Other causes of Climate Change?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Other causes of Climate Change?

Other causes of Climate Change?10-10-2017 16:18
sceptic777 ☆☆☆☆☆ (30)	There is one thing that has not been explained very well, and that is how the small extra amount of CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere could alter the average global temperatures and the climate so drastically. The extra amount of CO2 that we are talking about could be compared to adding a drop of water to a bathtub filled to the top. And then there is a graph that has been used by global warming deniers to show that as the concentration of CO2 rises past 380ppm, the warming effect diminishes. The higher the ppm, the less warming effect there is. Another point that I would like to make is that there is never a mention of some of the other technologies that can manipulate the weather. Technologies such as HAARP, Chemtrails and, more recently, Laser technologies. For those who don't know, HAARP is experimental weather modification, Chemtrails are geo-engineering. How do we know the full effect that these technologies do have on our climate. The trouble here is that there are too many variables so it may be difficult, if not impossible, to assess the main culprit of abnormal weather. How can the scientific community expect the public to respond to the global warming alarm-ism when the predictions made by Al Gore in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", and the predictions made by computer modelling have been so inaccurate. It has been reported that Professor James Lovelock, one of the original alarmists, has declared that "We don't know what the climate is doing!" Climatologist John L. Casey says that there is evidence that the planet is cooling because of diminished solar activity. A Russian astrophysicist named Habibullo I. Abdussamatov has predicted a mini ice age in the near future. One of the characteristics of a mini ice age is the elevation of global temperatures just prior to the onset of the cooling. How do we know that the one degree of warming from 1950 to 1997 is not merely the effect of the coming of a mini ice age? I know of several scientists that doubt anthropogenic climate change but are keeping quiet so as not to jeopardise their careers.
10-10-2017 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sceptic777 wrote: There is one thing that has not been explained very well, and that is how the small extra amount of CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere could alter the average global temperatures and the climate so drastically. The extra amount of CO2 that we are talking about could be compared to adding a drop of water to a bathtub filled to the top. And then there is a graph that has been used by global warming deniers to show that as the concentration of CO2 rises past 380ppm, the warming effect diminishes. The higher the ppm, the less warming effect there is. CO2 does not change the temperature at all. It doesn't have that property. Absorption of infrared energy coming from the surface of the Earth is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, thus cooling itself. The atmosphere radiates that energy into space instead of the surface directly. That's the only diff. sceptic777 wrote: Another point that I would like to make is that there is never a mention of some of the other technologies that can manipulate the weather. Technologies such as HAARP, HAARP does not change the weather. sceptic777 wrote: Chemtrails 'Chemtrails' are nothing more than water and carbon dioxide (the water is the visible part) left by a passing jet. It does not change the weather. sceptic777 wrote: and, more recently, Laser technologies. Lasers do not change the weather either. sceptic777 wrote: For those who don't know, HAARP is experimental weather modification, WRONG. HAARP was an instrument used to study the Auroras. It emits powerful radio between 2Mhz and 10Mhz, the same bands as Amateur stations and some military stations operate on. The instruments at HAARP measured the effect of radio waves on the ionized gases in the Auroras. HAARP no longer runs on a regular basis. The experiment was concluded in 2014. Since then, the University of Alaska, which now owns HAARP, occasionally fires the thing up to study Auroral changes and to train students. sceptic777 wrote: Chemtrails are geo-engineering. No, they are water. It's just a bunch of folks on their way to somewhere, like London or Disneyland. sceptic777 wrote: How do we know the full effect that these technologies do have on our climate. We know the properties of common materials like carbon dioxide, water, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. sceptic777 wrote: The trouble here is that there are too many variables so it may be difficult, if not impossible, to assess the main culprit of abnormal weather. There is no abnormal weather. There is not global weather. There is no global climate. Hurricanes, tornadoes, hot spells, cold spells, rain, snow, lightning, ALL are normal