor and temperature fields, Kiehl and Briegleb (Science 1993) estimated a top of the atmosphere global mean human-related sulfate aerosol forcing of -0.3 W/m2 in contrast to the a +2.1 W/m2 greenhouse gas forcing. A year later, Jones, Roberts and Slingo (Nature 1994) added the indirect aerosol effect - the impact of increasing sulfate aerosol concentrations on cloud droplet sizes - which make look cloud darker. They used empirical relations to link the number of aerosol particles and number of cloud droplets to cloud droplet radii for their estimates. Other groups as well, started testing new prognostic cloud schemes for general circulation models that were able to capture the microphysical processes of cloud formation (e.g. MPI in Hamburg - Lohmann and Roeckner, Climate Dynamics 1996). These climate-modeling developments were compared (Wild et al., JC 1995) with the then available observational data of the surface solar radiation (incidentally the same data sets were used by Russak (Tellus 1990), Stanhill and Moreshet (Climatic Change 1992) and myself (Liepert et al., Contr. Atm. Physics 1994) to reconstruct the history of global dimming). One conclusion was that then-current models did not include enough aerosol absorbtion in the atmosphere (and Wild and I (GRL, 1998) wrote a paper on the “Excessive Transmission of Solar Radiation Through the Cloud-free Atmosphere in GCMs”). Note that at the end of 1990s these more complex climate models with a more physically based prognostic cloud scheme were run as equilibrium experiments hence transient 20th Century changes could not be used directly for comparison. But is has always been clear that anthropogenic aerosols are so temporally and spatially variable that long-term means are not adequate in assessing the actual aerosol forcing. Several publications on model validations and improvements based on surface solar radiation records followed and I was involved in two of these studies. We analyzed the simulated multi-decadal changes in the direct tropospheric aerosol forcing in the NASA GISS GCM and utilized global dimming time series of the United States and Germany to assess the temporal change prognosed in the model (Liepert and Tegen, JGR 2002). Ina Tegen’s aerosol model was one of the first that added time variations in carbonaceous aerosol components (including black carbon – an absorbing aerosol). We concluded that increasing absorption might actually play a stronger role than expected. Climate simulations are the primary tools for explaining and understanding observations that might otherwise seem counterintuitive. For instance, how global dimming can go hand in hand with global warming. In 2004, at the MPI in Hamburg my coauthors and I (Liepert et al. GRL 2004) analyzed output data from a brand new version of the ECHAM general circulation model (GCM) that incorporated a fully interactive aerosol module and aerosol-cloud-scheme. This model interactively calculates aerosol chemical transformation, aerosol transport, rainout and fallout processes and even aerosol formation for some species (e.g. sulfate). We showed that, in the model, global warming caused changing rainfall patterns that fed back on aerosol distribution and composition supressing the water cycle (i.e. evaporation) as had been observed. The key to explaining the apparent contradiction was that the surface forcing changes can be very large without affecting the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation as much. All major climate models now have some representation of aerosol physics though they range in their complexity – e.g. from top of the atmosphere aerosol forcing to highly interactive aerosol-cloud modules. The role that aerosols play in issues like the Sahel drought (Rotstayn and Lohmann, JC, 2002) or the Asian Brown Clouds (Ramanathan et al., PNAS 2005) is starting to be understood (and both these examples are featured in the documentary), but we do not as yet have a clear picture of exactly how aerosols and the other human-related forcings have affected climate. More recently, many modeling groups ran 20th Century climate simulations in support of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change 4th Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) that include representations of the aerosol direct, indirect and semi-direct aerosol effects. The models show a global dimming effect of between 1 to 4 W/m2 over the 100 years with simultaneous global warming between 0.4 and 0.7°C (Romanou et al, under revision) which match the observational dimming quite well. Overall, in the fifteen years from the 1990 Hansen and Lacis paper to the IPCC AR4, major steps forward have been made in implementing aerosols in climate models and hence matching observations of global dimming. However, it would be misleading to claim that the new appreciation for the surface energy balance changes implied that modelers a few years back were ignorant about the role of aerosols in other aspects of climate change. It is indeed a very complex problem.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 9, 2006 0:37:32 GMT -5
Thanks Lou for the insights into Will Thomas and Deep Sky.
