With Only Nine Aircraft . . . . I Can Change The Climate . . . CHEMTRAILS?

Potential sources of sulfur compounds in Canada alone . . . 



Canada


Newfoundland  and Labrador

North Atlantic Refinery, located in Come by Chance, (North Atlantic Refining), 115,000 bbl/d (18,300 m3/d)

Nova Scotia
Imperial Oil Refinery - Dartmouth, (Imperial Oil), 89,000 bbl/d (14,100 m3/d)

New Brunswick
Saint John, (Irving Oil), 300,000 bbl/d (48,000 m3/d)

Quebec
Montreal-East, (Shell Canada), 161,000 bbl/d (25,600 m3/d). Montreal
 East Refinery (Shell Canada). On June 4, 2010, Shell Canada officially announced the commencement to downgrade the refinery into a terminal, following the unsuccessful attempt to find a buyer to take over the plant.[10]
Montreal, (Suncor Energy), 140,000 bbl/d (22,000 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009) and historically a Petrofina refinery. Montreal Refinery[11]
Lévis, (Ultramar(Valero)), 265,000 bbl/d (42,100 m3/d)[11]

Ontario
Nanticoke Refinery, Nanticoke - (Imperial Oil), 112,000 bbl/d (17,800 m3/d)
Sarnia, (Imperial Oil), 115,000 bbl/d (18,300 m3/d)
Sarnia, (Suncor Energy), 85,000 bbl/d (13,500 m3/d)
Corunna, (Shell Canada), 72,000 bbl/d (11,400 m3/d)
Lubricant Refinery
Mississauga, (Suncor Energy), 15,600 bbl/d (2,480 m3/d) - aka Clarkson Refinery - base oil production is 13,600 bbl/d (2,160 m3/d) of API Group II capacity and 2,000 bbl/d (320 m3/d) of API Group III capacity. Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009) and historically a Gulf refinery.

Saskatchewan
CCRL Refinery Complex, Regina (Consumers' Co-operative Refineries Limited (CCRL)), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
Upgraders (improve the quality of crude for sale at a higher price)
Husky Lloydminster Refinery, Lloydminster, (Husky Energy), 25,000 bbl/d (4,000 m3/d)
Husky Lloydminster Upgrader Lloydminster, (Husky Energy), 75,000 bbl/d (11,900 m3/d)

Alberta
Strathcona Refinery, Edmonton, (Imperial Oil), 187,000 bbl/d (29,700 m3/d)
Scotford Refinery, Scotford, (Shell Canada), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
Edmonton, (Suncor Energy), 135,000 bbl/d (21,500 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009).
Bitumen Upgraders (turn bitumen into synthetic crude, which then must be further refined)
Scotford Upgrader, Scotford, (AOSP - Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bbl/d (40,000 m3/d) (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen
Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Natural Resources Limited), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Long Lake[disambiguation needed], Fort McMurray, (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Syncrude, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Suncor, Fort McMurray, (Suncor), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

British Columbia
Burnaby Refinery, Burnaby, (Chevron Corporation), 52,000 bbl/d (8,300 m3/d)
Prince George Refinery, Prince George, (Husky Energy), 12,000 bbl/d (1,900 m3/d)

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Thanks !!!!!

Where would the magnetosphere be in this picture?

Above the Ionosphere . . But very much closer at the poles. . . .

If th tropopause is the top of the troposphere, is the top of the Menosphere called the menopause?

IF so, why isn't it labeled as such?

I think that's where George spends most of his time.

How come chemtards just whine about this subject online and never take any action to actually DO anything about it...

Such as, getting schools with an atmospheric research program involved. So the can take readings and present them in a formal manner to the proper regulatory boards...

I'll tell ya why...because its a stupid hoax...and chemtards are just roll playing losers.

That sounds like a step to getting the attention of your congressman so you can be invited to testify about it. You also may need to play the politics game and help people get elected so they like you.

LoL!!!!!

To alter the climate . . . (Based on my calculations and the research paper's estimate)  . . . WE need to inject from 1 to 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere   . . . 

Conclusion:  Only one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate !!!!!! Or just 2/3 of the sulfur compounds produced in Alberta . . . 

