Home » Uncategorized » Contrail photos through history

Contrail photos through history

I’ve collected together a few photos of persistent spreading contrails from the past from 1991 back to 1940, just to show that this is nothing new, and that skies exactly like those shown on the “chemtrails” conspiracy web sites have been happening for the past 60 years. Mostly these are just photos I found on the internet, but several, like the first four, are scanned from books, so can be physically verified.

1991, From the book Peterson First guide to Clouds and Weather

Here are four photos of contrails, scanned from the book. You can see these photos on the Amazon page linked above. Click on the photos for larger versions. I suspect the actual date of these photos is pre-1991, but that’s certainly the latest possible date.

1991-day-p46-2.jpg1991-day-p46-1.jpg

1991-day-p47-1.jpg1991-day-p47-2.jpg

1984, Rustler Peak, Oregon
Old and new spreading contrails. Then, as now, Oregon has a lot of North/South flyover traffic going between California and Portland/Seattle/Vancouver.

The above photo is from a collection of photos of forest lookouts in Oregon. Most of which were taken in the last few years, but a few like the above, back to 1984. It’s interesting to see just how few of them contain contrails, and just how many contain clear blue skies, regardless of which year they were taken in.

Here’s some from 1990, taken by a tourist in Washington DC:

Capitol Dome, 1990


New York, 1994,

New York, July 1, 1992

Persisting and Spreading Contrail. Mt Hood, Oregon, October 1964, Ed’s JG Photos

Mt Hood, July 15th 1985, Rob DeGraff

Mt Shasta, 1989, Taylor Sherman

1995, Mirror Lake, Oregon

1991, Oregon, Coos Bay, Jonathan Harel

1985. Tahoe

1986. Mt Whitney, California

Arizona, September 1988




Mount Adams, September 1987.

North Vancouver, 1989

Paris, March 31, 1983, OliBac

Oregon, 1990, mdintenfass

1986, March 8. London, England.

1989, May. Echo_29, Nigh time contrails cas shadows on the clouds.

1988, Prague

pre-1981 – Plates 173 and 174 from “A Field guide to the Atmosphere“, by Schaefer and Day

petersonpl173w.jpg

petersonpl174w.jpg

1977 Michigan – a single persistent contrail cuts the sky, through some rippled clouds. Found on a chemtrail forum.

1972, From the book Clouds of the World, by Richard Scorer

cotw-1141s.jpg

1970 – Photo of a stop sign with a persistent and spreading contrail. I found this photo on a forum somewhere. I’m not sure of the source or accuracy of the date.

1967 – Plate 113 from Cloud Studies in Colour, Richard Scorer and Harry Wexler.  Shows over 30 contrails, some criss-crossing:

cloud-studies-115-500.jpg

1963 – Photo by Bob Shomler

1958, San Fancisco airport: Two persistent contrails cross in the sky.

1954, A photo by Ansel Adams entitled “Rails and Jet Trails

1945, Europe: Contrails from fighter escorts (P-51s). Both old and new. You see lots of these types of photos when people try to debunk chemtrails, the believers say that engines back then were less efficient, so produced more trails. Ironically, the more efficient an engine is, the more of the fuel is combusted, so more water is produced. So the more modern an engine is, the more likely it is to produce a persistent contrail.

1944, Contrails formed over Germany by the 91st Bomb Group on a mission to Zeitz, Germany on 30 November 1944

1940, Europe, Bomber with fighter escorts

1940s, From the 1950 book Air Force: A Pictorial History

1940sairforcepictorial.jpg

For more WWII contrails, see here:

WWII Contrails

[UPDATE] Here’s a collection of photos from “fuzzylogic”, originally posted on davidicke.com. They are are all from the site airliners.net, and most are dated in the 1960s and 1970s.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Western-Airlines/Lockheed-L-188A-Electra/0125029/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Douglas-DC-3…/0794126/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/Douglas-C-133A-Cargomaster/0802763/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iberia/Convair-440-80-Metropolitan/0761432/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/Douglas-C-133A-Cargomaster/0802763/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Eastern-Air-Lines/Lockheed-L-1049-Super/0095121/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Ceylon/De-Havilland-DH-106/0332049/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/Douglas-C-124C-Globemaster/1202172/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hawker-Siddeley-HS-125-1A-522/0407759/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/Blackburn-B-101-Beverley/1518331/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Western-Airlines/Boeing-720-047B/1240220/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Olympic/De-Havilland-DH-106/0489281/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Navy/Martin-SP-5B-Marlin/0094282/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Allegheny-Airlines/Convair-580/0693937/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Douglas-DC-9-14/0630825/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/South-African-Airways/Vickers-813-Viscount/0336732/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cruzeiro-do-Sul/Sud-SE-210-Caravelle/0106059/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Mohawk-Airlines/BAC-111-204AF-One-Eleven/0179433/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Paraense/Fairchild-Hiller-FH-227B/0107964/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Continental-Airlines/Boeing-707-324C/0637754/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Alaska-Airlines/Lockheed-L-100-Hercules/0121834/M
http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-Airlines/Douglas-DC-8-52/1642417/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Holiday-Airlines/Lockheed-L-188…-Electra/1619682/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Britannia-Airways/Boeing-737-204C/1603260/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E/1565582/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Finnair/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-10-30/1329165/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Interflug/Antonov-An-24B/1177528/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Trans-World-Airlines/Boeing-727-31/1142497/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Express/Bristol-170-Freighter/0950079/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/Republic-F-84F-Thunderstreak/0747814/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Trans-World-Airlines/Boeing-727-31/0608961/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Dan-Air-London/Avro-748-Srs1A-200/0599343/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Icelandair—Flugfelag/Boeing-727-108C/0593210/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Trans-World-Airlines/Douglas-DC-9-14/0536572/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Inex-Adria-Airways/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-9-32/0530937/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Intra-Airways/Vickers-724-Viscount/0527504/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Peru—Air/Antonov-An-26/0508318/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/North-Cay-Airways/Douglas-DC-3/0158273/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Goodyear/Goodyear-Aerospace-GZ-20/0150235/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Personal-Plane-Services/Supermarine-Spitfire-…/0075914/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Percival-P-34A-Proctor/1669642/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Trans-World-Airlines/Boeing-707-131B/1626912/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hawker-Sea-Fury/1329460/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Transmeridian-Air-Cargo/Conroy-CL-44-O-Guppy/1129857/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Eastern-Air-Lines/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-9-31/1102198/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Federal-Aviation-Administration/Douglas-C-47B-Skytrain/0732148/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Reims-F150G/0411180/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pan-American-World/Boeing-747-121/0271547/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Mohawk-Airlines-(Allegheny/BAC-111-204AF-One-Eleven/1155816/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-707-123B/1148645/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM—Royal/Douglas-DC-8-53/0994425/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Trans-World-Airlines/Boeing-707-131B/0978066/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Intermountain/Curtiss-C-46F-Commando/0697866/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Mohawk-Airlines-(Allegheny/BAC-111-204AF-One-Eleven/0604592/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Braniff-International-Airways/Boeing-727-62C/0305862/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sierra-Leone-Airways/De-Havilland-DH-114/0056315/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Fairflight/De-Havilland-DH-104/1752365/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Federal-Aviation-Administration/Convair-ET-29C-(240-27)/1736483/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pan-American-World/Boeing-707-321B/1652726/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Dan-Air-London/Boeing-727-46/1456783/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Merpati-Nusantara-Airlines/Vickers-952-Vanguard/1423341/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southern-Airways/Martin-404/1033793/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran—Air/Lockheed-P-3F-Orion/1312055/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/PSA—Pacific/Lockheed-L-1011-385-1-TriStar/1243480/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Conair-of-Scandinavia/Boeing-720-025/0347559/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden—Air/Vickers-Tp82-Varsity/1376515/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-707-123B/1222553/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines-Freighter/Boeing-707-323C/1142619/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Syrian-Arab-Airlines/Boeing-707-321(F)/0692215/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Maersk-Air/Boeing-720-051B/0487985/M/

(UPDATE 7/27/11) Here’s an excellent collection of historical accounts, images and moves of historical Contrails from Phage on the Above Top Secret forum:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread732398/pg1#pid11900067

441 thoughts on “Contrail photos through history

  1. Bruce says:

    Hey SR1419, the picture shows a sky crammed with chemtrails and two brown sun turds, not real sun dogs.

    Real sun dogs need clean cirrus, but I agree it looks a little like one.

  2. Bruce, your videos show clouds and contrails. What is about them that you want to discuss?

    The clouds around the sundogs are reddish because of particulates in the air. Like sunsets are often red. It’s nothing unusual. I don’t think those clouds are contrails in the the sundog photo – it just looks like some streaky clouds – you often get parallel bands of clouds in the right weather conditions.

  3. SR1419 says:

    Bruce-

    The the link I posted was only to help prove that the previous comment from Pat that said

    “Sundogs? only occur in jet fuel aerosol clouds” was untrue- it is an Atmospheric Optics website with definitions and examples…

    However-

    what do you make of this picture…from 1983??? :

    http://www.1000plus.com/Imagic/8301sund.htm

  4. Bruce says:

    Hi SR1419, just saying what I see. The picture you link for my inspection could be from any year but it shows a horrid contrail. The sky in Scotland has never suffered from such vandalism on the scale it suffers now.

    I have no doubt that contrails were sighted in the eighties but there were none above my home untill recently. If there had been then I could say-

    “I remember as a child I would draw clouds with a ruler untill my great granmother showed me how they used to look”

    The weather is changed by the presence of cirrus as has been tested in “potential effects of cirrus contrails on the subarctic” and findings confirmed an overall heating effect from the fake cloud, especially after sun down. In mid summer a slight cooling takes place so an overall effect on lower cloud must follow.

    If global temperature was measured and found to have risen then I may suspect contrails are to blame if I believe the science.

    The video shows cumulus then clear sky followed by ‘assumed’ contrails, an example of how we seldom see both together. Most chemtrail videos do not show healthy cumulus.

    No rain in May for us, square formations on the satellite images, air is full of dust or something too. No, things are not normal here.

    So what do you make of the on-off three jet contrail action uncinus? Have you checked the satellite pics for S/W England coast for Tuesday morning?

    Can anyone explain why I repeatedly witness contrails starting when aircraft flying in over the sea reach land?

    Why are the contrails over my home never visible on satellite when contrails over the Atlantic are bold?

    These are questions everyone seems to dodge or just repeat the old “just a contrail” theory.

  5. Bruce, perhaps you could provide some actual evidence that backs up you claims that things are unusual?

    The “on-off three jet contrail action” appears to be three jets in formation climbing or descending. I’d guess it was a single large jet accompanied by two fighter jets. Perhaps Airforce One? It’s an old and singular video, and shows nothing actually odd. It’s very unlike most videos people say are “chemtrails”.

  6. SR1419 says:

    Bruce-

    …I find it hard to believe that contrails have never been sighted above your house until recently…Is it possible that you just didn’t notice them? ….didn’t notice them until someone suggested that you do??

    Contrails have been “sighted” since the the 1940s…just look at all the photos from WW2 and elsewhere on this website. What are you trying to say; No planes flew over your house until recently? Or that contrails are a recent phenomenon? Can you clarify your point?

    Contrail-cirrus clouds- the man-made cirrus clouds that result from persistent contrails are very likely effecting the weather…and thus there are a lot of scientists studying this phenomenon…

    for more research look up – contrail cirrus and supersaturated persistent contrail.

    As for the contrails starting as planes reach land- it could be that the planes are changing altitudes as they reach land- or that the atmosphere itself changes at that altitude over land…the atmosphere is not uniform at any given altitude and thus planes fly through pockets of different air at any given altitude.

    …it is doubtful that they are starting to “spray” anything just because they are over land…as what they “spray” would not fall directly below but drift with the upper winds…

    …or if they are trying to saturate the atmosphere with something it would not matter that if they were over land or not.

  7. Bruce says:

    Uncinus, perhaps you could provide us with some actual evidence that these are just contrails and go further to explain the reason why these contrails are not linked with numerous other anomalies which myself and thousands of others are at a loss to explain.

    There would be no chemtrail/contrail debate if proof of either was available to the public, but so far the weight of presumtion seems to be that they may not all be just contrails.

    How about some satellite pics from the eighties showing hundreds of contrails, even better if these images were over 30 days.

    We need to see evidence of contrails which lasted 11-15 hrs, grids and X’s, intense grouping and trails over 300 miles long.

    Proof that HAARP was not linked to all this would also be handy, but sadly I find that researching this seems only to bolster my standing.

