Normal Contrails: Some Sanity

[halva]

This is the real this psy-op _Young minds are the easiest to manipulate, ask any politician or religious zealot / fanatic.
__________________________________

Chemtrails In Disney Movie CARS

Dan B. 5-9-7

http://rense.com/general76/cars.htm

Of course young people are going to think it is just normal and natural to have these things in the sky. This kind of "acclimatization" of the phenomenon doesn't stop us from starting public discussions about their purpose and whether their existence can be justified.

I say "discussion about whether their existence can be justified" because I think it is going to be OUR task to constitute the authorities that will oversee integration of this activity into accepted public political debate and decide on its future or non-future.

We are not going to be leaders of the protest movement petitioning existing authorities to stop chemtrails because existing authorities are just going to keep on denying there is anything to talk about.

Jay Reynolds was, and is, right about this.

[halva]

Perhaps this is a point that Footsoldier grasps and can put across to those who don't, notably Jeff Reynolds. If she could do us this favour I would change my mind about how useful or useless it is for her to be posting here rather than just staying at Megasprayer, protected from the disruptors, debunkers and confusers (as well as from those who simply do not understand).

[halva]

If Footsoldier CANNOT do this, it will be conclusive proof that her only alternative conception to our being an anti-chemtrails protest movement is the alternative of the already existing - and officially encouraged - anti-aircraft emissions protest movement, an entirely domesticated sub-section of the existing mainstream climate change movement which does NOT raise the question of whether anyone is actually DELIBERATELY using aircraft emissions for geoengineering or other purposes.

European Environmental Commissioner Stavros Dimas could be seen as as political head of the anti-aircraft-emissions protest movement.

The powers that be like having protest movements. What they don't want are people who are capable of, and interested in, taking THEIR place. And someone must take their place because the way that they govern is unacceptable for a society of free citizens.

Also, European integration, and re-establishment of European world leadership - something which any thinking American should and would welcome, cannot become a reality under their supervision..

In a nutshell, I don't think it is going to be possible for the same people who have invested so much effort into denying that chemtrail spraying is taking place to switch over to justifying it as necessary. I saw a debunker try to do it on a forum here in Greece and it was too easy to shoot him down in flames. He became demoralized and went away.

[halva]

Is this Big Bunny's contribution to our controversy?

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1150562739&page=16#1178784442

I've been thinking about these aerial events we continue to witness in terms of ratio to the number of flights occurring.

For the sake of argument if there are 30 million flights annually then the volume of emissions being delivered between 20K' and 30K' is staggering.

In considering a realistic assessment of the volume of emissions you have to take into account:
* the type of aircraft involved,
* that not all aircraft are of the same vintage,
* that not all aircraft are of the same quality of manufacture,
* that not all aircraft are maintained to the same standards of efficiency,
* the type of flight involved be it commercial/military passenger flights and/or commercial/military freight flights, let alone the military interceptor antics,
* the impact of flight weather conditions must be considered in regard to emissions, and
* the issue of 'fuel dumping' which does occur from time to time.

Then you must consider the fuel itself. In a perfect world, the published fuel standards would apply worldwide. However this may not be the case particularly in regard to fuels of Russian and Chinese manufacture.

If you consider all of the factors noted above, the number of CTs witnessed are actually 'few and far between' in comparison. However the cocktail of emissions being delivered to the upper troposphere/tropopause is substantial.

Further the above considerations do not necessarily account for the transport of emissions from lower altitudes by way of convection. It is incorrect to suggest that the only emissions associated with aircraft are carbon dioxide and water vapour. It is equally incorrect to assert that smaller quantities of other pollutants such as sulphates and nitrous oxide do not cause detriment to the troposphere and stratosphere.

It is equally important to consider the optical profiles of water vapour coated with the various chemical emissions bearing in mind that the chemicals present in the aerosols change over time by reason of chemical interactions. However not all aerosols will necessarily be hygroscopic in nature because of the lack of available water vapour. That being so, these aerosols will of necessity have different optical and radiative properties from the hygroscopically active aerosols.

And of course you are wondering what has set me off. Very simply it is the assertions of certain arrogant fools who are unable to comprehend that CTs are the 'tip of the proverbial iceberg' when one considers precisely what is going wrong above us and around us.

[Lou]

Flights reach record levels despite warnings over climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C%2C2075288%2C00.html
· 2.51m take-offs scheduled worldwide this month
· UK most popular country for international flights

David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday May 9, 2007
The Guardian

Less than a week after the world's scientists warned there may be just eight years to act on greenhouse gas pollution to avoid the worst of global warming, the aviation industry has announced record increases in the number of flights worldwide.
Booming demand for domestic flights in China has helped nudge the number of global take-offs scheduled for this month to more than 2.5m for the first time. A surge in the popularity of low-cost airlines means more than 114,000 more flights are expected than during the same period last year - a 5% rise.

Announcing the figures for May, Duncan Alexander, managing director of aviation analyst firm OAG, said: "From an industry perspective this healthy growth bodes very well for the future."

Climate experts and environmental campaigners were less pleased. Kevin Anderson, a global warming researcher at Manchester University's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the expansion was at odds with efforts to tackle emissions: "While this might be good news for the aviation industry and its shareholders, it's bad news for the climate and ultimately it's our children that will pay the price."

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said on Friday that worldwide greenhouse gas emissions needed to peak by 2015 to keep the expected temperature rise this century to 2C, defined by scientists as dangerous. Unrestrained growth could see a 6C rise by 2100.

Although aviation contributes only about 2% of global emissions, campaigners have highlighted the industry's environmental impact because it is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases, and there is no technological fix.

New official forecasts to be published at an aviation conference in Barcelona next month predict international carbon dioxide pollution from aircraft will reach 1.2bn to 1.4bn tonnes by 2025, up from 610m tonnes now.

Aircraft emissions have a greater warming effect because they are released at altitude. The UK government says this exaggerated impact means that 1 tonne of carbon dioxide released from an aircraft does the same damage as 2.5 tonnes emitted from cars or power stations. And because most aviation is classed as an international activity, its emissions are rarely included in official figures and they are excluded from the Kyoto protocol, the international treaty to regulate greenhouse gases.

Peter Lockley, of the Aviation Environment Federation campaign group, said: "Even the most optimistic industry estimates have fuel efficiency only increasing by 1-2% each year. So if the number of flights goes up 5% a year, it's not very difficult maths to see their carbon emissions are going to rise, just as the scientists say they need to be reduced."

OAG's May figures are taken from its Quarterly Airline Traffic Statistics, based on data from 1,000 scheduled airlines. They show that 2.51m flights are timetabled worldwide this month, topping the previous high of 2.49m from August last year. That represents an additional 113,827 flights compared with May 2006, or 17.7m extra seats. Mr Alexander said: "This is great news from a travellers' viewpoint, with much more competition and choice."

The largest year-on-year rise is within China, with nearly 23,000 more domestic flights scheduled this month than in May 2006, a rise of 18%. US domestic flights have risen by some 19,000, though that represents just a 2% rise, to 838,000. Demand also soared within India, up 10,000 flights, or 25%, to 43,000 flights.

The figures show that the UK is now the most popular country for international flights, with 121,000 scheduled arrivals and departures this month, up 7%. Spain showed the single largest rise, up nearly 10,000 flights, or 16%. Overall, the low-cost sector showed a rise of some 70,000 flights, up 22% year-on-year.

OAG says: "In sheer size, the most noteworthy route showing a year-on-year increase is for flights between western Europe and Africa. This month, there are over 2,200 more flights scheduled between these two continents, up 13%, and over 360,000 more seats available." Transatlantic routes also showed a significant rise.

The report comes as Mark Ellingham, founder of the Rough Guide series, has called for stringent new taxes on flights to deter travellers and reduce environmental damage. He wants a £100 green tax on all flights to Europe and Africa, and £250 on flights to the rest of the world, as well as a moratorium on airport expansion.

He said there was no such thing as an ethical holiday. "The tobacco industry fouled up the world while denying it as much as possible for as long as they could.

"If the travel industry rosily goes ahead as it is doing, ignoring the effect that carbon emissions from flying are having on climate change, we are putting ourselves in a very similar position to the tobacco industry."

******************************

There is an obvious reality seen within the worldwide airline industry that is not unlike that seen in the oil industry, both see the world not as we do but only as the bottom line mega $$$$$$$$ they can glean from greedy consumers before those industries succumb to the dwindling supply of resources which at present allow them to operate, nearly writing there own policies with regard to environmental regulation and economic enforcement / price regulations or lack thereof.

Big Bunny's assessment is not incorrect but it is a stark reminder that what drives industries like these is money and tons of it, and as long as corporations can squeeze a dime or $$$$$$ out of John Q. public for a gallon of gas or an airline ticket to Disney Land then it is they who will demand just how much it cost each and every one of us.

I agree with Big Bunny that the issues of whether or not it is the airline industry or military that is responsible for Chemtrail's is but a small consideration in the grander scheme of things considering what is going on in our sky's on the whole.

That said, I should qualify my thoughts with regard to Chemtrails and say that I believe that they are a completely independent from anything remotely associated with the commercial airline industry.

The airline industry is interested in one thing and one thing only, making money, even at the risk of destroying the environment but I do not believe that they are engaging in direct weather / climate modification via Chemtrail spraying of any kind, it just would not be good business for them to become involved in something so resource intensive, not to mention how nefarious it would be, I can not see any airline willingly putting there company in such a liable position knowing what the outcome would be should the public become aware of it.

[halva]

It is good to have some dispassionate, thoughtful discussion here for once. I think that the reality is that we simply don't know what the level of involvement of civil aviation is in geoengineering schemes, whether they are being paid subsidies for their services in polluting the skies ,etc. One would think that it is as Lou says and that they would be wary of becoming involved in this kind of collaboration.. But when one starts looking into phenomena like 911 who can know what the level of complicity of airlines is with the criminal activities of governments.

