“[…] varying the SO2 injection area seasonally would result in a similar global mean cooling effect as injecting SO2 to the equator, but with a more uniform zonal distribution of shortwave radiative forcing.” p.1
“Most previous modelling studies have investigated scenarios which inject sulfur along or close to the equator. This choice of injection region is well justified because the equator, on the average, receives the highest levels of solar radiation. In addition, the stratospheric circulation transports particles efficiently from the equator around the global atmosphere (Robock et al., 2008). However it has been found in several studies that preventing greenhouse gas (GHG) induced warming by equatorial injections of sulfur lead to overcooling of the tropics and undercooling of the polar regions, compared to the global mean decrease in temperature (Aswathy et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2016; McCuster et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2015).” p.2
“However, sulfur injected as SO2 takes weeks to months before it is oxidized and forms large enough particles to reflect solar radiation efficiently. Thus to obtain maximum aerosol forcing, one strategy could be to inject sulfur before the intensity of solar radiation has reached its maximum value at the injection latitude, thus leaving time for oxidation and particle growth.” p.3
“After two years, sulfate particles from the injections are removed from the atmosphere.” p.4
“[…] the lifetime of stratospheric sulfur is longer when injected to the equator (Robock et al., 2008).” p.6
“Previous research has shown that higher injections per unit volume lead to relatively larger particles, which in turn leads to relatively shorter lifetime of particles in the atmosphere (Heckendorn et al., 2009; English et al., 2012; Niemeier et al., 2011).” p.6
“Because SRM is turned on abruptly at full force in 2020, it would lead to a fast cooling. In the real world this kind of action is unlikely but based on the simulations plausible if needed for example prevent climate warming emergency (Kravitz et al., 2011).” p.9
“It has been shown that there is a slow decrease in temperature still decades after a decrease in shortwave radiation (Schaller et al., 2014).” p.10
“After the SRM is suspended in 2070 there is a very fast warming, called the termination effect of geoengineering (Jones et al., 2013). This warming is of the same magnitude as the cooling immediately after the sulfur injection is started. Thus, after the SRM is suspended, the climate remains significantly cooler for decades.” p.10
“Compensating the GHG induced global warming using SRM leads to a reduction in the global mean precipitation (Kravitz et al., 2013b; Ferraro and Griffiths, 2016). This is also supported by our simulations. Immediately after the injection has been started, the global mean precipitation falls clearly under the level of year 2010[…]” p.10
“Precipitation is thus more affected by the SRM than CO2.” p.10
“Aerosol particles both absorb radiation (which is then emitted as LW radiation) and they reduce the SW radiation at surface. These effects lead to a drier climate (Ferraro and Griffiths 2016).” p.11
“It has been also shown that P – E (Precipitation – Evaporations) will become more intense (Seager et al., 2010) which will cause wet areas to become wetter but also drying in the subtropical regions such as Mediterranean, Southern part of Africa and Australia.” p.12
“According our aerosol microphysical simulations by GCM, it would be possible to maintain as large global cooling effect as by injecting sulfur only in the equator while concentrating the cooling effect more to the midlatitudes than tropics. This could be achieved if the sulfur injection area is changed during the year.” p.13
“This highlights the role of feedbacks and ocean temperature which reacts slowly to the radiation changes in the atmosphere.” p.14
30° N – Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Persian Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, People’s Republic of China, East China Sea, Japan, Pacific Ocean, Mexico, Gulf of California, United States, Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Morocco.
10° N – Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Sudan, South Sudan, Abyei, Ethiopia, Somalia, Indian Ocean, India, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Gulf of Thailand, Vietnam, South China Sea, Philippines, Sulu Sea, Tañon Strait, Cebu Strait, Bohol Sea, Surigao Strait, Dinagat Sound, Pacific Ocean, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Costa Rica, Caribbean Sea, Colombia, Venezuela, Atlantic Ocean, Guinea, Guinea / Sierra Leone border, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Ghana.
10° S – Atlantic Ocean, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Malawi, Lake Malawi, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Indonesia, Savu Sea, Timor Sea, Arafura Sea, Coral Sea, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Sea, Pacific Ocean, Cook Islands, Kiribati, French Polynesia, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia.
30° S – South Africa, Lesotho, South Africa, Indian Ocean, Australia, Pacific Ocean, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Atlantic Ocean.
Original Post via the OpChemtrails Library.
Download this document here.