    Regards – Bruce

  8. Okay, the evidence is:

    1) They look exactly like contrails
    2) Contrails like this have been described since the dawn of aviation
    3) All the science agrees that this is what contrails look like
    4) No scientist or meteorologist has ever suggested that they are not contrails

    There are lots of photos from the ground from the 80s and before showing many long lasting contrails, such as those here:

    Contrails which last for hours and spread to cover the sky, 1970
    http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

    ‘X’s and grids, 1972
    http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/

    And my favorite photo from 1967:
    http://contrailscience.com/thirty-contrails-forty-years-ago/

    You ask for satellite photos from the 1980s. Why don’t you show me a satellite photo from the 1980’s that shows ANY contrails? The fact is simply that there are not many early satellite photos online, so the absence of satellite photos of contrails is not really meaningful.

    Remember, I’m not the one claiming some kind of global conspiracy here. Any reasonable person would agree that it is YOU who should be providing evidence here, to back up YOUR extraordinary theory.

    So what, exactly, is your evidence, and how does it contradict the evidence I laid out above, and elsewhere on this site?

  9. SR1419 says:

    Bruce-

    this satellite image is not from the 1980s- it is from 1995 – but that is still 3yrs before “chemtrails” supposedly began according to “chemtrail” believers…an interesting photo nonetheless:

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm

  10. SR1419 says:

    Bruce-

    Uncinus is right…it is hard to find ANY satellite images from the 1980s on the web…

    But the images do exist (just not on the web as far as I can find) – see here:

    http://tiny.cc/DDHWP

    2. Data and analysis Return to TOC
    a. DMSP imagery

    Upwelling radiation in the thermal-IR window and solar wavelengths is recorded by the DMSP polar orbiters and transmitted continuously to U.S. military installations worldwide in DR form. In the continental United States, the data are acquired by two reception installations at Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), Florida, and San Diego Naval Base (SDNB), California, and archived at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. Although there is no DMSP digital archive available before the early 1990s, the hard-copy images used here have a nominal resolution of 0.6 km (e.g., Fig. 1 ), which is slightly better than the 1.1-km resolution of AVHRR (cf. Bakan et al. 1994). Contrail studies that used Landsat multispectral scanner system data at 80 m × 80 m resolution report typical contrail widths of 1–2 km (Joseph et al. 1975; Detwiler and Pratt 1984). Accordingly, the 0.6-km resolution of the DMSP DR imagery is capable of resolving contrail-scale cloud features about 90% of the time (Detwiler and Pratt 1984), provided that these clouds are sufficiently thick (i.e., are not subvisual). Thus, the satellite data are detecting primarily “persistent linear contrails” (Minnis et al. 1998) rather than contrails that may be short-lived or narrow or may have become too diffuse through lateral spreading to be detected. The ungridded and unrectified Mylar image transparencies are at a nominal scale of 1:15000000. The DR images are highly appropriate for developing a contrail dataset because of their extensive spatial coverage of the United States and inclusion of large areas of southern Canada, northern Mexico, and the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic Oceans (the outlined areas shown on Fig. 2 ).

  11. SR1419 says:

    Bruce, Uncinus…

    just a quick follow up- the research paper link in my previous post above does have satellite images with contrails prior to 1980- read the article and click on the links to images- such as this one from 1977:

    “Fig. 1. DMSP DR thermal-IR image acquired by SDNB at 0310 UTC 20 Oct 1977. The imaged area is the western Great Plains of the United States, with Lake Superior and Lake Winnipeg evident in the upper-right and upper-center portions of the image. Twenty-four west– east-oriented contrails associated with patchy cirrus and with clear air were identified over eastern portions of South Dakota and Nebraska and western portions of Minnesota and Iowa (right-hand side of center part of image). The long contrail oriented south-southwest to north-northeast and bisecting the other shorter contrails shows evidence of spreading, diffusion, and thinning.”

    If you scroll to the end of the paper past the references and tables, it is the first figure listed.

  12. Jim says:

    Uncinus, you’ve the patience of a saint. I’d like to echo some voices from early in this discussion and say that your site–your clear-headedness and your willingness to do legwork (keystroke work?)–have eased my sleep-deprived, over-Youtubed, paranoid mind.

    I write to share a recollection that I’ve always enjoyed but never thought would be useful. Some time in the early 70’s I sat on my bed watching a rerun of Daniel Boone from the early or mid-60’s. As the episode closed on some melodramatic note, and Dan’l and his sidekick Mingo turned to walk away into the 19th-century Kentucky wilderness, the camera pulled back to show the beautiful blue sky, its entire length traversed by a bright white contrail. The trail was fairly tight, but clearly durable.

    I ran across ‘chemtrails’ while sitting up all night saturating myself in the internet’s infinite trove of ufo hysteria. I’ve always been a boy (now 46) fascinated with the topic (though not enough to have joined the ranks of the cogniscenti), but what was an amusing time-killer became a sort of illness when my young daughter began waking in dread. The only information I could get from her was her claim to have a recurring nightmare of people getting shots. Abducted!! The websites took on a new life. Never mind that only a month before I’d had to hold her arms and legs so a nurse could give her a shot, my daughter screaming throughout what could only be described as a trauma. No, for some reason my inclination is to gravitate to the more frightening explanation. Actually, the reason for this unreasonableness may well be sensible in its own way: I want to be prepared for the worst. Might that be the case with many of us otherwise functional and ‘educated’ paranoiacs?

    The human world is beyond our comprehension. Our lives are at the mercy of something inexplicable called ‘the economy,’ the very planet, we’re told, is in a way to batter us with deprivation and disaster, our (U.S.) putative democracy is no longer even interested in hiding its actual plutocratic character. And adult conversation about these matters is relegated to the conversational promiscuity of the internet, where the blessings of freedom and anonymity carry the costs of unaccountability in writing and indiscriminateness in reading. In a kind of opposite madness from that brought on by solitary confinement that imposes sensory deprivation, we sit solitary with these funhouse mirrors on our laps and subject ourselves to every damn thing. Inquiry follows Curiosity, which in the wee hours is only a keystroke from yielding to its prurient or morbid or phantasmagorical voices, and awash in these voices, fear jumps to life. Superstition supplants reason, and why not? No one has a handle on why our lives are like they are, or who exactly holds the reins or what they have in mind for us. New World Order, Aliens, FEMA Camps, spraying us with AIDS? Maybe. It’s possible. And there we languish…maybe, it’s possible, who can say?

    So thanks for the slap in the face on the chemtrail business. The billionaires have provided endless hard evidence that they couldn’t care less about our lives. But, whatever they may be hatching, this guy’s going to take it easy on his neck and stop looking up so much.

    Good night.

  13. Bruce says:

    Hi again, wow what a rush to shoot me down there, must get a new tin helmet.

    Nice old satellite image of contrails over Canada in SR1419’s link, most reassuring, however the missing factor is time, thats why I thought a series of images would be better but glad to see it. Hope we find more of these old images as they can help prove the contrail theory.

    Despite what you may think, I am not hell bent on the chemtrail global conspiracy, I base my opinion on observation and experience and I am still open minded on the subject.

    I have tried to convince myself that there have always been lasting contrails and strange cloud formations above my home, but this is simply not true.

    I am open to better explainations, example – The upper air has changed due to whatever and contrails are more common because of that.

    Perhaps daily flights over the UK are randomly directed to fly over Scotland, all within a time space of 4 hrs and instructed to fly at best contrail forming height.

    It must follow that reduction in sunlight will affect cloud and it is accepted that all clouds keep heat in at night therefore contrails do affect the daytime weather and raise night time temperature.

    I find it interesting how much research was done in the nineties on contrail formation and effects on climate, yet no mention of contrails in the official garb on global warming though.

    The continent of Europe alone is estimated at 20-25% contrail cover daytime and 5% at night, this must have a significant effect on temperature.

    Knowing this one would expect the governments to demand that no aircraft will leave a lasting contrail, simply achieved by flying at a different height, however it seems to me that exactly the opposite is true.

    There may be a conspiracy to cause a heating effect by deliberate cirrus cloud creation, then when it all stops there will be cooling.

    The strange clouds are another matter for debate.

    Far from convinced yet folks. (On with the tin helmet now)

  14. Bruce, if planes were to fly over your house at 30,000 feet on a day where it is cold and humid up there, then would you not expect persistent contrails to form?

    The upper atmosphere has not changed (there would be a lot of science papers about it if it had). However there are more flights now.

    I know you really think that things have changed in some unusual way. But really it’s just more flights, and now you are obsessed by the sky, where as previously you were not.

    You notice the contrails more now because you are looking for them.

    Not that nobody else has noticed them. That’s because they are not looking for them – just like you were not ten years ago.

  15. SR1419 says:

    Bruce-

    a couple of things-

    you said: “Hope we find more of these old images as they can help prove the contrail theory.”

    …that some contrails persist and spread out and cover the sky in a “haze” of thin cirrus clouds is not a theory…It is a Fact….it is a fact that has been observed and studied for over 50 years… I cannot speak to the sky above you but I do know that persistent contrails are not new.

    You said: “I find it interesting how much research was done in the nineties on contrail formation and effects on climate, yet no mention of contrails in the official garb on global warming though.”

    Research on contrails has been done since the 1950s…and continues today- search for yourself: supersaturated persistent contrail and/or contrail cirrus

    …and in the big picture of climate change- contrail contributions are likely minimal…but this document by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does address the issue directly:

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm

  16. Nik says:

    Dear All,

    Has the discussion on chemtrails/contrails ceased, or has it moved to a new forum?

    I would love to hear an update on Caroline and Bruce’s plan to collect some emissions from contrails – how’s that one going?

    I must admit that I have become slightly consumed by the whole chemtrail debate and have taken countless photographs of the large amount of persistent trails seen around my home (Margate, Kent, UK). Whilst zooming in and snapping on one particular plane that was producing a trail, I noticed the trail suddenly stop. I continued snapping and then approx 2-3 seconds later the trail started again. I made a compilation of this and uploaded to YouTube (see link below). Apologies for tacky music and quality of pics but it shows enough.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82tvnXk955A

    Please can someone explain to me how it is possible for this stopping and starting to occur over such a short distance. If the engines were stopped for a few seconds wouldn’t the plane have lost altitude? As you can see from the last shot in the sequence it didn’t (if anything it was rising).

    I must also add that the plane was not travelling at a particularly high altitude and I had also photographed other planes (as loads travelled in exactly the same direction and at similar heights over a short period) with some having a continuous huge trail and another still with no trail at all.

    Would love to hear a good explanation for this.

    Thanks,

    Nik

  17. Nik says:

    Epoxynous??

  18. Epoxynous is my YouTube username.

  19. Nik says:

    So not only do you comment on this well-made website (btw did you design it yourself? Very nice site) but you also trawl through YouTube looking for chemtrail videos to comment on. You really are dedicated to this!

    When I was a kid in England I used to watch a television show called Crimewatch. From a very young age I noticed that the majority of criminals, conmen etc had 2, 3 or maybe 4 aliases. I made a decision then not to trust anyone that used more than one name – my gut instinct on that has so far been proved right! ;o)

    P.S. that is light-hearted banter so don’t take it too seriously!

  20. So we should not trust this guy “Nik”, AKA “wellsyboy1978” then eh? 🙂

    This site just uses one of the standard WordPress templates. I just add posts and comments. Like I said, it does not take much time.

  21. Nik says:

    Ha ha – no they are actually both parts of my name. Can I assume your real name is Uncinus Epoxynous?

  22. That’s nothing – here’s today in the USA:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2008255.terra.1km

    Check out the banks of cirrus along the north edge. You get lines of clouds ahead of weather systems.

    Looks like the ones in your photo have been blown straight along a front by high level winds. Interesting looking. See above Essex, the contrails bend as they enter the bank, indicating a boundary between two different air masses. It would be interesting to see a satellite loop of that forming.

  23. Seems like that’s not too uncommon to get that straight front over Europe. see also:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008024.terra.1km
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008030.terra.1km
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008090.terra.1km

    I like how you can tell which clouds are higher by looking at their shadows, see here for example:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008037.terra.1km

    Quite dramatic. You certainly have much more interesting weather in the UK than we have in California.

    And while I was browsing through them, here’s a day with lots of contrails. Unusual:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008123.terra.1km

  24. Bruce says:

    I have looked at the images you link but see only mares tails and very few contrails, the cloud banks look normal. I see a few contrails in the last image but they are not exeptional.

    However, if you look again at the image I linked

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008246.terra.1km

    you can see clearly the cloud in front of the main bank has more contrails running through it than could reasonably be expected. Look at the S/W edge of the leading bank, surely these are something other than just commercial flight contrails. Notice how they all run parallel to the main bank.