[Lou]

It is good to have some dispassionate, thoughtful discussion here for once. I think that the reality is that we simply don't know what the level of involvement of civil aviation is in geoengineering schemes, whether they are being paid subsidies for their services in polluting the skies ,etc. One would think that it is as Lou says and that they would be wary of becoming involved in this kind of collaboration.. But when one starts looking into phenomena like 911 who can know what the level of complicity of airlines is with the criminal activities of governments.

Hmmm, one does have to watch for the BOGEYMAN around every corner of today's world.

Na, I'm just being PARANOID I guess. :D

[foot_soldier]

Lou wrote:
.....The airline industry is interested in one thing and one thing only, making money, even at the risk of destroying the environment.....
Whether or not this is true in terms of actual intent it certainly does appear to be the case given the clearly-observable, deteriorating state of our skies.

It really sends chills up my spine to realize that we are allowing this to happen to the only atmosphere we have.

[halva]

I think it is very important for us to find out if PROFIT is the only motivating factor behind this phenomenon.

[halva]

It would be good also, and possibly potentially disarming for those who want to make a noise here about the relevance of the more general aircraft emissions issue to chemtrails, if we could focus informational postings at DBS (unlike, say, at Megasprayer perhaps) on this particular aspect of the question. Are airlines being subsidised to carry out geoengineering tasks? I am making a suggestion, not trying to give orders. My motivation is to try to reduce the amount of useless aggravational input that we are getting in these threads.

[dewey189]

I think it is very important for us to find out if PROFIT is the only motivating factor behind this phenomenon.It's ALWAYS the primary motivator.

[halva]

Pardon me but I would describe that as a dogmatic viewpoint.

[halva]

A priori judgements. Governments are bad because the only thing they are interested in is power. Capitalists are bad because the only thing they are interested in is money.

[halva]

Who is to say that airlines would not make more money from having tickets expensive rather than cheap?

[weatherman714]

It is good to have some dispassionate, thoughtful discussion here for once. I think that the reality is that we simply don't know what the level of involvement of civil aviation is in geoengineering schemes, whether they are being paid subsidies for their services in polluting the skies ,etc. One would think that it is as Lou says and that they would be wary of becoming involved in this kind of collaboration.. But when one starts looking into phenomena like 911 who can know what the level of complicity of airlines is with the criminal activities of governments.

I see where you want to head with his Halva and I'm on board. I think I just needed a few days away from the bb's to set myself straight. I still might need a few more. :-)

[may41970]

Hi Weatherman,

I appreciate your recent apparent efforts to answer my challenge to you. It could very well be my problem and not yours, but I still don't have a clue as to what you're trying to say.. Can I ask you to lower your speaking-level from high school to that of elementary school?

Talk to me like I'm a 10 year old dolt.

What's apparently child's play to you is so far beyond my comprehension, that it's not even funny. So weatherman, can you make just a couple REALLY CLEAR predictions? Time, date, location? Hey, I don't even know what "El Nino" means. So if you can simply talk to me like I'm a moron (which i may very well be) that would be awesome.

Tell me a specific date, a time, and the event you expect.

May


PS - off-topic here, but did you happen read my recent posts at Chemtrail Central about the missing "CTC Changes" thread? Do you have any thoughts on that which you'd like to share?

[weatherman714]

May>>

Ok so what your telling me is I need to add to my website a series of articles that explains what El Nino and La Nina is, how counter clockwise and clockwise chemtrails work, examples of determining ct's on an IR and so on. Essentally I need to get organized. That I can do. :) I ordered my new computer tonight, so the one I have will be taken offline permentantly once my new one arrives. The other comp. I was using my weather formula with has major problems, serious problems like theUSB ports stopped working... It was a computer I paid like $800 for back in 2004 because I bought all the separate components and a friend of my brother's was suppose to put it together...Absolute mess and a waste of money. New computer I'm good to go for like 4 or 5 yrs...(hopefully). :)

Paul

P.S. I never read the CTC changes thread to start with. But I do remember... maybe it had to do with the moderators having fits about keeping tabs on all the new members and weeding out the debunkers, etc.

P.S.#2. It's interesting when JR#2 can't win a debate and resorts to calling me names,damaging my reputation etc he goes running to the moderators crying foul. I find it very difficult to believe JR#2 is a man.

[foot_soldier]

We are tied to a consumer-driven global economy that has become almost completely dependent on the aviation sector for its continued growth. The parties who benefit most from the continuation of this state of affairs are not concerned with the fact that continuous, direct deposition of emissions into the upper troposphere is causing measurable damage to our atmosphere and affecting regional hydrology and climate patterns.

I believe we on Earth are going to pay in the not-too-distant future for our refusal to acknowledge this. In some regions we're paying for it now. We can see that.
.

[Boomer Chick]

I found this interesting, FS, related to cloud formation and polluting particulates:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/pollution_clouds.html

;)

[foot_soldier]

Thank You

[dewey189]

A priori judgements. Governments are bad because the only thing they are interested in is power. Capitalists are bad because the only thing they are interested in is money.Don't put words in my mouth halva. I never used the word "bad ". Try again without the adjective.

[halva]

At last, some insightful discussion on the conflicting scenarios on effects of aircraft emissions: the geoengineers' cooling scenario and the global warming activists' warming scenario. Chem 11 of Megasprayer has come up with some interesting documentation:

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1150562739&page=17#1179929793

[foot_soldier]

May 24, 2007
New carrier fuels airport expansion dreams
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/05/24/new_carrier_fuels_airport_expansion_dreams/

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- As he watched the first Skybus morning flight soar through clear blue sky yesterday toward Columbus, Ohio, Portsmouth International Airport's top leader, Richard Green , was dreaming big dreams for the future.

Green, executive director of the Pease Development Authority , which oversees the airport and former Air Force base properties and is working to turn them into an "international tradeport," said he's optimistic about the new ultra-low-fare carrier rapidly expanding its Portsmouth service .

Surrounded by Logan International Airport in Massachusetts to the south, Manchester Boston Regional Airport in New Hampshire to the west, and Portland International Jetport in Maine to the north, Portsmouth is unlikely to become another major commercial airport, Green said. Its only other scheduled service now is two weekly Allegiant Air jet flights to Sanford, Fla., in cold months and propeller-plane service on Pan Am Clipper Connection to Hanscom Field in Bedford , Mass .

But with Skybus planning to add 70 more jets to its eight-plane fleet in five years and expand far beyond its current eight destinations feeding a Columbus hub, Green said, "We will certainly be very aggressive in trying to become a focus city for Skybus." He envisions flights from Portsmouth to Florida and the West Coast.

Bill Dieffenderffer , chief executive of the start-up airline, wouldn't comment specifically on Skybus service expansions from Portsmouth. But he said: "We've got more plans for this airport as we grow. We've attracted $160 million in start-up capital, more than any airline in history, and we didn't sign up for 80 more planes just to operate long-term out of Columbus with eight destinations. We believe there's lots of opportunity for growth, and we think Portsmouth is an excellent gateway for New England."

Last fall, in a major 20-year New England aviation forecast, the Federal Aviation Administration and a coalition of New England airports projected total travel at the region's 10 biggest airports could grow to 76 million passengers in 2020 from 43 million in 2004. But the New England Regional Airport System Plan made no projections for Portsmouth, predicting that it would be "a niche airport" serving mainly charter flights and unique services like the double-deck Airbus A380, which can carry up to 850 passengers. The Airbus A380 is too big for regular landings at Logan International Airport terminals, but is easily accommodated by Portsmouth's 11,300-foot-long runway, originally built for B-52 bombers and troop transport planes.

[Boomer Chick]

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:jbmgKKc8TLAJ:www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/minnis.onera.abs.pdf+contrails+albedo&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Remember Minnis? He's a co-writer of this NASA Langley research article.

Couldn't C & P , just go there...interesting....

Hmmm, when I looked up AEAP.....look at this:

AEAP: Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project

The AEAP Project has ended.
At the direction of Randy Kawa (http://code916.gsfc.nasa.gov/People/Kawa,_Randy/), the AEAP web pages have been removed.




Randy Kawa decided it wasn't a good project, heh, or did he move it under another umbrella?



Here's a booklet on one of AEAP's emissions assessments: (date?) You can read it online and/or download it, too. Paperback is $9.00


http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5824.html

***

Here's just part of the intro. to a recent scientific article about contrails and albedo. It's intense reading and I hope, FS, it's up-to-date as well. No use attempting to C & P.


[PDF] Global contrail radiative forcing and the impact of diurnal ... (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/9123/2006/acpd-6-9123-2006-print.pdf)

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:WJbGE45dEZoJ:www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/9123/2006/acpd-6-9123-2006-print.pdf+contrails+albedo+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
also given about the surface albedo and the amount, optical depth and height of low, ..... (2006) showed that over a 100 year time horizon contrails are ...
www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/9123/ (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/9123/)2006/acpd-6-9123-2006-print.pdf

1 Introduction
Aviation can affect climate through a number of mechanisms, both directly and indi-
rectly. The most visible one, and possibly also the mechanism than can be managed
most easily, is through contrails. A contrail will form when the atmospheric conditions
at the aircraft’s cruise altitude – in connection with the characteristics of the aircraft ex-
5
haust – are favourable. Once formed, line-shaped contrails can persist for a few hours.
Some of these persistent contrails can spread out and form cirrus clouds.
Whereas the climate effect (as measured by radiative forcing) of these contrail-
induced cirrus clouds is highly uncertain, the radiative forcing due to line-shaped con-
trails is sufficiently known to be attributed at least a “fair” level of scientific understand-
10
ing (IPCC, 1999). In its Special Report on Aviation IPCC (1999) gave a best estimate
of global mean radiative forcing from line-shaped contrails in 1992 of 20 mW/m
2
.
However, the IPCC estimate was based on a single study (Minnis et al., 1999), and
since then the global radiative effects of contrails have been further investigated, using
different datasets, models, and methods (e.g., Myhre and Stordal, 2001; Marquart et
15
al., 2003; Fichter et al., 2005). In these studies the estimate of global mean, annual
mean radiative forcing due to line-shaped contrails has been continously lowered. In
2005 the TRADEOFF project updated the IPCC’s 1992 value. Based on post-IPCC
studies it gave 10.0 mW/m
2
as the best estimate of contrail radiative forcing in 2000
(Sausen et al., 2005).
20
In global studies of contrail radiative forcing the diurnal variation of air traffic is often
neglected (e.g., Marquart et al., 2003; Fichter et al., 2005). Stuber et al. (2006) in-
vestigated the effects of diurnal variations of air traffic on contrail radiative forcing over
southeast England. They found that flights during the night time have a disproportion-
ate effect on the annual, diurnal mean contrail radiative forcing.
25
To determine the impact of diurnal variations of air traffic on global mean contrail
radiative forcing, and to see how far the results of Stuber et al. (2006) are applicable
on a global scale, we performed a global calculation of the radiative forcing due to line-
9125
shaped contrails. We derived contrail cover from a combination of diurnally resolved air
traffic data, and ECMWF analysis data. This contrail cover data set has been derived
independently from earlier studies and is used here for the first time. As we additionally
used a sophisticated radiative transfer model our study also serves the purpose to give
a.......................