“Aviation makes a significant contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing.” p.54
“We show that the radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus as a whole is about nine times larger than that from line-shaped contrails alone. We also find that contrail cirrus cause a significant decrease in natural cloudiness, which partly offsets their warming effect. Nevertheless, net radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest single radiative-forcing component associated with aviation.” p.54
“Contrail cirrus initially form behind cruising aircraft as line-shaped contrails and transform into cirrus-like clouds or cloud clusters in favourable meteorological conditions, occasionally covering large horizontal areas. They have been tracked for up to 17 h in satellite observations. They remain line-shaped, and therefore easily distinguishable from natural cirrus, for only a fraction of their lifetime. The impact of aircraft soot emissions on cirrus in the absence of contrails depends on the ice-nucleating properties and the ice-active number concentration of soot-particle emissions.” p.54
“Contrail cirrus form and persist in air that is ice-saturated, whereas natural cirrus often require high ice supersaturation to form. This implies that in a substantial fraction of the upper troposphere, contrail cirrus can persist in supersaturated air that is cloud-free, thus increasing high cloud coverage.” p.54
“Over central Europe, contrail-cirrus coverage is largest, reaching up to 10%. Although the level of air traffic over the east coast of northern America is as large as over central Europe, contrail-cirrus coverage in the former region is lower, reaching 6%. It is mainly the coverage due to contrails older than 5 h that is smaller over the USA than over Europe…” p.54
“A large fraction of contrail cirrus is optically very thin (solar optical depth <0.02) and can therefore neither be detected by a satellite nor seen with the human eye from the ground.” p. 55
“The global net radiative forcing of contrail cirrus is roughly nine times that of young contrails, making it the single largest radiative-forcing component connected with aviation.” p.56
“Contrail cirrus change the water budget of the surrounding atmosphere and therefore can have an impact on natural clouds.” p. 56
“Locally, the decrease in natural-cirrus coverage (over Europe and the US) amounts to up to 10% of the natural-cirrus coverage or up to 20% of the contrail-cirrus coverage. Furthermore, in the main contrail-cirrus areas of North America and Europe, the optical depth of natural clouds is significantly (at the 95% significance level) reduced by up to 10% owing to the presence of contrail cirrus.” p.57
“Clouds are influenced by small-scale processes that cannot be resolved by a large-scale climate model and which therefore need to be parametrized.” p. 57
A trail(s) containing chemical and metal particulates.
Modern usage refers to man-made trails in the atmosphere left by aircraft, however there are a variety of known methods used to disperse atmospheric chemical trails e.g. rockets, ground-based deployment technologies, ships.
Chemtrails can contain metal and chemical particulates including: Sulfur, Carbon Black. Aromatics, Aluminium etc. Such substances cause/contribute to aviation induced cloudiness and are often referred to as ‘Cloud Condensation Nuclei’ or CCN’s.
The word ‘chemtrails’ is often used interchangeably with and/or in relation to: Weather Modification, Cloud Seeding, Geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management (SRM), Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Climate Engineering, Persistent Contrails, Aviation Induced Cloudiness, Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), Sky Whitening, Weather Modification, Man-Made Clouds.
For more information on the subject of Chemtrails please see this free information booklet.
Further Reading: Chemtrails: The Taboo Word
Those who have spent time traversing the chemtrails rabbit hole will probably agree that it is a rabbit hole with many tunnels. Tunnels which are often interconnected, go for miles and are riddled with off shoot tunnels.
With this in mind, while watching James Corbett, of the Corbett Report, discussing how when ‘looking at a painting we can become so fixated on the individual brush strokes it distracts us from the painting itself.’ In other words, we can lose sight of our original path, becoming side-tracked by the noise. For some reason this stuck with me, nagging in the back of my mind.
After mulling over this for a few days I wondered, am I looking too closely at the individual brush strokes and thus loosing site of the painting? Has the topic of chemtrails been so micro analysed and saturated with diverging theories, opinions, jargon, information and disinformation, that I stopped looking at the painting?
For me this was one of those moments when the foggy veil lifts and the whirling amass of thoughts and information suddenly become clear. I won’t even bother going into the many, many, many interconnected rabbit holes I have been down. Time wasted debating with people about wording, motives, outcomes, methods, scientific studies, statistics, not to mention the countless insults which have been endured. Just saying the word chemtrails is controversial and can trigger a flurry of hostility.
But here’s the thing. At the core of everything is the fact that planes are making clouds (aka chemtrails), and have been doing this for decades. Chemtrail clouds vary in type and the particulates can remain in the atmosphere for hours if not days. It can take hours before chemtrail clouds become indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds. Moreover, chemtrail clouds are not ‘just water vapour’ (which btw is a greenhouse gas), they also contain metal and chemical particulates, including: carbon black, sulfur, aromatics, aluminium, etc. [1, 2].
Trolls can try to ridicule you for believing in chemtrails but unless they are devoid of any brain cells they can not argue with the simple facts:
Publicly scientists admit they do not even really know what impact chemtrails (or, persistent contrails) are having on our climate. Moreover, it is only recently that scientists have started factoring clouds into climate models; an area which has many deficiencies, uncertainties and issues surrounding transparency.
