Friday, June 24, 2011

Debunking Jay Reynolds claims

This is to answer chemtrail debunker Jay Renolds.

"First, one should be aware that none of these claims can be considered either a hypothesis or a theory, they all fall in the realm of speculation."
Some scientific literature do exist to support some of the claim.

"-Poisonous Substance in Fuel"
One should remember that every jet exhaust produce poisonous substance for human. The difference is in the level. So it is not too important if it contain dangerous substance or not, jet engine output will still be poisonous.

"-Weather Modification & -Solar Radiation Mitigation"
Science literature exist that explain how normal contrails and cirrus cloud it produce have bad effects to the environment. The conclusion is contrails and contrail cirrus modify weather. They increase regional temperature significantly.

Also scientific reference exist about how to induce or to prevent rain with cloud seeding method. It is a known idea and had been experimented. So, weather modification is not an impossible option.

"In my words, "Contrails don't cause weather, weather causes contrails.""
Above is a wrong conclusion, without aeroplane, there would be no contrails. Contrails is man made, weather can not cause contrails. Weather is only a supporting factor, but this may be wrong too because trails also observed on unfavorable weather. Even some scientist puzzled by the existance of trails that last for hours in an impossible condition.

See my other post for reference.

"Normal persistent contrails can and do provide cirrus clouds which can block some sunlight and UV radiation, but their global coverage is miniscule."
Trails is severe problem. Many people report with photos and videos showing how the sky to become fully covered with clouds or trails dense enough to block the sun. And blocking sun for days can have severe health effects.

"-Global Warming Mitigation"
Some scientific reference mention how most scientist agree that contrails and contrail cirrus promote regional warming. And also this is concluded on observation that include only a handfull of trails in the sky. Should the observation is done during fully covered sky with trails, scientist would conclude that they promote global warming significantly too.

Even ordinary contrails have significant contribution to global warming. It is not important to differentiate chemtrail and contrails. None is harmless.

"-Visual Obscuration"
Proof exists that show sky is completely covered by trails and cloud created by the trails. They can last for days and even weeks. Refuting te possibility of hiding activity is also speculation.

Trails currently unregulated. Trails can be regulated by monitoring each plane activity and rerouting flight. It is possible to do and do not compromise the safety of flight.

Seeing how tight the government regulate ground vehicle, the none existance regulation on contrails looks like a miracle. Police should chase after the plane that produce trails like how they chase us when our car produce smoke.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Debunking contrailscience contrails grid

Grid formation of trails is often used to indicate that the trails is sprayed deliberately. Chemtrail debunker do not leave this alone, like metioned bellow:

The link explained that grid happen because of the wind. The jetplane passing the same route but the wind blow the previous trail to previous position. Creating many trail that form a grid.

The explanation look logical, however, it leave out these phenomena:

1. Some people observed that the grid is made in random order. The trails is not sprayed in sequence but in random order. The next trails is always fill the sky that never been sprayed before with precision. With only this it is enough to dispell wind blowing trails theory, but there is more.

2. The trails is created very fast, in minutes. The wind should never has time to move the trails fast enough.

3. Grid still observed on no wind condition. It is often seen that the trails do not move position. If grid is formed by the wind then the trails should be moving. But the grid still seen even if the trails stay at their location. The jetplane that spraying the trails definitely use different route.

4. The grid also seen to has even distance between one trail to the others. This precision can only happen if the spraying is done deliberately.

5. The wind theory can not explain why there are criss crossing trails.

All the above reason show that wind can not be used to explain the grid formed by the trails. Indicating that the spraying may indeed deliberate.

Debunking contrailscience trails age

Trails age has become the argumentation key point between chemtrail believer and chemtrail nay sayer. The debunker often use the natural life expectancy of ice. Like mentioned bellow:

However, trails from jet plane is not natural. Many science literature only mention probable life expectancy of trails of under 30 minutes. Trails that has life of hours is never been observed in situ, always from satellite observation. And trails that last for hours never been sampled to my knowledge.

This is example of observation:

On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds
Following different jet aircraft during more than 60 occasions, contrails older than about 10–15 min could only be identified and sampled in very few cases. This raises the question whether very low concentrations of upper-tropospheric ice crystals frequently occur under conditions that are also favorable for contrails to form and persist.