[foot_soldier]

September 26, 2006
On the flight path to global meltdown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1877251,00.html

Our moral dissonance about flying reminds me of something a Buddhist once told me: "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you do it with love." I am sure he knew as well as I do that our state of mind makes no difference to either exploited people or the environment. Thinking like ethical people makes not a damn of difference unless we also behave like ethical people. When it comes to flying, there seems to be no connection between intention and action.

This is partly because the people who are most concerned about the inhabitants of other countries are often those who have travelled widely. Much of the global justice movement consists of people - like me - whose politics were forged by their experiences abroad. While it is easy for us to pour scorn on the drivers of sports utility vehicles, whose politics generally differ from ours, it is rather harder to contemplate a world in which our own freedoms are curtailed, especially the freedoms that shaped us.

More painfully, in some cases our freedoms have become obligations. When you form relationships with people from other nations, you accumulate what I call "love miles": the distance you must travel to visit friends and partners and relatives on the other side of the planet. If your sister-in-law is getting married in Buenos Aires, it is both immoral to travel there, because of climate change, and immoral not to, because of the offence it causes. In that decision we find two valid moral codes in irreconcilable antagonism. Who could be surprised to discover that "ethical" people are in denial about the impacts of flying?

There are two reasons why flying dwarfs any other environmental impact a single person can exert. The first is the distance it permits us to cover. According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the carbon emissions per passenger mile "for a fully loaded cruising airliner are comparable to a passenger car carrying three or four people". In other words, they are about half those, per person, of a car containing the average loading of 1.56 people. But while the mean distance travelled by car in the UK is 9,200 miles per year, in a plane we can beat that in one day. On a return flight from London to New York, every passenger produces roughly 1.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide: the very quantity we will each be entitled to emit in a year once the necessary cut in emissions has been made.

The second reason is that the climate impact of aeroplanes is not confined to the carbon they produce. They release several different kinds of gases and particles. Some of them cool the planet, others warm it. In the upper tropo-sphere, where most large planes fly, hot, wet air from the jet engine exhaust mixes with cold air. As the moisture condenses, it can form "contrails", which in turn appear to give rise to cirrus clouds - those high wispy formations of ice crystals sometimes known as "horsetails". While they reflect some of the sun's heat back into the space, they also trap heat in the atmosphere, especially at night; the heat trapping seems to be the stronger effect. The overall impact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a warming effect 2.7 times that of the carbon dioxide alone.

Aviation has been growing faster than any other source of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2004, the number of people using airports in the UK rose by 120%, and the energy the planes consumed increased by 79%. Their carbon dioxide emissions almost doubled in that period - from 20.1 to 39.5m tonnes, or 5.5% of all the emissions this country produces. Unless something is done to stop this growth, flying will soon overwhelm all the cuts we manage to make elsewhere. But the measures the government proposes are useless. The transport department suggests that the aviation industry should "pay the external costs its activities impose on society at large". This is an interesting proposal, but unfortunately the department does not explain how it could be arranged. Should a steward be sacrificed every time someone in Ethiopia dies of hunger? As Bangladesh goes under water, will the government demand the drowning of a commensurate number of airline executives? The idea is strangely attractive. But the only suggestion it makes is that aviation fuel might be taxed.

Unlike most environmentalists, who have also called for this measure, the government knows perfectly well that fuel tax cannot be imposed on international flights. It is prohibited under international law by article 24 of the 1944 Chicago Convention, which has been set in stone by 4,000 bilateral treaties - making it almost impossible to unpick. Now the government proposes that aviation be incorporated into the European Emissions Trading Scheme. If flights continue to grow, it will break the system.

The one certain means of preventing more flights is the one thing the British government refuses to do: limit the capacity of our airports. It employs the "predict and provide" approach that has proved so disastrous when applied to road transport: as you increase the provision of space in order to meet the predicted demand, the demand rises to fill it, ensuring that you need to create more space in order to accommodate your new projections. The House of Commons environmental audit committee calculates that the extra capacity the government proposes means "the equivalent of another Heathrow every five years".

The Department for Transport, along with the airline industry, claims that expanding airport capacity is "socially inclusive", in that it enables poorer people to fly. But a Mori poll commissioned by the Freedom to Fly Coalition, a lobby group founded by the aviation industry, found that 75% of those who use budget airlines are in social classes A, B and C. The people who are most vulnerable to climate change are the poorest inhabitants of the poorest nations, the great majority of whom will never board an aeroplane.

So what is to be done? There are two means by which the growth in flights could be reconciled to the need to cut carbon emissions. The first is a massive increase in the fuel efficiency of aircraft; the other is a new fuel.

As far as aircraft engines are concerned, major new efficiencies in the next 20 years or so are a pipedream. The Royal Commission reports that "the basic gas turbine design emerged in 1947. It has been the dominant form of aircraft engine for some 50 years and there is no serious suggestion that this will change in the foreseeable future." It is hard to see how it could be made much more efficient than it is already.

The choice of low carbon fuels for aeroplanes is similar to the choice of low carbon fuels for cars. According to a paper by researchers at Imperial College, London, it is technically possible to fly planes whose normal fuel (kerosene) is mixed with about 5% biodiesel. But biodiesel, as I have shown elsewhere, is likely to cause more global warming than it prevents.

Ethanol, the same paper suggests, would be useless: it is insufficiently dense and, in aeroplanes, extremely dangerous. This appears to leave only hydrogen. Jets could use hydrogen today, if instead of carrying passengers and freight they carried nothing but fuel - it contains four times less energy by volume than kerosene. But if this problem could be overcome, the researchers suggest, the total climate impacts of planes fuelled by the gas "would be much lower than from kerosene".

Unfortunately, when hydrogen burns, it creates water. A hydrogen plane will produce 2.6 times as much water vapour as a plane running on kerosene. This, they admit, would be a major problem if hydrogen planes flew as high as ordinary craft. But if the aircraft flew below 10,000 metres (33,000ft), where contrails are less likely to form, the impact would be negligible. What they have forgotten is that because hydrogen requires a far bigger fuel tank than kerosene, the structure (or "airframe") of the plane would need to be much larger. This means it would be subject to more drag. The Royal Commission points out that "the combination of larger drag and lower weight would require flight at higher altitudes" than planes fuelled by kerosene. In fact, hydrogen planes, if they are ever used, are most likely to be deployed as supersonic jets in the stratosphere. If so, their impact on the climate would be around 13 times that of a normal aircraft running on kerosene.

And that, I'm afraid, is that. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change discovered, "There would not appear to be any practical alternatives to kerosene-based fuels for commercial jet aircraft for the next several decades." There is, in other words, no technofix. The growth in aviation and the need to address climate change cannot be reconciled. In common with all other sectors, aviation's contribution to global warming must be reduced in the UK by some 87% if we are to avoid a 2C rise in global temperatures. Given that the likely possible efficiencies are small and tend to counteract each other, an 87% cut in emissions requires not only that growth stops, but that most of the aeroplanes flying today be grounded. I realise that this is not a popular message, but it is hard to see how a different conclusion could be extracted from the available evidence..... (continued)

This is an edited extract from Heat, by George Monbiot, published by Allen Lane. To order a copy for £16.99 with free UK p&p (rrp £17.99), go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875. Monbiot has also launched a new website - turnuptheheat.org - exposing the false environmental claims made by corporations and celebrities.

[foot_soldier]

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:jbmgKKc8TLAJ:www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/minnis.onera.abs.pdf+contrails+albedo&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Remember Minnis? He's a co-writer of this NASA Langley research article.

Couldn't C & P , just go there...interesting....

Hmmm, when I looked up AEAP.....look at this:

AEAP: Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project

The AEAP Project has ended.
At the direction of Randy Kawa (http://code916.gsfc.nasa.gov/People/Kawa,_Randy/), the AEAP web pages have been removed.

Randy Kawa decided it wasn't a good project, heh, or did he move it under another umbrella?

The purpose of the AEAP Project was to evaluate and set investigation parameters for future research so that the most efficient use possible could be made of available funding.

Here's a booklet on one of AEAP's emissions assessments: (date?) You can read it online and/or download it, too. Paperback is $9.00

Publication Year 1997

It would probably be worth purchasing the book for one's reference files.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5824.html


In case anyone is interested, here is a (by no means all-inclusive) reference thread on the subject of aircraft emissions and their impact on our atmosphere. A great deal more research has been completed since 2003:

Atmospheric Impacts of Aviation
http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailsstratosphericandtroposphericozoneresear ch.showMessageRange?topicID=75.topic&start=1&stop=25

[Boomer Chick]

I hope you read the 2006 study I posted, FS. I found that one to be quite chocked full of excellent information. Perhaps comparing an earlier study with a later study would reveal something interesting, also.

In case anyone is interested, here is a (by no means all-inclusive) reference thread on the subject of aircraft emissions and their impact on our atmosphere. A great deal more research has been completed since 2003:

Atmospheric Impacts of Aviation
http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailsstratosphericandtroposphericozoneresear ch.showMessageRange?topicID=75.topic&start=1&stop=25

[Boomer Chick]

FS, did you catch this site from reading the 2006 link I posted?