    The effects of contrails on weather is officialy thought to be slight, however I think this image shows clearly that this is not true and furthers the reason to believe these trails may be more than just contrails.

    So science tells us that any cloud cover typicaly raises temperatures (in the northern hemisphere this is true for day and night for 7-8 months of the year)

    The image shows a mass of trails which form a large type of “cloud” so one must conclude that these trails will cause a rise in temperature.

    Now that would be weather modification even if they are just water trails.

  25. Except these are not contrails, they are just parallel bands of cirrus clouds. Possibly jet stream cirrus, like these:

    http://www.cloudappreciationsociety.org/jan07-cloud-of-the-month/

    Or maybe formed by the rolling air at the edge of the weather system over Europe. Or some kind of cirrus plume.

    Sure, it’s an odd looking cloud formation – but hardly unprecedented. You know there are lots of odd cloud formations.

    Here’s an example of a similar cloud formation from over a hundred years ago:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925#5236030123698122018

    And see more modern photos, cirrus radiatus:

    http://images.google.com/images?q=cirrus%20radiatus

    and altocumulus radiatus (also see in your image)

    http://images.google.com/images?&q=altocumulus+radiatus

  26. Essan says:

    Hi Bruce

    You’re right in that contrails are a form of inadvertent weather modification. The reason we let it go on is because we’re all obsessed with flying everywhere these days – people want to fly to New York for Christmas Shopping or to Marbella for a weekend break. And also because we’re equally obsessed with co2 emissions – and the best way to reduce persistent contrails involves an increase in co2 emissions

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050126_contrail_climate.html

    And of course, the chemtrail hoax doesn’t help with genuine attempts to reduce contrails!

    Andy

  27. Bruce says:

    Looking again at the image I linked, I can see clearly the straight cloud is partly or mostly made of contrails, natural cirrus looks nothing like that.

    Natural cirrus does not run perfectly straight and cross over its self, also the adjacent weather would cause mixing of the air and deform the cirrus formation which is strangely at 90deg to the weather system.

    The natural cirrus is advancing ahead in the form of mares tails at the N/E side of the curved main cloud bank, the fake or seeded cloud has been layed ahead for some reason.

    In my opinion the picture shows an atmospheric impossibility.

    However, here is a taste of the summer we suffered with some traditional Vogon music.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKCsJ7_8jos&NR=1

    I have translated the lyrics, they are as follows-

    “Our sky is buggered, our sky is buggered, our sky is buggered, oh pass me another potato Cedric.”

  28. Bruce, why don’t you ask a meteorologist?

    Natural cirrus DO sometimes run perfectly straight, hence the varius “radiatus” clouds I linked above.

    I see contrails crossing the cloud blank, especially at the NE end. What is odd about that?

    Nice video, but again, showing nothing that is not in the 1905 Clouds of the World.

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925#

    Really Bruce, go and talk to a meteorologist. It’s not enough for YOU to think the shy looks odd – it really needs some actual evidence that the sky has changed.

    What can you show me that is not in Clouds of the World? (excepting, of course, contrails).

  29. Bruce says:

    The cloud app. soc. pic is most likely contrails, not natural cirrus. I have witnessed the construction of identical forms by aircraft on several occasions. However, since contrails are considered to be clouds these days then perhaps they think cirrus forms just this way.

    The other links only show true cirrus radiatus which we can clearly see does not look similar to the cloud form in the satellite image.

    The cloud I refered to in the Modis link is clearly fake/manufactured or enhanced.

    With ref to the video of the UK sky, my point was how often the sky is like this. We hardly ever get any clear days, and if we do then it quickly becomes buggered by chemtrails within an hour. The fake cirrus then dulls out the sun, sun dogs appear and we have another black sunset.

    Fact is that the sky has changed, plenty people can tell you that, I do not need any met folks to confirm it, it is a fact, the video evidence is overwhelming.

    On 5th May this year I suffered 26 aircraft in 1 hour intent on killing the sky above my home . It was a calm day and they could be seen and heard clearly. The aircraft activity started and stopped abruptly leaving a breathtaking mess above. To the west I saw some traffic with short contrails.

    So if this was just normal traffic I should be able to see and hear these regular flights on any other calm reasonably clear day, right?

    Well on other days I may see (if the sky allows) one or two planes fly over to the west, strangely none fly above my house unless they have a lasting contrail.

    Now I think that alone is enough proof of something going on and further to it we have satellite images, videos, knowledge of patents for weather mod/warfare etc, scores of people telling us that things are not right and our memory of how the sky used to look.

    Sorry Uncinus, it is just not enough to try and beat this down with the contrails stick.

    Surely you may be better challenged to do a Chemtrail Science website where we can put our heads and theories together on this, or would it be Chemtrail Silence?

    Regards – Bruce

    P.S Ever heard of “Smart Clouds”?

  30. Here’s the thing Bruce, if you’ve got a photo of a HUGE cloud that is “clearly fake/manufactured or enhanced”, then what’s the problem? Why do you think nobody is interested?

    Don’t you think scientists, or at least the amateur meteorologists, would be interested in such an amazing cloud? Why do they show no interest?

    The most likely explanation seems to be that the cloud is NOT UNUSUAL – it’s just a natural cloud bank, albeit a rather straight one with furrows. The most likely explanation is that you are wrong.

    As for your plane observations, is there any way you could demonstrate this? Seriously – if you can tell there is something odd going on, then how can you demonstrate it? Video? Photos? A log book? You’ve not given very much in the way of evidence so far.

    No, I’ve not heard of smart clouds, do you mean smart dust?

  31. Nik says:

    In reply to Uncinus’ comments above – I do not think you can say that “nobody is interested”. There are clearly A LOT of people that are interested in exactly what “chemtrails” are. I would even go so far as to say that a lot of amateur meteorologists and scientits are interested too.

    The comments made by Bruce are exactly what I have noticed above me over the last few months, and this is being repeated all over the EU and US (just do a search on YouTube every day for new Chemtrail videos added).

    As for Bruce’s plane observations, he has demonstrated this by explaining it to you and us. Why would he lie?? If a number of witnesses in court all stated that they had seen something with their own eyes the judge would not say “show me your log book”!

    I urge all those people with a genuine concern about what is going on, chemtrails or persistent contrails, to write to their MP (in the UK or EU) or senator in the US. There is no need to be extremist in your questioning but you DO have the right to ask questions.

    As for Smart Dust – sounds interesting and certainly from reading the explanation on Wikipedia this could be an explanation for what is being seeded into the atmosphere. Only time will tell. Like I have always said though, lets hope you (Uncinus) are right about the whole thing and their is nothing to worry about (except hundreds of thousands of people suffering from paranoia).

    Nik

  32. Bruce says:

    I do not know what the met folks think of these clouds, perhaps they do wonder what they are all about. Perhaps they think global warming is causing them, they blame all other weather on it. Moreover they freely admit they don’t fully understand how the weather works, thats why they are always fiddling the computer model. NASA wanted children to record contrail locations to help them understand in which air masses they are formed.

    I may be wrong sometimes with my perception of the satellite images as I am not as experienced at reading them as they are, but this image is not hard to read.

    I can tell the difference between contrail cirrus and natural, if you watch the sky daily it becomes fairly easy. Backed up with hourly satellite runs from the met I can see them being formed and then follow the cloud mass over my patch.

    Ground observation is my strong point coupled with a lifetime memory of how my sky used to look and still should look. Plenty chemtrail stuff on the net show us clearly how the sky is completely overcome with contrails/chemtrails on a regular basis.

    The effect on the environment under these trails is simply overwhelming, to suggest there is no effect or only a slight effect is complete madness. These trails blocking the sun cause a big effect on the formation of other clouds so causing a complete change in the localised environment.

    With regard to the aircraft activity, what I state is true. There are no regular flights over my home, I have double checked the sky on the few clear days we have had recently for regular traffic and I could never find 26 aircraft in a day, let alone one hour.

    It should also be noted that I have tracked these aircraft using a telescope and witnessed some of them flying in 20 minute circuits repeatedly.

    I have not logged the movments (time direction) but may do in future. I do have a fair collection of photographs (most with dates) and witnesses.

    I am still open to other reasons why we are being overcome with contrail skies, I had considered the jetstream being further south may have an effect. However I find it odd why with the lovely run of cirrus from the north today we had no contrails or aircraft, just clear sky-well that is untill it rained again.

    Even if I could find a good reason why aircraft trails have suddenly become so common in my sky, then it would still leave the question over the aircraft movements and numbers un-answered.

    Regards – Bruce

  33. SR1419 says:

    Nik-

    you said: “just do a search on YouTube every day for new Chemtrail videos added”

    …but that, in my opinion, is part of the problem…given the fact that “normal” contrails can and do persist…and spread out into a haze of cirrus clouds…One cannot just look up at the sky and say with certainty that it is a “chemtrail”. Some benign intent contrails behave EXACTLY as “chemtrails” supposedly do…

    …and thus just taking a video of a persistent contrail and posting it on YouTube and claiming it is a “chemtrail” is a highly dubious undertaking. The “believers” see the video and nod in agreement that it is more “proof” of “chemtrails” when in fact, it is highly likely that it is just a persistent contrail…

    Unfortunately, that just feeds the hysteria and paranoia and does nothing to create sound, effective dialog…

    Moreover, Unicinus’ point about atmospheric scientists and meteorologists not raising the alarm about “chemtrails” is quite poignant. There are a lot (100s?) of atmospheric scientists around the World who have and are currently studying contrails…their causes, behaviors and effects on the environment. They study reams of data regarding persistent contrails, they take IN SITU samples directly from persistent contrails, they present well documented and sourced papers in front of their peers…and yet not one that I am aware of (Scott Stevens doesn’t count) is even remotely suggesting that “chemtrails” are real…That is a very important point in my humble opinion.

    There is a real concern about the effects of persistent contrails and their role in climate change…and yet not one of the scientists suggest that they are actually “spraying” something into the atmosphere:

    See here for an example:

    http://tinyurl.com/3fx7sk

    So, the evidence, again, in my very humble opinion, just isn’t there that anything other than supersaturated persistent contrails are polluting the skies…and that doesn’t even get in to the efficacy of “spraying” something into the atmosphere as a method for deployment…of an unknown agent for an unknown purpose…and yet is supposedly Global in nature (just look at all the “chemtrail” vids from around the World) and thus would need a cast of 1000s to perpetrate…

    Look at Bruce’s observations…26 planes on a single day….what is the number of people required to service and load those planes…certainly many…and thus a HUGE operation…going on for 10 years…worldwide…and not a single peep from anyone.

    Highly improbable…

    …in my opinion. 🙂

  34. Nik says:

    Hi Bruce,

    I do understand what you are saying and I personally DO NOT think that a secret government is spraying chemicals to kill us! However, that does not rule out the fact that there are bigger and more powerful groups and organisations that “influence” the decisions of governments around the globe. The evidence towards that is clear for all to find, however this is not the place to discuss that…

    What I do think, and I am positive that thousands would agree with me, is that persistent contrails/chemtrails are much more common than in the past. In fact, the majority of people that comment do state that they do not remember seeing these in the past. I do not think that Uncinus’ “you just don’t remember” or “you never looked up before” excuse is valid AT ALL, mainly because you don’t forget seeing skies like this even if you only saw it once as a kid, teenager or younger adult.

    So the questions (I think) we should really be discussing is “Why are persistent contrails more prevalent now?” and if we are to assume that they are just forming in supersaturated skies, “why is the sky more consistently supersaturated even in mid summer on an apparently clear sunny day?”

    This has clearly become a HUGE topic of conversation on the Internet (Google search for chemtrails returned 1.33 million results and Altavista returned 4.36 million results), so I think it does indeed warrant an OFFICIAL explanation by governments. The silence actually just makes people more suspicious. If it doesn’t exist and is all in our minds then why not say so?

    I personally think that a weather modification program IS being carried out, which is fine if those involved tell us so, and if they tell us why they are doing it. Hopefully for good reasons but generally things kept secret are normally done so to “protect people” or more commonly to prevent people from objecting and wanting it to stop (e.g. developing weapons of mass destruction – not that I’m saying this is what is happening here).

    By the way, if my beliefs here are PROVED wrong I really will not be upset – I can take it ;o) All I really want is the truth and sadly I do not think an anonymous website by one person who has an interest in clouds will convince me or anyone else.

  35. There is no silence from governments, there’s a very comprehensive official response here:

    http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf

  36. So the questions (I think) we should really be discussing is “Why are persistent contrails more prevalent now?” and if we are to assume that they are just forming in supersaturated skies, “why is the sky more consistently supersaturated even in mid summer on an apparently clear sunny day?”

