loader
Help Jim Lee The ClimateViewer Guy attend the 21st Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification, January 9-11, 2018

“Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see” - Ben Franklin

If you have not heard by now, or looked up at the sky in the last ten years, there is a big fuss over little white lines. Aircraft have created contrails (below) for well over 40 years, however recently these frozen pollution plumes are gaining visibility in a big way. [1], [2] The internet is buzzing with rumors of secret agendas and global depopulation schemes by devious government officials using “chemtrails” sprayed from commercial airliners. As incredulous as this claim may sound, we have attempted to find a definitive answer to the question “Why in the world are they spraying?” and the answers may shock you.

MODIS Terra Corrected Reflectance (True Color)

Persistent Spreading Contrail as seen by the MODIS Terra Corrected Reflectance (True Color) satelllite, 11/14/2013 on ClimateViewer 3D

What is a Chemtrail?

  1. IMPROPER: internet slang for “chemical-trail”, referring to contrails
  2. CORRECT: (noun) the invisible exhaust particulates released from jet aircraft engines which contribute to the formation of persistent contrails (spreading, man-made clouds that cool the planet during the daytime and trap heat at night). • [3], [4], [5], [6]
The young contrails, which appear as a spring shape and sharp lines in the first image, gradually spread into cirrus clouds, which appear as bright white areas in the lower images.
The young contrails, which appear as a spring shape and sharp lines in the first image, gradually spread into cirrus clouds, which appear as bright white areas in the lower images. source - Atmospheric Science: Seeing through the contrails

So why continue to use the term chemtrail, if we are really talking about contrails? The invisible (chemtrail) exhaust plume of a commercial aircraft is filled with sulfur, soot (carbon black dust), and trace amounts of aluminum, barium, and so much more! [7], [8], [9]

Is the indirect forcing by aircraft soot positive or negative - zhou

Is the indirect forcing by aircraft soot positive or negative - zhou.pdf

Chemtrails are cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) which saturate these man-made clouds, and in some cases may actually be increasing the contrails longevity. [7], [10]

Contrails are only visible when atmospheric conditions are right, with the latest research showing a link between contrail formation and the ISSR, or Ice Super-Saturated Region, which is a large water body in the sky. [11]

The distinction being made here is this: chemtrails are still there, harming our environment and health, even when there are no visible contrails.

  • A round trip flight from New York to Los Angeles releases as much C02 as one automobile does in an entire year.
  • On a yearly basis all air travel releases 600 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
  • 1 round trip flight from NY to LA = 2,000 pounds of CO2![12]
The chemical species released during the fuel combustion process in aircraft engines include carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur oxides (SOx) along with small amounts of soot carbon (Csoot), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO), as shown in Figure 1. Once released at cruise altitudes within the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UT/LS), these species interact with the background atmosphere and undergo complex processes, resulting in potential climate impacts and related welfare loss as depicted in Figure 1. [13]
Evaluating-the-Impacts-of-Aviation-on-Climate-Change

Controversy

If you Google search “chemtrail,” you will see the very first entry is the Wikipedia article entitled “Chemtrail conspiracy theory.” The first line on that page states:
The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials. This theory is not accepted by the scientific community, which states that they are just normal contrails, as there is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrail theory. [14]
Based on the Wikipedia article’s statement, which seems to sum up the online debate between the “chemtrail believers” and “debunkers,” we can extract the following two points of contention: Are they normal and are they deliberate?

1. Are contrails “normal”?

The answer to number one should be obvious, yet scientists and debunkers cling to their belief that contrails are “normal.”

TRUTH: A fire-breathing metal tube is boiling its way through the sky, farting out man-made clouds. There’s nothing normal about that, AT ALL. Contrails are the result of our desire to travel long distances through the air, which is not only “unnatural,” it is hurting our planet.

2. Are contrails deliberately being created?

TRUTH: There are as many organizations trying to end contrails as there are promoting the idea of creating artificial cloud cover.

There is strong evidence that the US. military has intentions to create cloud cover to defeat space-based surveillance satellites and weaponry, scientists worldwide want to create cloud cover to block sunlight and control global temperature, the aviation industry is moving to bio-fuels in an effort to avoid carbon taxes, and re-routing flights in an effort to and end contrails.

We at ClimateViewer would like to believe that what we are seeing in the skies is the result of the poor regulation of aviation fuels and their additives, not weather control efforts or collusion by nefarious entities to cull the herd. Besides, if they have been trying to kill the masses since the conspiracy started in 1997, they are failing miserably.

There is also an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that other individuals ‘would like’ to use commercial airplanes to perform cloud seeding and/or geoengineering.

Geoengineering SRM seeks to block sunlight and cool the planet using reflective particles, however recent research is finding that contrails are not an effective method for fighting global warming. In fact, studies have shown that they are making it worse.