Data, references and calculations:  

metric ton is an unit of weight. gallon is an unit of volumn.
the specific gravity of jet fuel is 0.7 therefore
(1 cubic meter of water equals 1 metric ton. the S.G. of water is 1)
1 /0.7=1.42cubic m=1420liter
1 gallon = 3.7 liter 1420/3.7=383.7 gallons
1 metric ton of jet fuel is 383.7 gallons

As the question is how many barrels per metric ton of 'crude oil', you can use the calculator on the U.S. Energy Information Administrations site:
[link to tonto.eia.doe.gov]
then select 'energy calculators'
Using the crude oil calculator shows 1 metric ton = 7.33 bbl crude oil. Crude oils vary depending on their specific gravity so this is an average for crude oil in the U.S.
[link to wiki.answers.com]

Only one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate. . . .(350,000 bbl/d) / 7.33 bbl = 47,748.98  metric tons of oil per day x .04  = 1,909.95  minimum tons of sulfur compounds produced each day
 

We Need   . . . .(15 x 3) 91 tons each day = 4,095 metric tons for all missions 
(So based on my calculations and the research papers estimate of needing 1 to 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur compounds to alter the climate  . . . one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate !!!!!! Or just 2/3 of the sulfur compounds produced in Alberta . . . )

According to at least one source sulfur content ranges from (4 - 7% sulfur)  by volume in Alberta from all petrochemical sources  . . .

Alberta Total bbl/d production (187,000 bbl/d + 100,000 bbl/d + 135,000 bbl/d + 250,000 bbl/d + 110,000 bbl/d + 70,000 bbl/d + 350,000 bbl/d = 1,202,000 bbl/d ) / 7.33 bbl = 163,983.62 metric tons of oil per day x .04 = 6,559.34 metric tons of sulfur compounds 

Strathcona Refinery, Edmonton, (Imperial Oil), 187,000 bbl/d (29,700 m3/d)

Scotford Refinery, Scotford, (Shell Canada), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)

Edmonton, (Suncor Energy), 135,000 bbl/d (21,500 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009).
Bitumen Upgraders (turn bitumen into synthetic crude, which then must be further refined)

Scotford Upgrader, Scotford, (AOSP - Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bbl/d (40,000 m3/d) (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen

Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Natural Resources Limited), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Long Lake[disambiguation needed], Fort McMurray, (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

Syncrude, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen


NOTE:

CANADIAN DEVELOPMENTS

Preliminary figures show Canadian sulphur production was roughly 8.1 Mt in 2008, an 8% decrease compared to 8.8 Mt in 2007. The decrease was from natural gas processing. Canadian elemental sulphur output in 2008 was 6.9 Mt, a decrease of 6.9% compared to 7.6 Mt in 2007. An additional 1.1 Mt of sulphur equivalent, in the form of sulphuric acid and liquefied sulphur dioxide, was recovered from the smelting of metals.

Canada exported approximately 7.6 Mt in 2008, a decline of 5.2% compared to 8 Mt in 2007. The decline occurred in elemental sulphur with exports of 6.8 Mt in 2008, down 6.4% from 7.3 Mt in 2007. Exports of sulphur in other forms (SOF) amounted to 776 000 t of sulphur equivalent. Exports to offshore markets were 4.7 Mt in 2008, a 10% decline compared to 5.2 Mt in 2007. The majority of the decline was in exports to China with shipments of 1.9 Mt in 2008, compared to 2.7 Mt in 2007. Exports to other offshore destinations increased roughly 10%, partially offsetting the export loss to China. Exports to the United States remained at levels comparable to 2007.

Canadian sulphur production was concentrated in the western provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. Other provinces produced limited amounts of sulphur from oil refining and metals smelting.

[link to www.nrcan.gc.ca]

HIGHLIGHTS

Sulphur is a nonmetallic element used principally in the manufacture of fertilizers and in the production of chemicals, pulp and paper, and in metallurgical operations.

In Canada, the majority of elemental sulphur is obtained as a by-product of natural gas production. However, sulphur recovered from oil sands production is increasing concurrent with development of the oil sands.

Global production of sulphur in all forms is forecast to increase from 75 Mt in 2008 to 91.4 Mt by 2012, exceeding demand by some 4.1 Mt.

The price of elemental sulphur experienced a turbulent ride in 2008, hitting a high of US$840/t and a low of US$35/t.

Last Edited by George B on 07/26/2012 11:46 AM

Just say NO to walls of text.