weather on Earth. sceptic777 wrote: How can the scientific community expect the public to respond to the global warming alarm-ism when the predictions made by Al Gore in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", and the predictions made by computer modelling have been so inaccurate. It has been reported that Professor James Lovelock, one of the original alarmists, has declared that "We don't know what the climate is doing!" There is no global climate. He's basically right here. sceptic777 wrote: Climatologist John L. Casey says that there is evidence that the planet is cooling because of diminished solar activity. We don't know the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to determine it. sceptic777 wrote: A Russian astrophysicist named Habibullo I. Abdussamatov has predicted a mini ice age in the near future. One of the characteristics of a mini ice age is the elevation of global temperatures just prior to the onset of the cooling. How do we know that the one degree of warming from 1950 to 1997 is not merely the effect of the coming of a mini ice age? I know of several scientists that doubt anthropogenic climate change but are keeping quiet so as not to jeopardise their careers. Another prediction using chicken entrails. Science does not have the power of prediction. It can only describe. It must turn to a closed system, such as mathematics to gain the power of prediction. Science isn't titles, credentials, peer reviews, magazines, blogs, government agencies, universities, or even people at all. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. No one 'owns' science. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-10-2017 01:57
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	sceptic777 wrote: There is one thing that has not been explained very well, and that is how the small extra amount of CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere could alter the average global temperatures and the climate so drastically. The extra amount of CO2 that we are talking about could be compared to adding a drop of water to a bathtub filled to the top. And then there is a graph that has been used by global warming deniers to show that as the concentration of CO2 rises past 380ppm, the warming effect diminishes. The higher the ppm, the less warming effect there is. Another point that I would like to make is that there is never a mention of some of the other technologies that can manipulate the weather. Technologies such as HAARP, Chemtrails and, more recently, Laser technologies. For those who don't know, HAARP is experimental weather modification, Chemtrails are geo-engineering. How do we know the full effect that these technologies do have on our climate. The trouble here is that there are too many variables so it may be difficult, if not impossible, to assess the main culprit of abnormal weather. How can the scientific community expect the public to respond to the global warming alarm-ism when the predictions made by Al Gore in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", and the predictions made by computer modelling have been so inaccurate. It has been reported that Professor James Lovelock, one of the original alarmists, has declared that "We don't know what the climate is doing!" Climatologist John L. Casey says that there is evidence that the planet is cooling because of diminished solar activity. A Russian astrophysicist named Habibullo I. Abdussamatov has predicted a mini ice age in the near future. One of the characteristics of a mini ice age is the elevation of global temperatures just prior to the onset of the cooling. How do we know that the one degree of warming from 1950 to 1997 is not merely the effect of the coming of a mini ice age? I know of several scientists that doubt anthropogenic climate change but are keeping quiet so as not to jeopardise their careers. I just spent some time looking this up and Abdussamatov is absolutely correct much to my surprise. I hadn't noticed these cold periods following the warms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_climate_history#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg You can notice a warm period followed by a cold event. If you look these up in geology textbooks these cold periods like the warm are all named more or less. The latest has been the little ice age. One can only guess what the warmies are going to do if another little ice age occurs. But perhaps buying stocks in a jacket producer wouldn't be a bad idea...... What exactly is happening isn't clear since our latest warm periods are being interspersed with the cold periods Abdussamatov related. These are the oscillations on the top of the most recent ~20,000 year temperature high. Remember that this is an interglacial period in an ice age we're presently in and homosapiens evolved near the start of this interglacial period. So we are totally unfamiliar with what the world would be like without ice as we presently know it. But judging from the data available I don't think we're going to have to learn any time soon.