Any honest Scientist will openly admit we still have much to learn about the true relationship between clouds, the earth, the climate and our atmosphere. Even the loudest geoengineering advocates, while acknowledging the predicted negative impacts e.g. increase mortality rates, natural sacrifice zones, admit they are uncertain as to what the true impacts of geoengineering technologies (once ‘officially’ deployed) will be.
The impact these man-made chemical clouds are having on earths’ climate, weather systems, our environment and our health has been largely ignored by governments, environmental hierarchies, medical professionals, the media… you know… all the people who are meant to have our best interests at heart. These people remain wilfully ignorant, too fearful (or unable) to speak out, or are busy discussing ‘official‘ deployment of geoengineering technologies.
Though for me, the simple, clear explanation, ‘planes make clouds (aka chemtrails) and clouds impact on climate and weather’ is at the very core of the chemtrails rabbit hole, or I guess you could say it is the ‘outer layer of the onion’.
The interconnected rabbit holes e.g. climate change, weather warfare, wifi/frequencies, depopulation, haarp, ship tracks etc. are just that… more rabbit holes. Yes they are relevant, but they are also the layers beneath the outer layer, the individual brush strokes that are a part of the painting.
Personally, I still firmly believe there are multiple programs, initiatives, motives, and goals driving the chemtrail agenda, but rediscovering the entrance to the chemtrails rabbit hole I stumbled into over 4 years ago has allowed me to filter out the noise and to appreciate the painting in its entirety once more.
Elemental composition and morphology of ice-crystal residual particles in cirrus clouds and contrails
Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
Impacts of aviation fuel sulfur content on climate and human health
Influence of fuel sulfur on the composition of aircraft exhaust plumes: The experiments SULFUR 1–7
The Assessment of Aviation Cloudiness in IPCC Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis
Verification for Different Contrail Parameterizations Based on Integrated Satellite Observation and ECMWF Reanalysis Data
Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.
It’s true, digital media or “new media” has made the world more connected and much smaller. It has also made the world less private, enabled more open dialogue and allowed for an increased awareness of the world we live it.
But, as with traditional media, digital media can be manipulated, distorted, twisted, monopolised, propagandised and even weaponised. “Fake News” has been around for as long as news itself, from Greek myths of gods and goddesses, medieval tales of witchcraft and the occult, fishermen’s tales of the one that got away, war propaganda, to historical records that generate a particular view of how the world was, and is.
Likewise, there have always been those who have used these same forms of media to promote change, raise awareness, to gain the attention of those who would otherwise look away and to inform communities about important information. Writers, anarchists, artists, musicians, campaigners, everyday people, hell, even some of those who are part of the establishment have used media in one way or another to share a message.
Here are some tips that may help you to get your message out to the wider digital community. While these tips do relate to OpChemtrails, I have tried to keep them generic so they are also relevant to other awareness campaigns.
Despite the fact that hashtags can be heavily censored, they are still an effective way of communicating information. Hashtags can be used on most social media platforms and are basically a way of filtering search results. OpChemtrails has used the #OpChemtrails hashtag on various platforms to raise awareness about geoengineering, the tag allows likeminded people to share information, images, videos etc. with other people who follow the tag (although for censored hashtags users will have to adjust their quality filters, sensitive information filters and tailored information filters, most platforms provide instructions on how to do this).
Hashtags can be expanded to cover specific topics. So for example, OpChemtrails currently uses these hashtags: #OpChemtrails, #OpCImageGallery (images and video), #OpCMediaWatch (mainstream media on geoengineering), #OpCLibrary (pdfs, articles, reports). While the #OpChemtrails hashtag is the primary #, the account also uses other tags such as: [#]geoengineering, SRM, SAI, MCB, SolarRadiationManagement, Sulfate Aerosol Injections, MarineCloudBrightening, CloudWhitening, SkyWhitening, Environment, Health etc.
Sometimes the tags are used in conjunction, other times individually, this helps to maximise the exposure of information. Using upper and lower case should not affect search results, but if you are having trouble finding information under a specific hashtag, simply run a key word search (e.g. without the ‘#’).
Its a word which rouses an array of responses. From blank stares, laughter, eye rolling, criticism, curiosity and sometimes even looks of excitement when the people you are speaking with realise you use the word ‘chemtrails’ too. Obviously, the latter is my favourite response, like finding a kindred spirit that speaks your language and with whom you can finally have a rational conversation with about the subject.
But is it okay to use the word chemtrails? After all it is said the word originated from the U.S. Military. Or does using the word chemtrails discredit you and the information you provide?
The simple answer is, it depends on your audience. The word chemtrails is descriptive and is an apt description for the ‘chemical trails’ we witness in our sky more days than not. Moreover, the word chemtrails encompasses technologies such as solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB); technologies all based on deploying man made atmospheric chemical trails (visible or not) in an attempt to ‘engineer the climate’.