    I don’t think this is only because “you just don’t remember” – that’s the answer I give to people who claim that there were NEVER any persistent spreading contrails.

    There’s more now because of a combination of factors:
    – There are more planes in the air
    – Engine design has changed
    – Since it depends on the weather, it can vary at random between years, and even between five or ten year periods.

    In addition, it do think you NOTICE things more if you are actively looking for them, especially if you feel somewhat worried about them. I never noticed termites before a few years ago when my house was infested – and now I see them on the sidewalk all the time. Were there no termites before? Are there more now? No – I just notice them more.

  37. SR1419 says:

    Nik-

    You said: “What I do think, and I am positive that thousands would agree with me, is that persistent contrails/chemtrails are much more common than in the past”

    This certainly is true…all the atmospheric scientists would agree with you.

    However, persistent contrails DID exist when you were younger…even if you do not remember them…as this paper from 1970 suggests:

    http://tinyurl.com/47lcdg

    You also said: “I personally think that a weather modification program IS being carried out”

    Can you present the most compelling piece of evidence that would suggest this??

  38. Nik says:

    Uncinus – where on earth did you dig up that report from? Did you write it? Apparently a Chemtrail is “…a term coined to suggest contrails are formed by something other than a natural process of engine exhaust hitting the cold air in the atmosphere.” Is this really what chemtrails are? Are they not contrails that contain chemicals (for whatever purpose)? Not convinced by that document one bit.

    SR1419 – Most compelling piece of evidence?? Difficult to provide evidence when we are not given access to aeroplanes, samples of contrails, government project documents etc. however the most compelling pieces of evidence I can think of (off the top of my head) are. Patent document relating to a method to control global warming by spraying, mention of chemtrails in draft US document, thousands of people saying that something isn’t right in the skies above them, day after day of huge amounts of persistent trails causing a dull “fake cloud” sky with reduced sunlight, reports of huge amounts of plane traffic in places where it doesn’t usually occur, silence by media and government, 67% of the previous 30 year average for sunlight for August 2008 in the UK. These are just a few things, which is why this will not just go away with the “nothing new here”, “always been like this”, “just more planes”, “you don’t remember” etc. etc.

    As for termites, you should watch out for those little critters, they may be bugged – in fact I’m surprised they haven’t been killed off by the chemtrails, like the bees. ;o)

  39. Where did I dig it up? It’s linked from the Wikipedia “chemtrails” page, and it shows up in google results, you wanted to find what the official position on “chemtrails” was – and that’s it.

    Can you be a bit more specific as to why you are not convinced by the document? What exactly is wrong with it?

    And as for the “evidence” you list, it’s very easy to go through it and explain it all without having to resort to “chemtrails”. You could probably explain it all yourself if you had a bit more open mind.

    Take, for example, “silence by media and government” – now first there is no “silence” – there have been lots of media reports on the “chemtrail” theory, and several official responses. But the easy explanation here is that there is no chemtrail conspiracy, so the media and government has nothing much to say about it. Explain to me again why you think this is evidence of a conspiracy?

  40. Bruce says:

    Hello gentlemen, nice to see some fresh discussion running now.

    The satellite image I linked previously has still not been convincingly explained, I stand by the opinion that it possibly proves contrails are being used for weather molestation.

    I would also like us to discuss the wave clouds which run at 90deg to each other and often appear concurrently with contrails.

    Also cloud colour change is worthy of discussion as is HAARP technology as I feel there may be a link here.

    Does anyone think it possible that HAARP activity causes any aircraft travelling through the affected area to leave a lasting trail?

    What effect would HAARP’s heating have on clouds at any altitude?

    Regards – Bruce

  41. We had a similar cloud formation here today:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_UCSB.2008275.aqua.1km

    The east-west lines across the cloud bank are contrails, the north-south lines are clouds.

    Sometimes clouds just form in straight lines. That’s all there is to it.

    I provide photos from 1905 to demonstrate that clouds sometimes form in straight lines. What evidence do you have that they don’t?

    Can you give examples of “wave clouds which run at 90deg to each other and often appear concurrently with contrails”, like some photos? I’m just not sure what you are referring to.

    Bruce, what exactly do you think HAARP does? Do you think the HAARP web site is full of lies?

    http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/faq.html

    Is HAARP capable of affecting the weather?

    The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere – the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth’s weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere.
    The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun’s radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth’s atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.

    If so, why?

  42. Nik says:

    I need to be more open-minded?!?! I’m the one that is saying chemtrails exist, therefore I would say I have more of an open mind than you. Agree?

    What I think you mean is that I need to believe what your website says and forget that this whole chemtrail conspiracy exists.

    On the subject of chemtrails/persistent contrails; I was out driving earlier today (approx 15:00 GMT) and the sky was awesome, with nearly every cloud type imaginable. I think we are lucky in that respect in the UK due to the ever changing pressure systems, from all directions, moving across the country. Anyway, I also noticed a few fantastic long and natural cirrus type cloud formations (I wish I took a picture). Obvious it is difficult to gauge the length, but they were extremely long and very pretty. They were travelling in an almost diagonal direction (i.e. not just horizontal) although this may have been accentuated by the curvature of the earth. Naturally our modern sky wouldn’t be the same without a few aeroplanes spewing out exhaust fumes, contrails and or chemtrails. One of these planes, with a clearly defined “normal” contrail (i.e. one that disappeared almost as soon as it appeared) passed straight through this cirrus cloud and there was absolutely no difference in the time it took for the contrail to dissipate.

    From a scientific viewpoint, can you confirm if you would have thought it more likely that a persistent type of contrail would have been present in these type of conditions? I would have assumed that if these long and thin cirrus type clouds were present then the air would have been ideal for persistent contrails. Do you agree?

    Perhaps it was actually a sylph instead keeping our skies clean ;o)

  43. By “open-minded” I meant being able to consider more than one explanation. I don’t simply mean chemtrails/contrails either – I was referring to the varied bits of evidence you presented. Like: why was August unusually dull? Can you think of more than one explanation? Why not have a look at the satellite photos for August and see if that tells you anything.

    Speaking of which, here’s October 5th, (yesterday – not sure what day you are referring to in your post)

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008279.terra.1km
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2008279.aqua.1km

    Looks like the long cirrus formations are over the east. Check out the 250m images, there are indeed some impressive cirrus there.

    When the cirrus look like they are descending diagonally, that’s because they are. That’s a “cirrus uncinus” cloud – the ice crystal in the cloud that are large enough are falling towards the ground, and as they pass through regions of wind sheer, they are blown in various directions.

    Your plane could quite easily have been flying through descending cirrus, below where they formed. Or it could have been well above the formation layer, and just looked like it was inside the clouds (pretty hard to tell with such transparent clouds).

    I am a bit jealous of your interesting weather in the UK. While it’s very nice here, it’s pretty much clear skies all the time. I’d not seen a contrail for literally months until a few days ago (oct 2) when we finally got some contrail weather:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_La_Jolla.2008276.aqua.1km

    I anticipate some new YouTube videos from the Los Angeles chemtrail community. Here’s one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ4wliL5w-w

    And another of a sunset, noting that the clouds are “orange”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6_WYtJzaS0

    You should listen to the audio on that one, this guy must be from LA, he’s acting like he’s never seen a cloudy sunset before.

  44. Nik says:

    I had a funny feeling it would be your namesake cloud. It was actually today 6th October 2008. The plane may have been under it but it certainly looked like it was flying through it. Anyhow, I just thought it was something interesting to post – maybe it was maybe it wasn’t!

    As for being open-minded, I am a scientist by degree and therefore I do not ever make a decision without seeing all sides of the argument (where possible) and a decent scientific experiment (again where possible). I can guarantee that I haven’t made my mind up on chemtrails/contrails and do indeed remain open-minded to all possibilities, however I rank them within my own heart/head as to the likelihood (through known or unknown science). Sadly that means protective sylphs remains quite low as a natural “preventor” of chemtrails but nevertheless it still remains a possibility, however crazy it may sound to a human mind!

    Whether you are a keen amateur meterologist/cloud enthusiast or one of a number of government agents sat in a room together debunking chemtrails (still making my mind up on that one too), keep up the good work! As with all things the truth will always come out in the end, it’s just whether people will accept it, or even see/hear it. Hopefully with all the different information outlets available now people will ALWAYS hear the truth.

    N

  45. Bruce says:

    Nik has a good question left un-answered. I have not seen a rush to debunk the satellite image I linked nor have I seen anything which shows anything similar by nature.

    Concerning HAARP, I think I may have used the common term for the steered beam sky vandal and confused you into discussing the HAARP project. It is critical here to be aware that HAARP is only the name for one of the experiments, and therefore should not be proof of sole use of the installation. As is stated clearly in their own web site, the radio station is used as a facillity to run the HAARP experiment from, so is not proof of that being the sole function. They will most likely run several other programes which are classified.

    It staggers me to be expected to believe that they are still buggering around looking at radio skip after nearly 70 years of research on this subject.

    With respect to any effects it may have on the lower atmosphere, it should be remembered that the ionosphere reflects radio waves, so if you fire a wave from the ground it will bounce off, just as the radio waves do when they come from space.

    The Sky Vandal has something like 30 generators, each makes 1,600 horse power, so all the power goes up and lots comes back down. The wave lengths used can be changed, harmonic waves are also used on the back of the main wave, scatter and interference also play their part.

    The energy in the waves changes to heat, the wave also has a magnetic field, all things sky borne are affected by this energy and un-doubtedly many others too.

    So you think this energy needs special equipment to detect it? Bollocks, anyone with eyes can see it in use.

    Uncinus, you may need to spend more time outside and use your eyes and brain more. Quoting ancient books is not answering anything, things have changed. Check out the new sky science, don’t get left behind just because it is not in a book yet.

    Just for a laugh check out this guys accent and voice, when I saw this I nearly pished my breeks. Pitty his wife if he has one.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JrSVbGYM6dc

    Regards to you all – Bruce

  46. SR1419 says:

    Bruce-

    that video was pretty funny…the accent was a bit over the top…sort of like a cockney accent 🙂

    The content, however, was spot on.

    The stultifying delivery was, unfortunately, at the level that most “chemtrail” believers seem to be at…present company excluded..

    I wasn’t sure which satellite image you were referring to but in looking over your posts, the following comments caught my eye. pardon me for picking piece meal points to respond to.

    You said:

    “Ground observation is my strong point coupled with a lifetime memory of how my sky used to look and still should look. Plenty chemtrail stuff on the net show us clearly how the sky is completely overcome with contrails/chemtrails on a regular basis.”

    Surely, you understand that memory CAN indeed be colored by time…or to put it another way- memory is not infallible….Many studies have shown how perceived memories are often quite different that the actual facts. I am not saying that is the case with you…but you have to admit that it certainly IS a possibility.

    Persistent contrails certainly existed when you were younger. I am sure you are not trying to say they didn’t….right? Did you look for persistent contrails when you were younger- as you no doubt do now?

    However, they..er…we…didn’t have the “net” when we were younger- so, a million videos showing contrails now doesn’t mean that wasn’t the case back then…just that we could not film and post it for the world to see minutes later…

    Combine that with a HUGE increase in air travel over the last 20 years…and a greater range of contrail parameters through engine design and fuel development…and perhaps even subtle changes in the atmosphere be they anthropomorphic or not…and one might see a plausible reason for the increase in contrails.

    You said:

    “The effect on the environment under these trails is simply overwhelming, to suggest there is no effect or only a slight effect is complete madness. These trails blocking the sun cause a big effect on the formation of other clouds so causing a complete change in the localised environment.”

    I am not sure who suggested that there was no effect?? Certainly the 100s of scientists who have researched contrails over the last 50 years would agree with you…such as this paper from 1970 would suggest:

    http://tinyurl.com/47lcdg

    Also:

    “With regard to the aircraft activity, what I state is true. There are no regular flights over my home, I have double checked the sky on the few clear days we have had recently for regular traffic and I could never find 26 aircraft in a day, let alone one hour. ”

    Are you sure?? …I have no idea where you live but what about flights that are to and from destinations no where near you but might pass over….say…from Cairo to NY or Montreal to Istanbul or flights of that nature…can you say with certainty that no flights would fly over your home?? …you say you couldn’t find 26 but that would suggest you did see some?? can you clarify?

    Out of curiosity- do you see planes on days when there are no trails?? Or do you only notice them when a trail is left?

    For me, I have 100s of planes flying over me daily but rarely see any of them unless they leave a contrail- be it persistent or not…

    As for HAARP- when you say “They will most likely run several other programes which are classified.” ….that is just way too speculative and unconvincing to be taken seriously…

    Do tell…what is the empirical evidence that shows proof of this ionospheric manipulation?