All you have to read is the first five lines. . LoL!!! . . . Even you can do that can't you ????? . . ..the rest is just how the conclusion was derived and proof it is correct. . . .

Stratopheric sulfur injection computer models doubling, or more, the sulfur concentrations needed to change the climate (1 to 1.5 Tg . . . Millions of Metric Tons)  has shown little or no harm to the ecosystems due to acid rain and dry deposition. . . .

First paragraph & Line 157 of conclusion . . . Important study indicates acid deposition would not harm environment ( up to 5Tg in tropics and 3TG in Arctic )
[link to climate.envsci.rutgers.edu]

KRAVITZ ET AL.: ACID DEPOSITION FROM GEOENGINEERING
47 Abstract
48 We used a general circulation model of Earth’s climate to conduct geoengineering
49 experiments involving stratospheric injection of sulfur dioxide and analyzed the resulting
50 deposition of sulfate. When sulfur is injected into the tropical or Arctic stratosphere, the main
51 additional surface deposition occurs in midlatitude bands, because of strong cross-tropopause
52 flux in the jet stream regions. We used critical load studies to determine the effects of this
53 increase in acid deposition on terrestrial ecosystems. For annual injection of 3 Tg of SO2 into the
54 Arctic stratosphere or 5 Tg of SO2 into the tropical stratosphere, the maximum total local surface
55 acid deposition of approximately 1.5 mEq m-2 a-1, and the maximum anomaly of approximately
56 0.05 mEq m-2 a-1, are not enough to negatively impact most ecosystems.

[link to climate.envsci.rutgers.edu]

[link to www.nasa.gov]
"Volcanic Aerosol
Three types of aerosols significantly affect the Earth's climate. The first is the volcanic aerosol layer which forms in the stratosphere after major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo. The dominant aerosol layer is actually formed by sulfur dioxide gas which is converted to droplets of sulfuric acid in the stratosphere over the course of a week to several months after the eruption (Fig. 1). Winds in the stratosphere spread the aerosols until they practically cover the globe. Once formed, these aerosols stay in the stratosphere for about two years. They reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface, cooling them. The relative coolness of 1993 is thought to have been a response to the stratospheric aerosol layer that was produced by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. In 1995, though several years had passed since the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, remnants of the layer remained in the atmosphere. Data from satellites such as the NASA Langley Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II) have enabled scientists to better understand the effects of volcanic aerosols on our atmosphere."

Have you heard of chemwebs?

Thread: Chemwebs in Melbourne or spiderwebs falling from the sky?

One rational explanation . . . .

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

"Many sailors have reported spiders being caught in their ship's sails, over 1600 km[11] from land (Heimer 1988). They have even been detected in atmospheric data balloons collecting air samples at slightly less than 5 km (16000 ft) above sea level.[12] Apparently it is the most common way for spiders to invade isolated islands and mountaintops.[11][13] Spiderlings are known to survive without food travelling in air currents of jet streams for 25 days or longer.[4]"

Last Edited by George B on 07/08/2012 06:58 AM

Don't forget that he then has to make a bunch of stupid and paranoid assumptions....like you do.

Hey, where is that moron "Hammer" these days?! Hiding in some cave...waiting for the big ball of fire to come from the sky...which he will magically avoid by seeking higher ground...

Chemtrails Analyzed 

The debate is unending and I am sure I will not stop it with this presentation . . .however, I may shed some light on the discussion and help it to grow in one or more directions. . . .

There are two alternatives. . . . Either. . .

Chemtrails Exist or Chemtrails don't Exist?

If they EXIST . . . then what are they, etc. . . ?

If Chemtrails don't EXIST . . Why do people believe they EXIST . . .? NOTE: I will list many of the reasons why people don't think they exist which will also support the belief they do exist . . . Because the same evidence is used by both groups to prove they exist and to prove they don't exist. . . .


WHY don't Chemtrails exist. . . Because there are logical explanations for what people see in the sky and people should accept these explanations because they have a long and accepted history . . . It is the simplest explanation, thereby, it should be accepted first until proven otherwise . . . All evidence to the contrary can be shown to be pure speculation and doesn't meet scientifically verifiable evidentiary standards . . .

1) Debunkers say they are simply, misidentified condensation trails from high flying aircraft in the sky . . . They are persistent contrails and contrail-induced cirrus cloud banks and disseminated haze. . . .