People who often see chemtrails crisscrossing the sky would find this amusing, because they often report many trails last for many hours. Those scientist may never get trails that last for hours if they kept following the plane. Or they would not be allowed to follow.....

Trails of jet plane should never be compared with other natural phenomena. Water is only a part of what jet engine exhaust produce. There are other thing that can alter the way the contrails produced.

Aircraft engines emit water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, and soot and metal particles formed by the high-temperature combustion of jet fuel during flight. Of these emittants, only water vapor is necessary for contrail formation. Sulfur gases are also of potential interest because they lead to the formation of small particles. Particles suitable for water droplet formation are necessary for contrail formation. Initial contrail particles, however, can either be already present in the atmosphere or formed in the exhaust gas.

Trails from unnatural sources should never be explained by something from natural sources. The explanation from the link above should never be considered real.

What scientist can model is contrails that last for 30 minutes at most. Contrails that last for hours is impossible for them. They can not simulate or explain it using only jet engine exhaust output.

This should bring enough hint that hourly persistent contrails may not be contrails at all.

Also remember that the photos posted on contrailscience website may not be the photos of plane that actually produce trails that last hours. What being shown as what you see, may not be the same thing as what you actually see at all.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Debunking contrailscience broken contrails

People often see the trails of jetplane to be suddenly on and off. Many people use this as example that the trails is a deliberate spraying.

Chemtrail debunker consider this only as a results of sudden atmospheric change. Like mentioned bellow:

The explanation seems reasonable. But still leave a lot of question:

1. Atmosphere is random, but why the trails is perfectly on and perfectly off if it is caused by supposed to be random atmospheric condition?

A natural sky whould produce random level of humidity. If there is no wind, extreme humidity difference should not exist. We should expect to see gradual change to the trails.

But that is not what many people see. Many people see the trails to be very very uniform. The sudden cut is then continue with another very very uniform trails. If trails is created because of humidity, this would never happen.

2. Some people also observe that there are two trails with different place of broken trails. This defeat the theory that trails interrupted because of different humidity at different level of height.

If the sky is completely random at that time then we should see random broken trails every where, but many people don't see this.

If the sky completely homogen at that time then we should see two broken trails happen at the same place, but many people don't see this.

In short, this is not simple. People or even scientist observe effect can not be explained with atmospheric change of humidity.

Ocean acidification by BP Gulf Oil spill

Many people mention danger of BP Gulf oil spill by its direct effects. Namely how the animal is caught out in the oil. How coral reef is dying by the covering oil.

You can see more info on wiki:

However, most overlook the fact that the attempt to clear out the oil spill is using bactery that known to produce acid. There are many video that mention how the agent used is "eating" metal. That is a sign of acid!

So not only by the oil, pollution also happen because of the attempt to clear the oil. And it is ocean acidification.

Can you imagine how much acidification will happen with so many oil covering the sea? It wouldn't be unsignificant.

If you follow Global warming movement, you will notice that ocean acidification is big problem need to be solved from CO2 pollution. Ocean acidification destroy coral reef and eventualy will also destroy the one at the top of food cycle, us.

You can read more info on the effects of ocean acidification on this pdf bellow:
Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers

Ocean acidification is big concern in global warming movement, now it made worse by the attempt to remove oil spill. Maybe it is better to leave it alone than to allow those people to try to clean it but will introduce another problem.

God bless us.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Contrails, an ignored environmental problem

I think it is weird not many people consider contrails and the cloud it create, contrail cirrus, as very potential environmental problem. Some of the article bellow explain the problem.

A magazine from Volvo Aero about the environmental impact of fying, 2011
Air traffic does more damage as emissions are discharged at high altitude.

This is one of the fundamental climate problems for air traffic. When jet propulsion fuel is combusted at an altitude of 10,000 metres, the effect on the climate is greater than it would be if the fuel were combusted on the earth’s surface. The climatic effect of air traffc is due not simply to carbon emissions but also to other factors, such as emissions at high altitude of water vapour, nitrogen oxide and particulates.

