The aircraft presented in this video appear to be commercial airliners, however there is no evidence that passengers were aboard these jets or that the aircraft were actually part of a commercial fleet. This leaves open the possibility that these chemtrails aircraft are “imposters” used by the military to lend credence to a massive, covert climate modification program. More…
IPCC scientist, Joyce Penner wrote the paper concluding contrails warm the climate in 1999 – 2 years before 9/11 – So the science behind contrails warming was already established before aircraft were grounded. More…
Visible engine emissions from only one of two jets flying at same flight level More…
Note to Actvists – Please be inspired by Ms. Givant, to submit a short 300 to 500 word opinion on Chemtrails/Geoengineering to your local newspaper. It’s not necessary to be wordy to be effective.
Also consider speaking for 3 minutes at your local City or County meetings during public comment while the video is recording you. Your words could encourage those who feel powerless to find you for support, or speak out on their own.
Activists can now quote a respected climate scientist at CERN – Jasper Kirkby, PhD – who became a defacto whistlebower when he commented to his colleagues that:
“These are clouds, seeded by jets dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere”. (VIDEO and Background)
Residents of Oregon, we, our children, our water and our food are being targeted by ongoing geoengineering programs. The spraying of heavy metals from aircraft in our atmosphere, commonly referred to as chemtrails, is making our soil unfit to grow food, our forests die, and causing a dramatic increase in Alzheimer’s, autism, respiratory disease and cancer in our population.
Before I go further in sharing my concerns, I know that many of you might think, “there is nothing we can do.” or “they are contrails.” Geoengineering programs do exist. There are government patents on record for anyone to see. They are offering programs in our universities to train our children on how to poison the earth.
No, the lines in the sky are not contrails. Anyone can watch the flight patterns of these aircraft and know that a plane would not logically fly in such a pattern, and contrails do not linger in the air for many hours and spread out to cover the sky in a milky glare. It is a global program, and all NATO countries are under the deluge of the spray and the negative effects of HAARP, which is another extremely dangerous program that works in conjunction with the aerosol dispersal of metals.
Please, good people of Oregon, in spite of these facts, we have to start somewhere to combat this silent genocide. Oregon and all the West Coast of the United States is being plummeted by aluminum oxide, strontium and barium almost 24/7. Our public officials are not forthcoming with information as to why, or giving us a choice as to whether we would consent to such poisoning. I do not believe that there is anyone in this audience of readers that would consent to being sprayed with poison.
The geoengineering program is the overwhelming reason we cannot keep our bees alive, our elderly are loosing their mental faculties and, at younger and younger ages, respiratory problems are dramatically increasing in all ages and our soil and water are becoming increasingly toxic with heavy metal pollution. The main ingredients of the aerosol dispersal being aluminum oxide, strontium and barium.
Please do not consent to being poisoned! Your silence in this matter is being used against you, as your consent.
For further information, contact geoengineeringwatch.org or email@example.com. Thank you.
Lana Givant – Lakeside (Source)
UPDATE: On June 19, 2013 Dr. Blaylock discussed the chemtrail and nanoaluminum neuro-toxicity on the FoodintegrityNow.org show. The complete interview includes important information on the damaging neurological effects of excitotoxins as food additives, ie: MSG or monosodiumglutamate. Listen to this topic on the podcast at the bottom of this page
Chemtrails, Nanoaluminum, and Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects
By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
August 23, 2012
Nanoparticles of aluminum are infinitely more reactive and can easily penetrate the brain
The internet is littered with stories of “chemtrails” and geoengineering to combat “global warming”; and, until recently, I took these stories with a grain of salt. One of the main reasons for my skepticism was that I rarely saw what they were describing in the skies. But over the past several years I have noticed a great number of these trails and I have to admit they are not like the contrails I grew up seeing in the skies. They are extensive, quite broad, are laid in a definite pattern, and slowly evolve into artificial clouds. Of particular concern is that there are now so many – dozens every day are littering the skies.
My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of nanosized aluminum compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that nanosized particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum.
Nanoparticles of aluminum are not only infinitely more inflammatory, they also easily penetrate the brain by a number of routes, including the blood and olfactory nerves (the smell nerves in the nose). Studies have shown that these particles pass along the olfactory neural tracts, which connect directly to the area of the brain that is not only most affected by Alzheimer’s disease, but also the earliest affected in the course of the disease. It also has the highest level of brain aluminum in Alzheimer’s cases.