11-10-2017 12:27
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	sceptic777 wrote: There is one thing that has not been explained very well, and that is how the small extra amount of CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere could alter the average global temperatures and the climate so drastically. The extra amount of CO2 that we are talking about could be compared to adding a drop of water to a bathtub filled to the top. Not really a good comparison. A drop of water in a bathtub that is full might compare to adding a little more CO2 to the atmosphere, but if you compare the amount that we have raised the CO2 concentration of the air from where it was 200 years ago, then it's quite a bit more than a drop in a full tub. I think the real question you have is how a trace gas can effect the average global temperature? It doesn't seem likely that a gas that is .04% of the air could raise the temperature of air. But it does. It does it by converting electro-magnetic energy from the earth's surface into thermal energy, which warms the air around the CO2 molecules. Because the air is warmer it doesn't cool the surface as quickly, so the surface warms a little more, even though the energy from the Sun is the same. sceptic777 wrote: And then there is a graph that has been used by global warming deniers to show that as the concentration of CO2 rises past 380ppm, the warming effect diminishes. The higher the ppm, the less warming effect there is. I'm thinking you are talking about the supposed "CO2 Saturation Band," or something like that. The argument is that CO2 is already absorbing all the surface radiation by the time it makes it 30M off the ground, so there can be no more heating above that. That one has been debunked. It appears to me that the explanation is that even though all the surface radiation is absorbed rather quickly, the air itself emits electro-magnetic radiation. And the air above it absorbs that radiation and converts it to heat, all the way up, until the air gets so thin that radiation is finally allowed to leave. sceptic777 wrote: Another point that I would like to make is that there is never a mention of some of the other technologies that can manipulate the weather. Technologies such as HAARP, Chemtrails and, more recently, Laser technologies. For those who don't know, HAARP is experimental weather modification, Chemtrails are geo-engineering. How do we know the full effect that these technologies do have on our climate. The trouble here is that there are too many variables so it may be difficult, if not impossible, to assess the main culprit of abnormal weather. It looks like you have been led down a rabbit's hole there. As far as I know, those are all made up urban legends, based on scant evidence that people like to twist into things other than they are. Have you heard the one about WalMart working in conjunction with FEMA to prepare containment camps? WalMart's part of it is going to be rounding up homeless people who come in off the streets to warm up in the winter. They will have a secret door that they will invite the homeless people into, which goes to an elevator that goes to a secret underground tunnel, that leads to a caged holding area, where they have to wait until someone from FEMA comes to get them. From there, they take the homeless people to the containment camps. That's all in preparation for coming plunge society is going to take as a result of [whatever the latest concern is]. sceptic777 wrote: How can the scientific community expect the public to respond to the global warming alarm-ism when the predictions made by Al Gore in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", and the predictions made by computer modelling have been so inaccurate. It has been reported that Professor James Lovelock, one of the original alarmists, has declared that "We don't know what the climate is doing!" Yup, Lovelock and Gore and all the others who were originally involved in the Global Warming Scare were quite a bit off in their estimates of when the problems would begin to actually hurt us. Lovelock just backed off on his estimate of when the catastrophes would start, but still maintains that Global Warming is a real threat, just not to this generation. Of course, Al still flies around in his private jet to his many mansions and promotions for his new movie. I'm thinking he saw Global Warming as an opportunity to lead, and make a few bucks along the way. You have to understand what some people consider being a real leader is about. First, figure out where everyone is going, and get in front of them. Then just go like hell. So I think Al saw the opportunity to get in front of everyone else that was learning about Global Warming, and had the resources to make a movie. It was just about money and notoriety. sceptic777 wrote: Climatologist John L. Casey says that there is evidence that the planet is cooling because of diminished solar activity. A Russian astrophysicist named Habibullo I. Abdussamatov has predicted a mini ice age in the near future. One of the characteristics of a mini ice age is the elevation of global temperatures just prior to the onset of the cooling. How do we know that the one degree of warming from 1950 to 1997 is not merely the effect of the coming of a mini ice age? I know of several scientists that doubt anthropogenic climate change but are keeping quiet so as not to jeopardise their careers. Casey's supposed evidence is the cooling trend we have seen since 2007. Wait a minute, what cooling trend? If you look at this graph, you can see what he was talking about. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2017_v6.jpg It did cool off for a few years following 2007, but it went back up again, and surpassed the previous record high, set in 1998 [but not enough to say it was statistically higher, or something like that (cue Wake)]. I'm thinking Casey could be right about Solar Cycles influencing the climate, but they are cycles. They are cyclical, generally. But there have been periods when the Solar Maximum didn't produce much, like during the Little Ice Age, so the warming didn't occur. I couldn't find any evidence of Casey saying anything about that though. So I'm thinking he is out in left field. But he will probably make a lot of money off of his new book, because people do want to believe that Climate Change is just a big scare job. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-10-2017 18:02
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	It's always good to know that people that don't understand how to tie their shoes are so willing to tell the rest of us how to do it. The record of Dr. Spencers is clear to those who know how to read it - there has been NO warming since the average temperature over this time has remained static. Greenman hasn't a clue of how averaging works in a chaotic system such as weather but he thinks that because there was a couple of hot year near the end of that it means that there is warming. Let us remember that NASA is saying that the temperature during this time was: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Most people would notice a HUGE difference between the NASA claims and those of Greenman. But since the information from Greenman was in fact the satellite record and is totally different than NASA claims why is Greenman using data other than that from the experts at NASA?