Emissions trading in International civil aviation
At cruise altitude, apart from CO2 it is above all NOx, water vapour, contrails and cirrus clouds that contribute towards the greenhouse effect. Of these, only CO2 is included in the Kyoto Protocol. The radiative forcing of CO2 represents only a little more than one-third (37 %) of the total radiative effect of all climate-impacting avia-tion emissions (Lee/Sausen 2000).

As a result of aviation, emissions are expelled into the global atmosphere that contribute to climate change and the destruction of the ozone layer. Emissions and expelled particulates alter the concentration of greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). They also trigger off the formation of contrails and can encourage the occurrence of cirrus clouds. All of this contributes to climate change (IPCC 1999).

In a Special Report of the IPCC (1999), climatic impact was investigated and compared for three periods of observation (1992, 2015 and 2050). In the case of CO2, not only were aviation emissions at these points in time considered, but also the emissions that have accumulated since 1950. With contrails, on the other hand, only emissions from 1992, 2015 and 2050 were considered on account of their short retention time. It turned out that, for all periods of observation, the radiative forcing of contrails is greater that that of CO2. This can be attributed to the fact that the sensitivity effect of contrails is more intense than the accumulation and growth effects of CO2.

Aviation has been identified as contributor to anthropogenic changes in the Earth’s radiation budget. In particular this is due to the emission of greenhouse gases, soot, aerosols, and the formation of contrails and aviation induced cirrus clouds. Linear persistent contrails occur in an ice supersaturated atmosphere if the Schmidt Appelman criterion is satisfied (1). Cirrus clouds can evolve from spreading persistent contrails known as primary cirrus or contrail cirrus (2). Secondary cirrus occur due to locally increased soot and aerosol concentration, which might lead to the formation of cirrus clouds that would not form in the absence of air traffic (3; 4; 5).

Linear persistent contrails and aviation induced cirrus clouds were identified as main contributors to the overall aviation induced radiative forcing. It is estimated that linear persistent contrails contribute approximately 20% to the total aviation induced radiative forcing (7). This estimate considers a year 2000 scenario where cirrus clouds are excluded. Aviation induced cir rus clouds have the potential to cause a radiative forcing which exceeds the radiative forcing of all other emissions due to air traffic combined.

Rolls-Royce Aviation Power in the air
Carbon emissions have a direct and widely recognised effect on climate change. However, flying also creates other impacts. Along with CO2, aircraft engines produce emissions of water vapour and oxides of nitrogen. Water vapour in the engine exhaust under certain conditions can form contrails and these may evolve into cirrus clouds.

Glenn Research Center
Contrails contribute to the phenomenon known as "global change." Right now this effect is small, but it is growing. Although scientists are uncertain about the impact of contrails on global change, they believe that persistent contrails, those that last longer than a few minutes, gradually develop into cirrus clouds. Over the past 40 years, cloudiness seems to have increased. If this is in fact true, then this continual increase in cloudiness may lead to global climate change because it will change the amount of radiation entering and leaving the Earth's atmosphere. This characteristic of aircraft engine exhaust may act in a way similar to the effects produced by greenhouse gases.

Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus
Aviation makes a significant contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing. The impacts arise from emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols and nitrogen oxides, and from changes in cloudiness in the upper troposphere. An important but poorly understood component of this forcing is caused by ‘contrail cirrus’—a type of cloud that consist of young line-shaped contrails and the older irregularly shaped contrails that arise from them. Here we use a global climate model that captures the whole life cycle of these man-made clouds to simulate their global coverage, as well as the changes in natural cloudiness that they induce. 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. Our findings regarding global radiative forcing by contrail cirrus will allow their effects to be included in studies assessing the impacts of aviation on climate and appropriate mitigation options.

I hope by now you understand that it is not CO2 that can contribute to global warming. Contrails and cirrus contrails have large contribution too.

Sadly the current policy for contrails is:
Epa - contrails
Currently, there are no regulations addressing contrails and their atmospheric effects.

This is very sad. They enforce very tight CO2 control to the point of making many had become unemployed also industries and countries has to deal with very limited carbon credits.