The intranasal route of exposure makes spraying of massive amounts of nanoaluminum into the skies especially hazardous, as it will be inhaled by people of all ages, including babies and small children for many hours. We know that older people have the greatest reaction to this airborne aluminum. Because of the nanosizing of the aluminum particles being used, home-filtering systems will not remove the aluminum, thus prolonging exposure, even indoors.
In addition to inhaling nanoaluminum, such spraying will saturate the ground, water, and vegetation with high levels of aluminum. Normally, aluminum is poorly absorbed from the GI tract; but nanoaluminum is absorbed in much higher amounts. This absorbed aluminum has been shown to be distributed to a number of organs and tissues including the brain and spinal cord. Inhaling this environmentally suspended nanoaluminum will also produce tremendous inflammatory reaction within the lungs, which will pose a significant hazard to children and adults with asthma and pulmonary diseases.
I pray that the pilots who are spraying this dangerous substance fully understand that they are destroying the lives and health of their families as well. This is also true of our political officials. Once the soil, plants, and water sources are heavily contaminated there will be no way to reverse the damage that has been done.
Steps need to be taken now to prevent an impending health disaster of enormous proportions if this project is not stopped immediately. Otherwise we will see an explosive increase in neurodegenerative diseases occurring in adults and the elderly in unprecedented rates as well as neurodevelopmental disorders in our children. We are already seeing a dramatic increase in these neurological disorders and it is occurring in younger people more than ever before.
1. Win-Shwe T-T, Fujimaki H, “Nanoparticles and Neurotoxicity,” In J Mol Sci 2011;12:6267-6280.
2. Krewski D et al., “The biological effects of nanoparticles. Risk assessment for aluminum, aluminum oxide, and aluminum hydroxide,” J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2007;10 (suppl 1): 1-269.
3. Blaylock RL, “Aluminum induced immunoexcitotoxicity in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders,” Curr Inorg Chem 2012;2:46-53.
4. Tomljenovic L, “Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease: after a century, is there a plausible link,” J Alzheimer’s Disease 2011;23:567-598.
5. Perl DP, Good PF, “Aluminum, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the olfactory system,” Ann NY Acad Sci 1991;640:8-13.
6. Shaw CA, Petrik MS, “Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration,” J Inorg Biochem 2009;103:1555-1562.
7. Braydich-Stolie LK et al., “Nanosized aluminum altered immune function,” ACS Nano 2010:4:3661-3670.
8. Li XB et al., “Glia activation induced by peripheral administration of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in rat brains,” Nanomedicine 2009;5:473-479.
9. Exley C, House E, “Aluminum in the human brain,” Monatsh Chem 2011;142:357-363.
10.Nayak P, Chatterjee AK, “Effects of aluminum exposure on brain glutamate and GABA system: an experimental study in rats,” Food Chem Toxicol 2001;39:1285-1289.
11. Tsunoda M, Sharma RP, “Modulation of tumor necrosis factor alpha expression in mouse brain after exposure to aluminum in drinking water,” Arch Toxicol 1999;73:419-426.
12. Matyja E, “Aluminum changes glutamate –mediated neurotoxicity in organotypic cultures of rat hippocampus,” Folia Neuropathol 2000;38:47-53.
13. Walton JR, “Aluminum in hippocampal neurons from humans with Alzheimer’s disease,” Neurotoxicology 2006;27:385-394.
14. Walton JR, “An aluminum-based rat model for Alzheimer’s disease exhibits oxidative damage, inhibition of PP2A activity, hyperphosphorylated tau and granulovacuolar degeneration,” J Inorg Biochem 2007;101:1275-1284.
15. Becaria A et al., “Aluminum and copper in drinking water enhance inflammatory or oxidative events specifically in brain,” J Neuroimmunol 2006;176:16-23.
16. Exley C, “A molecular mechanism for aluminum-induced Alzheimer’s disease,” J Inorg Biochem 1999;76:133-140.
17. Exley C, “The pro-oxidant activity of aluminum,” Free Rad Biol Med 2004;36:380-387.
Dr. Blaylock’s brochures Bio Terrorism: How You Can Survive and Nuclear Sunrise.
Dr. Blaylock, an NHF member, is a World-renowned neurosurgeon who retired from Neurosurgery to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and research.
An in-demand guest for radio and TV programs, he lectures extensively to both lay audiences and physicians on nutrition-related subjects. He is the 2004 recipient of the Integrity in Science Award granted by the Weston A. Price Foundation and serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association and is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the official publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. See http://www.blaylockwellnesscenter.com/
Atmospheric scientist, Jasper Kirkby blows whistle on jet aircraft dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere (Continue)
Skyception: Chapter One – The Deception and Manipulation of ‘We the People’ and our Skies
By Morpheus – November 29, 2014
Just when you think a subject has been analyzed to death someone comes along and breaks new ground. And not just in the conclusions they draw, but in the thought process and logic they apply. Sometimes it can be so new and innovative we might be tempted to shake our heads and say “This can’t be right” when in fact it might just be.