11-10-2017 18:03
sceptic777 ☆☆☆☆☆ (30)	Greenman, I disagree with your response with the following: HAARP: Physicist Michio Kaku stated that HAARP is responsible for the recent spate of Hurricanes so he obviously thinks it does more then Auroral research. The US military have admitted it through their own documents that it can modify weather. This is confirmed by Dr Brookes Agnew. There are a number of books and documentaries that state that HAARP and many other similar installations heat the Ionosphere and this can affect climate. Chemtrails: The chemicals in Chemtrails are Ba, Al, Sr and Mn. A Pilot named Jeff Nelson said that contrails disappear within minutes, do not turn off and on again and are visibly different than Chemtrails. Where they are sprayed there are big differences in the tested concentration in the soil of Barium, Aluminum and Strontium. Aluminum is 40 times and Strontium is 10 to 20 times the normal concentration in the soil. Chemtrails are real and not water vapour. Lasers: Michio Kaku said that there is a trillion watt laser capable of weather modification. The recent extreme temperatures, hurricanes, etc are employed as evidence of AGW. Edited on 11-10-2017 18:06
11-10-2017 18:40
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	sceptic777 wrote: Greenman, I disagree with your response with the following: HAARP: Physicist Michio Kaku stated that HAARP is responsible for the recent spate of Hurricanes so he obviously thinks it does more then Auroral research. The US military have admitted it through their own documents that it can modify weather. This is confirmed by Dr Brookes Agnew. There are a number of books and documentaries that state that HAARP and many other similar installations heat the Ionosphere and this can affect climate. Chemtrails: The chemicals in Chemtrails are Ba, Al, Sr and Mn. A Pilot named Jeff Nelson said that contrails disappear within minutes, do not turn off and on again and are visibly different than Chemtrails. Where they are sprayed there are big differences in the tested concentration in the soil of Barium, Aluminum and Strontium. Aluminum is 40 times and Strontium is 10 to 20 times the normal concentration in the soil. Chemtrails are real and not water vapour. Lasers: Michio Kaku said that there is a trillion watt laser capable of weather modification. The recent extreme temperatures, hurricanes, etc are employed as evidence of AGW. This is pretty rediculous. The energy from HAARP is tiny in comparison with a local windstorm. Furthermore it was designed only to cause a change in the ionization of the ionosphere, The project was shut down in 2014 because it didn't work after a quarter of a billion dollars was spent on it. It looks to me more like it was a political favor to Alaska than any real sort of project. Chemtrails are nothing more than another conspiracy theory because people can see contrails which are little more than evaporation from the exhausts of jet aircraft. NO service has EVER said that they could modify weather other than seeding clouds which does nothing but change where a rain cloud releases it's rain. Apparently you do not understand the amount of power in a weather front let alone a hurricane. What's more these things can only be started by EXTREMELY wide spread energy from sea temperatures that are impossible for man to change.
