Post by altitudelou on Jul 18, 2006 19:32:10 GMT -5
Interesting reading between the lines.
The Discovery Of Global Warming Or The Start Of Global Spraying?
Taken from www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm#L_1988
The Discovery Of Global Warming:
In part,
Many aerosol specialists now suspected that they had seriously underestimated how strongly greenhouse warming had been held back by the cooling effect of aerosols. If so, then temperatures would now rise more sharply.For the "global dimming" trend was not really global but regional, and it had reversed around 1990 in many regions — perhaps because some nations were cutting aerosol emissions. Pollution controls had certainly been reducing sulfates. The way these sulfates and other aerosols had previously kept some sunlight from reaching the surface had given the world "a false sense of security" about global warming, Crutzen warned in 2003. Whatever was happening, it was more obvious than ever that the world urgently needed better measurements of aerosols.(93a)
Large uncertainties also remained in figuring how aerosols interacted with gases, and above all with water vapor (the main "indirect effect”"or "Twomey effect"). Questions were raised once again by detailed observations that confirmed the speculation that had first started scientists worrying back in the 1960s — cirrus clouds did grow from jet contrails, visibly influencing the climate in regions beneath heavily traveled air routes.(94*) Experts published widely divergent models for the formation of such clouds and their absorption of radiation. Controversial measurements published in 1995 claimed that clouds absorbed much more radiation than the conventional estimates said, raising a specter of "missing physics." As one researcher complained, "The complexity of this problem seems to grow with each new study." It was reasonable to expect that improvements in theoretical models and measuring techniques would eventually lead to a reconciliation (indeed within the next decade theory and observations would largely converge), but meanwhile, Ramanathan admitted, "If I wake up with a nightmare, it is the indirect aerosol effect." And this effect was only one of several areas where new studies kept showing that, as Ramanathan and a colleague remarked, people were still "in the early stages of understanding the effects" of aerosols.(95*)
This persistent ignorance about aerosols — their direct and indirect effects, and even their concentrations — was the largest single obstacle to attempts to predict future climate, especially for a given region. Funding agencies accordingly pushed vigorous and costly efforts to measure aerosol effects, promising major improvements within the next decade. Meanwhile, most experts felt that they could at least fix a rough range for the gross global consequences. They were reasonably certain that the sum of human aerosol emissions had a net cooling influence, at least in most parts of the world. Estimates of the magnitude of the cooling (both directly, and indirectly through clouds) ranged from fairly small to quite strong. Pollution was delaying the appearance of greenhouse warming in some industrialized regions and perhaps everywhere. As greenhouse gas emissions continued to accumulate, few doubted that the warming would soon leap past any possible aerosol cooling effects.
_______________________________________
I get the distinct impression from reading this material that climate scientist found out that air born aerosol pollution be it natural or human in nature was in fact "good" as it offset the effects of the greenhouse effect, then it was discovered that there was a substantial lack of airborne aerosols which equated to being "bad" and without the aerosols we would soon be in it deep, The greenhouse / Global Warming effect that is.
So, armed with this new science some brain trust, U.S., U.N., ETC... decided back in the 90's that it would be a good idea to pump the atmosphere full of something to take the place of the aerosols offsetting the greenhouse effect, thus we began to see in the mid to late 90's what has become known as Chemtrail / Global Spraying.
Something precipitated the sudden appearence of the CT's, was this it ?
Of course nothing like that was put into this above text but it's fairly easy to see how one could come to this conclusion, as I have stated many times in the past, sooner or later the truth is going to come out with regard to this worldwide spraying that is going on, even if it's hidden within the pages of scientific material like this.
We must remain vigilant and intelligent in our quest for the truth or it will surely slip by us in language that most are not accustom to.
The Discovery Of Global Warming Or The Start Of Global Spraying?
Taken from www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm#L_1988
The Discovery Of Global Warming:
In part,
Many aerosol specialists now suspected that they had seriously underestimated how strongly greenhouse warming had been held back by the cooling effect of aerosols. If so, then temperatures would now rise more sharply.For the "global dimming" trend was not really global but regional, and it had reversed around 1990 in many regions — perhaps because some nations were cutting aerosol emissions. Pollution controls had certainly been reducing sulfates. The way these sulfates and other aerosols had previously kept some sunlight from reaching the surface had given the world "a false sense of security" about global warming, Crutzen warned in 2003. Whatever was happening, it was more obvious than ever that the world urgently needed better measurements of aerosols.(93a)
Large uncertainties also remained in figuring how aerosols interacted with gases, and above all with water vapor (the main "indirect effect”"or "Twomey effect"). Questions were raised once again by detailed observations that confirmed the speculation that had first started scientists worrying back in the 1960s — cirrus clouds did grow from jet contrails, visibly influencing the climate in regions beneath heavily traveled air routes.(94*) Experts published widely divergent models for the formation of such clouds and their absorption of radiation. Controversial measurements published in 1995 claimed that clouds absorbed much more radiation than the conventional estimates said, raising a specter of "missing physics." As one researcher complained, "The complexity of this problem seems to grow with each new study." It was reasonable to expect that improvements in theoretical models and measuring techniques would eventually lead to a reconciliation (indeed within the next decade theory and observations would largely converge), but meanwhile, Ramanathan admitted, "If I wake up with a nightmare, it is the indirect aerosol effect." And this effect was only one of several areas where new studies kept showing that, as Ramanathan and a colleague remarked, people were still "in the early stages of understanding the effects" of aerosols.(95*)
This persistent ignorance about aerosols — their direct and indirect effects, and even their concentrations — was the largest single obstacle to attempts to predict future climate, especially for a given region. Funding agencies accordingly pushed vigorous and costly efforts to measure aerosol effects, promising major improvements within the next decade. Meanwhile, most experts felt that they could at least fix a rough range for the gross global consequences. They were reasonably certain that the sum of human aerosol emissions had a net cooling influence, at least in most parts of the world. Estimates of the magnitude of the cooling (both directly, and indirectly through clouds) ranged from fairly small to quite strong. Pollution was delaying the appearance of greenhouse warming in some industrialized regions and perhaps everywhere. As greenhouse gas emissions continued to accumulate, few doubted that the warming would soon leap past any possible aerosol cooling effects.
_______________________________________
I get the distinct impression from reading this material that climate scientist found out that air born aerosol pollution be it natural or human in nature was in fact "good" as it offset the effects of the greenhouse effect, then it was discovered that there was a substantial lack of airborne aerosols which equated to being "bad" and without the aerosols we would soon be in it deep, The greenhouse / Global Warming effect that is.
So, armed with this new science some brain trust, U.S., U.N., ETC... decided back in the 90's that it would be a good idea to pump the atmosphere full of something to take the place of the aerosols offsetting the greenhouse effect, thus we began to see in the mid to late 90's what has become known as Chemtrail
Something precipitated the sudden appearence of the CT's, was this it ?
Of course nothing like that was put into this above text but it's fairly easy to see how one could come to this conclusion, as I have stated many times in the past, sooner or later the truth is going to come out with regard to this worldwide spraying that is going on, even if it's hidden within the pages of scientific material like this.
We must remain vigilant and intelligent in our quest for the truth or it will surely slip by us in language that most are not accustom to.