“the latest (June 2013) estimates indicate that contrails caused by aircraft may be causing more climate warming today than all the residual CO2 emitted by aircraft” [15].
However, there are two sides to this argument:

Weather-Modification-by-Carbon-Dust-Absorption-of-Solar-Energy

A. Scientists saying creepy stuff:

  • “Use commuter aircraft fuels doped with aerosol generators” [16]
  • On the possibility of weather modification by aircraft contrail [17]
  • Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy [18]
  • “dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail” [19]
  • “Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option.” [20]
  • “The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.” [21]
  • “regulation to ban bunker fuel for ships should be relaxed while encouraging continued use of bunker fuel where the resulting aerosol emissions might be beneficial.” [22]
  • Establish the positive and negative net forcing from contrails, and encourage flight paths of commercial airplanes to reduce positive or increase negative net forcing. The ban on polar flights, lifted recently, should be reintroduced” [22]
  • “Develop and test the deployment of suitably reflective particles, of such materials as TiO2, as alternative or supplement to sulphate aerosol.” Prepare for large scale deployment.
  • “Finance the development of, and deployment capability for, marine cloud brightening, with a view to deployment on a large scale in spring 2013” [22]
  • “Suitable chemicals need to be identified/confirmed, with stock-piling of these cloud seeding chemicals. Aircraft need to be kitted out to spray these chemicals.[22]
  • Prepare the supply and logistics for spraying aerosol precursor in large quantities, preferably into the lower stratosphere, for deployment by next March or April (2013) [22]

B. Scientists saying that creepy stuff won’t work

  • “Stratospheric passenger flights are likely an inefficient geoengineering strategy” [23]
  • “Commercial aircraft ‘not viable strategy’ for geoengineering” [24]
  • “Conspiracy theories that target specific research can have serious consequences for public health and environmental policies,” “Conspiracy theories are dangerous when the meme is used to discredit scientific evidence in a public forum or in a legal proceeding,” and “…scientists need to be careful about releasing findings on controversial issues, making sure they have been thoroughly reviewed and that the data sets are available for others to analyse” [25]
With statements like those seen in section A, one might understand why individuals would cast a wary-eye skyward, however, those are only statements, and we have found no evidence (to date) that any of these programs are currently operational. Surprisingly, neither chemtrail believers nor debunkers have considered that there is evidence the military is once again entering the world of secret weather modification.

In their Weather Modification Test Technology Symposium 1997 [26], USAF Phillips Laboratory’s Dr Arnold A Barnes Jr. gave a presentation building on the 1996 think-tank piece: “Owning the Weather in 2025” [27] where he informs us of the following:

Current-US-Air-Force-Weather-Modification-Capabilities-1997-2

Current-US-Air-Force-Weather-Modification-Capabilities-1997

 

Now why in the heck would he be talking about contrails in relation to surveillance/coverage? Here’s your answer:

“The United States needs to incorporate the defense against directed energy weapons with the same intensity used developing anti-ballistic missile defenses … ability to create localized fog or stratus cloud formations shielding critical assets against attack from energy based weapons…” [28]

You heard that right, Star Wars.

Straight from the horse’s mouth: lasers, spy satellites, and man-made clouds. Of all the plausible reasons for the aerial oddities we are seeing, this one seems the most likely. There are well-documented examples of the US. military carrying out secret aerosol programs, dispersed by plane on unsuspecting individuals, and keeping them secret for years. [29] Nonetheless, we must make use of that which we can prove lest we waste our time.

While we debate whether these contrails are normal, depopulation schemes, weather control, or satellite cover, nobody is talking about the truth:

Chemtrails are the poster-child for climate change, a highly-visible pollution, with massive amounts of public outrage attributed to them.

The Bottom Line:

  1. Chemtrails are invisible, contrails are filled with chemtrails, BOTH OF THESE ARE CLOUDS, the two words can be synonymous, and do not necessarily have to be associated with depopulation conspiracies.
  2. “Chemtrail conspiracy believers” and “debunkers” are not discussing the real-world implications of aviation pollution.
  3. The Geoengineers want to make clouds.
  4. The US. Air Force wants to make clouds.
  5. The Cloud-Seeders need clouds.
  6. There are man-made clouds everywhere

The next time someone tells you, they know this or that about contrails/chemtrails, tell them:

“The scientists are still scratching their heads, why are you so damn confident?” [30]:

Evaluating the Importance of Aviation on Climate Change

That’s right:

“uncertain”

“significant issues”

“poorly understood”

“NOT well understood”

“NOT understood”

“Potential cloud effects: UNKNOWN

 

References:

  1. Wikipedia, “Contrail” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
  2. Banavar Sridhar and Neil Y. Chen - NASA Ames Research Center, Hok K. Ng - University of California, “Energy Efficient Contrail Mitigation Strategies for Reducing the Environmental Impact of Aviation” http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2013/ATM2013_Sridhar_Final.pdf
  3. NASA, My NASA Data, “Contrail Watching for Kids” http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/804-2/contrail-watching-for-kids/
  4. NASA, My NASA Data, “Contrail Studies” http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/804-2/contrail-studies/
  5. NASA, The Contrail Education Project, “Contrail Identification Chart and Formation Guide” http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/contrail-edu/pdf/resources/Contrail_ID_Chart_English_2013_v18_copy.pdf
  6. NASA, The Contrail Education Project, “Globe Contrail Chart” http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/contrail-edu/pdf/resources/efs_cloud_id.pdf
  7. Cheng Zhou and Joyce Penner, University of Michigan, “Is the indirect forcing by aircraft soot positive or negative” http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/ws.2013/presentations/Chemistry/zhou.pdf
  8. IPCC, “Soot and Metal Particles” http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=35
  9. IPCC, “Aircraft Technology and Its Relation to Emissions” http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=88
  10. Daniel Rosenfeld - The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and William L. Woodley - Woodley Weather Consultants, “The Double-Sided Sensitivity of Clouds to Air Pollution & Intentional Seeding” http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V6_N2/feature4.pdf
  11. Peter Spichtinger and Klaus Gierens, Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre,“Ice-Supersaturated Regions” http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/issr/index.html
  12. The Ozone Hole Inc., “Air Pollution” http://www.earthlyissues.com/airpollution.htm
  13. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, “Evaluating the Impacts of Aviation on Climate Change” http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/~pa1c/EOS88_157-160_2007.pdf
  14. Wikipedia, “Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
  15. Olivier Boucher, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078 “Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails” http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1078.html
  16. William R. Cotton, Colorado State University, Weather Modification Association Conference 21 April 2008, Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification, “Weather and Climate Engineering” http://youtu.be/o3rAZ8Fmc0Q?t=15m50s
  17. Wallace B. Murcray, University of Alaska, “On the possibility of weather modification by aircraft contrails” http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/098/mwr-098-10-0745.pdf
  18. William M. Gray, William M. Frank, Myron L. Corrin, and Charles A. Stokes, Atmospheric Science Board, Colorado State University “Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy” http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grayetal1976.pdf
  19. David L. Mitchell and William Finnegan, Desert Research Institute, “Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming” http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102/pdf/1748-9326_4_4_045102.pdf
  20. Alan Robock, Allison Marquardt, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, “The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Stratospheric Geoengineering” http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf
  21. United States Patent 5003186, Hughes Aircraft Company, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming” http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5003186.html
  22. John Nissen, Arctic Methane Emergency Group, “AMEG Strategic Plan” http://ameg.me/images/ameg-strategic-plan.pdf
  23. Anton Laakso, Antti-Ilari Partanen, Harri Kokkola, Ari Laaksonen Kari E J Lehtinen, and Hannele Korhonen, “Stratospheric passenger flights are likely an inefficient geoengineering strategy” http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034021/article
  24. Liz Kalaugher, “Commercial aircraft ‘not viable strategy’ for geoengineering” http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/51036
  25. Ted Goertzel, EMBO Rep. 2010 July; 11(7): 493–499, “Conspiracy theories in science” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897118/
  26. Dr. Arnold Barnes Jr., US Army Test Technology Symposium 1997, “Weather Modification” http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/ Original link removed, now mirrored here: “US military discusses future of Weather Warfare despite ENMOD ban” href=“https://climateviewer.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/us-military-discusses-future-of-weather-warfare-despite-enmod-ban/ Archived version here: http://web.archive.org/web/20050728091542/http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/
  27. Col Tamzy J. House, Lt Col James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj Ronald J. Celentano, Maj David M. Husband, Maj Ann E. Mercer, Maj James E. Pugh, Air Force 2025, August 1996, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
  28. Jim Lee, ClimateViewer News, “It was a conspiracy! Military experiments on unsuspecting public” https://climateviewer.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/it-was-a-conspiracy-military-experiments-on-unsuspecting-public/
  29. Michael C. Boger, Major, United States Air Force, “Operational Defenses through Weather Control in 2030” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515
  30. Don Wuebbles, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, October 8, 2008, “Evaluating the Importance of Aviation on Climate Change” http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/SeminarPresentations/20091008.pdf
Stay tuned, we’ll keep you informed on the latest research in the Chemtrail debate. Our next article will delve into the world of bio-fuels, “Climate Optimized Routing of Flights”, and so much more!

For more information on this topic, please see our Feature: The History of Chemtrails

More info here:

Geoengineering and Weather Modification Exposed

Update here:

Contrails, Geoengineering, and the Single Fuel Concept

Sharing is Caring

Comments