I have a hunch that the Deep Shield name might have been a take on the Deep Sky name, perhaps to link the two stories together as tinfoil, to hurt the credibility of any atc personnel spilling beanage.
I believe in the Deep Sky story. It wasn't anything outlandish, while the Deep Shield came off as a disinfo scheme.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 9, 2006 3:57:11 GMT -5
You don't know what you are talking about, Socrates. You have just picked up this attitude as a side-effect of your uncritical discipleship of Chem, whose stance on this subject reflects a real, to me somewhat difficult to comprehend, weakness on his part. David Stewart never claimed to be able to prove anything in a court of law. He was, and is, the first to admit that nothing much can be done with the Deep Shield story from the viewpoint of litigation and so on.
Check back in the Megasprayer files to the relevant discussions and you will see how big a role Reynolds played in browbeating "chemmies" away from a rational approach to David Stewart and what he had to tell us about "Deep Shield". Reynolds used every trick in the book, including the most vulgar gay-bashing.
Do some research into this and try to develop your own judgement instead of parroting attitudes you pick up from others.
Once again YOU are responsible for initiating an argument. It can be continued in the Fight Club if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 9, 2006 9:43:43 GMT -5
I wasn't talking to you. Swampgas has made it clear he doesn't want any CTC type bickering here, so put me on ignore if you want, but stop dragging me into your posts and talking up fight club so often. I have every right to comment on Deep Shield having a strange proximity to the Deep Sky name. I was asking Lou about it, not yourself.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 9, 2006 10:45:46 GMT -5
I'm afraid you can't yet do here what you do at Megasprayer, i.e. say whatever nonsense comes into your head about someone who cannot reply.
This discussion should be continued in the Fight Club, or discontinued.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 9, 2006 11:49:55 GMT -5
(fair use) Globe Grows DarkerPublished on Thursday, May 13, 2004 by the New York Times Globe Grows Darker as Sunshine Diminishes 10% to 37% by Kenneth Chang In the second half of the 20th century, the world became, quite literally, a darker place. Defying expectation and easy explanation, hundreds of instruments around the world recorded a drop in sunshine reaching the surface of Earth, as much as 10 percent from the late 1950's to the early 90's, or 2 percent to 3 percent a decade. In some regions like Asia, the United States and Europe, the drop was even steeper. In Hong Kong, sunlight decreased 37 percent. No one is predicting that it may soon be night all day, and some scientists theorize that the skies have brightened in the last decade as the suspected cause of global dimming, air pollution, clears up in many parts of the world. Yet the dimming trend — noticed by a handful of scientists 20 years ago but dismissed then as unbelievable — is attracting wide attention. Research on dimming and its implications for weather, water supplies and agriculture will be presented next week in Montreal at a joint meeting of American and Canadian geological groups. "There could be a big gorilla sitting on the dining table, and we didn't know about it," said Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the University of California, San Diego. "There are many, many issues that it raises." Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said that scientists had long known that pollution particles reflected some sunlight, but that they were now realizing the magnitude of the effect. "It's occurred over a long time period," Dr. Hansen said. "So it's not something that, perhaps, jumps out at you as a person in the street. But it's a large effect." Satellite measurements show that the sun remains as bright as ever, but that less and less sunlight has been making it through the atmosphere to the ground. Pollution dims sunlight in two ways, scientists theorize. Some light bounces off soot particles in the air and goes back into outer space. The pollution also causes more water droplets to condense out of air, leading to thicker, darker clouds, which also block more light. For that reason, the dimming appears to be more pronounced on cloudy days than sunny ones. Some less polluted regions have had little or no dimming. The dynamics of global dimming are not completely understood. Antarctica, which would be expected to have clean air, has also dimmed. "In general, we don't really understand this thing that's going on," said Dr. Shabtai Cohen, a scientist in the Israeli