And yet, they don't enforce the same enforcing effort to remedy contrails and contrail cirrus.

We should ask the government to at least monitor every airplane for their trails history. It would be better if government also willing to actually regulate trails from the airplane.

Chemtrail is actually contrail?

Link bellow have many articles that explain how chemtrail is not exist. And what we see is actually contrails.

It explain in full confidence about how contrails will form from a jet engine. While the explanation seems logical, notice that it is lack of quote. All the explanation comes from the writer own opinion.

Because of that, we have to consider all explanation in that website to be the opinion of one person only. He provide quote and link here and there but all of that do not directly answer the topic but only mention fact that can be used in any other way.

Scientist is not even sure how contrails happen. They can't even model it properly. Many are still trying to grasp of what happen. From time to time they notice anomaly which is surely will not be mentioned on the above website.

Article bellow mention anomaly of creation of contrail above critical temperature:
Measurement of the growth of the ice budget in a persisting contrail

The measured water mass within the contrail was found to be four orders of magnitude greater than that computed as a combustion product

Appleman was the first to develop criteria for contrail formation over a wide range of altitudes, temperatures and humidities. An essential result of his study was the prediction of wether water saturation is reached following the mixing of the exhaust heat and water vapor with the ambient air. His treatment describes the change in mixing ratio (decrease) in the aircraft wake as bein proportional to the change in wake temperature (decrease) with the proportionality constant fuel-dependent only. With any given fuel there results a critical temperature for each altitude above which contrail formation is impossible. In order that the contrail be visible a temperature as much as several degrees bellow the critical temperature is generally required.

In this experiment, as shown in Fig. 5, we actually observed the contrail to form and grow at a temperature several degrees above the critical temperature as defined by appleman, or the laboratory contrail studies of Pillie and Jiusto.

Article bellow mention anomaly of contrails that last for hours, many other article also mention contrails life of in situ sampling is under 30 minutes:
On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds
Although several model studies concerning the formation and evolution of cirrus clouds and contrails have been performed (Starr and Cox 1985; Heymsfield and
Sabin 1989; Sassen and Dodd 1989; Jensen et al. 1994; De Mott et al. 1994; Ka ¨rcher et al. 1996; Gierens 1996; Gierens and Jensen 1998), the detailed processes are far from being understood by now, mainly due to the few observational data available. New in situ and remote

Contrails older than a few minutes proved to be difficult to sample in situ because such contrails, even if visible from far below or aloft, are in most of the cases difficult to recognize and thus to follow while flying on the same level. In most of the cases the optical contrast to the environment was very low. Following different jet aircraft during more than 60 occasions, contrails older than about 10–15 min could only be identified and sampled in very few cases. This raises the question whether very low concentrations of upper-tropospheric ice crystals frequently occur under conditions that are also favorable for contrails to form and persist.

Mention how contrails produce two kind of cirrus clouds:
In both cases two modes can be distinguished: one cloud mode around Dm
5 15–20 mm (Cf: 10 mm) and a second one toward submicron sizes to the left, which we call ‘‘haze mode.’’

Environmental conditions required for contrail formation and persistence
Contrails are frequently visible at distances as close as 25-35 m behind the aircraft engines. Using an analytical model of ice crystal growth in the exhaust plume, showed that the number density of ice crystals nucleated must be at least about 10^4cm^-3 in order for the contrail to be visible this quickly...... The simulations suggest that freshly nucleated sulfuric acid/water aerosols could not grow large enough to spontaneously freeze in the time required.

People who debunk chemtrail mention that scientist consider it as contrail. However some quote above show that even scientist are not sure of what they observe.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Stopping chemtrail by talking?

Chemtrail will be explained in detail next time. What intrigued me to write today is how people thought that you can do something for something so global just by talking.

Chemtrail is something that happen all over the world. People report observing plane that create trail everywhere. While the rate is difference from places to places, many people post photos and video of their observation from different part of the world.

And yet, some people think that they can prevent spraying just talking to receptionist of government building at his town. Ok, this is may be too extreme example, but who knows that people actually do this too.

I don't think you can stop chemtrailing even if we can talk to the leader of your country.

