If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most?

And you allow the same demeaning word from a chemtard...

Wow.


Poor George....

Interesting you should point to global dimming . . .

1) The decade of 1990s had a dip in stratospheric aerosols. This dip (see below) was caused by the clearing of the atmosphere in the 90s.

"Hofmann and coworkers (12–14) argued that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer increased by 5- 9%/year through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and again at about 5-7% in the 2000s. However, in the 1990s stratospheric aerosols decreased by similar magnitudes. "
[link to junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com]


2) Within the same article cited above are definitive statements that stratospheric particulate (aerosols) increased during the late 1990s - 2000s effectively reversing the negative trend in the early 1990s using three different methods . . .


"Multiple instruments have been used at Mauna Loa for estimating or measuring total aerosol optical depth and atmospheric transmission. Here we present observations taken there on the cleanest days, when much of the aerosol burden likely resides in the stratosphere. Figure 2 shows three independent data records that all indicate increases in aerosol optical depth (or, equivalently, decreases in transmission) at Mauna Loa from the late 1990s to the late 2000s: from ground-based transmission data using the pyrheliometer ratioing methodology (20, 21), a Precision Filter Radiometer [1999 to date (22)], and a stratospheric lidar (14). Figure 2 compares these data to the mean tropical and global stratospheric aerosol optical depths from combined satellite observations by the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) II (1990–2005), Global Ozone Monitoring by Occultation of Stars (GOMOS, 2002-2009) and the CALIPSO lidar (2006–2010), see (16, 17, 23–25); the overlapping periods of the different satellite instruments allow accurate quantification of the trends over time (17). The four independent data sets from satellite, lidar, total transmission, and aerosol optical depth as shown in Fig. 2 jointly support the view that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer has changed significantly over about the past decade [see (25)]."

[link to junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com]

[link to data.giss.nasa.gov]

Interesting you should point to global dimming . . .

1) The decade of 1990s had a dip in stratospheric aerosols. This dip (see below) was caused by the clearing of the atmosphere in the 90s.

"Hofmann and coworkers (12–14) argued that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer increased by 5- 9%/year through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and again at about 5-7% in the 2000s. However, in the 1990s stratospheric aerosols decreased by similar magnitudes. "
[link to junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com]


2) Within the same article cited above are definitive statements that stratospheric particulate (aerosols) increased during the late 1990s - 2000s effectively reversing the negative trend in the early 1990s using three different methods . . .


"Multiple instruments have been used at Mauna Loa for estimating or measuring total aerosol optical depth and atmospheric transmission. Here we present observations taken there on the cleanest days, when much of the aerosol burden likely resides in the stratosphere. Figure 2 shows three independent data records that all indicate increases in aerosol optical depth (or, equivalently, decreases in transmission) at Mauna Loa from the late 1990s to the late 2000s: from ground-based transmission data using the pyrheliometer ratioing methodology (20, 21), a Precision Filter Radiometer [1999 to date (22)], and a stratospheric lidar (14). Figure 2 compares these data to the mean tropical and global stratospheric aerosol optical depths from combined satellite observations by the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) II (1990–2005), Global Ozone Monitoring by Occultation of Stars (GOMOS, 2002-2009) and the CALIPSO lidar (2006–2010), see (16, 17, 23–25); the overlapping periods of the different satellite instruments allow accurate quantification of the trends over time (17). The four independent data sets from satellite, lidar, total transmission, and aerosol optical depth as shown in Fig. 2 jointly support the view that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer has changed significantly over about the past decade [see (25)]."

[link to junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com]

[link to data.giss.nasa.gov]

Okay. Stratospheric aerosols are variable. What is the point? Doesn't have anything to do with contrails.

"Figure 1 suggests that it may be difficult if not
impossible to define a “background” that is not affected to
some degree by volcanic inputs over the past decade."

Okay. Stratospheric aerosols are variable. What is the point? Doesn't have anything to do with contrails.

"Figure 1 suggests that it may be difficult if not
impossible to define a “background” that is not affected to
some degree by volcanic inputs over the past decade."

If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most?

The Shills on this site , pretending that it is normal. Too many, too adamant , too fake.

The Shills on this site have convinced me of the reality of chemtrails and aerosol operations, beyond doubt.


Thank you shills, you really do have a purpose in life.

So what happened at the end of the 1990s . . . say 1999 until 2010 . . . ??? An increase in stratospheric particulate . . . mostly Sulfur Dioxide . . . but no major volcanic eruptions . . . Hmmmmm. . . what could have happened?

"The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles."
[link to www.noaanews.noaa.gov]



More particulate in the stratosphere than can be explained = (unknown source) + declining ground sources - major volcanic eruptions

(unknown source) = some unknown volcanic activity

Or possibly

(unknown source) = intentional aerosol injection program

If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most?

The Shills on this site , pretending that it is normal. Too many, too adamant , too fake.

The Shills on this site have convinced me of the reality of chemtrails and aerosol operations, beyond doubt.


Thank you shills, you really do have a purpose in life.

If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most?

The Shills on this site , pretending that it is normal. Too many, too adamant , too fake.

The Shills on this site have convinced me of the reality of chemtrails and aerosol operations, beyond doubt.


Thank you shills, you really do have a purpose in life.

Yeah, volcanoes are the only source of sulfur...

Fucking moron.

My NOTE: There is no evidence the sulfur compounds are all from surface emissions . . . why . . . they were measured in or near the stratosphere . . .

Again, what is your point?

The reference you quote says

"The lack of major eruptions since 1991 has made the
identification of this input much clearer than earlier
measurements, but the data do not rule out some contribution
to the increases in the stratospheric aerosol burden from
anthropogenic sources [such as coal burning, see (14) as
well]."

Not according to NOAA . . . and we are talking about sulfur compounds of all types . . .

Sure . . . they accept ground sources as a possible source (which is not highly likely) but never consider intentional Aerosol Injection into the Stratosphere because it never crossed their mind . . . to them it is not an option because no one says it is happening . . .

Apparently you don't have your sarcasm detector on...

Noted . . . however, the difficulty of ground source sulfur reaching the stratosphere in the quantities required except through volcanic high altitude injection is very limited . . .

Not according to NOAA . . . and we are talking about sulfur compounds of all types . . .

So, you actually believe these people have "felt" there way in regard to the trails in the sky, and have done quite well, and aren't making assumptions based on a lack of education in certain subjects?!

I'm asking you specifically...not about "some people" this...and "some people" that...

Do you think VT is seeing "chemtrails" or contrails over Vermont. What is more likely?

I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness.

Why is it " not highly likely"?!

Because you say so?!

I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness.

I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness.

What makes you think they are chemtrails?

Ya, I get that snake is not that bad. Maybe you should.

Oops...

[link to en.wikipedia.org]