Agriculture Ministry who has studied dimming for a decade. "And we don't have the whole story." The measuring instrument, a radiometer, is simple, a black plate under a glass dome. Like asphalt in summer, the black plate turns hot as it absorbs the sun's energy. Its temperature tells the amount of sunlight that has shone on it. Since the 50's, hundreds of radiometers have been installed from the Arctic to Antarctica, dutifully recording sunshine. In the mid-80's, Dr. Atsumu Ohmura of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich sifted through the data to compare levels in different regions. "Suddenly," Dr. Ohmura said, "I realized it's not easy to do that, because the radiation was changing over time." He recalled his reaction, saying, "I thought it is rather unbelievable." After an analysis, he was convinced that the figures were reliable and presented his findings at a scientific conference. Asked about his colleagues' reaction, Dr. Ohmura said: "There's no reaction. Very disappointing." At that time, Dr. Gerald Stanhill of the Israeli Agriculture Ministry noticed similar darkening in Israel. "I really didn't believe it," Dr. Stanhill said. "I thought there was some error in the apparatus." Dr. Stanhill, now retired and living in New York, also looked around and found dimming elsewhere. In the 90's, he wrote papers describing the phenomenon, also largely ignored. In 2001, Drs. Stanhill and Cohen estimated that the worldwide dimming averaged 2.7 percent a decade. Not every scientist is convinced that the dimming has been that pronounced. Although radiometers are simple, they do require periodic calibration and care. Dirt on the dome blocks light, leading to erroneous indications. Also, all radiometers have been on land, leaving three-fourths of the earth to supposition. "I see some datasets that are consistent and some that aren't," Dr. Ellsworth G. Dutton, who heads surface-radiation monitoring at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said. "Certainly, the magnitude of the phenomenon is in considerable question." Dr. Beate G. Liepert, a research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, has analyzed similar information and arrives at a smaller estimate of the dimming than Drs. Stanhill and Cohen. Dr. Liepert puts it at 4 percent from 1961 to 1990, or 1.3 percent a decade. "It's a little bit the way you do the statistics," she said. A major set of measurements from the Indian Ocean in 1999 showed that air pollution did block significant sunlight. Following plumes of soot and other pollution, scientists measured sunlight under the plumes that was 10 percent less bright than in clear air. "I thought I was too old to be surprised by anything," said Dr. Ramanathan, who was co-chief scientist of the projects. Dr. Ohmura said he hoped to finish his analysis of the numbers since 1990 by late next month or early July. "I have a very strong feeling that probably solar radiation is increasing during the last 14 years," he said. He based his hunch, he said, on a reduction in cloud cover and faster melting rates in glaciers. But clearer, sunnier days could mean bad news for global warming. Instead of cloudiness slowing rising temperatures, sunshine would be expected to accelerate the warming. © Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 9, 2006 18:31:08 GMT -5
Hi Socrates,
Not that I know anything either, as some would point out, but anything that I can offer on "Deep Sky" comes from close personal contact, it's a case of "what you see, is what you get", nothing more, nothing less, it is what it is with no injection of speculation by anyone that was involved at the time, just the facts.
I don't quite see the "Deep Shield" connection that you seem to othervthan the "Deep" term but then I am much more involved with "Deep Sky", so, it is an everyday reality with me, unlike the "Deep Shield" story which I feel detached from.
I can add little in the way of opinion with regard to the whole "Deep Shield" story, I really don't know what the point is in discussing the likelihood of the two events being connecte as I know that they are not connected in any way.
I'm getting out of this thread Socrates, your keeping company that I don't want to be associated with here at Gastro in any way at all, see you some place else, good luck here !
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 9, 2006 22:48:51 GMT -5
Brian Holmes gave "Deep Shield" his name. With what thoughts in his mind I don't know. I suppose I could ask him.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 10, 2006 23:33:52 GMT -5
Brian confirms that it was "Deep Throat", the Watergate leak, that he had in mind when he named "Deep Shield". The project itself was given the name "The Shield Project".
|
|