2) People became more aware of these persistent trails and cloud banks
because they have increased significantly because of three main factors. . . . (Along with significant scientific studies, publicity and curiosity by NASA, NOAA, DoE, and their British and European counterparts . . . Due to Global Warming all things atmospheric are now in vogue . . . )

      A.  Simply more air traffic. . . Increasing dramatically over the decades . . . Especially over certain air corridors 

      B.  In the last few decades the altitudes at which aircraft  . . . Especially long haul aviation has increased well into the 30,000 feet cruising altitudes making the likelihood that persistent contrail form statistically more likely  . . .

       C.  Engine efficiencies have increased from .20 to .30 and even higher over the last few decades  . . . Therefore, more and more efficient engines are being added every year. . . More efficient engines increase the relative humidity and lowers the plume temperatures of engine exhaust allowing persistent contrails to form in air that was suboptimal for such formation before. . . .

3) The above misidentifications happened due to lack of adequate atmospheric science awareness and the advent of alternative communication and information sources like the Internet, etc. Which created the proliferation of conspiracy mania. . . .

    A.  The publication of usually unknown and/or minimally known misadventures of the authorities has become sometimes viral. . . North wood Papers, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate, 911 Conspiracy, etc. Failure and cover-ups from most institutions once trusted without question by most people now questioned by all . . . i.e. Sex scandals by the Church, the President, Congress, Presidential Candidates and celebrities . . .  Fraud by the financial, academic, medical, pharmaceutical and scientific institutions, the bail out on and on and on . . . 

   B. The hype from the Global Warming Advocates that something should and must be done as soon as possible. . . . Has skeptical people searching for alternative motives and gave fuel to the chemtrail advocates who jumped on every rational explanation for their position. . . 

   C. The media and entertainment industry through fiction, documentaries, and historical fiction has proliferated much concern about the potential demise of mankind . . . Further energizing the search to explain anything misunderstood . . . 

   D. The publication of well meaning but inaccurate or misinterpreted elevations of metallic ions in the environment such as Aluminum, Barium, etc. . . .these metals are very abundant in the natural environment and have multiple alternative sources which can concentrate dramatically due to: natural mineral deposits, disseminating winds, run off, acid rain, leaching, manufacturing, mining, transportation corridors, military activities, and agricultural practices, etc . . .

  E.  The existence of a few whistle blowers who appeared to give inside information but who have not been able to sustain through documentation or supportive evidence of anything but their own word or testimony. . . Their motives . . . Simply to fan the flames of mistrust . . . 

 

Last Edited by George B on 07/09/2012 10:14 AM

No, debunkers say there is no EVIDENCE that they are anything more than contrails.

There is a big difference.

And so far anything provided AS evidence...has been nothing of the sort.

Debunking the Debunkers' first premise. . . .




1) All new concepts almost universally begin as speculation . . . Especially those that go counter to the prevailing mainstream opinions and established norms. .. 

2) Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory at this time. . . So it is logical to assume evidence is either limited or unaccepted by the mainstream. . . . Which doesn't make it false or invalid. . . .

3) The conspiracy is about the detection of the addition of tiny  amounts of pre-existing common substances into an ocean of similar substances which is the atmosphere . . . where millions of potential contamination sources exist . . A most difficult task to say the least 

4) Chemtrail believers have no leadership, organization or budget to attempt detection. . .so to mount a well organized scientifically valid attempt at detection is problematic at best. . . 

5) No respected scientist or institution would dare to publicly  acknowledge or work with a group trying to prove chemtrails exist  . . .

6) If a covert atmospheric injection program exists . . . It is cloaked in secrecy by definition. . . .a problem few if no scientists have to contend with when engaged in scientific discovery. . . .

7) Debunkers' original premise of knowing "what people see" is speculation itself . . .because they cannot possibly know what everyone sees. . . .

Last Edited by George B on 07/09/2012 11:19 AM

Debunking the Debunkers second premise . . .



1) I have no problem with any of the above  . . . The existence of persistent contrails, contrail-induced cirrus cloud banks, etc. . . . in no way disproves the existence of an intentional covert atmospheric aerosol injection program (ICAAIP) . . . 

2) Injected aerosols would follow the exact same atmospheric laws that contrails would. . . .no surprise . . . 