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/tradeoff/

Talk about a flashy site !!! Sheesh!!! :D

[foot_soldier]

BC, I read the excellent link you posted when that Stuber/Forster study was made available online and I have the material in my hard-copy files. It is indeed a very informative study. Thank you.
June 15, 2006

Study: Night Flights Worsen Global Warming
Originally published in Agence France-Presse
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=57333

Night flights account for only 22 percent of Britain's annual air traffic but contribute between 60 to 80 percent of the greenhouse effect from contrails -- the vapor wake caused when water in the chilly atmosphere is condensed by the plane's hot exhaust -- the scientists found.

Restrictions on night flights could ease the aviation industry's fast-growing contribution to global warming, a study published on Thursday says.

At certain altitudes, aircraft produce contrails -- the vapor wake caused when water in the chilly atmosphere is condensed by the plane's hot exhaust.

These contrails have a surprisingly big but also complex effect on the climate.

Because they are clouds, they trap heat that is emitted by the Earth's surface, creating a "greenhouse effect" that adds to warming.

Yet during daytime, these clouds have a cooling effect because they are white and thus reflect some of the Sun's energy back into space. In certain conditions, contrails can exist for several hours.

Meteorologists at the University of Reading, southern England, estimated the radiation caused by contrails at a busy flight corridor in southeast England.

Using high-resolution aircraft flight data and routine weather balloon data, they looked at "persistent" contrails: wakes that remained for an hour or more after the aircraft has flown over.

Night flights account for only 22 percent of Britain's annual air traffic but contribute between 60 to 80 percent of the greenhouse effect from contrails, the scientists found.

"We also found that flights between December and February contribute half of the annual mean climate warming, even though they account for less than a quarter of annual air traffic," said lead researcher Nicola Stuber.

The study appears in Nature, the weekly British science journal.

Man-made global warming is mainly caused by unbridled burning of oil, gas and coal.

These fuels spew out carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) that has been stored for hundreds of millions of years underground.

The CO2 hangs in the atmosphere like an invisible blanket, trapping heat that would otherwise radiate out into space and thus inflicting changes on the climate system.

Global emissions of man-made CO2 are between 6.2 billion and 6.9 billion metric tons per year. Added to this are around 1.5 billion metric tons from land use.

Commercial aircraft account for only a small contribution compared with power stations, industry and road traffic.

However, passenger travel is growing at the rate of around five per cent a year, which means that this share will grow fast.

A 1999 estimate by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the top scientific forum on global warming, found that the airline industry accounted for two percent of man-made CO2 emissions in 1992. But it would rise to as much as 15 percent by 2050.

Environmentalists are angry, complaining that airlines get a free ride when it comes to environmental taxes.

In addition to rescheduling night flights for the daytime, planes could diminish their contribution to global warming by changing their altitude.

A study published last year in the journal Transportation Research suggests that the regions of "ice-supersaturated" air where contrails form is only about 500 meters (1,650 feet) thick.

The goal would be to fit sensors on aircraft that could inform pilots where this layer lies, thus enabling them to shift altitude accordingly.

Originally posted at: http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0330000KIDEC

***

June 15, 2006

Night flights much worse for global warming
Originally published in the UK Independent
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=57349

Restrictions on night-time aircraft flights could help in the fight against global warming as well as making life easier for people living near airports.

A study found the condensation trails, or contrails, left by the exhaust of aircraft engines contribute more to global warming during the night than by day. The effect was greater in the winter when nights are longer than during summer. The scientists behind the study, published in Nature, said the results suggest rescheduling flights for the day could help minimise the impact of aviation on climate change.

Contrails are clouds of tiny ice particles that reflect light and heat. They have opposing effects on the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. They tend to trap more heat leaving the ground than they reflect back into space.

But the amount of heat they trap depends on what time of day the contrails are produced because during day the trails reflect more incoming sunlight from space than they trap.

[Boomer Chick]

While snoopin around on the TRADEOFF site, I went to their "related links" page and found some US projects. They link to various countries' projects slated for the future, as well. Very up to date, although the TRADEOFF study itself was back in 2002.

Check this out !

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/tradeoff/

Seriously, although we as humans should have studied this long ago, at least the studies are ongoing and the data gathering about particulates, aerosols, and the mechanisms of the atmosphere is taken seriously at that.

I would try to find evidence of experimenting with particulates and aerosols by actually forming them in extreme volumes in a local air space and testing various methods of "erasure" is you will. I'm clueless what that might entail, but my imagination points me in that direction, anyway.

I'm sure they're at the point of realizing that with aviation traffic increasing and a dirth of invention in the alternative, clean fuels and engines area, that they must attempt to clean the atmosphere somehow. Wouldn't you think?

[Boomer Chick]

Looking Towards the Future ARCTAS (http://www.espo.nasa.gov/arctas/) (Spring - Summer 2008)
ARCTAS will take place as two 1-month aircraft deployments, in March-April and June-July 2008. It will involve the NASA DC-8 as its primary platform, and other possible platforms may include the smaller J-31 and B-200 aircraft as specialized secondary platforms. The spring deployment will target arctic haze, anthropogenic pollution in general, stratosphere-troposphere exchange, and sunrise photochemistry. The summer deployment will target boreal forest fires, stratosphere-troposphere exchange, and summertime photochemistry. ARCTAS will be part of the international IPY/POLARCAT (http://zardoz.nilu.no/%7Eandreas/POLARCAT/) arctic field program for atmospheric composition. White Papers (http://www.espo.nasa.gov/arctas/) Current Missions TC4 (Summer 2007) (http://www.espo.nasa.gov/tc4/)
Tropical Composition, Cloud and Climate Coupling (TC4). TC4 is to obtain validation measurements for the cold, dry conditions of the upper tropical tropopause. This extreme environment, with temperatures below 190 K will test retrieval algorithms for HIRDLS, MLS and TES. In addition, lidar measurements of ozone and temperature from medium altitude aircraft will provide tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere profiles and structure.

[Boomer Chick]

Fascinating preparation for

International Chemistry Experiment in the Arctic Lower Troposphere (ICELOT)

http://www.debatebothsides.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=805208


I love exploring links and finding our scientists involved and this includes international efforts as well as American.

HOLY SHAMMOLY !!!! :D

[foot_soldier]

Update Holland (through May 30, 2007)

April 18, 2007
http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/cc-20070418-201501-NOS.htm

Hilarious, eh?

[Boomer Chick]

Update Holland (through May 30, 2007)

April 18, 2007
http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/cc-20070418-201501-NOS.htm

Hilarious, eh?

Each day thousands of airplanes dump vast amounts of water (iceparticles), CO2, NOx and other gases,
soot and aerosols at high altitudes. Airplanes thus weave a permanent layer of high cirrus around the globe.
Aviationsmog (because that is what it really is) filters the sun's radiation and changes its characteristics,
making sunlight whiter and sharper, giving it an extra 'bite'. Jetplanes also are cloud- and rainmakers:
Icecrystals, soot and aerosols act as condensation nuclei, making clouds at various heights and
facilitating more rainfall in some regions, and thus less in others. Aviation contributes to global warming
in several ways and also to ever more extreme weatherconditions, from hurricanes to drought.
All these damaging consequences are not reflected in the price of flying.
It's the 'normality' and acceptance of it all that's so bad about it.
Most meteorologists, however, still rather ignore aviation-smog.. (http://www.meteologica.nl/index.htm)
Science: Contrails lead to aviation-induced cirrus (smog)
and thus influence weather, climate and sunlight ('global dimming'). (http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-research/index.htm)

***

Kind of ob--noxious ! ;)

http://www.contrails.nl/index.htm

[foot_soldier]

It's a little more than "ob-noxious."

What I'd like to know is why in hell this situation is being allowed to stand.

What I do know is that this isn't the place to get into a discussion about it.

I wouldn't want to be accused of being too serious. Or, God forbid, a fake.

The truth of this situation is all going to come out down the road anyway.

[foot_soldier]

May 9, 2007
Green groups dismayed as flights soar to record high
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2524436.ece

Aviation growth is soaring to an all-time high, raising the prospect of a huge increase in the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

For the first time, more than 2.5 million commercial flights will be made around the world in a single month, with 2.51 million scheduled for May, says the flight information company OAG. This beats the previous record of 2.49 million flights last August.

The figure marks year-on-year global growth in flight numbers of 5 per cent, which translates as an extra 114,000 flights and 17.7 million extra passenger seats compared with May last year..... (continued)
.

[halva]

It's a little more than "ob-noxious."

What I'd like to know is why in hell this situation is being allowed to stand.

What I do know is that this isn't the place to get into a discussion about it.

I wouldn't want to be accused of being too serious. Or, God forbid, a fake.

The truth of this situation is all going to come out down the road anyway.

Given that you [and the others there] aren't willing to discuss it at Megasprayer, discuss it here now if you like. Probably Jeff Reynolds has been sufficiently neutralized for it to be safe for you to come out. You may have some problems with Kola. A lot of work has had to be done to make these threads safe for you to post in, Footsoldier, and you have not helped us to do that work. It has had to be done FOR you.

[Boomer Chick]

It's a little more than "ob-noxious."

What I'd like to know is why in hell this situation is being allowed to stand.

What I do know is that this isn't the place to get into a discussion about it.

I wouldn't want to be accused of being too serious. Or, God forbid, a fake.

The truth of this situation is all going to come out down the road anyway.

Indeed, but "noxious" was the key word. ;)

Anyway, your freedom of posting has not been curtailed. Just put people on ignore who attempt to control. I've been posting what I want lately and I'll leave on my own terms like I did before, too.

FS, if you take a gander at my studies section, you'll notice the European concentration on studying contrails to the nth degree including various sulfur concentrations in the fuels. They literally purposefully made contrails with one plane and followed the plumes and collected the material with another plane. The feeling I get from the studies is that they felt the IPCC hadn't completed their studies nor studied in depth, so they experimented in a competitive way. I like that. Anyway, given the studies, given their increased understanding of exactly how contrails affect clouds, cirrus, and precisely WHAT is dumped into the atmosphere and at what levels........you'd think they'd attempt to REGULATE AIR TRAFFIC instead of allow it to increase. Have they begun to regulate? From your comment it seems they haven't. I do not know, frankly, but their carbon scheme seems an economic mini-solution at best and in no way physically addresses the problems.