    …I am afraid I do not see it…and I have been watching the sky all my life…I have a life time of memory and the sky and the clouds all look the same to me…albeit with a few more contrails.

  47. SR1419 says:

    Bruce-

    saw the sat. image- interesting picture…

    but when say:

    “cloud in front of the main bank has more contrails running through it than could reasonably be expected.”

    How do you know what can “reasonably” be expected?? What are the factors that would suggest to you there are too many contrails?? That seems to be an biased opinion based on a predetermined belief on your part….rather than actual scientific possibilities…

    “In my opinion the picture shows an atmospheric impossibility.”

    Why?

    …and – no offense- but are you an atmospheric expert that would give credence to your opinion? ….or is that you just do not satellite images like that when you were younger?

    Sorry…had to be asked.

  48. TonyB says:

    “With chemtrails, it was a secret population reduction program” (from the link in reply 14) It’s no secret that America has been involved in eugenics at least until the Carter administration… We were even buddies with Hitler and sold him a lot of the gasses used to kill millions… we sold them in 1938-39, before WWII… Just like we sold Saddam Hussein virtually all of his chemical weapons. There was a joke in congress a while back – something like: ‘We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we sold them to him.’

    Possible, but it’s not particularly effective if that is the case. From what I hear it seems to give respiratory problems and not mass death (except the thing in London… I’d link it, but I haven’t been able to verify the deaths from a non-chemtrail site yet, if anyone has a news link to the 8,100 deaths that had to be taken out in refrigerated trailers please post it.)

  49. TonyB says:

    I know this isn’t a photo but… http://flightaware.com/analysis/allflights_movie.rvt It’s a 24 hour loop of commercial air traffic… chemtrail or contrail, it’s insane to watch… (doesn’t show any trails, just tracked flight paths)

  50. Yeah, there are a lot of planes in the sky, I touched on this earlier:

    http://contrailscience.com/there-are-a-lot-of-jets-in-the-air/

    Did you also see the “Britain From Above” stuff – pretty visualization of one day’s air traffic:

    http://contrailscience.com/britain-from-above-air-traffic/

  51. TonyB says:

    The video link is either gone or dead in britain-from-above-air-traffic ;-( I love that grid pic of us air traffic, would make a great poster if it’s public domain.

  52. The video still works for me. It takes a while to come up. Try this direct link:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/visualisations/planes.shtml

    Well worth watching.

  53. TonyB says:

    Ahhh… My NoScript software for firefox was blocking the vid ;-p Nice clip, it looks crazy, especially the brief circling part (though you can see several earlier.)

  54. Bruce says:

    Hello again gentlemen, I note that the BBC clip suggests (as do the charts) that there should be no regular traffic over my home.

    Now the dark nights are here I can again (as last year) confirm there are normaly very few, often no aircraft overhead. This is easily done by watching for nav. lights in the clear skies we have enjoyed recently.

    If I compare this to summertime observations on lasting trail days when often from say 6pm till 8.45pm or later we had aircraft overfly averaging one every six minutes then sudden stop of activity.

    This seems to confirm the theory that the skies do indeed suddenly fill with aircraft over my home but strangely only when a lasting trails are possible.

    So we have a deepening mystery along with the unexplained cloud formations etc. Clouds which I considered to be rare are seen fairly regularly here now, usualy along with the sudden contrailing.

    However I see only explainations which are at best over simplified.

    SR1419 seems to think there may be something wrong with my memory, so does Uncinus.
    Well my eyesight is great and you both need to look again at that satellite image I linked, look at the S/W end of that cloud bank, it is solid contrails right through. The N/E end shows random contrails.

    Still cant find a natural cloud like the satellite image shows anywhere but I have a couple of pictures of one being constructed above my work which several of us witnessed being formed by aircraft. The flight paths also dont match the direction or position shown by the BBC video. When I said the cloud is an atmospheric impossibility, I mean the air did not form the cloud in this shape. So now having witnessed one being constructed I can honestly tell you this is true.

    Wait – Dare someone suggest that my sunglasses have white pinstripes and I have been fooled all along.

    Like I said in my previous post, we need to bring our thinking up to date if we are to further our understanding. Simple old contrails are good fun to talk about but something far more unusual is going on. Perhaps we need to consider how ionisation of clouds influences I.N. and C.N.

    By the way, it seems the nasty insulting old bloke called “Disinfoagent” who offered to modify his theory to fit our observations has strangely evapourated from Youtube. Perhaps his wife finaly snapped and murdered him after suffering years of his childish wailing along with his unhealthy interest in contrails, or maybe he choked on his false teeth whilst frothing at the mouth with rage over a chemtrail video.

    Here is a good guy with humour not anger:

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GMpObwggyKI&feature=related

    Regards – Bruce (not another “chemtard”)

  55. QuoTodt says:

    UNCINUS:

    Sorry, been away a while.

    Esperance where the birds died and “Super Storm” hit has it’s own daily (12 hour) UAS balloon release. The launch point of the balloon is within the town limits and directly in the flight path of the commercial airliners.

    R.H at altitude is ACTUALLY quite stable. Also, we are seeing long lasting contrails at levels as low as %30 R.H

    I have some great video of a “normal” persitent contrail and just above it the usual long lasting, sky covering one. The persitent one disapeared after 20 minutes. In fact some of the piccies you show may well just be simple persitent contrails.

    There is also an enormous amount of literature from official sources such as IPCC documents where it is recommended aircraft (commercial) run their engines deliberately rich to help form a “particulate” that would help reflect sunlight.

    There is SO much data available now that to consider these events as “normal” is leaving ones self open to the charge of being a “kook”. 🙂

    BIRDS AND LEAD:

    I have an enormous amount of data on the deaths there. I WAS there when it happened. There was no mine at Esperance, they were transporting the lead as a “carbonate” or “powder” type substance. The ACTUAL lead levels of the birds is TOTALLY kooky. In fact, 2 of the top scientists in charge said outright the results were “unique” and they could “NOT” explain the results.

    Birds were DROPPING DEAD at 3mg/kg wet weight. That is UNHEARD of. Birds might start to get a little sick at this level. Water fowl in one study dropped dead at 11mg/kg wet weight after ingesting lead as an alkyline released into their habitat. Pigeons that lived IN the sheds holding the lead were HEALTHY at between 16mg and 45mg/kg wet weight!!!!!! The spread was enormous with birds from 3-98mg/kg wet weight. Wah?

    THere is alot more to all this and a doco is in the making and we should release it within a couple of months.

    I will use some of the piccies you have collected and attribute them to you and even link to your site if you wish.

    Regards,

    Brendon.

  56. TonyB says:

    Bruce; what it actually says is if you’re in one of the areas showing almost no air traffic then what you little you do see is likely military in origin… just makes it more odd?

    Quo; the earliest I date that sort of thing to is the early 1990’s… and from what I’ve read the chemtrail theories started to become popular in the late 1990’s? Makes sense to me. I still question the extent and content of ‘chemtrails.’

    As far as me calling things theories, essentially everything is a theory. Science stopped turning theories into laws in the 1800’s. That’s why Newton has laws and Einstein has theories despite Einstein’s ideas being more tested and proven (though still flawed, just less so than Newton’s.)

  57. BB says:

    Uncinus

    Your doing some great work, keep it up. When I first seen “chemtrail” videos on youtube I was skeptical. You have some very good science to back up the fact that contrails have been around since high altitude flight has taken place.

    Bruce,

    It feels like your beating at a dead horse here. I read most the messages but gave up at about 75% through. I’m trying to stay neutral and read both sides of evidence before I make a judgment, but you’re just not convincing me that there is a difference between contrails and chemtrails.

    At first glance at these video’s I thought that there is a chance that they could be putting chemicals in air, but the more research I did, the more flaws I found in how people say that they can identify a “chemtrail”.

    Why would they spray chemicals into the air from 30,000 feet? Why not spray from the ground level. This would be way more effective as the chemicals could be concentrated in certain area’s.

    Well I will tell you this, they do spray chemicals on ground level. In my area they spray for mosquitoes using government truck that goes up and down every street in my town. This is repeated in every city in my area roughly 8 times per month during mosquito periods. I will tell you the stuff is horrible and really stinks. I have no idea what the side affects of the mosquitoes spray has on me. But I didn’t seem to suffer any side effects or anybody I have heard about. I had the bad luck of turning to go up a main road and all of the sudden it was there in head of me. I could actually taste the stuff in my mouth as I followed it briefly in my car. I’m more worried about chemicals being sprayed on ground level then chemicals being sprayed from over 30,000 feet up.

    Just something to think about.

  58. Bruce says:

    Sorry Unc. but I cant reveal where I live but you are welcome to drop in for a steak dinner if you are ever in town.

    Yes I must get round to sorting through some pictures for discussion.

    TonyB- Yes the traffic may be military, the aircraft in question are like passenger jets not fighters. Strangely I never see fighter jets leaving long trails.

    BB – The term is flogging a dead horse, not beating it.

    Yes I may be “flailing a dead sheep” or “wrestling a decomposite donkey” but equaly may just have a tiger by the tail.

    I assume you find yourself powerless to stop the mosquito truck from spraying and are annoyed with it, well I feel the same about my sky, I want it back the way it was please.

    There are no side effects from ever lasting contrails, just main effects.

    I do not (as so called chemtards) believe barium/aluminium/pathogens/ice or doghairs exist within the trails as I do not see good evidence to prove these theories. I do however use the term chemtrail but do not believe they are a form of germ warfare.

    I think weather modification, not germ warfare, is most likely. The trail would need to be introduced high up or over where air masses mix and not at low level. The trail need not comprise of anything other than water or salted water to affect the weather. The simple act of blocking sunlight is enough to change things.

    I have already mentioned that I am open to theories on changes to the sky to explain the “chemtrail” phenomenom therefore negating any questions on the unusual air traffic, chemicals or lost pilots.

    Interesting thought- If we threw the mosquito spray truck out of a C130 at great height or if a Piper Pawnee was able to spray pesticide at 35,000ft, the effect would be identical to a lasting contrail and most of it would indeed be ice/cloud.

    On the ground I would be saying- “What the hell is that?”

    Unc. would be saying – “Dont worry, its only a contrail”

    Truth is neither of us would ever know for sure untill the truck hits the ground or the Pawnee crashes with a hypoxiated pilot.

    Hey Unc, perhaps you could get one of these trucks to spray these bloody termites that ate your house!

    Here is a good example of how the sky never looked –

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qkyFGMAT-Qc&feature=related

    Are we all happy with a sky like this? Does anyone remember a sky like this as a child?
    (Evidence from children not permitted)

    There are other sky anomalies possibly not directly related to contrails/chemtrails that the discussion has not adressed yet.

    Regards and respect to all – Bruce

  59. That’s quite an interesting point Bruce – what would the trail lok like from a C-130 spraying pesticide at 35,000 feet?

    I suspect it would look very unlike a cloud, and very unlike a contrail.

    The principle difference here is that a contrail is formed from water vapor (a gas), and pesticide is a liquid. The difference this makes would be in the size of the droplets. Contrail ice crystal are very small, forming in sizes of around 2-10 microns, and they are generally not spherical, but are instead faceted crystals of various shapes that grow rapidly as gaseous water is deposited on nuclei. Pesticide, on the other hand, is usually sprayed as droplets of liquid, already spherical, and quite large, ranging from 20-400 microns. You can spray it smaller, but then you’ve still got the difference that it’s a liquid, and not a gas.

    But to your main point – weather control – I’m afraid the objection still remains that you’ve not shown anything of statistical significance. If there was some weather modification going on, it would be a relatively simple matter to show this with statistical analysis of weather records. It’s also something that meteorologists would have noticed.

  60. Ross says:

    The other question is that of intent. Are these trails INTENDED to change the weather/climate; is that the purpose?

    I say, No. If it is changing the weather/climate, it is an unintended consequence of modern air transport using jet aircraft.

  61. Corvin says:

    It am always amazed at how in every one of these “contrail” Blogs/discussions/arguments there is always a handful of non-chemtrail believers that are always rude, tell others off for their memories and always refer to the same material.

    And when the going gets tough there will always be newcomers to their rescue telling believers or speculators how stupid/unintelligent they are!

    Its like “de ja vue” each and every time!!

    It honestly makes me wonder if these very harsh non-believers are all disinfo agents, and whether its even worth your while debating with them, cause I have honestly started noticing them as all taking on the same debunking methods.