3) Visibility of any aerosol is fleeting at best  . . . Whether contrail or an intentionally injected aerosol . . . Visibility to the human eye  lasts from a few seconds to several hours . . . For example, sulfur compound particulates from volcanic eruptions can stay aloft for months and in some cases years but remain all but invisible except at sunset or sunrise when one sees an intensification of diffused colors . . . Reds, yellows and orange glow . . . 

4) As depicted in this Thread the amount of injected aerosol to accomplish any mission may require way, way less particulate than would ever become readily visible. . . so persistent contrails etc. may well be the perfect cover for any injection program to hide behind. . . .in plain sight. . . .

5) Geoengineering sources have speculated for years the use of commercial and military aircraft fuel as the mechanism to inject aerosols by spiking the fuel with added amounts of the desired substance. . . .such as sulfur compounds. . . So some of the very contrails one sees could in essence be a chemtrail. . . .

Last Edited by George B on 07/09/2012 11:53 AM

VERY IMPORTANT:  Most commercial aircraft are flown in the lower stratosphere, just above the tropopause, where clouds are usually absent, as also are significant weather perturbations.[5]:21

Tropopause  [link to en.wikipedia.org]

Last Edited by George B on 07/10/2012 08:55 AM

Bottom-line argument for the EXISTENCE of an ICAAIP (Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program)

IMO,


1) There is no significant barrier to full implementation of efforts to alter the climate . . . Except public scrutiny!!!!!

2) The technology, materials, budget, infrastructure, and motives have been ripe for decades . . . 

3) The timeline between scientific proposals and feasibility has been more than sufficient. . . . The arguments of unintended side effects have been engaged and found acceptable. . . .

4) The materials are abundant, the airframes are more than adequate for the missions. . . . The manpower, facilities and techniques for security and secrecy are well practiced  . . . 

5) THE ONLY ARGUMENT is HAVE they been doing it for years, just recently started or have yet to start????????
 
:C - Gun: :C - Gun: :C - Gun:

 
January 30, 1998
hoover digest » 1998 no. 1 » environment
Sunscreen for Planet Earth
by Edward Teller

"Global warming is too serious to be left to the politicians. Hoover fellow Edward Teller suggests a scientific solution to the problem. (If there is a problem, that is.)"

"Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why not do that?"



[link to www.hoover.org]

Last Edited by George B on 07/24/2012 07:26 PM

So, a proposal is evidence of intent...which is evidence of an ongoing "spray program"..

Sure...

Atmospheric Analysis:  If Chemtrails EXIST they must have a purpose  . . . There are several speculative suggestions; however, I want through a logical process suggest the following:

1. The altitude that an aerosol is injected into the atmosphere determines its mission. . . .determines the area affected and therefore, the strategy and the scope of the people and/or agencies  involved . . . 

2. The altitude determines the airframe used and therefore the relative transportation cost of the effort . . . as long as we know the frequency of flights  . . . 

  A. If the flights are in the stratosphere, the mission is to suspend aerosols in the atmosphere as long as possible and to affect an entire hemisphere or the entire globe for some purpose . . . 

      Suggested missions:
        
        1) Altering the Albedo of the Earth . . . Reflecting short wave radiation back into space. . . .reducing the visible light reaching the surface . . . Promoting Global Dimming 
        2) Supplying a global medium that will interact with electromagnetic wave energy  . . . Blocking it, scattering it, enhancing it, forming a barrier that energy can bounce off of. . . . Used either as medium for an offensive weapon or defensive weapon or both. . . Could do the same for communications and visualizations. . . . For example holographs that can be seen by millions of people at the same time . . . 

   B. If the flights are below the stratosphere the target is likely to be a much more localized mission and . . .  the aerosols are expected to fall to the ground within minutes, hours or days  . . . Targeting Continents, Countries, Regions, Cities, Neighborhoods, etc. . . The higher the flights below the tropopause the larger the area targeted . . . As a crop duster only flies a few hundred feet in the air. . . To dust a few hundred acres . . .  chaff can be injected at several thousand feet to cover a state size area or corridor to cover combat air operations  . . . Weather modification would also target similar altitudes to target optimal areas within the troposphere. . . . 

Last Edited by George B on 07/10/2012 12:55 PM

What do you mean OP - give me one aircraft and I do it reverse...

[link to Cutin.de]

Translation? - Where to start?

I could not see your link . . . You have all the time in the world . . . Go ahead . . .