11-10-2017 19:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GreenMan wrote: I think the real question you have is how a trace gas can effect the average global temperature? It doesn't seem likely that a gas that is .04% of the air could raise the temperature of air. But it does. Carbon dioxide does not warm the Earth at all. It is not an energy source. GreenMan wrote: It does it by converting electro-magnetic energy from the earth's surface into thermal energy, which warms the air around the CO2 molecules. Because the air is warmer it doesn't cool the surface as quickly, so the surface warms a little more, even though the energy from the Sun is the same. You are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. You can't decrease entropy in a system. GreenMan wrote: I'm thinking you are talking about the supposed "CO2 Saturation Band," or something like that. The argument is that CO2 is already absorbing all the surface radiation by the time it makes it 30M off the ground, so there can be no more heating above that. That one has been debunked. It appears to me that the explanation is that even though all the surface radiation is absorbed rather quickly, the air itself emits electro-magnetic radiation. And the air above it absorbs that radiation and converts it to heat, all the way up, until the air gets so thin that radiation is finally allowed to leave. There is not 'trigger' point for radiance. The greatest radiance from Earth to space comes from the surface itself. All carbon dioxide does is make the atmosphere radiate the energy instead of the surface. The surface is COOLED by heating carbon dioxide, not warmed. It is just another for the surface to heat the atmosphere. GreenMan wrote: It did cool off for a few years following 2007, but it went back up again, and surpassed the previous record high, set in 1998 [but not enough to say it was statistically higher, or something like that (cue Wake)]. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know statistical math either. GreenMan wrote: I'm thinking Casey could be right about Solar Cycles influencing the climate, but they are cycles. Guess that's why we call them solar cycles, eh? LOL GreenMan wrote: They are cyclical, generally. Really??? What an astounding piece of news! GreenMan wrote: But there have been periods when the Solar Maximum didn't produce much, like during the Little Ice Age, so the warming didn't occur. Solar cycles are not about flares. They are about sunspots. GreenMan wrote: I couldn't find any evidence of Casey saying anything about that though. So I'm thinking he is out in left field. But he will probably make a lot of money off of his new book, because people do want to believe that Climate Change is just a big scare job. It is more than just a big scare job. It is an attempt to seize power by the Church of Karl Marx. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-10-2017 19:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: It's always good to know that people that don't understand how to tie their shoes are so willing to tell the rest of us how to do it. The record of Dr. Spencers is clear to those who know how to read it - there has been NO warming since the average temperature over this time has remained static. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. It's not possible to determine it. Wake wrote: Greenman hasn't a clue of how averaging works in a chaotic system such as weather but he thinks that because there was a couple of hot year near the end of that it means that there is warming. You don't know statistical math either. It is more than simple averaging. Wake wrote: Let us remember that NASA is saying that the temperature during this time was: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ NASA doesn't know the temperature of the Earth either. Consensus is not used in science. Wake wrote: Most people would notice a HUGE difference between the NASA claims and those of Greenman. But since the information from Greenman was in fact the satellite record and is totally different than NASA claims why is Greenman using data other than that from the experts at NASA? Science isn't 'experts'. Science isn't government agencies. There is no data, either from NASA or from anyone else. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-10-2017 20:53
sceptic777 ☆☆☆☆☆ (30)	Wake: I have seen a documentary on Chemtrails and visibly, they are as different as chalk and cheese to contrails. The contrails disappear after a few minutes whereas the chemtrails stay around for a long time and the chemicals drop to the soil and contaminate it. Tests have proven what the chemicals were and are as I have mentioned. Contrails are fainter and are continuous whereas one can see when the pilot turns the chemical spray on and off again. The resulting level of Aluminium in the soil are up as much as 40 times the average levels for Aluminium. A significant rise, no? Also, I never said that HAARP created hurricanes, they merely create some sort of vacuum vortex and draw 2 or 3 smaller storms into one huge storm. Much less energy needed for that. I'm not saying necessarily that this is a conspiracy, just humans meddling with something they don't fully understand. I don't think Michio Kaku would put his name to what many may call a crazy conspiracy theory. Edited on 11-10-2017 21:16