    I have taken the stance of not taking notice of their posts anymore, I am however very interested in the people, as myself, who have gradually noticed (not a small) but a huge change. Its not confined to area’s, countries or continents, its a global phenomenon!! Just like these debunkers have become a constant phenomenon with their identical tactics, same references and material!

    Its time to move past them and take the next step!

  62. Hi Corvin, I think you might be seeing similar material because people are responding to similar points, like “contrails don’t persist longer than a few minutes”.

    Contrails do in fact form just the same all around the world.

  63. JazzRoc says:

    “always refer to the same material”
    Atmospheric science/meteorology?
    “stupid/unintelligent”
    Uninformed and outspoken together. Not a pleasant combination.
    “de ja vue”
    Deja vu.
    “if all disinfo agents”
    The government spares no expense…
    “same debunking methods”
    Same errors of thought.
    “noticed (not a small) but a huge change.”
    Rather like the fifty-fold increase in civil aviation over the last fifty years?
    “constant phenomenon with their identical tactics, same references and material!”
    Atmospheric science/meteorology?
    “Its time to move past them and take the next step!”
    ..next few steps…to a library…and study some science, history, logic.

  64. Anonymous says:

    Thanks so much for posting these classic photos featuring contrails/chemtrails. I see more now than ever, but they have been around for a while.

    Even classic TV shows or movies show these trails. I recently saw the 1960 classic “The Misfits” and in the desert scenes a few contrails can be clearly seen. Just a few. But they are there. And in the closing credits from 1972’s “Maude” there are brownish trails everywhere in the sky.

    That said, as an avid cloudwatcher from birth living here in NE Ohio I have seen more of these in the past 10 years than I have in my 38 years. And waking up about a month ago on an otherwise clear Sunday morning to the closest and largest ‘X’ ever was a bit disturbing. Still, I’ve never been much for conspiracy theories, although there may be some truth in the individual details that make up those theories. Rather, one of my personal goals in the way I process info about anything is to keep some kind of balance – and your site has helped add that balance to my chemtrail knowledge. 🙂

    Thanks!

  65. bryansail says:

    Uncinus,
    I was reading the post above where you took a quote from the HAARP website and it is most enlightening as to how honest that website is.

    “If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”

    There is a great deal of interest in how the sun affects surface weather. There is strengthening evidence that there is a relationship between weather and solar activity, specifically solar wind streams that buffet the earth. The problem is in knowing what those effects are but the relationship is important. Hurricanes and solar activity are linked and certainly this is surface weather.

    So, we can conclude based upon the hilighted sentence that HAARP is actively and purposely mis-leading us. Also, if one takes time
    pouring over atmospheric research such as ‘atmospheric ducting’ etc. it becomes clear very quickly that HAARP can influence the
    weather. You have definitely helped illuminate that HAARP is not willing to be honest with those reading their FAQ’s.
    See; http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/10/us-hurricane-counts-significantly-related-to-solar-activity/ (and this is just barely
    scratching the surface)

    Oh, anecdotally, I ALWAYS check spaceweather.com for the Solar wind stream info. as it appears to effect the thermal winds
    that I like to windsurf. A slightly stronger ground wind effect than has been forcast for at my local pond correlates with the earth being inside a solar wind stream -others have noticed this relationship also.

    Regards,
    Bryan

  66. It’s not clear to me how HAARP could influence the weather. Perhaps you could explain it?

    And just to be clear, here’s the full quote:

    Is HAARP capable of affecting the weather?
    The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere – the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth’s weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere.

    The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun’s radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth’s atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.

    If you do have a correlation between solar wind and the the wind over your pond then perhaps you could document it with actual measurements? What you suggest sounds very unlikely, so would be interesting if true.

  67. bryansail says:

    Hi Uncinus,

    My point is that HAARP is not forthcoming to the public. They are mis-leading those reading their information.
    The sun does effect our weather. Haarp says it does not. It throws into serious doubt their claim that HAARP
    cannot effect the weather.

    HAARP is a microwave transmitter. The air or ‘atmosphere’ has some ‘stuff’ in it. A focused microwave is going to heat it. Now, if we trust HAARP’s PR team, we are told that HAARP is not powerful enough to cause this heating, or any weather effects. I don’t trust them. HAARP has the strength to create a man made billowing light show in the sky which they’ve demonstrated, and focus energy into a powerful beam (especially when combined with other arrays) They say they can’t effect weather but we know that they also tell us that solar activity doesn’t effect weather and it in fact does.

    HAARP has amazing capabilities and they ain’t talkin’ to the public. Did you know that HAARP gets back more energy than it uses? It is a net energy creator! Reality is stranger than fiction, stranger than conspiracy.

    The observation about correlation of surface winds and solar stream is anecdotal, it would take me a long time to gather the data and then it would probably be inconclusive for any number of reasons, maybe I’ll jot down the info. though… The correlation between solar activity and weather has data behind it however. In 2005 strong solar flares seemed to coincide with a few different Hurricane’s rapid intensifications. Really interesting.

    Analyze the Spectrometre results of a fresh contrail ! The military has done this in the past. Time for evidence!
    Regards,
    Bryansail

  68. The sun does effect our weather. Haarp says it does not. It throws into serious doubt their claim that HAARP
    cannot effect the weather.

    The sun affects the weather.
    HAARP does not affect the sun
    Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather

    The ionosphere does not affect the weather
    HAARP affects the ionosphere
    Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather.

    Bryan, do you have ANY evidence to back up your claims? Anything?

    And, more to the point, can you please bring contrails back into the conversation. That’s what this site is about.

  69. Bryan says:

    Uncinus,
    Your very odd logic flow does not negate that the HAARP website is misleading the public in their FAQ’s.
    They are very clearly being dis-honest as I have demonstrated.

    The concerns with HAARP are very warranted based upon those who are in the forefront of the R & D of
    atmospheric heaters. Dr. Nick Begich has written a book that is very well researched (over 400 citations) that will
    help you in understanding the concerns about weather modification. Bernard Eastland has made claims that
    HAARP can be used to modify weather. He has a vastly superior knowledge base of transmitter array capabilities
    than either of us. The HAARP PR boys cannot be honest about HAARP capabilities because arrays used to find Oil
    underground are well known to effect living tissue in deleterious ways. It is well understood that HAARP can
    lift areas of the ionosphere (40 to 60 miles up). What kind of effect does this have on the atmosphere
    below? Certainly there is likely to be an affect, right? No effect on weather would be rather amazing actually.

    For excerpts of Nick Begich’s book http://www.avalonhealthinfo.com/articles/46/1/The-Militarys-Pandoras-Box/Page1.html

    Haarp creates artificial aurora http://www.nature.com/nature/links/050203/050203-7.html

    It is naive at best to say that HAARP is not a concern to weather patterns and biological entities. Are you aware
    that planes are routed away from the focused microwaves of HAARP? Unfortunately wildlife is not so easily given
    a heads up.

    Contrail paths are thus modified to fly around HAARP’s focused transmissions (to return to the subject matter)

    What evidence do you have Uncinus that lifting an area of the earths ionosphere does NOT affect weather?
    Remember that we have already shown that the HAARP PR team is not to be trusted.

    Regards,
    Bryan

  70. You said:

    The sun does effect our weather. Haarp says it does not. It throws into serious doubt their claim that HAARP cannot effect the weather.

    Show me where on the HAARP web site it says that the sun does not affect the weather.

    In fact, quote me ONE THING on that site that you can demonstrate to be untrue.

  71. Bryan says:

    Uncinus, this is where the HAARP website is dishonest (taken from the full quote above)

    “…If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”

    It is a false statement as we know that ionospheric storms caused by the sun DO affect surface weather.
    Just search google for solar activity+hurricane. So there is definitely a chance that HAARP can effect weather.

    A key question is, what evidence is there that lifting a section of the ionosphere does NOT effect weather.

    Back to contrails, in addition to the things you mentioned for the reasons contrail behavior may be different now’ such as jet engine mixture and design being different, than during WWII or as recently as the 1980’s I would add these.

    More particulates in the air. A current sunset picture taken anywhere on earth shows an orange haze along the horizon
    that used to be reserved for known smoggy cities such as L.A. Ca. Amazing how degraded air quality currently is compared
    to recent history.

    Upper air is now colder than in previous decades, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmos/ozone.htm
    Based on theories of atmospheric coupling, it is likely that the water vapor content at 25 to 45,000 feet is
    changing also. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmos/ozone.htm The article is interesting also in that
    it shows how changes high in the atmosphere are linked to surface changes. Hope that the researchers at the
    ionospheric heater arrays are paying attention (wink)
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010418072442.htm
    The measurements are for the stratosphere but the article makes clear that there is more transport of moisture
    from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere.

    So when people on your forum keep mentioning that they see more contrails than they remember as a kid, they are likely
    right for reasons beyond just jetfuel mixture changes and focused observation. While I agree with you that they weren’t really thinking about contrails as much when they were growing up (and that memory is a very peculiar thing) I think that contrail persistence and occurance is increasing/morphing continually based upon more inputs than we can track effectively.

    Regards,
    Bryan

  72. Uncinus, this is where the HAARP website is dishonest (taken from the full quote above)

    “…If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”

    It is a false statement as we know that ionospheric storms caused by the sun DO affect surface weather.
    Just search google for solar activity+hurricane. So there is definitely a chance that HAARP can effect weather.

    If I google for solar activity+hurricane, you get mostly refences to the paper “United States and Caribbean tropical cyclone activity related to the solar cycle” by Elsner and Jagger, which says:

    The authors report on a finding that annual U.S hurricane counts are significantly related to solar activity. The relationship results from fewer intense tropical cyclones over the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico when sunspot numbers are high. The finding is in accord with the heat-engine theory of hurricanes that predicts a reduction in the maximum potential intensity with a warming in the layer near the top of the hurricane. An active sun warms the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere through ozone absorption of additional ultraviolet (UV) radiation

    I think you are simply confusing your levels of the atmosphere, and where they are, and what people mean when they say “upper atmosphere”. The ionosphere, which HAARP heats is about 70KM up, as they say in the quote, above. The lower stratosphere and upper troposphere are at around 20km up

    You see they are two totally different things. Nobody has ever shown ANY linkage between the ionosphere and the weather at ground level. Sure the sun heats the troposphere, which causes weather changes, but HAARP does NOT heat the troposphere, it heats the ionosphere, so how can you say their web site is inaccurate?

  73. Bryan says:

    Uncinus,
    I am floored. Are you not aware of Atmospheric coupling? I mentioned it in order to thwart possible confusion.
    There are many papers available discussing the linkages between the upper and lower atmosphere. I am not confused on this
    matter to any degree. I can’t believe you are even arguing this as there is documentation of the link. It’s not even arguable.

    That is a good graphic, now imagine this Uncinus, HAARP lifts the ionospheric line in your graphic, forming a bubble that pushes
    up into the area of the thermosphere. My question (for the last few posts) has been what is the corresponding action beneath
    this bubble? Surely there is an effect. This is known as atmospheric coupling and has been studied for decades.

    Ionospheric disturbances do cause surface weather changes, this in known. The HAARP website says that they don’t. You can find many more papers than the one you mention. Papers on solar variability (CME’s and solar wind streams) affecting surface weather go back many decades. The former Soviet Union has done a great deal of research in this area as far back as in the 1970’s.

    I am not nor have I ever been discussing the sun heating the troposphere. I am discussing ionospheric storms which impact surface
    weather. I have shown that HAARP’s FAQ is a sham, a mis-direct. That will really become clear if anyone looks closely at HAARP’s
    capabilities.
    -Bryan

  74. Bryan says:

    Uncinus,
    Are you not reading my posts? There is no reason for you to suggest that I am simply confusing my levels of the atmosphere as
    I spelled out specifically HAARP’s effect on the ionosphere and the ionospheres height in my post above.

    Your disregard of HAARP’s incorrect information is baffling.
    The link between ionospheric storms and surface weather is real.
    HAARP is not telling us the truth. This is hardly surprising.
    Regards,
    Bryan

  75. Ionospheric disturbances do cause surface weather changes, this in known.

    So point me at a paper. It’s known that surface weather (like hurricanes) can affect the ionosphere, but not the other way around.

    Find me one paper that shows that ionospheric disturbances cause surface weather changes, because everything I’ve read says there is no evidence of this.