Perhaps their discoveries have led them to believe that a nice layer of carbon soot and cirrus will help cool the atmosphere? Hmmm? Who knows?

I would seriously like to see some experimentation with alternative fuels and engines for aircraft. Where are the minds?

[Boomer Chick]

Bush Calls for Global Emissions Goals

http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20070531/465e4840_3ca6_1552620070531-111238383

By TERENCE HUNT (AP White House Correspondent)
From Associated Press


May 31, 2007 11:52 AM EDT


WASHINGTON - President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global target for reducing greenhouse gases.
Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries. After setting a goal, the nations would be free to develop their own strategies to meet the target.



continued.....



The U.S. last year experienced a drop in emissions of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas most blamed for global warming. The 1.3 percent decline from 2005, the first drop in 11 years, was due to a mild winter and a cool summer, along with other factors including greater industrial efficiency and increased capacity of nuclear power plants.

document.write('http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/news.earthlink.dart/news_np300x250;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord='+ra nd+'? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/news.earthlink.dart/news_np300x250;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord='+ra nd+'?)');

[Boomer Chick]

Bump for FS.

[Boomer Chick]

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:JuzuI1DOtVAJ:www.aero-net.org/a2c3/a2c3_summary.pdf+chemiions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[dewey189]

I found the information in the article regarding sulfur content of fuel and the impact of varying humidity and air temperature on cirrus cloud formation very interesting. It's so odd that I had never seen clouds being formed like I did two weeks ago, and I haven't seen anything like it since then. Makes me wonder if it only happens under certain circumstances, but still...you just can't see planes in the air around here. Fascinating stuff, isnt' it?

[Jeff Reynolds]

The psy-op tho' is that chemtrails are contrails. But this is simply not true because all aircraft are not involved and the activities are obviously deliberate.

There is plenty of proof. It's just "they" are not gonna let you throw chemtrails into a search engine and find it. You have to use your imagination and seek it out. The problem with the major chemtrail boards is that all the good nuggets have either been scrubbed clean or are hidden under an avalanche of paid fakery.

[foot_soldier]

Update Holland (through May 30, 2007)

April 18, 2007
http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/cc-20070418-201501-NOS.htm

Hilarious, eh?
No mention of chemtrails here.

What's your problem, Jeff?

Perhaps you think these photos are "fake"?

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/13overflow.htm

[halva]

Jeff Reynolds has identified a real problem but he doesn't have the brainpower to think things through and specify exactly what it is.

[Jeff Reynolds]

No mention of chemtrails here.

What's your problem, Jeff?

Perhaps you think these photos are "fake"?

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/13overflow.htm

I see chemtrails, while your low level spook role is to confuse then with contrails, u asshole fake.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Foot Soldier, you have got to be a low level fake. There is no other explanation. :p

[Jeff Reynolds]

The psy-op tho' is that chemtrails are contrails. But this is simply not true because all aircraft are not involved and the activities are obviously deliberate.

There is plenty of proof. It's just "they" are not gonna let you throw chemtrails into a search engine and find it. You have to use your imagination and seek it out. The problem with the major chemtrail boards is that all the good nuggets have either been scrubbed clean or are hidden under an avalanche of paid fakery.



This must be the post that upset ur low level spookness.

HEY FAKE, WHY ARE YOU ALL OVER CHEMTRAIL BOARDS ALL THESE YEARS IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THEM. TOO FUCKING BAD FOR UR CRAP ASTROTURFING THREAD HERE.

U HAVE BEEN EXPOSED. UR AS CREEPY AS HALVAR :mad:

[Jeff Reynolds]

come on you low level astroturfing bitches. Not so quick with the responses when ur busted. Foot Soldier is Jay reynolds is uncinus, they are all on the same payroll. Their roles are to confuse chemtrails with contrails.

[Jeff Reynolds]

U are one ugly bitch psy-op that has been exposed.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Wow, some low level astroturfer spends years on chemtrail boards, never having anything to say about them other than trying to equate them with regular air traffic. So now this bitch is upset that people are mentioning chemtrails on her dumbass thread which she totally deleted two whole paragraphs from the opening post. CHECK IT OUT. THE FOOT SCAB EDITED THE ORIGINAL POST YEARS AFTER IT WAS FIRST PUT UP. BUT THAT MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE SHE IS IN ON THE SCAM. LOOK AT THE THREAD WHERE CTC IS EXPOSED AS BEING A DISINFORMATION PALACE. LOOK HOW SHE TREATED A SINCERE DEBUNKER NAMED INNOCENT BYSTANDER AND KISSED UP TO A BULLSHITTING FAKE LIKE ALCON777. YOU FUCKS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED. SO KEEP SPAMMING AWAY. IT WON'T CHANGE THAT TRUTH.

CHEMTRAILS ARE NOT CONTRAILS U LOW LEVEL ASTROTURFING TREASONOUS FUCK.

[foot_soldier]

Update Holland (through May 30, 2007)

April 18, 2007
http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/cc-20070418-201501-NOS.htm

Hilarious, eh?

More fake photos of fake aviation emissions over Holland:

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/18overflow.htm

[Jeff Reynolds]

Foot Soldier is an insidious copy and paste astroturfer.

Post #1 from this thread: http://debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=225248&postcount=1
posted on 01-20-2005
Last edited by foot_soldier : 02-24-2007 at 10:58 AM.

What it now reads as:
We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere. We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

But Lord Jay, my evil cousin, preserved her actual post here:
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=19113&page=3

What she really meant when she started this thread:
Originally Posted by foot_soldier
Jay Reynolds sez: They're just normal contrails. Shut up and don't pay any attention to the fact that our skies are being strafed with more and more of them as the years go by. It's all perfectly normal and natural. Just a side-effect of progress and business-as-usual. So just shut up and get used to it. End of debate.

Well, I'm not going to shut up and I'm not going to stop following the research on this issue. And as will become clear from the following material neither is anyone else who is genuinely concerned about those normal contrails and the cumulative damage they are doing to the only atmosphere we have.

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere. We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

Foot Soldier is a low level astruturfer. It is not that I have come up with anything that isn't completely obvious now. I just happened to be at the right place at the right time. When one drags the mouse over a thread, the start of the original thread shows up. One day, it showed up looking different. I was like, where is the Jay Reynolds sez part?

And then she keeps linking to a site that has chemtrails on it, but she thinks because that link calls them contrails, then that is what they are.

What the reader is wondering is wtf has this fleabag been doing on all the chemtrail boards all these years but muddy the waters.

Chemtrails are not contrails. Foot Soldier/ Deborah is a low level astroturfer, just another fake id produced by yet another treasonous fuck. She/it might as well be in those planes spraying us.

Check out the beginning of this thread. Read how it develops. Then one will see that all these shithead fake id's like chem11, big bunny, deborah, lou aubuchont, jay reynolds, halvar, ed snell, all of them are part of some script between "believers" and "debunkers."

[Jeff Reynolds]

More fake photos of fake aviation emissions over Holland:

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/18overflow.htm

Those aren't contrails you low level spook.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Those aren't from commercial airliners u creep.

WHY U ON THESE BOARDS ALL THESE YEARS YOU TREASONOUS LOW LEVEL SPOOK????

[Boomer Chick]

Don't know if we've posted this site before:

http://www.airapparent.ca/

:cool:

[foot_soldier]

Don't know if we've posted this site before:

http://www.airapparent.ca/

:cool:
I've seen it. It's very well organized and has some interesting and informative content.

Personally, though, I would rather follow the research literature and related media articles and continue to directly observe the sky over my own region.

[foot_soldier]

June 1, 2007
VIEWPOINT - Caroline Lucas
EU 'must walk its climate talk'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6711245.stm

EU institutions need to put their own house in order before it can be seriously considered as the global leader in the battle against climate change, argues Green MEP Caroline Lucas. In this week's Green Room, she says a start would be the end of the monthly "merry-go-round" between Brussels and Strasbourg.

Climate change doesn't just threaten a future humanitarian and economic disaster, its effects are devastatingly visible today.

Wherever you look, the evidence for climate change is growing.

The most recent findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the warmest April for 300 years; the almost annual devastation of Bangladesh from flooding; a massive upsurge in freak weather events; the rapidly shrinking Arctic ice, are just a few examples.

An overwhelming scientific and political consensus pronounces that this is being caused by greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity.

It's increasingly being recognised that, to stave off its worst impacts, we must cut these emissions by as much as 80-90% over the next few decades.

So, as the European Union seeks a revitalisation of its role and purpose as it marks its 50th birthday, surely it has prioritised the adoption of policies to do just that? Well, no, not quite.

In April, EU ministers adopted a binding target of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20% across the EU by 2020. This target doesn't go far enough, or fast enough, but the real problem is that it is unlikely to be delivered at all.

Why? Partly because the EU's policy priorities remain focused on the objectives of greater free trade and international competitiveness rather than becoming a leader in the global fight against climate change and sustainable living.

Carbon contradiction

Currently, the Lisbon Agenda, with its mantra of greater liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation, is allowed to trump efforts to achieve ambitious, binding emission reduction targets.

For example, just a few weeks after trumpeting the success of agreeing the new CO2 reduction targets, EU ministers signed up to a new "Open Skies" agreement with the US, which will increase the number of flights by 25 million and belch an extra 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year - and didn't see the slightest contradiction in doing so..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

Excerpt:

.....Anyway, given the studies, given their increased understanding of exactly how contrails affect clouds, cirrus, and precisely WHAT is dumped into the atmosphere and at what levels........you'd think they'd attempt to REGULATE AIR TRAFFIC instead of allow it to increase. Have they begun to regulate? From your comment it seems they haven't. I do not know, frankly, but their carbon scheme seems an economic mini-solution at best and in no way physically addresses the problems.

Perhaps their discoveries have led them to believe that a nice layer of carbon soot and cirrus will help cool the atmosphere? Hmmm? Who knows?