Morpheus is one of those rare individuals who is never satisfied with prepackaged conclusions, especially when they utilize stale information (often carefully disguised ‘beliefs’) and conforms to a polarized consensus. Where most might be happy absorbing such a pretty little package Morpheus immediately starts asking uncomfortable questions and challenges the basic premises. Essentially he is the poster child for those who truly think outside of the box.
In this three part series Morpheus tackles an extremely controversial subject with humility, diligence and most importantly an open mind. Rather than remain within the mainstream or alternative views Morpheus has attempted to gather information and points of view from many different and diverse disciplines and practitioners. Personally I think he has done a great job. (Continue)
Skyception: Chapter Two – The Deception and Manipulation of ‘We the People’ and our Skies
By Morpheus – December 12, 2014
With this second installment of the ‘Skyception‘ series, we delve deeper into several potential reasons for, and explanations of, the persistent trails program(s). While editing these chapters I was struck by how convoluted and intertwined the various aspects of these deceptions are. Thankfully Morpheus takes us by the hand and leads us through the maze.
Please keep in mind one guiding principal as you dive deeper down the rabbit hole. There is nothing compelling you to believe anything you read here or anywhere else for that matter. Nothing at all! But you must seriously consider it, especially if you find it disturbing or nonsensical. More often than not, the strong emotions you are feeling are more likely a sign of your Cognitive Dissonance screaming than it is an indication of bad information. (Continue)
Skyception: Chapter Three – The Deception and Manipulation of ‘We the People’ and our Skies
The Only Theories That Can Withstand Scrutiny Above all Others
By Morpheus – December 14, 2014
This third and final chapter specifically uses the word ‘theories’ because they are just that, since we have yet to see any credible and definitive ‘official’ explanations for what is happening in our skies. But before getting to the theories I have developed, some items of interest need to be shared so you may better understand what I have discovered and how it led me to these conclusions.
The links in the previous two chapters reveal some of the resources that helped guide me in my exploration of this issue, while the resources below will hopefully connect it all together for you just as it did for me. As I mentioned in Chapter One and Chapter Two, there are other important pieces to this puzzle that are rarely discussed. And during those infrequent occasions when they are covered, it is usually poorly done. I am speaking of the hidden and carefully obscured history of our solar system and how it relates to what is presently happening in our solar system, and more specifically, with our Earth and Sun. (Continue)
“These are clouds which are seeded by jets dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere” – Jasper Kirkby, PhD.
Jasper Kirkby’s presentation to an audience of peers at CERN makes it clear that IPCC climate scientists, Geoengineers and government agencies have no room for claiming “denial” or ignorance that jet aircraft are dumping aerosols into the atmosphere with the effect of deliberately altering the climate.
Jasper Kirkby is a particle physicist currently engaged with cloud physics research at CERN – the European Organization for Nuclear Research.
This video excerpt makes a strong point that contrails and high thin clouds are significantly contributing to global warming/climate disruption no matter if you believe they are derived from combustion as water vapor or sprayed from jet aircraft as “aerosol dumps”.
In an article published in the journal NATURE” Kirkby reports that cosmic rays “seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten.” He added, however, that the particles in question are far too small to serve as cloud condensation nuclei.
Dr. Joyce Penner’s statement in the TV News clip echos the 1999 Climate Change Publication – “IPCC SPECIAL REPORT ON AVIATION AND THE GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE” (PDF), page 17:
“Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”.
So jet aircraft are dumping chemical aerosols high in the atmosphere to create artificial contrails that spread into thin, high artificial clouds that your TV meteorologist has been told to misrepresent by telling the public they’re only “ice crystals”.
Dr. Kirkby’s comment confirming that jet aircraft are dumping aerosols into the atmosphere reveals that this covert geoengineering and chemtrail operation is well known by government agencies like NASA, NOAA, the FAA, – the IPCC climate scientists being paid to churn out climate change propaganda and geoengineers like David Keith, Ken Caldeira and their boss, Bill Gates.
The public needs to demonstrate their outrage at the massive conspiracy of government secrecy that allows these toxins and bio-weapons to rain down on global populations.
Complete One Hour Lecture
Abstract: The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.
Advance to Minute 44:00 for the “Jets dumping aerosols” segment.