  76. Bryan says:

    Ok Uncinus, I will show you how solar variability effects the surface weather. Keep in mind that this is a very controversial subject
    because the dynamics are so complex. There are researchers and meterologists who throw out the link entirely because it is so
    complicated that it is not going to be a useful tool to predict weather. That they deny a link is only because the link is too chaotic
    to be useful to them and there are instances where they state they don’t care because it can’t be used as a tool to forcast weather.
    This doesn’t mean that solar windstreams don’t cause weather changes. Cloud formation is linked in many of these studies which is
    an example of solar forcing affecting surface weather. The sun’s variability affects Hurricane activity which is detailed in the paper you looked at as well as previous papers showing the same link. It is not surface weather affecting the ionosphere (which happens no doubt)

    I will link you up to the hilt, but in return I ask that you answer the question I repeatedly have posed about the effects on the
    mid and or lower atmosphere caused by HAARP lifting the ionosphere. It is established that HAARP can lift (perhaps even tear a hole in) the ionosphere. What is the corresponding effect to the layers below the ionosphere that HAARP can cause to expand like a bubble going up into the thermosphere?

    Would you like to go first or shall I?
    Peace,
    Bryan

  77. You can go first, but while you are doing that could you also explain what “lift the ionosphere” actually means, given that the the ionosphere stretches from 50km to 1000km. Can you define what exactly is being lifted, where it was, how big it is, and where it is lifted to?

  78. JazzRoc says:

    Bryansail, your name rings a bell…

    You demonstrate an incapability to connect things together, and call Uncinus’s perfectly reasonable logic “odd”.

    Logic and reason are the first things you need before you attempt to deal with a scientific subject, for without them you will never escape your belief system and develop your understanding.

    The first thing you don’t understand is the distinction between solar RADIATION and the solar WIND. It is Electro-Magnetic WAVES from the Sun that warm the Earth. The PARTICLES of the Solar Wind have a negligible effect on the Earth.

    The second thing you don’t understand is that the “thermosphere” is practically a VACUUM, and above ninety miles it is certainly a vacuum so intense that it cannot be achieved in a laboratory using a typical reciprocating air pump.

    The individual molecules (and ions, and particles) of the atmosphere at that altitude are so far apart that their “temperature” is perhaps better defined as their “speed”.

    If HAARP’s radiation is “tuned” to accelerate these molecules (and it is) then it is also NOT tuned to accelerate the molecules in the lower “atmospheres”. (For if it were, then it wouldn’t reach the thermosphere, would it?)

    Understanding that there is so little material in the thermosphere also helps to explain the vanishingly small “coupling” with the atmosphere beneath it.

    Didn’t you ever see the experiment with a bell-jar, vacuum-pump, and electric bell? You know, the one where the bell (though ringing) becomes SILENT?

    I think the only “truth” in what you write is that you don’t “trust” HAARP.

    Perhaps you should emulate that bell until your understanding improves…

  79. Bryan says:

    Hi Jazzrock and Uncinus,

    Solar particles are different from solar radiation Jazzrock, very good. Gives you a definite chance in following along then with
    my posts. I’m glad that you are also able to distinguish between heating the ionosphere and tuning HAARP in the lower atmosphere. Both are possible, and yes they are very different things. I like your description of how different the upper atmosphere is in terms of molecular action that also is quite astute. I think you need to increase your own understanding
    of solar radiation changes on earth during solar wind stream events however. Solar radiation reaching the earth does increase
    during periods of intense solar activity. This is in addition to cosmic rays level increases.

    Uncinus wrote;
    “The sun affects the weather.
    HAARP does not affect the sun
    Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather

    The ionosphere does not affect the weather
    HAARP affects the ionosphere
    Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather.”

    The problem I have with Uncinus logic flow is that he wrote, “HAARP does not affect the sun Therefore, HAARP does not
    affect the weather.” -There is a definite problem with this statement, can you really not see that ? HAARP does not
    need to affect the sun in order to affect the weather. That is an odd piece of logic because A) it is not true and B) it
    does not relate in any way to the claim that I have shown-that HAARP’s webpage is disinformation. The key to
    understanding that it IS disinformation is in reading what the researchers who have worked with these antennae arrays
    have to say about HAARP’s capabilities. The reason you and Uncinus are in trouble regarding HAARP, is that you are
    going up against physicists and respected scientists who say that HAARP is most definitely capable of influencing
    the earth’s weather systems. It is not me who is defining HAARP’s capabilities, I defer to those who know
    the most about atmospheric microwave transmitters, the researchers themselves. Some of these ‘experts’ are from
    Russia, some from Europe and some from the U.S. and many of them are on record that HAARP is capable of far more than the cute
    little HAARP webpage will have you believe. If HAARP did not affect elevations well below the ionosphere, then there
    would be no reason to re-route air traffic around HAARP activity. If you and Uncinus are going to claim that HAARP only
    affects the ionosphere you both have a huge uphill battle. Actually it’s worse, you both are not paying attention to
    what HAARP has demonstrated. If HAARP only affects the ionosphere then ARCO has seriously mis-spent an amazing amount of
    money in their investment. In Bernard Eastland’s patent (this one is already in operation and the design of HAARP
    aligns very closely to the patent cited) it is mentioned that one of the capabilities will be; “to facilitate “missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion” by lifting large regions of the atmosphere “to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same.” Jazzrock wrote, “Understanding that there is so little material in the thermosphere also helps to explain the vanishingly small “coupling” with the atmosphere beneath it.” your statement does not sit well with the patent that is very closely aligned with HAARP. For missiles to encounter un-calculated drag means seriously altering vast regions of the upper atmosphere to the point where drag is changed. I don’t know why you went that route Jazzrock but it doesn’t seem to mesh with Eastlands statements or other’s who have studied HAARP. Go here and read the entire article; http://www.haarp.net/ Better yet read Nick Begich’s book, Angels don’t play this HAARP to understand better the resonance issue and the molecular changes that ripple far beyond the upper atmosphere. HAARP increases highly charged particles in the atmosphere and it is known that this effects weather. This website has 2 videos embedded from youtube done about HAARP and they are both well worth a view. The second one has some interesting allegations about weather manipulation as well. http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/tag/haarp/

    Cosmic particles, many which come from our own Sun do affect weather. There are many papers stating that they have an impact that is immediately measurable. Additionally, Solar particles raining down through the earth’s electro magnetic shield have a measurable impact on cloud formation. It is scientifically noted in dozens of papers that cloud formation is increased when the Earth’s shield is being buffeted by a solar stream. The negligible effect that you allude to is rather dubious based on the sheer volume of research on Solar Variability affecting the Earth’s weather. That angle (that any affects from solar particles is negligible) is based on the chaotic effect the particle streams have. If the effects can’t be modeled effectively then the result must be negligible-I have a serious problem with that logic flow as well, Jazzrock. I’m sure you are aware that solar particles increase earthquake activity as well as affecting weather. I already have pointed out that during a solar wind stream BOTH radiation and x-ray levels can be increased. It is not just particles. Here is some reading for you Jazzrock, you asked for it. The first research details effects of long term solar activity and solar flare effects on weather. http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/ It also illustrates that both x-rays AND solar radiation levels can increase during a solar wind stream event. Here’s another one, you have to go down to #4 to get to the examination of solar wind changing weather, http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm There are many other papers detailing changes in cloud concentration during solar wind events, let me know if you’d like them as well.

    Uncinus the top embedded video discusses the lifting of the ionosphere, but to get the exact answers you requested will probably require you to contact the researchers themselves. The information in the you tube clip (some from science channel program) mentions that the ionsphere is heated at 120 miles (193.2 km) above the earth. Diameter of the area being heated is approx. 30km (although military documents say that the diameter can vary). The amount of lifting is most likely mentioned in U.S. patent # 4686605 but the lifting acts as a lens or a mirror (a focusing device) you could roughly calculate the amount of lifting by using the diameter and raising it to the level of a standard lens. This paper has some in depth information on HAARP which may help in
    understanding the lifting effect. http://foia.abovetopsecret.com/ultimate_UFO/Advanced/HAARPResearchAndApplications.pdf
    The document while posted at above top secret is a military document worth reading.

    Another page with excerpts from a book about weather warfare by Michael Chossudovsky (ask for it for Christmas)
    http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military%e2%80%99s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare-by-prof-michel-chossudovsky/

    Let me know if you would like more information on concerns with HAARP capabilities by scientists outside of the U.S. (since
    going against the grain of HAARP’s cute website is somewhat of a sensitive subject.

    Look forward to your answer Uncinus. Keep in mind, if you have studied HAARP closely, it is indisputable that HAARP can be tuned to create effects in lower level atmosphere (lights and plasma-already demonstrated by HAARP) and ground penetrating capability
    (also already demonstrated)
    Regards,
    Bryan

  80. Bryan says:

    oh, also Uncinus wrote; “HAARP affects the ionosphere
    Therefore, HAARP does not affect the weather.”

    I’ve asked Uncinus to reply to this but I also disagree with the logic flow he mentioned here as well.
    For one thing HAARP affects more than the ionosphere, the ionosphere is simply the focusing lens, the lens
    actually can increase the power of HAARP and that energy can be focused tightly or widely down to the
    earth. Additionally HAARP effects can be created well below the ionosphere as has been demonstrated
    by causing light shows at lower altitudes. Molecular changes that HAARP is capable of include
    changing the composition of molecules increasing certain types and decreasing others. HAARP is freaky
    stuff, and it aligns closely with Tesla technology which way above any of our understanding, although
    looking into Tesla technology will reward even our (by comparison) feeble minds.

    An outstanding book that goes into depth far beyond the Begich book on HAARP is Gerry Vassilatos, Secret Cold War Technology, Project HAARP and beyond. This book is outstanding for going in depth on the true nature of HAARP and it’s real capabilities
    which are definitely not mentioned in the HAARP website. This book is also a valuable research tool for those looking into Tesla’s
    radiant energy.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=xfABAAAACAAJ&dq=Gerry+Vassilatos&source=an&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

    I think I’m almost ready to get back to the subject of contrails. The subject of contrails may relate closely to HAARP actually…
    Regards,
    Bryan

  81. If HAARP did not affect elevations well below the ionosphere, then there
    would be no reason to re-route air traffic around HAARP activity.

    There’s a difference between air and an airplane. One is unaffected by radio waves, and one is.

    Okay, now again, can you tell me of one paper that shows that ionospheric disturbances cause surface weather changes? Because that’s what you claimed, and that’s what I asked you to show.

  82. I think I’m almost ready to get back to the subject of contrails.

    I’d appreciate that 🙂

  83. Bryan says:

    It is in EVERYTHING I sent you Uncinus. It is all related. Upper atmospheric disturbances and lower atmospheric disturbances are
    entangled. I guess you are not a big fan of chaos theory, nor of ‘spooky action at a distance’ -there is truth in both, yet I don’t
    think that I should be required to explain them step by step to you. If you read the Begich book or the Vassilatos book I think
    you will have a really hard time believing that HAARP can’t affect the weather, actually you should be suspicious of the
    capabilities just by looking at the links above.

    You said you would answer my question and I have given you some data on ionospheric lifting (which is not a thought experiment unfortunately), so now it is your turn to tell me what that lifting and changing of molecular composition might cause underneath. Tag your it.

    …oh, contrails.
    This is a great website on contrails, Thanks again. Sincerely this website is an amazingly cool counterpoint to all the chemtrail websites. So do you have any comment on atmospheric cooling changing contrail behavior? I think you were too excited to delve into HAARP capabilities and you never commented, lol.
    The NASA paper that I linked you discusses how water vapor concentrations are changing and temperatures aloft
    are decreasing. Interesting I think and it may relate to all the claims of I never saw this as a kid. Although, as you’ve mentioned
    there is a lot more air traffic than in the past and jetfuel mixtures are different. I actually think that contrails are more prevalent in part because our atmosphere is not the same as it was in recent history.

    With regards to contrails, do you think that JP-8 is a good idea? Seems to me like trade-offs, some good, but potentially
    troubling health effects. I think JP-8 would be banned from automobiles very quickly as it is pretty nasty stuff.

    Peace,
    Bryan

  84. Bryan says:

    with regards to radiowaves. It is true that the stated reason for moving air traffic to avoid HAARP is that the transmitter will
    interfere with radio communications. Sure, yeah, cool that, I always turn off my portable devices on lift off and landing for the
    same reason.
    …but here’s the problem, HAARP’s transmitting range is very wide, so wide that it is considered a microwave transmitter.
    I don’t recommend configuring your microwave to run with the door wide open. Microwaves heat molecules. Heating
    is a weather phenomenon. HAARP is a weather phenomenon as well.
    -Bryan

  85. I’m sorry Bryan, but you keep saying that ionospheric disturbances cause surface weather changes, and now you say that I have to somehow deduce that from watching several videos and reading a book and several web sites?