I would seriously like to see some experimentation with alternative fuels and engines for aircraft. Where are the minds?

I have repeatedly inferred from the studies that the research community would, based on its findings, be in favor of slowing down the growth of the aviation sector in order to mitigate further damage to the global atmosphere. It obviously doesn't seem to matter what the scientists think, though.

As for technological advances in engine and aircraft design, there is some interesting work going on in that area but, as has been repeatedly stated by people themselves in the field, projected growth of the aviation sector is set to far outstrip potential environmental benefits from improved technology. There are several references to that assessment right here in this thread.

From what I've directly observed over the past 7-8 years I am not inclined to false hope where this issue is concerned. I'm sorry I can't be more cheery about it but there it is.

[foot_soldier]

Up for review:

Public release date: 23-Jan-2006

NJIT solar physicists report paradox: Less sunlight, but temps rise

Less sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has not translated into cooler temperatures, according to a team of solar physicists at New Jersey Institute of Technology
http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/earthscience.php

Less sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has not translated into cooler temperatures, according to a team of solar physicists at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT). The scientists, who monitor the Earth's reflectance by measuring what is known as the moon's earthshine, have observed that the amount of light reflected by Earth -- its albedo -- has increased since 2000. The result has been less sunlight reaching the Earth's surface.

"Our findings have significant implications for the study of climate change," said Philip R. Goode, PhD, principal investigator and distinguished professor of physics at NJIT. "The results raise questions about how global temperatures can still rise when the amount of sunlight reaching the surface has decreased." The scientists find that the seemingly paradoxical result is due to an increase in the cloud cover coupled with a peculiar re-arrangement of the clouds, but are unsure why this is happening. This large variability of the clouds and albedo presents a fundamental, unmet challenge to our ability to understand and predict the Earth's climate.

Goode is the director of Big Bear Solar Observatory, California, where the observations were carried out. NJIT has owned and operated the observatory since 1997. Goode's findings are reported tomorrow in "Can the Earth's Albedo and Surface Temperatures Increase Together," published tomorrow by Eos (Jan. 24, 2006), the weekly newspaper of geophysics published by the American Geophysical Union. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration funded the research.

"Recently analyzed cloud data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) confirm the trend in reflectance," said Goode. "The data also reveal that from 2000 to now the clouds have changed so that the Earth may continue warming, even with declining sunlight. These large and peculiar variabilities of the clouds, coupled with a resulting increasing albedo, presents a fundamental, unmet challenge for all scientists who wish to understand and predict the Earth's climate." Co-authors with Goode are post-doctoral associates Enric Palle and Pilar Montanes-Rodriguez, who work at the observatory, and Steven E. Koonin, a professor of theoretical physics at California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech).

Climate depends on sunlight, less the part of sunlight that is promptly reflected plus how well the Earth holds heat. At any moment, more than half the Earth is swathed in clouds, and they dominate the Earth's reflectance. Both the sunlight reaching Earth and the amount of atmospheric heat trapped are sensitive to clouds, which both cool the Earth (especially low thick clouds) by reflecting the sunlight and warm the Earth by acting as blankets (especially high thin clouds).

It has been argued that an increasing albedo during the past five years would be inconsistent with the observed behavior in the global land and sea-surface temperatures because, in principle, an increase in the albedo would seem to imply that the decrease in the sunlight absorbed by the planet would lead to cooler temperatures.

The just-released update of the 20-year sequence of ISCCP satellite cloud data shows that during the first 15 years of observations, the percent difference between high lying and low-lying clouds remained steady at 7-8 percent. But in the last five years, for some unknown reason, the difference has almost doubled to 13 percent. The ISCCP data is a careful compilation of cloud observations covering the entire Earth from a range of meteorological satellites.

"That increase in the difference signals a relative decrease in the cooling effect of clouds," said Goode. "Thus, the rising reflectance of the Earth has not led to a reversal of global warming from the increase in sunlight being reflected back into space." What has happened is that the low, cooling clouds have decreased during the most recent years, while high, warming clouds have increased even more. Thus, the cloud data also reveal an increase in total cloud amount during 2000-2004. That increase is consistent with the earlier earthshine result of growing reflectance throughout that period.

Goode noted that the Earth's reflectance depends primarily on cloud properties. Recent ground-based and satellite studies of the albedo have shown a surprisingly significant inter-annual and decadal variability. From about 1985-2000, the Earth steadily received more sunlight, before the recent reversal of the trend from 2000-2004. "This is not the first time such a situation occurred," Goode said.

Ground-based radiometers hint at a similar reversal from the 1960's through the mid-1980's, which some scientists have dubbed global dimming. Thus, it seems there may be a large, unexplained decadal variation in sunlight reaching the Earth, as well as a large effect of clouds re-arranging by altitude.

"From these data and results, we caution scientists against concluding that global dimming would mean a cooler Earth, and that clouds need a better treatment in climate models" said Goode.

The earthshine studied by Goode and his colleagues can be seen as a ghostly glow associated with the moon's "dark side" -- or the portion of the lunar disk not lit by the Sun. The cloudier the Earth, the brighter the earthshine. "The phenomenon of earthshine was first observed by Leonardo DaVinci," said Goode.
....."a peculiar re-arrangement of the clouds....."

Well, isn't that special.

[Boomer Chick]

Up for review:


....."a peculiar re-arrangement of the clouds....."

Well, isn't that special.

;)

[jayreynolds]

Up for review:
The scientists, who monitor the Earth's reflectance by measuring what is known as the moon's earthshine, have observed that the amount of light reflected by Earth -- its albedo -- has increased since 2000.

Goode is the director of Big Bear Solar Observatory, California, where the observations were carried out. NJIT has owned and operated the observatory since 1997

The earthshine studied by Goode and his colleagues can be seen as a ghostly glow associated with the moon's "dark side" -- or the portion of the lunar disk not lit by the Sun.


Ok, I'll bite at a review.

"Earthshine" is a measurement of reflectance by proxy, in other words, reflectance is not being measured directly, but rather by measuring the subsequent[/b] reflectance as reflected by a second object, the moon.

Obviously, direct measurement of a quantity is preferable to using a proxy, which introduces another variable into the measurement.

The satellite measurements, which show the opposite result"(that albedo/reflectance is decreasing[global brightening]) compared to "Earthshine", are direct measurements, not measurement by proxy!

Secondly, note that the "Earthshine" measurements by proxy are taken from a single location, Big Bear Observatory in California, while the direct satellite measurements are taken from space and have global coverage. It is easy to see how regional effects from using data from a single viewpoint in California introduces yet another variable into the mix.

Lastly, the "Earthshine" authors infer(make an educated guess) that the changes they measured by proxy, and from a single, non-global observation set, stem from aerosol distribution changes from less low clouds to more high clouds.

This inference, however, is [u]contradicted by direct aerosol measurements from space-based satellites(again with global coverage) which show aerosol decreases in the stratosphere, again the opposite has been [b][i]measured directly[b][i], not simply inferred.

In conclusion, in this case we have direct global measurements vs a single measurement by proxy and an inference.

In science, direct measurement trumps proxy and inference every time..................

If anyone wants to parse my review in a substantive way, bring it on!

[halva]

Rather than engaging in any way in scientific discussion with Raynolds, Footsoldier, I invite you in the interest of our shared political purpose, to gossip with me:

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=810071&postcount=8361

[jayreynolds]

Rather than engaging in any way in scientific discussion with Raynolds, Footsoldier, I invite you in the interest of our shared political purpose, to gossip with me:

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=810071&postcount=8361

Yes, Wayne, stifle civil discussion of the scientific facts, and run to the gossip-mill in a science news forum.
Oreder everybody around as if you owned the place.
Tell them what to say, where to go, and who to ignore.

Reassure them about your love of democracy while wearing the velvet glove.
...........er......ummmmm.........
Yeah, right!..............That's the ticket!.

Then take the velvet glove off and smash in their heads with a pickaxe....
tell them to rot in Hell..............
and show them who the REAL Wayne Hall is.......

[halva]

Don't you love to see Reynolds in this plaintive mode Footsoldier?

[Boomer Chick]

Ok, I'll bite at a review.

"Earthshine" is a measurement of reflectance by proxy, in other words, reflectance is not being measured directly, but rather by measuring the subsequent[/b] reflectance as reflected by a second object, the moon.

Obviously, direct measurement of a quantity is preferable to using a proxy, which introduces another variable into the measurement.

The satellite measurements, which show the opposite result"(that albedo/reflectance is decreasing[global brightening]) compared to "Earthshine", are direct measurements, not measurement by proxy!

Secondly, note that the "Earthshine" measurements by proxy are taken from a single location, Big Bear Observatory in California, while the direct satellite measurements are taken from space and have global coverage. It is easy to see how regional effects from using data from a single viewpoint in California introduces yet another variable into the mix.

Lastly, the "Earthshine" authors infer(make an educated guess) that the changes they measured by proxy, and from a single, non-global observation set, stem from aerosol distribution changes from less low clouds to more high clouds.

This inference, however, is [U]contradicted by direct aerosol measurements from space-based satellites(again with global coverage) which show aerosol decreases in the stratosphere, again the opposite has been [b][i]measured directly[b][i], not simply inferred.

In conclusion, in this case we have direct global measurements vs a single measurement by proxy and an inference.

In science, direct measurement trumps proxy and inference every time..................

If anyone wants to parse my review in a substantive way, bring it on!

Excellent exercise in logical thought, Jay.

I don't put much stock into measuring the earth's reflection of sunlight off of the cloud cover and back into space, anyway. Who cares? More important measurements of surface temperature, atmospheric layers and their heat/aerosol components, and the tracking of the various movements of the atmosphere seem to me more important. I also value the measuring of incoming solar energies of all kinds. Why would anyone care, how much light or brightness is reflected? It's the heat lost or contained that matters...not the light. Of course the light is important to plants but all of various sun's energies entering our atmosphere and hitting the earth can be measured directly and with satellites.

