'Chemtrails' and Climate Change

[Wayne Hall]

Brian Holmes reports on the Global Mean Temperature, with some input from climate change debunkers:

www.junkscience.com/

www.junkscience.com/GMT/index.htm

Brian did a Google search of the whole site and unsurprisingly found no use of the term "chemtrails".

If the Global Mean Temperature has not risen, Brian surmises, perhaps high altitude spraying has been mitigating the expected rise in temperature.

According to these climate change debunkers there has been no global warming if the records are only from weather balloons etc. and not influenced by surface temperatures around urban areas:

www.canadafreepress.com/2005/milloy052105.htm

[Wayne Hall]

Confirmation of 'chemtrails'??

TROPOSPHERIC AEROSOL PROGRAM
www.tap.bnl.gov/

Much of the science that had been planned for the Tropospheric Aerosol Program (TAP) will in the future
be conducted under the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program, which, beginning in Fiscal
Year 2005, will focus on radiative forcing of climate change by atmospheric aerosols. Interested
readers are referred to the ASP web site and to the documents accessible from that page.

The home page of the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science
Program has moved.

You will automatically be redirected to the new page
www.asp.bnl.gov.

If you are not redirected automatically within a few seconds then please click on the link above.

Also, don't forget to update your bookmarks!

Thank you.



ARM - ASP - Aerosol IOP, May, 2003

Investigators in DOE's Atmospheric Chemistry Program (ACP) and TAP joined forces with investigators of
DOE's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) in an IOP (Intensive Observational Period)
at the ARM Southern Great Plains site in North Central Oklahoma in May, 2003. The object of study was
the influence of tropospheric aerosols on the radiation budget at the site. A secondary focus was
characterization of the cloud nucleating properties of the aerosol.

Much effort was directed to characterization of the microphysical and chemical properties of the
aerosol by in situ measurements and remote sensing. A variety of closure experiments were conducted
examining the ability of theory to predict aerosol optical properties and radiative influence. Key among these
were tests of the ability to infer optical and cloud nucleating properties from chemical and microphysical
properties of the aerosol. Further information is available on the ARM Aerosol IOP Homepage.

Click here for a prospectus on the ACP component of this IOP.

There is a considerable potential challenge to industry in helping to meet the recent National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particles. Thus there is an almost unprecedented opportunity for
collaborative work in TAP with other offices of DOE, other Federa Agencies, industry, and academia.

The proposed DOE TAP program is viewed as very much a part of an emerging national aerosol research program, coordinated by the federal Air Quality Research
Subcommittee and implemented in collaboration with NARSTO.

The Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) conducts reasearch
on atmospheric radiation and the controlling atmospheric properties and operates facilities to conduct
this research. As tropospheric aerosols are a significant influence on the radiation budget there is a natural
overlap of interest between ARM and TAP.

A description of TAP was presented at the Fall 1999 AGU meeting. The viewgraphs of that presentation are available as a PDF file (2 MByte) The Department of Energy's Tropospheric Aerosol Program - TAP:
An Examination of Aerosol Processes and Properties. S. E. Schwartz and P. Lunn. American Geophysical
Union, Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 12- 17, 1999.

An update on the status of TAP was presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the DOE Atmospheric
Sciences Program, Raleigh, NC, February 13-15, 2001. The viewgraphs of that presentation are available
as a PDF file.

The Department of Energy's Tropospheric Aerosol Program - TAP: Status Update.

Earlier documents describing TAP that are available are the initial
(June 199 TAP Concept Paper and a
set of viewgraphs describing TAP Tropospheric Aerosol Program--A
Vision; for more convenient viewing
on a smaller screen click here.

Links to TAP-related Efforts

DOE Atmospheric Science Program
DOE Atmospheric Chemistry Program (ACP)
DOE Environmental Meteorology Program (EMP) -- Vertical Transport
and Mixing (VTMX)
DOE Research Aircraft Facility
DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM)
DOE Global Change Education Program (GCEP)
North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO)

DOE Program Manager
Peter Lunn
Environmental Sciences Division, ER-74
U. S. Department of Energy,
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
301-903-4819

www.asp.bnl.gov/

[Wayne Hall]

Here is a reply to the above posting:

"Sonia Kreidenweis was with the colostate atmospheric sciences department. There is
documentation available showing her work with "commercially available nanoscale powdered aluminum oxide".

