Global Radiative Forcing from Contrail Cirrus

Original Post via the OpChemtrails Library.

Download this document here.

Notes:
“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

Definition: Chemtrail

Chemical-Trail

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

Chemtrails, Rabbit Holes and Paintings

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.

In other words, it can become a maze. Even those who feel like they know most of the ins and outs of the world of geoengineering can become disorientated.

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:

  • Clouds affect earths’ natural climate and hydrological cycles,
  • Clouds affect earth’s natural weather patterns,
  • Clouds impact on regional micro climates,
  • Clouds are interconnected with precipitation patterns,
  • Aviation induced cloud cover has been recorded as covering km’s of the earths surface on any given day,
  • All of the above impact on human health and the environment.
  • 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.

    Further Reading:
    Elemental composition and morphology of ice-crystal residual particles in cirrus clouds and contrails
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809597000835?via%3Dihub

    Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190104044744/http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045102

    Impacts of aviation fuel sulfur content on climate and human health
    https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/10521/2016/?utm_campaign=OpChemtrails

    Influence of fuel sulfur on the composition of aircraft exhaust plumes: The experiments SULFUR 1–7
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001JD000813

    The Assessment of Aviation Cloudiness in IPCC Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis
    https://opchemlibrary.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-assessment-of-aviation-cloudiness.html

    ClimateViewer News:
    Jet Fuel https://climateviewer.com/tags/jet-fuel/
    Dopped Jet Fuel https://climateviewer.com/tags/doped-jet-fuel/

    Verification for Different Contrail Parameterizations Based on Integrated Satellite Observation and ECMWF Reanalysis Data
    https://web.archive.org/web/20180603001446/https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2017/8707234/

    ___

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


    Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.

    The Push for Global Governance of Climate Engineering

    In October 2018 the Academic Working Group on Climate  Engineering Governance Governing Solar Radiation Management released its report which explores the “governance needs and options for Solar Radiation Management(SRM) technologies.”

    More specifically the report focuses on “feasible and needed actions” which can be achievedby 2025 at “the national, regional, and international levels and by non-state actors.” Meaning these actions will be managed by both regional and corporate powers and will undoubtedly involve United Nations forming a new ‘body’ responsible for the governance of global climate engineering technologies and programs, as recommendedon page 30 of the report.

    “Who should take action? Established by the UN General Assembly, with members appointed by the UN Secretary-General” p.30. Read the entire document below. And please take the time to view and sign this petition.

    Download the PDF here.

    Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

    Finding Wally

    Media outlets and online scientific communities came alive this week, with headlines such as “Could an anti-global-warming atmospheric spraying programme really work?”,  “100 Special planes and $2.5 Billion per year for sulphate geoengineering” and “Solar geoengineering could be remarkably inexpensive”.

    This buzz of activity surrounds findings of a ‘new’ study, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment”, by Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner. The study looks at the hypothetical possibility and costs of conducting a global geoengineering program. Interestingly, and perhaps in an attempt to deflect from questions surrounding ongoing aviation induced cloud cover being reported by citizens worldwide, the study also looks at  whether the SAIL (Stratospheric aerosol injection lofter) program could be deployed secretly, concluding that it could not. This conclusion will be explored by examining existing relevant documentation relating to SAI technologies and by comparing US air traffic statistics to the SAIL deployment statistics provided by Smith and Wagner.

    I would also like to note, that when looking closely at many of the scientific papers relating to geoengineering, certain names and institutions keep popping up. As highlighted in the article “Harvard Science = Mad Science”, the pro geoengineering community appears to be dominated by a top down (vertical) hierarchy. Meaning a small group of people are using various types of capital to influence the many. Any observer has to wonder why Harvard  appears to have developed a propensity for publishing pageant articles related to ‘geoengineering and secrecy’.

    Download >> Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gf4ONSETZQG5VDJQl1di0jtVF-Z14AnP/view?usp=sharing

    Geoengineering: Psychology and Framing

    A Chapter from the OpChemtrails Information Booklet

    The Royal Society in the 2010 document titled “Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering “asserts that “public attitudes towards geoengineering should be a critical factor in considering the future of geoengineering.” It is well known that agencies have been perfecting ways to manipulate the public for some decades; incidents such as the Gulf of Tonkin preceding the Vietnamese War, the Nayirah testimony and programs such as Operation Mockingbird only further demonstrate a willingness to induce the general public.