    Why can’t you just give me a link, and quote the actual content that says ionospheric disturbances cause surface weather changes? Like, for example, if I were to claim that the lower weather has an effect on the “space weather”, I would give:

    http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR04/00557/COSPAR04-A-00557.pdf

    The impact of meteorological processes upon the ionosphere cannot be ignored in
    conceptual space weather models. The giant energy stored in motion of tropospheric
    air masses (weather fronts, cyclones, stream jets, penetrating convection, etc) serves
    as a powerful source of upward energy fluxes propagating from the lower to upper
    atmosphere. The prospective energy carrier might be associated with the middle-scale
    atmospheric gravity waves (AGW) traveling upwards to the ionospheric heights and
    producing the effects known as traveling ionospheric disturbances (TID’s).We present
    the results of detailed experimental and theoretical study of these phenomena.

  86. …but here’s the problem, HAARP’s transmitting range is very wide, so wide that it is considered a microwave transmitter.
    I don’t recommend configuring your microwave to run with the door wide open. Microwaves heat molecules. Heating
    is a weather phenomenon. HAARP is a weather phenomenon as well.

    Perhaps you could explain that a bit? HAARP transmits radio waves in the range 2.8 to 10 MHz, whereas a microwave oven runs at 915 Mhz or higher. Microwaves have a wavelength between 300 Mhz and 300,000 Mhz

  87. bryan says:

    Hi Uncinus,
    Actually I did do just what you said but instead of writing it out I requested that you go to the link and
    read it. It seems as though, please correct me if I’m wrong, that you perhaps go to the link, scan some
    of it but don’t read it. Perhaps this is why debating you gets me about as far as boxing a glacier
    would.

    A solar wind stream buffeting the earth is an ionospheric impacting event. This is not even a question.

    HAARP’s website FAQ section (which is a farce, politics rather than science) states;
    “…If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.”

    Here are but a very tiny sampling of effects seen during ionospheric storms,
    and Uncinus I already have done this, so this is seriously stepping backwards for me to even
    post this.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-4C037TN-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=690cdacacc119fd5fc04dbf2abb09c3f

    Short-term effects of the energetic solar proton events (SPE) on the different characteristics of the lower atmosphere were studied in the North Atlantic region, which is an area of intensive cyclone genesis and development. The data of aerological soundings over the set of Danish stations (Greenland, Faeroe Islands and Denmark), the vorticity data at the different pressure levels and weather charts at the Earth’s surface were used. It was shown that the SPE under study are accompanied by noticeable pressure and temperature decreases at the high-latitudinal stations in the cold (October–March) half of year as well as by relative vorticity increases in the troposphere. The most pronounced effects were found in the region of the arctic front near the south-eastern Greenland coasts and Iceland. The weather chart analysis showed that the effects discovered seem to be related to the intensification of the deepening of well developed cold cyclones in this region. The results obtained suggest that the SPE with particle energies sufficient to penetrate the stratospheric heights may influence the cyclone evolution over the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean, a possible physical mechanism involving the radiative forcing of the cloudiness changes which may be associated with cosmic ray variations.

    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
    The formation and radiative effect of clouds is one of the major uncertainties in climate modeling (Houghton et al., 1995). Due to the large radiative effect of clouds, any insufficiency in the parameterization of clouds will introduce major uncertainties in the results of the climate models. Recent results have indicated strong correlations between the total cloud cover and the cosmic ray flux, …

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1975)056%3C1240%3ASVATLA%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
    Mechanisms possibly connecting solar activity to meteorology of the lower atmosphere are reviewed. Besides direct variations of solar visible emission, solar-related fluctuations in some aspect of cloudiness could be important. Any such variations in cloudiness are likely to be related to variations in production of ionization near the tropopause by galactic cosmic rays, the only geophysical phenomena unconnected with upper atmospheric processes known to have a striking (negative) correlation with solar activity. Such a connection might involve a dependence of sulfate aerosol formation on ionization and in turn a dependence of cloud radiative properties on variations of the aerosol particles’ action as cloud condensation nuclei.

    The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the sun’s activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark’s and Friis-Christensen’s result is therefore of great importance. The thin curve in Figure 6 presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an indirect measure of the strength of galactic and solar cosmic rays. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is
    r = 0.95.

    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
    Short-range variations in the intensity of cosmic rays, caused by energetic solar eruptions, have the same effect, though shorter. The plot shows that strong cosmic rays go along with a larger cloud cover, whereas weak cosmic rays shrink the cloud cover. The global cloud coverage diminished from its peak at the end of 1986 to its bottom in the middle of 1990 by more than 3%. According to observations by V. Ramanathan, B. R. Barkstrom, and E. F. Harrison [91], clouds have a net cooling effect of -17 W/m2 . Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [111] conclude from the diminution of this cooling effect between 1986 and 1990 that the solar irradiance has increased by about 1.5 W/m2 within these three and a half years. A change of this order is quite remarkable, since the total radiative forcing by carbon dioxide accumulated since 1750 has been estimated by the IPCC not to go beyond 1.5 W/m2 . This means that cosmic rays, strongly modulated by solar activity, achieve an effect within three and a half years for which the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere needs centuries. This shows clearly to what extent the greenhouse effect has been overestimated in comparison with the solar contribution to climate change, which turns out to be the most important factor.

    http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/00129/EGU05-A-00129-1.pdf
    According to Tinsley (1996) lower atmospheric conductivity is primarily determined by the incoming cosmic ray flux.
    (incoming cosmic ray flux varies strongly during Solar wind storms-my comment -Bryan)

    http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall05/nats101s54/LivingWithAVariableSun_PT2005.pdf
    -page 34, right side column under section Rapid variations and space storms
    The localized heating migrates to lower latitudes over a period of hours to days, altering both neutral and ion densities on global scales. …
    http://ams.confex.com/ams/12meso/techprogram/paper_125948.htm
    A sun-weather correlation, namely the link between solar magnetic sector boundary passage by the Earth and tropospheric vorticity area index (VAI), that was found by Wilcox et al. (1974) and shown to be statistically significant by Hines and Halevy (1977) is revisited. Using the ECMWF ERA-40 re-analysis dataset for a period from 1963 to 2002, we have verified these results for the northern as well as the southern hemisphere winters. The Wilcox effect is corroborated by a correlation with coronal holes where the fast solar wind originates. Ground-based measurements of the green coronal emission line (Fe XIV, 530.3 nm) are used in the superposed epoch analysis keyed by the times of sector boundary passage to show a one-to-one correspondence between the mean VAI variations and coronal holes. The VAI is modulated by high-speed solar wind streams with a delay of 1-2 days. Prikryl et al. (2007) have proposed a mechanism invoking solar-wind-generated auroral atmospheric gravity waves influencing the growth of extratropical cyclones. It is observed that severe extratropical storms and explosive cyclogenesis tend to occur within a few days of the arrival of high-speed solar wind.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x5512041336157r6/
    Abstract The observed effects of solar flares and interplanetary sector crossings seem to indicate that particle precipitation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere decreases cyclonic activity in the troposphere. As an extrapolation to longer term effects, it is suggested that the recurrence of prolonged periods of enhanced solar wind particle precipitation in the upper atmosphere during alternate solar minima could cause the recurrence of extreme droughts.

    Those are but a few, note that the cyclonic link to high solar wind speed events is noted by other researchers in previous studies
    (you now have 3 links spelling out a very specific correlation between ionospheric events impacting weather, in addition to all
    the other studies here)

    As an additional note, the link between increased earthquakes and high solar wind speed events may also link to short term
    weather variability seen during ionospheric storms. Probably only the damn Russians have looked at that link so far lol.

    Uncinus, I took a couple of pictures of the circular contrail over L.A. from Nov. 21st, let me know if you’d like me to e-mail
    them to you. I took them around 10 a.m. while on Foothill Blvd. in Upland, Ca.
    Regards,
    Bryansail

  88. bryan says:

    as an additional note, cosmic ray flux is moderated by solar wind stream events which are ionospheric storms. Cosmic rays actually
    decrease during periods of fast moving solar stream events. So it is a more complex relationship, (which is why so many meteorologists don’t care or are completely in the dark regarding solar variability impacts of weather) just letting you know that
    I am already aware of the context of linked material.

    Regards,
    Bryansail

  89. JazzRoc says:

    I suppose, Bryan, that now you will have to argue that HAARP is as powerful as the Sun, rather than NEGLIGIBLE compared with it.

    Otherwise all these words are sophistry… Care to do the sums?

  90. Those links all say that cosmic rays affect the weather by increasing cloud cover.

    Cosmic rays also, of course, affect the ionosphere.

    But where does it say that altering the ionosphere will affect the weather?

    Cosmic rays (solar and galactic) fly though space and hit the earth. They first hit the ionosphere (90 KM up), where they excite it. Some of the rays continue on and ionize the atmosphere near the tropopause (8-17 KM up), which is theorized to increase cloud cover when there are more rays.

    So where does it say that the state of the ionosphere is having an effect on the lower atmosphere (the tropopause)? Sure there’s a correlation, because increased cosmic ray activity hits both the ionosphere and the troposphere. But the CAUSE of the correlation is the increased amount of incoming cosmic rays.

    Here’s an analogy. Say you’ve got a river, with some rapids (the ionosphere), and then furthur downstream downstream you’ve got a waterfall (the tropopause). Now the water is the cosmic radiation. When there is more water flowing down the river, then the rapids will be more violent, and the waterfall will make more noise. So there’s a correlation – when the rapids are churning, the waterfall is roaring. Would you then say that the rapids are causing changes in the waterfall? No, it’s the increased water flow that’s causing the change.

    Suppose I stuck an outboard engine in the rapids and stirred them up more. Would that change the waterfall? No, the amount of water flowing over it is the same.

    So tell me again, how does the ionosphere affect the lower atmosphere?

  91. bryan says:

    HAARP transmits radio waves in the range 2.8 to 10 MHz, whereas a microwave oven runs at 915 Mhz or higher. Microwaves have a wavelength between 300 Mhz and 300,000 Mhz

    So you DON’T read the links through the links! The transmission of radio waves changes substantially by a couple of different processes.
    Pulsing of radio waves is one key component to the actual power transmission capabilities of HAARP.
    Another is the focusing effect of the ionosphere. It has been mentioned to you previously that the
    focusing causes actual power transmission exponentially greater than the original transmission.
    If it seems like magic, it is basically because the amazing power gain actually violates established physics laws.
    Again, HAARP is pretty freaky stuff.

    HAARP actually transmits in a Broader HF Frequency Range than you mention as noted from
    http://www.viewzone.com/haarp.exec.html which is taken from a joint Air Force and Navy paper

    The desired heater would have a frequency range from around 1 MHz to about 15 MHz, thereby allowing a wide range of ionospheric processes to be investigated.
    […]
    Effective-Radiated-Powers (ERP) in Excess of 1 Gigawatt, (greater than a microwave)
    […]
    One gigawatt of effective-radiated-power represents an important threshold power level, over which significant wave generation and electron acceleration efficiencies can be achieved, and other significant heating effects can be expected.

    The energy generation of HAARP is not that analogous to microwaves. One effect of HAARP is to accelerate electrons to KeV or MeV energy levels. Try doing that in a microwave oven, you can’t, microwaves are non-ionizing while HAARP transmissions are ionizing.

    Regards,
    Bryan

  92. You were the one saying it was like a microwave oven, so I’m unclear of the point you are now making by explaining how is not like a microwave oven.

    Could you show me where scientists say HAARP violates existing physics laws – because that would be very interesting.

  93. Also, since HAARP’s radiation is of a lower frequency than microwaves, how exactly can it be ionizing?

    Where does it fall in this spectrum? Surely in with Radio, on the right?

  94. bryan says:

    The 21st is the date that I actually transferred the pictures. I just checked and it was the 20th because I brought my car in for servicing on the 20th when I took the pics. So I did snap a couple of pictures of the voodoo contrail. In my photo the trail is to the South, I also checked the metadata which has the date as the 20th of Nov. The timestamp is off though- I believe I took the picture at 11:42 am but am not certain, it may have actually been 11:20 a.m. I’ll e-mail them to you.
    -Bryan

  95. Hmm, I wonder if the confusion arose because HAARP is after all the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, which might naturally lead people to think it falls in the High Frequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    In fact, as you note, the frequency capabilites of HAARP are in the range 1Mhz, to 15Mhz, which put in the Low Frequency part of the spectrum.

    This apparent contradiction is due to HAARP using High Frequency Radio Waves, so it’s a high part of the low part of the spectrum. See:


    (note this is the other way around from the previous image, lower is on the left).

    So you can see, although HAARP is correct in saying it uses High Frequency radio waves, they are not particularly high frequency when it comes to the full electromagnetic spectrum. Now if HAARP was actually EHFAARP, you might have a problem.

Comments are closed.