;)

Use of lidar in measurement:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/4/923/2004/acpd-4-923-2004.html

[Boomer Chick]

I have a question, anyone. What are planetary waves? I am not an atmospheric chemist or physicist.

Stationary planetary wave propagation in Northern Hemisphere winter – climatological analysis of the refractive index

Q. Li1, H.-F. Graf1,2, and M. A. Giorgetta1
1Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
2Center for Atmospheric Science, University of Cambridge, UK

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/9033/2006/acpd-6-9033-2006.html

[foot_soldier]

From the article:

.....What has happened is that the low, cooling clouds have decreased during the most recent years, while high, warming clouds have increased even more.....
I'd say that's true based on direct observation.

But yes, you're right, Boomer Chick.

Who cares?

Carry on. ;) :) :D :cool:

Oh - by the way, I just LUV the new Google ads at the tops of these forum threads. They really amplify the ambience here.

[halva]

Your attitude towards Jay Reynolds is not exactly the same as Boomer Chick's, Footsoldier, and given that he is here again, and I - and I think you - would like him NOT to be....... in the context of the answer that BC gave him above, would you say that I made a mistake, or did not make a mistake, when I invited her to this forum?

[foot_soldier]

I don't know, halva. I suppose it depends on what it was you thought you wanted to accomplish.

[halva]

I don't know, halva. I suppose it depends on what it was you thought you wanted to accomplish.


At that time if one had abandoned these threads at least five or six crowing and brainless debunkers would have launched into a never-ending victory celebration over all the chemmies and taken the place over entirely. BC was a complicating factor, introducing new parameters into the game. I judged that she might confuse the opposition.

[foot_soldier]

The "opposition" is a fact of life on Earth.

I suppose my M.O. of dealing with it by working around it must seem pathetically inadequate to you but it has in general served me quite well in my 58 years on this plane. I can tell you this: it is not a passive orientation. It in fact requires a great deal of energy and self-discipline.

Personally, I am interested only in what is going on with our life support systems and to what degree our descendants will be consigned to the burden of cleaning them up in order to simply survive. The rest is just noise.

[halva]

I think you prefer it when the other side is not succeeding in establishing the parameters of the debate, or non-debate.

[foot_soldier]

Airport Watch
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/problems.php

[jayreynolds]

watchingyou.com- Kooktrails

http://www.watchingyou.com/kooktrails.html

[halva]

It was I suppose inevitable that Reynolds would begin to focus again on this thread where Footsoldier is posting.

[foot_soldier]

Southern California 1/6/06

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/36/82934454_dacb413463.jpg

[halva]

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=813414&postcount=8382

[foot_soldier]

New York City 8/13/06

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/362147061_6dd77fc8db.jpg

[foot_soldier]

Netherlands 5/13/06

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/145592157_326dc8d173.jpg

[foot_soldier]

Rotterdam 11/13/06

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/116/296654202_e0a2550c8d.jpg

[foot_soldier]

Alaska 2/26/07

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/404028039_5ad1252f1b.jpg

[Jeff Reynolds]

Foot Soldier is an insidious, treasonous astroturfer who has been steering chemtrail boards away from the truth all these years.

She knows damn well that the chemtrailing is coming from military/NATO /Frankenscientific aircraft. Two years after starting this thread she deleted the whole opening post except for a few inconsequential words. But like Epoxynous, she has been busted. This is a major point, because it is one that Jay Reynolds has been ignoring. Halva and Lou have been strawmen for both Foot Scab and Lord Jay respectively. They have all been in some script whose purpose has been to drive away anyone real from participating in these forums. Jay and Foot basically are making the same arguments, only one says this is bad, while the other says it is harmless. They are both on the same treasonous fuckers side. Too bad for them, they got exposed.

[weatherman714]

They are both on the same treasonous fuckers side. Too bad for them, they got exposed.

Like I said over at CTC. I'm all about investigating your private life and bringing all your skeleton's in your closet to the forefront along with Jay Reynolds, LTC, Stuart Allsop just to name a few and see where the money trail goes at all costs. There's nothing I'd like better than to do to these people what they Govt. has paid them to do to me. Everything evil that I've ever done has been public, I have nothing else to hide. But let's see what these "high standards" of character have tucked away in their closets. Let them live the same emotional tatterings they've given to me. Let's see where this money trail goes and investigate those groups and those people. Just an innocent 20 y/o that stumbled upon who was hosing him out of his snow in Maryland. But for now I have too much stuff to research to honestly care about your rantings...

Maybe we should put together a thread and call it "Rantings of a Nut Case"

[foot_soldier]

Alaska December 2006

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/320574445_3a1d62279b.jpg

[foot_soldier]

Canada February 2005

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/4/4749625_411e807f2a.jpg

[foot_soldier]

You're way out of line as usual, "Jeff Reynolds".

What's the matter, can't you find any links to provide direct evidence for your bogus claims about me?

As far as I can tell, what you're really trying to accomplish here is to obfuscate and/or suppress factual information about the damage being done to our atmosphere by the burgeoning commercial and air cargo aviation sectors.

I see right through you and everyone else who is working your agenda.
.

[foot_soldier]

Sedona, Arizona June 2006

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/78/162169689_ddc49596f4.jpg

[foot_soldier]

California February 2006

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/41/98093696_b0da2cc738.jpg

[Lou]

Like I said over at CTC. I'm all about investigating your private life and bringing all your skeleton's in your closet to the forefront along with Jay Reynolds, LTC, Stuart Allsop just to name a few and see where the money trail goes at all costs. There's nothing I'd like better than to do to these people what they Govt. has paid them to do to me. Everything evil that I've ever done has been public, I have nothing else to hide. But let's see what these "high standards" of character have tucked away in their closets. Let them live the same emotional tatterings they've given to me. Let's see where this money trail goes and investigate those groups and those people. Just an innocent 20 y/o that stumbled upon who was hosing him out of his snow in Maryland. But for now I have too much stuff to research to honestly care about your rantings...

Maybe we should put together a thread and call it "Rantings of a Nut Case"

Hey Paul_watch out for that NUBI 'Deloris Friday" over at CTC, It just signed up as of June 4th and already it's causing a shit storm. I believe 'Deloris" and 'Jeffy Boy" are one in the same.

BEWARE THE NUT BALLS.:rolleyes:

[halva]

Maybe we should put together a thread and call it "Rantings of a Nut Case"

Given that we are not allowed to "gang up" against him, under the unwritten rules of this forum, put him on ignore, and pursue whatever other course of action offline seems appropriate to you.

[weatherman714]

Halv[a Wrote: Given that we are not allowed to "gang up" against him, under the unwritten rules of this forum, put him on ignore, and pursue whatever other course of action offline seems appropriate to you.

That was a bit of humor there... :)


Lou Wrote:Hey Paul_watch out for that NUBI 'Deloris Friday" over at CTC, It just signed up as of June 4th and already it's causing a shit storm. I believe 'Deloris" and 'Jeffy Boy" are one in the same.

I took care of Kevin Martin meteorologically. The only way he could even come close to saving face was to lie about his forecasts. I crushed him meteorologically. This time this Deloris is everyone else's turn. I have other affairs to tend too. :)

[jayreynolds]

Hey Paul_watch out for that NUBI 'Deloris Friday" over at CTC, It just signed up as of June 4th and already it's causing a shit storm. I believe 'Deloris" and 'Jeffy Boy" are one in the same.

BEWARE THE NUT BALLS.:rolleyes:

Lou, what the hell are you talking about?
You are the sicko that posted here for weeks talking to yourself as J-Vitum, congratulating yourself here and at other boards, advertising your lies, lying to your friends.

You need professional mental health help, dude. get a life and leave the internet for awhile, straighten yourself out and quit posing as if you were other men or women, it's disgraceful, it's sick, it's a deception, a form of lying and of course, it's against the rules!!!

I'm not letting go of this, Lou. This will be repeated so long as you remain at any messageboard I can catch you on.........

Get used to it, or get out of it!

[jayreynolds]

Altitudelou departs the Gastronamus Cafe.

Due to a conflict with the administration of the Gastronamus Cafe I will no longer be posting here and my time can be better served elsewhere.

No hard feeling to anyone here at Gastro, your all great people but I do not like the direction that this board has been going in so I think it's time that I took my leave.

Thank you all for the great company and conversation on the many topics that we have discussed, I wish the very best to each and every one of you.

Thanks and farewell.

Lou.


Yeah, right, Lou.

Yeah, elsewhere meant here where you thought you were getting away with your multiple personality disorder.

You got caught out using multiple ID's at Gastronamus Cafe too, didn't you?

Your multiple personality disorder is out of control, dude.

You need to spend some time in a mental hospital and figure out if you want to be a man or a woman...........two men, or a man and a woman, or a man and a man, hell what do you really want, Lou?

Maybe you just need to out yourself and come clean on all the lies, get them all off your conscience. Clear the slate and start off new. If you admitted everything maybe folks would have an extremely small bit of sympathy for you.

As it stands, you are looking like a lying idiot who can't keep his stories straight.
A man who pretends to be a woman, and goes from forum to forum like a streetwalking DRAG QUEEN.

Sick, disgusting perverted stuff, Lou.

Whatever will you do when someone brings up what you've done at CTC?

Inquiring minds want to know how far you'll go, Lou.............

[jayreynolds]

LIES, LIES, and MORE LIES!

Can't you spend even a day without lying, Lou?

I know what you mean about "Not" joining Debate Both Sides, I could not be there with that freak Reynolds, I'm just to much of a triple AAA personality to hang out at a forum that he calls home, I'd end up going looking for him and I own a number of firearms.

Did you catch her putting Halva in his place, she put him on ignore after he told her to go and post someplace else, I don't know what crawled up Waynes ass lately but he's off his game, some of the shit he has been spouting off about lately is just, well, Bullshit.

I'm going to be watching "mom", I like her tenacity and style.
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=generalobservations&action=display&thread=1159569306&page=1#1159573308

[foot_soldier]

October 2006 Northern France

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/267328897_ec019a381d.jpg

[foot_soldier]

California, Bay Area February 2007

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/393725004_80e995d926.jpg

[foot_soldier]

Birmingham, England September 2005

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/45593269_318c34ff1d.jpg

[foot_soldier]

Plainfield, New Jersey April 2007

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/442027411_2fc1ea0b1c.jpg

[Jeff Reynolds]

This is how this thread looks now:
We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere.