With the scale that big, the leader of your country must already receive information from their staff. If they still do not announce anything and the chemtrail still happen to the people then that can be something that even they can not handle.

If the one that spray the chemtrail can do this globally, wouldn't they have something to be used to face each country leader?

If you explain everything and they still deny it then you must think of possibility of they already knew but choose to pretend not knowing. May be to protect their family, or to protect their country, or to protect their work, or to protect their huge income.

Sorry guys, I don't think talking to a government higher ups can change anything. You may just waste money or time. Maybe by creating larger awareness to people can help. But if just convincing a friend of yours is very hard, then how can you expect to convince a stranger?

I would consider a more direct action. Not by talking but by creating something that would prevent chemtrail from achieving its purposes. I choose to made cemenite.

I do not care if my family, my neighboor or my friend do not believe me. I would satisfy enough if they do not have to suffer as much as the people at other places having similar chemtrail problem. I don't need to make hundreds and I can made it with the same budget as transport to government higher ups...

Don't waste your money talking or convincing other people, use it to prevent the effect instead.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Getting energy with voltage without current

"Voltage without current" is a word commonly heard in "free energy" community. It usually refer to Tom Bearden saying of not to destroy the dipole. We get the energy but the dipole (the charge) do not leak or discharge.

It means that to get free energy from an electronic circuit we have to use only voltage but should never use any current. We allow the voltage the flow but before any current getting trough we stop it.

Well, this is another bullshit theory.

First, many potential "free energy" device that using battery always use current. And using current means destroying the dipole. Without current we can not make the coil to produce eletromagnetic field, no power to do anything, no power to ionize, no power to electrolize, etc. Power is multiplication of voltage AND current. Without current there will be no power.

If there is supposed to be a door of free energy somewhere, we need power to open this door. Without power, no chance to open the door.

Second, it is impossible to tell transistor to only voltage but not allowing the current. There is simply no transistor can do that fast enough. Using mechanical also have similar limitation.

Voltage without current is bullshit.

Free energy?

Many people mistaken the term "free energy" as energy that you can get for free. Well, that is wrong.

At least you need to buy the device that provide you with "free energy".

Then you may need to maintenance it or prepare budget to make it work continuously.

Then some of "free energy" device hide fact that they consume or get consumed. This is especially true for "run on water" solution. Not just it need expensive kind of water, it also has short runtime because the device electrode is consumed.

The durability is something the inventor rarely tell you. This also hide the actual cost of the energy when you need to replace it.

Even solar cell is not cheap. Just calculate the investment you need to get electricity for your house for two years and then compare it how many you currently spent. Why two years? this considering the fact that your may be clueless and may end up with short life cheapskate solution.

This is the same with hydro.

But the bottom line is, you can not get energy for free. Either you have to spent money to get it or at least to spent a lot of time to prevent being scammed.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Cellphone and brain cancer

WHO just admit that cellphone may cause brain cancer. This may surprise some of you. Should you stop using cellphone now? What you can do?

I believe that what make cellphone dangerous is not emf, so I think any solution using emf prevention will be USELESS. Many people think that cellphone is dangerous because it work close to gigahertz frequency. Other think it is the level of EM radiation that it became dangerous.

But I don't think both assumption are correct. Both are wrong. Device that work on gigahertz frequency already exist for sometime and people who work at telecomunication center do not suffer brain cancer worse than everyone else. If giga hertz and EMF level is the cause, don't you think cellphone R&D or people who work around cellphone tower will get the brain cancer first?

And yet, they don't. If brain cancer case is not proportional with gigahertz and EMF level environment exposure, then blaming it on electro-magnetic is a bullshit.

I believe that the true solution lies on the orgone property of the cellphone. Which I think happen to be the worse kind because of lack of attention from the researcher of cellphone safety. They don't even acknowledge it exist so I doubt they will fix it anytimes later.

Because of that, we have to do it our own. Fortunately we can prevent brain cancer by using device that produce good orgone, the kind of orgone that is opposite of what cellphone produce. It is also cheap. I only spent less than $2 to make it. You can make it yourself too. But becarefull because you can also endup boosting the cellphone effect to the worse.

My solution is called cemenite. Just google it.