Then again, if you are talking to someone who will instantly shutdown once you say the word, is there any point speaking to them at all?
The word chemtrails is now part of pop culture. Meaning it is a word known and used by the masses. Moreover, numerous articles and papers have long suggested that the man-made clouds produced by aircraft (aka chemtrails) are indeed already geoengineering the atmosphere [1, 2, 3] (a whole other topic in and of itself, deserving of its own post).
Despite this, the word chemtrails is often cited as one of the top 10 ‘conspiracy theories‘ and when you search the word chemtrails, most search engines turn up page after page of debunking sites before anything resembling an anti geoengineering or chemtrails website appears in the search results (if they show up at all). Even many of the larger anti geoengineering activists frown upon those of us who dare use the word.
Language is a funny thing like that. Certain words or phrases provoke prejudice, hostility, passion… sadness etc. Trigger words are analysed by psychologists, monitored by governments, and used by politicians, marketers, the media, internet trolls, and yes, even everyday people.
However, irrespective of one’s position in society, cultural background or educational status, one way or another we seem to adapt to the language which surrounds us as much as the language which surrounds us adapts to us. And as history illustrates, those who speak the language deemed to be ‘proper’ or ‘noble’ will always look down upon those of us who dare to use slang, defy the rules of grammar or digress from the hodgepodge of prescriptivist jargon which they deem appropriate.
Having said all that, as for the word chemtrails, for me when I am talking to friends and family I do not hesitate to use the word chemtrails. I sometimes even use it to trigger a reaction from certain people. But when around strangers or peers I will often use terms like weather modification, climate engineering, geoengineering, solar radiation management.
Those who are already familiar with these terms will often respond with “oh you mean chemtrails?”, but if they don’t I will usually continue using the mainstream jargon. If they ask for more information I tell them to visit the opchemtrails website and library (or if I think they are going to be super anal about the word chemtrails, I will point them to other credible sites). From there it is up to them.
Again, whether or not you use the word chemtrails is up to you, and really depends on your audience and how clearly you want your message to be received.
Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.
Governments and academic institutions vehemently deny such programs exist, yet the fact that for decades our atmosphere has been geoengineered by aircraft trails and ship trails is increasingly understood and acknowledge by a majority.
Although the recent news coverage on Harvard’s geoengineering circus and American State University was a double slap in the face to many anti geoengineering activists, concepts such as or similar solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) are finally being discussed by the broader community. More importantly is has caused many people to question what they have already been witnessing in their sky.
Personally, I believe Harvard formally announced its’ ‘hypothetical’ plan to dim the sun (problem) to generate a flood of public concern (reaction), which will enable them to implement their plans for global governance of geoengineering programs (solution). Despite my personal opinion, the recent mainstream coverage concerning geoengineering may in fact be a positive development.
How on earth could it be positive?
We all know that voting systems these days are questionable to say the least, but now that geoengineering has been propelled into the mainstream arena political parties can be pressed to affirm the political party’s view on the matter (in black and white).
Ask your local representatives about their level of understanding and opinion on geoengineering; do they support research and/or future deployment? If a representative is found to endorse geoengineering technology, this can be used to launch a social media campaign which will inform voters that if they vote for ‘X’ they are voting for geoengineering. If representatives are unaware of geoengineering, this would be a perfect time to provide them with information.
Even if your local representatives deny the ongoing geoengineering programs we currently witness in our sky, they can no longer deny that governments and members of academia, adorning their sophisticated facades and passive aggressive mentality, are and now openly, but coyly, calling for the ‘official future deployment’ of geoengineering technologies and for the creation of a global governing body.
Academics keep the public bewildered by claiming geoengineering is only in the research stages, yet, the same people often fail to mention that some of these research projects last for almost as long as Smith and Wagner’s conjectural ‘SAIL’ program, which has a projected deployed lifespan of 15 years. Another detail which is often neglected is the fact that scientists and academic institutions were conducting outdoor experiments as early as the 1950’s.
Also, it is well documented that for a decade or more psychologists, sociologists, public relations experts and even philosophers have been employed by governments and academic institutions to research public opinion, reactions, apprehensions and knowledge regarding geoengineering. Is such research into human behaviour and psyche what is driving the geoengineering narrative now promoted by mainstream?
Below is a list of relevant information and websites you may like to share with your local representatives (or anyone who would like to learn more about geoengineering).
Artificial Clouds [website]: http://artificialclouds.com/
Weather Modification History [website]: https://weathermodificationhistory.com
Hands Off Mother Earth: Manifesto Against Geoengineering [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/504
Evidence of Clear-Sky Daylight Whitening [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/499
The Belford Group Report: Case Orange [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/491
Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (1978) [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/522
OpChemtrails Library: https://opchemlibrary.blogspot.com/
Links to informative websites: https://opchemtrails.com/home-2/welcome/links-info
Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.