[url=http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2WdRL6OJrmYJ:chem.atmos.colostate.edu/pdf/C.%2520Archuleta%2520MS%2520
Thesis,%2520March,%25202003,%2520%2520Ice%2520nucleation%2520by%2520surrogates%2520for%2520atmospheric
%2520mineral%2520dust%2520and%2520mineral%2520dust%2520sulfate%2520particles%2520at%2520cirrus%2520temperatures
+sonia+commercially+available+nanoscale+powdered+aluminum+oxide&hl=en]More documentation[/url]

Now, Sonia is the President of the American Association for Aerosol Research

2004-2005 Board of Directors
Officers
President
Sonia Kreidenweis

www.aaar.org

Dave D-i-c-k-i-e (avoiding censorship)
President
World Landscapes Ltd.
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada Division

[halva]

Let us try to understand the knots we have been tied into.

We are being held to ransom by a Bush-supporting neo-conservative ‘climate change sceptic’ lobby who, resisting the policies that could really address climate change, have instead imposed ‘alternative’ policies of their own which scientists feel obliged to implement but are afraid to defend publicly. Many of these alternative ‘geoengineering’ solutions seem to violate elementary common sense. They are revealed to the public as ideas, but not as policies that are being implemented. Perhaps IPCC-directed scientists fear that the ‘climate change sceptic’ lobby itself could take legal action against practitioners of geoengineering.

The scientists feel trapped, but rather than confronting the forces that have trapped them, they look at the uncomprehending public. It is the ‘complacency’ of the public that is to blame. To overcome this complacency, the public has to be frightened. Climate scientists develop theories of ‘global dimming’ and ‘sudden climate change’, calculating that their disclosures may shock the public into demanding drastic action against greenhouse emissions without anyone being obliged to reveal that ‘geoengineering’ has already started.

Some climate scientists and climate change activists overdo the fear-mongering, in this way playing into the hands of the climate change ‘sceptics’, who are enabled them to present themselves as the ‘responsible moderates’, not the panicking ‘Chicken Little’ ecologists.

There is direct continuity between today’s ‘chemtrails’ situation and yesterday’s Cold War nuclear arms race.. Even at the institutional level the same establishments, first and foremost the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, are involved.

The same cheap political trickery is at work, its most characteristic practititioner being Edward Teller, who is now dead of course, physically but unfortunately not politically.

The logic is the same:

1) Postulate a lie.
In the case of the nuclear arms race the lie was that the Soviet Union is an implacable foe, posing a deadly military threat and impossible to reason with. In the case of ‘chemtrails’ the lie is that anthropogenic climate change is NOT threatening, or at least not proved to be threatening..

2) Initiate behaviour that makes the lie appear more plausible.

In the case of the nuclear arms race this was done by threatening the Soviet Union so systematically with destruction that it began to pour more and more of its resources into its own weapons buildup. In the case of ‘chemtrails’ a war was launched against the allegedly politicized ‘junk science’ of climate scientists warning against the dangers of global warming. The climate change campaign was thus reduced to a cunning strategy for extracting money from public and private agencies.

3) Demonize those reacting with anger against the situation you have produced.

In the Cold War those who opposed the military build-up and military threats against the Soviet Union were designated Communists or fellow travelers. In the case of ‘chemtrails’ anyone who reacts to what they see in the sky and demands an explanation is stigmatized as a lunatic or an unbalanced and deluded individual. And anyone who takes seriously anthropogenic global warming is a dupe of money-grubbing ecological researchers whose only interest is in lining their pockets.

What is involved in both cases is cheap trickery. The deliberate inculcation of cognitive dissonance through the retailing of lies.

With the development of glasnost and perestroika, Soviet diplomacy began make ‘depriving the West of its enemy’ unconditional first priority, even if this involved the Soviet Union subscribing to Cold War lies about itself, in order not to be ‘an enemy’.

This Soviet manoeuvre demanded an equal and opposite ‘Western’ manoeuvre, and indeed the ‘chemtrails’ variant of blackmail follows an opposite logic to the Cold War variant.. Rather than it being mandatory to feel threatened by nuclear annihilation it is now mandatory to be confident that ‘everything is OK’ (there is not e.g. something strange happening in the sky.)

The reassurance of Western populations that Soviet diplomacy had begun to achieve through glasnost and perestroika was turned into its opposite, into something compulsory. And compulsory belief that there is nothing to be afraid of is just as repressive as compulsory belief that one must be afraid of the Soviet Union.

This evolution is not of course unrelated to the move from nuclear war as a weapon (the catastrophe which is continually announced but not carried out), to weather as a weapon ( the catastrophe which is carried out but not threatened), so that the target can never be sure whether he has or has not been the victim of deliberate aggression.