We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

***

Check out what the disingenuous clerk deleted. Check out how she thinks using green will condition the reader to fall for her bullshit. She is from the school not only famous for the copy and paste, she learned from Chemtroll Central how to scrub the files. Yeah, Jay will go blabbi bla dah yeah foot scab worked with NSA/CIA sources. Jay knows all about that, even though he won't admit that he is just a message boy sent by the clerk to collect the bill. :cool:


Originally Posted by foot_soldier
Jay Reynolds sez: They're just normal contrails. Shut up and don't pay any attention to the fact that our skies are being strafed with more and more of them as the years go by. It's all perfectly normal and natural. Just a side-effect of progress and business-as-usual. So just shut up and get used to it. End of debate.

Well, I'm not going to shut up and I'm not going to stop following the research on this issue. And as will become clear from the following material neither is anyone else who is genuinely concerned about those normal contrails and the cumulative damage they are doing to the only atmosphere we have.

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere. We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

But yeah, Halvar and Lou are strawmen for Jay and Foot Scab/ Deborah. They want the debate to be contrails versus contrails. The truth hurts, but at this point the reader can see clearly now.

Oops. Forgot the dates. Kind of "sez" it all,

Posted 1/21/2005
Edited 2/24/2007 No reason given to Mr. Edit.

Foot Scab/ Deborah is as big a fraud as Aubuchont/ Tracker/ Vitum. Jay Reynolds is also an obvious plant. The Epoxynous video backfired on him.

Basically it looks like the stupid script has been totally exposed. That must suck for you fuckers, and good for the real people who want the deliberate activities halted immediately with full accountability and investigations into all the crimes committed. I do believe I read somewhere there is a UN treaty. Chemtrails are definitely illegal. There can't be wide atmospheric testing over large areas.

What else is there to say but go fuck yourselves!!!!:p:D:cool:

[foot_soldier]

February 2007 Illinois

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/384404973_f111f897b7.jpg

[foot_soldier]

March 2007 Telluride, Colorado

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/419752437_e5dbe7d0bb.jpg

[Jeff Reynolds]

That's why one needs to copy and paste trolls like Deborah a lot, just in case they pull some scam, like deleting huge chunks of tposts years later. Maybe Deborah/ Footscab knows who Mom_p_3 is?How stupid can these people get? Let's see. Jay Reynolds signs up on all these forums asking about dogwoods blooming. He says he was buddies with William Cooper. ha ha ha

AGAIN, HOW STUPID CAN THEY GET?? Billion dollar weather formulas? The mind zapping out chemtrails? This was almost too easy. You're all a bunch of no good treasonous asswipes. :p:D:cool:

[foot_soldier]

April 2007 Tennessee

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/466693154_80131508fa.jpg

[Jeff Reynolds]

This is how this thread looks now:


Originally Posted by foot_soldier View Post
We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere.

We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

***

Check out what the disingenuous clerk deleted. Check out how she thinks using green will condition the reader to fall for her bullshit. She is from the school not only famous for the copy and paste, she learned from Chemtroll Central how to scrub the files. Yeah, Jay will go blabbi bla dah yeah foot scab worked with NSA/CIA sources. Jay knows all about that, even though he won't admit that he is just a message boy sent by the clerk to collect the bill.



Originally Posted by jayreynolds View Post
Originally Posted by foot_soldier
Jay Reynolds sez: They're just normal contrails. Shut up and don't pay any attention to the fact that our skies are being strafed with more and more of them as the years go by. It's all perfectly normal and natural. Just a side-effect of progress and business-as-usual. So just shut up and get used to it. End of debate.

Well, I'm not going to shut up and I'm not going to stop following the research on this issue. And as will become clear from the following material neither is anyone else who is genuinely concerned about those normal contrails and the cumulative damage they are doing to the only atmosphere we have.

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere. We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

But yeah, Halvar and Lou are strawmen for Jay and Foot Scab/ Deborah. They want the debate to be contrails versus contrails. The truth hurts, but at this point the reader can see clearly now.

Oops. Forgot the dates. Kind of "sez" it all,

Posted 1/21/2005
Edited 2/24/2007 No reason given to Mr. Edit.

Foot Scab/ Deborah is as big a fraud as Aubuchont/ Tracker/ Vitum. Jay Reynolds is also an obvious plant. The Epoxynous video backfired on him.

Basically it looks like the stupid script has been totally exposed. That must suck for you fuckers, and good for the real people who want the deliberate activities halted immediately with full accountability and investigations into all the crimes committed. I do believe I read somewhere there is a UN treaty. Chemtrails are definitely illegal. There can't be wide atmospheric testing over large areas.

What else is there to say but go fuck yourselves!!!! :cool::D:p

[Jeff Reynolds]

Chemtrails are not contrails. Script exposed. Sorry, it happens.

[foot_soldier]

February 2007 Pennsylvania

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/396353738_9eedd4d955.jpg

[foot_soldier]

April 30, 2007 New Hampshire

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/483061135_0d71e447ab.jpg

[Jeff Reynolds]

February 2007 Pennsylvania

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/396353738_9eedd4d955.jpg

How are those not chemtrails?

What are you doing on these chemtrail boards all these years only to end up mixing apples with oranges. You are fooling no one

People want to know why you are calling chemtrails, contrails.

One could easily think that you are a paid disinformation shill

And before you say I am a shill for the ailine industries, consider that I have been posting on chemtrail boards, not chemtrails are contrails boards. Wow. This was almost too easy to expose you asshats and your insidious script.

[halva]

Because I know the general gist of Jeff Reynolds' beef about Footsoldier, it is not necessary to read his postings to be motivated to point out that Rosalind Petersons' strategy on chemtrails vs contrails appears to be more or less the same as Footsoldier's. I think we should indeed be talking about this problem more amongs ourselves. I am sorry that this did not prove possible at Megasprayer. But for external consumption, as a political tactic, I so far support Rosalind Peterson as our most intelligent political strategist. If I saw Footsoldier doing the same thing in her discussion with the outside world as opposed to our internal discussions, I would support her also.

[foot_soldier]

I think we should indeed be talking about this problem more amongst ourselves.
People are talking about it amongst themselves.

By the way, it's M3GA.

After some eight years of reading, observing and discussing this situation, at least some of us have modified our thinking in line with a more comprehensive understanding of the facts involved. And we are not ashamed of what we had to go through to arrive at that understanding.

[foot_soldier]

February 9, 2006 Titusville, Florida

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/97804327_b240be2c41.jpg

[foot_soldier]

October 4, 2006 Utah

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/271483300_b3d8ddcd43.jpg

[halva]

People are talking about it amongst themselves.

By the way, it's M3GA.



If that is so, these people do not include your friends at M3GA, unless they are discussing it by e-mail and have another line for public consumption.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Because I know the general gist of Jeff Reynolds' beef about Footsoldier, it is not necessary to read his postings to be motivated to point out that Rosalind Petersons' strategy on chemtrails vs contrails appears to be more or less the same as Footsoldier's. I think we should indeed be talking about this problem more amongs ourselves. I am sorry that this did not prove possible at Megasprayer. But for external consumption, as a political tactic, I so far support Rosalind Peterson as our most intelligent political strategist. If I saw Footsoldier doing the same thing in her discussion with the outside world as opposed to our internal discussions, I would support her also.

Rosalind Peterson and Foot Scab have completely different outlooks. Peterson has said that the chemtrails are from military jets. The only thing in common is that they both don't use the word chemtrails. Foot Scab is a disinfo agent. Wayne Hall is another fake. Same as Lou, Jay Reynolds, Tinfoil1776, Ed Snell, these are all fakes put out by fascist astroturfers.

Halva clearly works for those behind the chemtrailing, same as Lou "mea culpa, mea culpa" Tracker/ Vitum and the scumbag that is Jay Reynolds.

You assholes are no longer fooling anyone.

[foot_soldier]

I'm not trying to "fool" anyone.

Now get out of this thread, you spoiled little putz.

You, too, Wayne.

You guys have plenty of other active threads to post in.

[Jeff Reynolds]

People are talking about it amongst themselves.

By the way, it's M3GA.

After some eight years of reading, observing and discussing this situation, at least some of us have modified our thinking in line with a more comprehensive understanding of the facts involved. And we are not ashamed of what we had to go through to arrive at that understanding.

You've been exposed as being a low level astroturfing bitch who works for those behind the covert operations. Prove that commercial aircraft are behind the spraying , you asswipe. You have that fancy camera. All you do is copy and paste. You are a low level spy, plain and simple, just like with Jay, Lou, and Halva. And you look like you used to be a man.

[Jeff Reynolds]

I'm not trying to "fool" anyone.

Now get out of this thread, you spoiled little putz.

You, too, Wayne.

You guys have plenty of other active threads to post in.

It's over for you. And you look like you used to be a man.

Prove that the commercial flights are involved rather than astroturfing it bitch. Just saying it doesn't line up with what people are witnessing.

It looks like you have man hands, and your face is like a guys. There's something very fucked up about you. I have gotten feedback from some people. They think I am for real. What does that say about you and your all aircraft are involved scam?

Go Fuck Yourself! Chemtrails are not contrails.

[foot_soldier]

California, Bay Area February 2007

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/393725004_80e995d926.jpg
.

[foot_soldier]

February 2007 Illinois

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/384404973_f111f897b7.jpg
.

[halva]

I'm not trying to "fool" anyone.

Now get out of this thread, you spoiled little putz.

You, too, Wayne.

You guys have plenty of other active threads to post in.

Well this is the problem, isn't it, Footsoldier. You don't deal effectively with Jeff Reynolds by pretending that he and I are YOU GUYS, i.e. "on the same side", against YOU.

There is no YOU GUYS!!!!! Have you got that, Footsoldier!!!!

It seems to me that you are as much in denial as those you deplore. This isn't the first time I have said this to you