    Documentation detailing ways to better understand (and therefore control) public perception of geoengineering proposals are well recognised; including discussions, forums, information gathering, and networking between key stakeholders, all to determine the soundest ways to frame geoengineering programs when it finally comes time to inform the general public and begin the open implementation of said programs.

    The document Public understandingof solar radiation management [3.4. Conspiracy theories], details findings that include “2.6% of the subjects believe that it is completely true that the government has a secret program that uses airplanes to put harmful chemicals into the air, and 14% of the sample believes that this is partly true.” “Conspiracy Theory” is a disparaging term used to vilify and ridicule the very people it is used to describe. By examining responses to different terminology and by using focused terminology in documentation they are “no longer lucidly [expressing] the nature of things, but rather [obscuring] and [distorting] them” (Chilton, 2); below is another example of this, taken from the same document [4. Discussion].

    The word supporter has a positive connotation, whilst the word detractor has a negative connotation; when you search both words often (as below) supporters and shown in green and detractors in red.

    Ultimately this conveys the message that supporters of geoengineering are more agreeable and those against or critical of geoengineering are defiant. This is further demonstrated when looking at the Cambridge Dictionary: synonyms, related words and phrases.

    Nobody wants to be seen as opposition and many studies have determined that human beings do not like to be singled out, ostracized or socially rejected, this is a key component used to sway public opinion on the topic. Being labelled a conspiracy theorist or a ‘detractor’ will almost certainly influence whether or not people object to or consent to geoengineering.

    What They Want to Know 
    • How widespread is public knowledge of geoengineering and SRM? 
    • How does the public perceive geoengineering and SRM? 
    • How the seriousness of climate change affects individuals views on geoengineering? 
    • What are key areas of concern, perceived trade-offs and risks (table 5 below)? I.e. what is the public more willing to accept. 
    • The role/opinions of specific groups/communities i.e. environmentalists, economists, media.

    Beware the Geoengineering Salesman

    Things we are hearing and seeing that show they are testing the waters with regards to public response include:

    Sales pitch: Geoengineering may be one possible response to climate change.

    What They Really Mean: They’re going to emit/spray us with chemical & metal particulates to save us [example: To Fix Climate Change, Scientists Turn To Hacking The Earth]

    Sales pitch: Using media and imagery to depict apocalyptic version of climate change.

    What They Really Mean: We need to geoengineer the planet or we are all going to die [example: COP21: Can we avoid climate apocalypse?]

    Sales pitch: Saying that it is accidental rather than intentional.

    What They Really Mean: Oops we didn’t realise it was happening [plausible deniability] [example: Airplane Contrails May Be Creating Accidental Geoengineering]

    Sales pitch: Because YOU won’t change YOUR ways and YOU pollute the planet with Co2 we have to geoengineer the planet to save it.

    What They Really Mean: We are just going to ignore the fact that aviation is having a detrimental and largely ignored impact on climate and weather systems and it is not adequately represented in any of our climate models [example: As the effects of global warming begin to frighten us, geoengineering will come to dominate global politics]

    Documentation

    Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-VlNHZzhSVVlCMmc/view

    Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (2010) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-OFU4SElkYTFvRTg/view

    Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-X053YzhMZzFGQ1k/view

    A Review of Deliberative Public Engagements with Climate Geoengineering
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-d3lkRENxc2IxX2s/view

    Cognitive Epistemic Lock-in and Geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-U2NaX2x5SDFDd3c/view

    Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-NnpjRzhfVHBheGM/view

    Examining framings of geoengineering using Q methodology https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-bzZtWUNhOFk3TTg/view

    Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-LWQ3R2VVU3hua2M/view

    Appraising Geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-RTI5czlfRUdDYWc/view

    Geoengineering and its governance https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-NHNteEZKRHpseHc/view

    Public understanding of solar radiation management https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-aFJJdmRvcXJha2s/view

    The International Legal Framework for Climate Engineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-N0pEdUhMdEVQMHM/view

    More reading available via the OpChemetrails Google+ Library https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxU9tnVzYv2-aFdpcmNXOUstS2s<

    [This post was originally posted on the archived OpChemtrails website on 26 Jan 2017]