11-10-2017 21:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sceptic777 wrote: Greenman, I disagree with your response with the following: HAARP: Physicist Michio Kaku stated that HAARP is responsible for the recent spate of Hurricanes so he obviously thinks it does more then Auroral research. HAARP has basically been shut down since 2014. It is not capable of modifying weather. sceptic777 wrote: The US military have admitted it through their own documents that it can modify weather. This is confirmed by Dr Brookes Agnew. There are a number of books and documentaries that state that HAARP and many other similar installations heat the Ionosphere and this can affect climate. HAARP does not heat the ionosphere. sceptic777 wrote: Chemtrails: The chemicals in Chemtrails are Ba, Al, Sr and Mn. No one is spraying these chemicals from aircraft. You more of these from fireworks than from aircraft. sceptic777 wrote: A Pilot named Jeff Nelson said that contrails disappear within minutes, do not turn off and on again and are visibly different than Chemtrails. What do you mean by 'turn off and on again'?? sceptic777 wrote: Where they are sprayed there are big differences in the tested concentration in the soil of Barium, Aluminum and Strontium. These substances naturally occur in the soil. sceptic777 wrote: Aluminum is 40 times and Strontium is 10 to 20 times the normal concentration in the soil. Chemtrails are real and not water vapour. There is no 'normal' concentration in the soil. sceptic777 wrote: Lasers: Michio Kaku said that there is a trillion watt laser capable of weather modification. So I've heard. He is just showing the usual link between radiation and clouds in cloud chambers. You can see this at any science museum of any size. The technique is not capable of modifying weather. sceptic777 wrote: The recent extreme temperatures, hurricanes, etc are employed as evidence of AGW. NONE of these are evidence of anything except the usual weather in the world. You don't know the Earth's temperature. It's not possible to determine it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-10-2017 21:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: sceptic777 wrote: Greenman, I disagree with your response with the following: HAARP: Physicist Michio Kaku stated that HAARP is responsible for the recent spate of Hurricanes so he obviously thinks it does more then Auroral research. The US military have admitted it through their own documents that it can modify weather. This is confirmed by Dr Brookes Agnew. There are a number of books and documentaries that state that HAARP and many other similar installations heat the Ionosphere and this can affect climate. Chemtrails: The chemicals in Chemtrails are Ba, Al, Sr and Mn. A Pilot named Jeff Nelson said that contrails disappear within minutes, do not turn off and on again and are visibly different than Chemtrails. Where they are sprayed there are big differences in the tested concentration in the soil of Barium, Aluminum and Strontium. Aluminum is 40 times and Strontium is 10 to 20 times the normal concentration in the soil. Chemtrails are real and not water vapour. Lasers: Michio Kaku said that there is a trillion watt laser capable of weather modification. The recent extreme temperatures, hurricanes, etc are employed as evidence of AGW. This is pretty rediculous. The energy from HAARP is tiny in comparison with a local windstorm. Furthermore it was designed only to cause a change in the ionization of the ionosphere, The project was shut down in 2014 because it didn't work after a quarter of a billion dollars was spent on it. It looks to me more like it was a political favor to Alaska than any real sort of project. HAARP did work. It was designed to study the Auroras. It gave us a lot of information about them. The experiment concluded in 2014. It is owned by the University of Alaska now, and they fire it up on occasion for some unrelated short term study. It's expensive to run. Wake wrote: Chemtrails are nothing more than another conspiracy theory because people can see contrails which are little more than evaporation from the exhausts of jet aircraft. Condensation, actually. Wake wrote: NO service has EVER said that they could modify weather other than seeding clouds which does nothing but change where a rain cloud releases it's rain. Even that is doubtful. There is no way to test the theory. We don't know where the cloud would have released its rain if it was just left alone. Wake wrote: Apparently you do not understand the amount of power in a weather front let alone a hurricane. What's more these things can only be started by EXTREMELY wide spread energy from sea temperatures that are impossible for man to change. And this basic argument is sound. Man's power is quite puny compared to the power in a single storm or even the power of the steering winds of a single storm. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-10-2017 21:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sceptic777 wrote: Wake: I have seen a documentary on Chemtrails and visibly, they are as different as chalk and cheese to contrails. There are no chemtrails. sceptic777 wrote: The contrails disappear after a few minutes whereas the chemtrails stay around for a long time Contrails can stick around for hours and hours. It depends on conditions. sceptic777 wrote: and the chemicals drop to the soil and contaminate it. Paradox. If the 'chemicals drop to the ground', how does the 'chemtrail' stay in the sky so long??? If the 'chemicals' drop to the ground', how does a contrail like shape form at all??? sceptic777 wrote: Tests have proven what the chemicals were and are as I have mentioned. What tests? Show me the raw data, how it was gathered, who gathered it and when, what instrumentation was used, etc. sceptic777 wrote: Also, I never said that HAARP created hurricanes, they merely create some sort of vacuum vortex and draw 2 or 3 smaller storms into one huge storm. HAARP cannot create a vacuum. You can't create a vacuum with radio waves. sceptic777 wrote: Much less energy needed for that. A tremendous amount of energy is needed for that! sceptic777 wrote: I'm not saying necessarily that this is a conspiracy, Yes, you are. sceptic777 wrote: just humans meddling with something they don't fully understand. So it's a conspiracy of incompetence. You just can trust any government these days, not even the Illuminati. sceptic777 wrote: I don't think Michio Kaku would put his name to what many may call a crazy conspiracy theory. In effect, he did. He is giving lasers a lot more credit than they deserve. His 'discovery' is not new either. It's long been known before him that radiation (including visible) light can cause cloud streaks in cloud chambers, and to a tiny extent, in open very humid air. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-10-2017 23:22
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	[b]Wake wrote:rediculous. Its spelled red-dick-a-loss..... for "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up", its the accurate spelling.