Global Cooling is Here
Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades
Note: In 2014, Dr. Tim Ball published: “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”, – a book that details the numerous violations of the scientific method and reveals the hidden truth beneath the false propaganda transmitted by Corporate Media, including NPR.
INTRODUCTION: Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 (Fig. 1), which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.
3/26/2013 Presentation to Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change – In addition to evidence contrary to IPCC, Dr. Easterbrook alleges media bias and manipulation of data by East Anglia, NASA, NOAA and NSF. (TVW Original Broadcast)
Figure 1. A. IPCC prediction of global warming early in the 21st century. B. IPCC prediction of global warming to 2100. (Sources: IPCC website)
However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.
PREDICTIONS BASED ON PAST CLIMATE PATTERNS
Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.
Figure 2. Climate changes in the past 17,000 years from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warming, blue = cooling. (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997)
Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling (Figure 3) on a generally rising trend from the Little Ice Age about 500 years ago.
Figure 3. Alternating warm and cool cycles since 1470 AD. Blue = cool, red = warm. Based on oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 Greenland ice core.
Relationships between glacial fluctuations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and global climate change.
After several decades of studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, my research showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, GDO) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related (Fig. 4). All but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2.
Figure 4. Correspondence of the GDO, PDO, and global temperature variations.
The significance of the correlation between the GDO, PDO, and global temperature is that once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future. Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 I projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century and came up with curve ‘A’ in Figure 5 as an approximation of what might be in store for the world if the pattern of past climate changes continued. Ironically, that prediction was made in the warmest year of the past three decades and at the acme of the 1977-1998 warm period. At that time, the projected curved indicated global cooling beginning about 2005 ± 3-5 years until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030 to about 2060 (unrelated to CO2—just continuation of the natural cycle), then another cool period from about 2060 to about 2090. This was admittedly an approximation, but it was radically different from the 1° F per decade warming called for by the IPCC. Because the prediction was so different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection was ultimately correct.
Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery (Figure 6) confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.
Figure 5.Global temperature projection for the coming century, based on warming/cooling cycles of the past several centuries. ‘A’ projection based on assuming next cool phase will be similar to the 1945-1977 cool phase. ‘B’ projection based on assuming next cool phase will be similar to the 1880-1915 cool phase. The predicted warm cycle from 2030 to 2060 is based on projection of the 1977 to 1998 warm phase and the cooling phase from 2060 to 2090 is based on projection of the 1945 to 1977 cool cycle.
Implications of PDO, NAO, GDO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in coming decades
The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 (Fig. 1), stand little chance of being correct. NASA’s imagery showing that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase. It also means that the IPCC predictions of catastrophic global warming this century were highly inaccurate.
The switch of PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode. As shown on the graph above, each time this had happened in the past century, global temperature has followed. The upper map shows cool ocean temperatures in blue (note the North American west coast). The lower diagram shows how the PDO has switched back and forth from warm to cool modes in the past century, each time causing global temperature to follow. Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections.
The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO). In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The correlation between the PDO and global climate is well established. The announcement by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.
Figure 6. Switch of PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode. As shown on the graph above, each time this has happened in the past century, global temperature has followed. The upper map shows cool ocean temperatures in blue (note the North American west coast). The lower diagram shows how the PDO has switched back and forth from warm to cool modes in the past century, each time causing global temperature to follow. Projection of the past pattern (right end of graph) assures 30 yrs of global cooling
Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. As shown by the historic pattern of GDOs and PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global warming and cooling, the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years. The global cooling phase from 1880 to 1910, characterized by advance of glaciers worldwide, was followed by a shift to the warm-phase PDO for 30 years, global warming and rapid glacier recession. The cool-phase PDO returned in ~1945 accompanied by global cooling and glacial advance for 30 years. Shift to the warm-phase PDO in 1977 initiated global warming and recession of glaciers that persisted until 1998. Recent establishment of the PDO cool phase appeared right on target and assuming that its effect will be similar to past history, global climates can be expected to cool over the next 25-30 years. The global warming of this century is exactly in phase with the normal climatic pattern of cyclic warming and cooling and we have now switched from a warm phase to a cool phase right at the predicted time (Fig. 5)
The ramifications of the global cooling cycle for the next 30 years are far reaching―e.g., failure of crops in critical agricultural areas (it’s already happening this year), increasing energy demands, transportation difficulties, and habitat change. All this during which global population will increase from six billion to about nine billion. The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling.
Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.
The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.
Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. For further details see his list of publications
Saturday, December 6, 2014 8:18
MAKE SWITZERLAND YOUR NEXT DESTINATION – BRING THE WHOLE FAMILY!
WE HAVE NO GOLD… BUT PLENTY OF ALUMINIUM, BARIUM AND STRONTIUM!
Washington Post: Tina Turner renounced her US Citizenship to become citizen of Switzerland. Perhaps she could be contacted by her fans to use her influence to stop Chemtrails in her new “homeland”.
Turn on any local TV weather forecast and you can get a map of where skies are blue or cloudy. But for scientists trying to figure out how clouds affect the Earth’s environment, what’s happening inside that shifting cloud cover is critical and hard to see.To investigate the layers and composition of clouds and tiny airborne particles like dust, smoke and other atmospheric aerosols, , scientists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland have developed an instrument called the Cloud-Aerosol Transport System, or CATS. The instrument, which launches to the International Space Station in December 2014, will explore new technologies that could also be used in future satellite missions.
From space, streaks of white clouds can be seen moving across Earth’s surface. Other tiny solid and liquid particles called aerosols are also being transported around the atmosphere, but these are largely invisible to our eyes. Aerosols are both natural and man-made, and include windblown desert dust, sea salt, smoke from fires, sulfurous particles from volcanic eruptions, and particles from fossil fuel combustion.
Currently, scientists get a broad picture of clouds and air quality conditions in the atmosphere and generate air quality forecasts by combining satellite, aircraft, and ground-based data with sophisticated computer models. However, most datasets do not provide information about the layered structure of clouds and aerosols.
CATS will provide data about aerosols at different levels of the atmosphere. The data are expected to improve scientists’ ability to track different cloud and aerosol types throughout the atmosphere. These datasets will be used to improve strategic and hazard-warning capabilities of events in near real-time, such as tracking plumes from dust storms, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires. The information could also feed into climate models to help understand the effects of clouds and aerosols on Earth’s energy balance.
Clouds and aerosols reflect and absorb energy from the sun in a complex way. For example, when the sun’s energy reaches the top of the atmosphere, clouds can reflect incoming sunlight, cooling Earth’s surface. However, clouds can also absorb heat emitted from Earth and re-radiate it back down, warming the surface. The amount of warming or cooling is heavily dependent on the height, thickness, and structure of clouds in the atmosphere above.
“Clouds are one of the largest uncertainties in predicting climate change,” said Matt McGill, principal investigator and payload developer for CATS at Goddard. “For scientists to create more accurate models of Earth’s current and future climate, they’ll have to include more accurate representations of clouds.”
That’s where a new instrument like CATS comes in. CATS is a lidar – similar to a radar, but instead of sending out sound (sic), lidars use light. CATS will send a laser pulse through the atmosphere towards a distant object like a cloud droplet or aerosol particle. Once the energy reaches the object, some of the energy is reflected back to the lidar receiver. Scientists can calculate the distance between the instrument and the object, based on the time it takes the energy to return to the receiver, thereby determining the altitudes of cloud and aerosol layers. The intensity of this return pulse also allows scientists to infer other properties, such as the composition of clouds, and the abundance and sizes of aerosols,.
In 2006 NASA launched the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations, or CALIPSO, spacecraft—a joint mission between NASA and France’s space agency, the Centre National d’Études Spatiales. CALIPSO carries a lidar that provides vertical distributions and properties of clouds and aerosols along a flight track. However, the CALIPSO lidar has exceeded its three-year prime mission and has been using its backup laser since 2009.
A unique opportunity to continue gathering this type of data presented itself in 2011 when the International Space Station Progam’s NASA Research Office offered scientists at Goddard a mounting location aboard the space station for a new lidar instrument – CATS, and provided the funding for its construction.
Designed to operate for at least six months, CATS has a goal of operating for three years. With beams at three wavelengths (1064, 532, and 355 nanometers), CATS will be used to derive a variety of properties of cloud and aerosol layers. These properties include layer height, layer thickness, and at least coarse information on the type of aerosols and cloud in various atmospheric layers.
CATS will orbit aboard the space station, which flies at an altitude between 230 miles (375 kilometers) and 270 miles (435 kilometers) above Earth’s surface at a 51-degree inclination. This unique orbit path will allow the CATS instrument to observe locations at different times of day and allow scientists to study day-to-night changes in cloud and aerosol effects from space.
Studying clouds and aerosols won’t just help scientists study the climate, it’s also a chance to investigate air quality and how atmospheric particles affect daily life. That can range from volcano ash plumes, to dust storms, to pollution outbreaks, to wildfires, like the California Rim Fire in September 2013 that choked Yosemite National Park during the busy Labor Day weekend. These particles pose health risks to populations, especially to the medically vulnerable, By infusing CATS data directly into aerosol models, data from CATS can make a difference in tracking and responding to impacts of similar events in the future.
For more information about CATS, visit: www.nasa.gov/cats or cats.gsfc.nasa.gov
For more information about the space station, visit: www.nasa.gov/station
Heather Hanson and Kate Ramsayer
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD
Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 2 months since October 1996. The hiatus period of 18 years 2 months, or 218 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.
New Study: “Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol-cloud radiative forcing over recent decades” (Download PDF)
Aerosols and their effect on the radiative properties of clouds are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in calculations of the Earth’s energy budget. Here the sensitivity of aerosol cloud-albedo effect forcing to 31 aerosol parameters is quantified. Sensitivities are compared over three periods; 1850-2008, 1978-2008 and 1998-2008. Despite declining global anthropogenic SO2 emissions during 1978-2008, a cancellation of regional positive and negative forcings leads to a near-zero global mean cloud-albedo effect forcing. In contrast to existing negative estimates, our results suggest that the aerosol cloud-albedo effect was likely positive (0.006 to 0.028 Wm-2) in the recent decade, making it harder to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response. Proportional contributions to forcing variance from aerosol processes and natural and anthropogenic emissions are found to be period dependent. To better constrain forcing estimates, the processes that dominate uncertainty on the timescale of interest must be better understood.
One of the leading explanations of the decade-and-a-half “pause” in global warming is that aerosols – fine particles of various kinds, mostly man-made, but also volcanic in origin – have increased the albedo (reflectiveness) of clouds. The cooling effect of high pollution in the early period of the industrial revolution in the 19th and early 20th century is well known and documented.
Geophysical Research Letters, one of the leading scientific journals in the climate world, has posted a pre-publication copy of a forthcoming paper that has gone through complete peer review casting significant doubt on this hypothesis. “Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol – cloud radiative forcing over recent decades” was conducted by ten scientists from the leading climate science establishments mostly in Brittain.
Translation: The findings of this study indicate that the “aerosol” explanation of the warming pause is not supported by data – and at least ten respected scientists are saying we don’t know enough about how this works. Previous claims are that current albedo cloud effects are negative, and thus holding down warming by virtue of reflecting sunlight, while this new study suggests the current cloud albedo effect is slightly positive (that is, warming, though very slightly).
One argument previously held is that if China, India, and other countries follow the United States and Europe in reducing particulate pollution, the reflective effect of clouds will diminish and warming will resume. But with this study that hypothesis needs to be rethought. (Source)
Note: RSS research is supported by NASA, NOAA, and the NSF, with many of their researchers participating in NASA science research teams and working groups, collaborating with other fore-front industry leaders and the scientific community. (Source)
In 1999 the IPCC reported that aircraft contrails and thin, high Cirrus clouds tend to warm surface temperatures.
This new paper is also consistent with our observation that chemtrails are frequently captured on camera appearing less reflective than normal clouds – an observation consistent with the authors’ finding that cloud albedo was found to be positive (warming) rather than negative (cooling). – Hsaive
Jet Aircraft Release of Aerosols That Warm the Climate
The existence of the pause in global warming was acknowledged by the IPCC last year (2013) but there has been significant debate about the actual duration of this hiatus with some commentators alleging that the length is exaggerated by cherry-picking the start date as 1998 – a particularly warm year.
McKitrick says that the statistical analysis technique he used avoids potential biases and is immune to the charge of cherry-picking.
“…we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series”. – ClimtateScience.com
Six consecutive Lab tests from Alachua County rainwater each report Aluminum and Barium consistent with geoengineering aerosols
- Article: Welsbach Patent for Atmospheric Seeding With Heavy Metals
- Article: Neurologist Warms Aluminum in Chemtrails is a Dangerous Neurotoxin
Forestry expert, Francis Mangels is presently a professor and master gardener, growing gardens in the Pacific Northwest for 50 years. He came from farm and forest country in Montana and Idaho, to Mt. Shasta in 1981. With BS cum laude in Forestry 1970 and MS in Zoology 1976, Francis also has “minors” in many conservation and natural resource subjects: soils, geology, botany, bugs, fish, agriculture, range, wildlife, and conservation management.
Francis retired from district biologist for Mt. Shasta-McCloud USFS in 2008, where he did range, wildlife, botany, mushrooms, fisheries, and other input to timber sales and other natural resource projects for 35 years. He also was a USDA Soil Conservationist for the Soil Conservation Service and served farms, ranches, orchards, and gardens.
Francis maintains membership in over 30 conservation, arts, religious, community action, and educational groups. He plays over 50 musical instruments with a variety of other interests and pastimes, such as ancient history, ancient music, luthier, bluegrass, military history, literature, religions, astronomy, philosophy, corporate propaganda, poetry, farm engineering, practical handyman, and community sustainability. He also writes medieval romances, technical papers, and contributions to various newspaper columns.
Francis provides free services to gardens, orchards, and vineyards by his belief that local communities should become self-sustaining as soon as possible. He also believes in thrifty living and cooperative effort among townsfolk and businesses. “Everyone has something to offer; hopefully something as practical as possible.
2012 – IPCC: MANAGING THE RISKS OF EXTREME EVENTS AND DISASTERS TO ADVANCE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION (PDF)
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is claiming that extreme heat waves and record high temperatures this year are direct effects of climate change.Scientists for the IPCC stated:
“It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale.”
The 592 page report (PDF) went on to claim that projected increases in magnitude and frequency of extreme events would occur in many regions. The report also predicts:
- Tropical cyclones and hurricanes will be more intense than in the past
- More heat waves and record hot temperatures worldwide
- Increased downpours in Alaska, Canada, northern and central Europe, East Africa and north Asia
Chris Field, ecologist of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, warns:
“There is disaster risk almost everywhere.”
The report specifies that US Coastal regions are in imminent danger from hurricanes and rising seas by 20 % by 2030.
Texas would be threatened by storm surges that could double by 2030. Mumbai, India could become uninhabitable because of flooding, storms and rising seas. But one point that the IPCC does not make in their report is the effects of Geoengineering on the planet.
Governments have been using weather modification to change the planet’s natural bio-spherical patterns. Chemtrails, dumping barium, aluminum, and other toxins into the atmosphere, have the effect of warming temperatures. The aluminum meant to reflect the sun’s heat out into space also traps the heat from the Earth’s surface causing a stagnant layer of extremely hot air. What scientists call the “greenhouse effect” is actually a direct causation of this geoengineering process.
Droughts are formed when the chemicals released into the air bind moisture particles in the atmosphere with over-abundance of CCN (Cloud Condensation Nuclei). This causes precipitation to be reduced in targeted areas while moving accumulated rain to flood a different region.
The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Gokona, Alaska, a collection of transmitters pointed toward the sky. The US government claims HAARP is a scientific experiment for learning about the properties and comportment of the upper atmosphere (ionosphere).
In Documents from the UN’s General Assembly on Decolonization in 2007, HAARP was designed (among other things) to cause disruption in weather patterns.
“Arecibo was also mentioned as a test-site for the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP), in a patent filed by an individual in the United States, to conducted experiments related to ionospheric manipulation. HAARP could function as an anti-missile and anti-aircraft defence system, permit interception and disruption of communications, weather and submarine and subterranean communications, among other things. The HAARP patent papers also stated that the invention could “simulate and perform the same function as performed by the detonation of a heavy type nuclear device”. – 14 June 2007 – SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION CALLS ON UNITED STATES TO EXPEDITE PUERTO RICO’S SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS
HAARP’s tell-tale signs have been reported just before some of the most devastating “natural” disasters of recent years.
- Electrical disturbances visible in our upper atmosphere days before earthquakes in Japan and China.
- Rippled line cloud formations caused by radio wave interference and streaking lights in the skies before the earthquakes in Chile and Haiti.
Conveniently, the IPCC is claiming man-made global warming is causing the weather patterns and problems that are developing. It benefits their agenda to blame humans for these disasters when they have plans to control the world through global governance. To gain such an immense power over the entire population, they must first make a villain out of humanity.
Al Gore and his lies about the cause of global warming have been ingeniously effective for turning the social meme to self-basement. Through carbon credits and depopulation, the UN plans to “control” the effects of global warming.
Ignoring the sun’s effects on our planet’s weather, the ties to sunspots and our earth’s temperature and that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with rising temperatures, we have been duped into joining a green movement with the hidden agenda to gain absolute governance over our lives as author, Rosa Koire writes in her book about UN Agenda-21, “The Green Mask”
NASA is working their way into the public schools beginning at the First Grade to convince our children that chemical dumps into the atmosphere to engineer the climate are normal contrails and clouds. More…
June 20, 2012
Fritz Vahrenholt, a German green energy investor, says he has reassessed his position on man-made climate change.
Vahrenholt has been a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg since 2009. He served as a senator for the environment in Hamburg, Germany between 1991 and 1997, and was a member of the “sustainability advisory board” to chancellor Schröder and Merkel in 2001 to 2007.
Speaking at the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society in London, Vahrenholt was representing RWE Innogy , one of Europe’s largest renewable energy corporations.
Vahrenholt, who reviewed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most recent report on renewable energy, noticed that there was an obvious lack of scientific data to support their assertions. A prominent member of Greenpeace, a UN propaganda arm disguised as a proponent of environmental concern, edited the final version of the IPCC’s report.
The IPCC’s report, according to Vahrenholt, is littered with falsities and a complete disregard for natural factors that would be considered in fluctuating climate such as Earth’s.
Vahrenholt states that: “Real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonized and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2.”
The late Gerard Bond, marine geologist and professor from Columbia University, analyzed climate reconstructions of the North American deep-sea sediment cores, found that “the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long.”
Bond surmised through decades of research that variations in solar activity – the appearance of sunspots and changes in the emission of solar radiation – were directly causing palatable effects on the Earth’s global temperature. The heating and cooling of the Earth coincided with the activity of the sun.
The sun determines the Earth’s temperature, as proven from real-world observations over the past 10,000 years.
With the introduction of man-made carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beginning in the 1850’s, the CO2 level has only risen 11 percent; which is nearly negligible.
Empirical data has shown that pre-industrial carbon emissions were dependent on solar activity. This global warming was estimated by scientists as 1 degree Celsius. As far as the IPCC is concerned, this statistic could, and has, been manipulated to justify their agenda. However the account of the solar magnetic fields doubling over the last 100 years was completely ignored because it disavowed their scheme to blame carbon dioxide levels on human influences.
Solar activity, CO2 levels and Earth’s surface temperature are interlaced factors defining climate parameters. As modern man has been using fossil fuels which disburse carbon dioxide, it made perfect sense for the IPCC to turn this obvious fact into an attack on man through fear-mongering and propaganda while suppressing natural processes.
The infamous computer models used by the IPCC to justify their claims that CO2 levels are a direct causation of anthropogenic impact and regard solar influence as negligible. The IPCC inserts an “unknown amplifying mechanism” to explain away observed solar activity and its effect on the Earth’s overall temperature.
Henrik Svensmark , a Danish physicist, has devised a computer model that takes into account the sun’s direct influence on the Earth. While his research is still in its infancy, the projections promise to clarify how much of an influence the sun truly has.
Vanrenholt asks: “The IPCC’s current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?”
Considering how weak an influence CO2 is on the climate, as observational data concludes that it would only generate “a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2”, the IPCC’s assumptions are over-blown. They fail to include water vapor and cloud effects which intensify solar amplification. CO2 needs an amplifier to become the aggressive agitator that the IPCC would have everyone believe.
The alarmist assertions that temperatures will rise to 4.5 degrees Celsius by a magically doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is scientifically unfounded.
The solar magnetic field patterns have lowered significantly in the past 150 years, resulting in an obvious de-intensification to be observed in the decades ahead. In reality this would mean that global warming would stop and gradually reverse by 2030 to 2040.
This fact proves the IPCC’s assertions to be completely false.
A global climatic catastrophe that the IPCC claims is coming is not. And the scientific community’s efforts are being wasted in the propaganda of an overheated planet, when they should be working toward understanding how Earth is affected by its solar environment with an impartial and open mind.
To fully understand these implications:
- Comprehensive research must be attributed to natural climate drivers
- The warming “trend”, if viewed as a pause in the temperature of the Earth, could give us “time to convert our energy supply in a planned and sustainable way”
In the UK and Germany, major efforts by the government have been taken to utilize sustainable energy with the advent of wind turbines and solar panels that not only cut economic costs in the long run, but fully utilize the potentials of our natural resources while facilitating the continuance of our modern lifestyle.
In Germany, solar energy is replacing nuclear as the nation plans to shut down all nuclear reactors by 2022.
The solar power delivered to the German national grid is 50% of the nation’s total energy quota, said the director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry .
The German government has invested quite a bit of money in restructuring their nation’s energy infrastructure in an attempt to move away from nuclear energy. They can currently generate over 4% of their energy needs from solar power.
The German government will also invest in wind and bio-mass as alternative forms of renewable energy.
While exposures like Climategate and the advent of skeptics to man’s direct causation to the ups and downs in the Earth’s temperature, the global Elite and their front for one world government, the UN, have hit a road block. Scientific proof of their assertions.
Perhaps Vahrenholt’s appearance at the globalist think-tank, the Royal Society, is a proof that they are beginning to alter their tactics. If fearing the public by decrying global catastrophes due to man-made global warming is no longer effective, then it might be that the global Elites are shifting their public agenda, inventing more subversive propaganda that appears to support renewable energy.