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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill

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.

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.

CONTRAIL AND CIRRUS CLOUD AVOIDANCE

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.

http://contrailscience.com/

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.

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.

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.

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.