11-10-2017 23:39
GasGuzler ☆☆☆☆☆ (39)	Litebeer wrote: Its spelled red-dick-a-loss..... This from the one claiming to be native American? Wow. Hanging curve ball if I ever saw one. I'll let it go.

12-10-2017 01:46
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	skeptic777 - you have to keep yourself from getting involved in rediculous conspiracy theories. Next thing you'll be one of the nuts that thinks that the CIA blew up the Trade Towers despite pictures of the aircraft striking them. Contrails are not simply water vapor - they are largely petro-chemical exhaust components just like the stuff that causes smog only coarser since they are from a less highly refined fuel source. This means that they can come and go. There is NO reason for them to disappear save the atmospheric conditions where the aircraft are located generally is dry and cold. Under the proper conditions they can settle down through the stratosphere and onto the tropopause and sit there for hours. The elements you are talking about supposedly falling out of the sky are commonly found in very high levels in any volcanic soils. Aluminum can be as high as a third of the soil. Now how are you suggesting that you can get 5 to 10 times that concentration? It normally makes up 8% of the Earth's crust. In other words it's EVERYWHERE. As for barium and strontium what were these "high levels" and what did they suggest these "chemtrails" were used for? Strontium is the 15th most common element on Earth. Barium is of the same family and while it isn't that common 20% of the world's production of Barium comes from the US. In other words - I would sure as hell like to know who claims that the there are abnormally high amounts of these things in ANY soil since it would then become commercially valuable. As for your HAARP fiction - this was a fixture in Alaska. It NEVER worked. They were trying to ionize parts of the ionosphere so that we could bounce radio signals further. It did not have a lot of power and it had absolutely NO effect on weather. What's more it was scrapped in 2014. It could NOT be "aimed" and it was nowhere near the hurricane zones. Your powerful laser? Yes indeed - the Japanese do have a 2 gigawatt laser. Like ALL high power lasers it would burn up if it was operated for more than a microsecond. The Japanese laser is about the diameter of a hair at it's focal point and its complete power is expended in one picosecond - one trillionth of a second. There are several of these near this power though this is presently the largest that I know of. They are generally used just like a shorter version of a particle accelerator for quantum research and investigation of what the matter was like in the early universe. They do this by shooting it at a target and generating a plasma for study. This only remains in this plasma phase for microseconds. While they have immense power they can have NO large scale effects because they last so short a time that one O2 molecule could disrupt it. I want you to realize that a LOCAL windstorm has more power than any of these conspiratorial suggestions. The one that just caused so much destruction in Napa, California, had winds that blew at tropical storm force (75 mph) for several hours. Compared to this man has little power.
12-10-2017 02:23
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" goofed: Litebeer wrote:Its spelled red-dick-a-loss..... .....curve ball if I ever saw one. I'll let it go. Most of them curve. You were still holding yours.... hoping not to lose it? Must be an epidemic among old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners. Edited on 12-10-2017 02:34
12-10-2017 04:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: skeptic777 - you have to keep yourself from getting involved in rediculous conspiracy theories. Next thing you'll be one of the nuts that thinks that the CIA blew up the Trade Towers despite pictures of the aircraft striking them. Contrails are not simply water vapor The visible contrail is simply water vapor. Wake wrote: - they are largely petro-chemical exhaust components Nope. Just water vapor. The engine exhaust also contains carbon dioxide, which is a colorless. It is not visible. Wake wrote: just like the stuff that causes smog Carbon dioxide does not cause smog. Neither does water vapor. Smog is caused by nitrogen oxides in the presence of unburned fuel particulates and ozone. Wake wrote: only coarser since they are from a less highly refined fuel source. There is no 'courseness' to carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or ozone. Kerosene is a highly refined fuel source, consisting of decanes up to hexadecanes. It has the highest BTU by weight of the various fuels. Wake wrote: This means that they can come and go. Nope. Once dissipated, they're gone for good. If they never formed in the first place, they won't form later. Wake wrote: There is NO reason for them to disappear save the atmospheric conditions where the aircraft are located generally is dry and cold. Jet aircraft fly in the coldest part of the atmosphere they can...the tropopause. The jet engine is most efficient there. Wake wrote: Under the proper conditions they can settle down through the stratosphere and onto the tropopause and sit there for hours. Jet aircraft fly in the tropopause already. The water vapor (and anything else) doesn't 'settle' anywhere. It is already at the optimum altitude to just stay where it is as it dissipates. Wake wrote: The elements you are talking about supposedly falling out of the sky are commonly found in very high levels in any volcanic soils. Aluminum can be as high as a third of the soil. Now how are you suggesting that you can get 5 to 10 times that concentration? It normally makes up 8% of the Earth's crust. In other words it's EVERYWHERE. As for barium and strontium what were these "high levels" and what did they suggest these "chemtrails" were used for? Strontium is the 15th most common element on Earth. Barium is of the same family and while it isn't that common 20% of the world's production of Barium comes from the US. In other words - I would sure as hell like to know who claims that the there are abnormally high amounts of these things in ANY soil since it would then become commercially valuable. Heh. That they would. Fortunately, we know where bauxite is and most of it isn't anywhere near a lot of aircraft activity. Wake wrote: As for your HAARP fiction - this was a fixture in Alaska. It NEVER worked. It worked fine. We learned a lot about the Auroras from it. That was it's purpose. Wake wrote: They were trying to ionize parts of the ionosphere so that we could bounce radio signals further. Not the purpose of HAARP. The ionosphere is already ionized. That's why we call it the ionosphere. Increasing the thickness of the ionosphere REDUCES radio signal propagation. Wake wrote: It did not have a lot of power and it had absolutely NO effect on weather. As radio transmitters go, it had a lot of power. Radio does not affect the weather. Wake wrote: What's more it was scrapped in 2014. It wasn't scrapped. It's still there. It is currently owned by the University of Alaska. Wake wrote: It could NOT be "aimed" Yes it could. It aimed the signal straight up. Wake wrote: and it was nowhere near the hurricane zones. Quite true. There also happens to be a little thing called the Jet Stream in the way (actually TWO of them before you get to the equator). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-10-2017 06:21
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	sceptic777 wrote: Greenman, I disagree with your response with the following: HAARP: Physicist Michio Kaku stated that HAARP is responsible for the recent spate of Hurricanes so he obviously thinks it does more then Auroral research. The US military have admitted it through their own documents that it can modify weather. This is confirmed by Dr Brookes Agnew. There are a number of books and documentaries that state that HAARP and many other similar installations heat the Ionosphere and this can affect climate. Chemtrails: The chemicals in Chemtrails are Ba, Al, Sr and Mn. A Pilot named Jeff Nelson said that contrails disappear within minutes, do not turn off and on again and are visibly different than Chemtrails. Where they are sprayed there are big differences in the tested concentration in the soil of Barium, Aluminum and Strontium. Aluminum is 40 times and Strontium is 10 to 20 times the normal concentration in the soil. Chemtrails are real and not water vapour. Lasers: Michio Kaku said that there is a trillion watt laser capable of weather modification. The recent extreme temperatures, hurricanes, etc are employed as evidence of AGW. Ok, so I checked out Michio Kaku, and he appears to be a straight up kind of guy, and extremely knowledgeable. It appears that some moron decided to piece together a couple of videos and make it look like Kaku said the things you heard, and are claiming now. Here is a link that tells all about it. http://www.snopes.com/did-prof-michio-kaku-say-haarp-caused-irma-and-harvey/ I'm going to say that you are a little on the gullible side, and that you need to investigate things a little more than you do. Don't let stupid people fool you. They got nothing better to do, but you do. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php Edited on 12-10-2017 06:22

Join the debate Other causes of Climate Change?: