ENASA satellite finds Earth's clouds are getting lower

Feb 22, 2012 By Alan Buis and Pauline Curtis
This image of clouds over the southern Indian Ocean was acquired on July 23, 2007 by one of the backward (northward)-viewing cameras of the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA's polar-orbiting Terra spacecraft. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

(PhysOrg.com) -- Earth's clouds got a little lower -- about one percent on average -- during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results have potential implications for future global climate.

Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA's . The study, published recently in the journal , revealed an overall trend of decreasing cloud height. Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes.

Data from NASA's MISR instrument on NASA's Terra spacecraft show that global average cloud height declined by about 1 percent over the decade from 2000 to 2010, or around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters).Image credit: University of Auckland/NASA JPL-Caltech

Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on. Longer-term monitoring will be required to determine the significance of the observation for .

A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the . This may represent a "negative feedback" mechanism - a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. "We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower," says Davies. "But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at ."

Patterns that relate changes in cloud-top height with El Niño/ La Niña indicators. Image credit: University of Auckland/NASA JPL-Caltech

NASA's Terra spacecraft is scheduled to continue gathering data through the remainder of this decade. Scientists will continue to monitor the MISR data closely to see if this trend continues.

MISR, built and managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., is one of five instruments on NASA's Terra spacecraft, launched in December 1999. The instrument uses nine cameras at different angles to produce a stereo image of clouds around the globe, allowing measurement of their altitude and movement.

Another NASA mission that studies clouds is NASA's CloudSat, also built by JPL and launched in 2006. CloudSat is the first satellite that uses an advanced radar to "slice" through clouds to see their vertical structure, providing a completely new observational capability from space. CloudSat's primary goal is to furnish data needed to evaluate and improve the way clouds are represented in global models, thereby contributing to better predictions of clouds and thus to their poorly understood role in climate change and the cloud-climate feedback.

Explore further: NASA's HS3 mission continues with flights over Hurricane Gonzalo

More information: For more information, visit: www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/ne… _item.jsp?cid=466683 .

Related Stories

Frances, Ivan Contribute to Hurricane Studies

Sep 16, 2004

Seen through the eyes of the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer aboard NASA's Terra satellite, the menacing clouds of Hurricanes Frances and Ivan provide a wealth of information that can help improve hurricane ...

NASA Study Links Severe Storm Increases, Global Warming

Dec 19, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth's tropics -- the type associated with severe storms and rainfall -- is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists ...

NASA Satellites Will Reveal Secrets of Clouds and Aerosols

Sep 15, 2005

Two NASA satellites, planned for launch no earlier than Oct. 26, will give us a unique view of Earth's atmosphere. CloudSat and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) are undergoing final ...

NASA satellite captures U.S. 'Big Chill'

Feb 02, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The current winter storm system blasting much of the United States is depicted in this new NASA satellite image from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua satellite.

Recommended for you

The ocean's living carbon pumps

1 hour ago

When we talk about global carbon fixation – "pumping" carbon out of the atmosphere and fixing it into organic molecules by photosynthesis – proper measurement is key to understanding this process. By ...

User comments : 93

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AWaB
4.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
As we compile data over decades, we'll actually be able to fully understand the origination of climates and their cycles. We've come a long way with our modeling. We still have quite a ways to go. We'll figure out all of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms in a decade or so and really understand what we can do to more appropriately adjust our climate to what is useful to humans.
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2012
The Stratosphere is supposed to cool from global warming anyway, since more heat is supposed to be trapped in the troposphere.

The cloud layers in the stratosphere should drop due to this decrease in energy.

I would be interested to see what they defined as a "cloud" for the purpose of this study.

40 meters is only one fourth to one fifth of a percent of the cloud height in the Central Dense Overcast of typical Tropical Cyclones. It isn't even close to a percent of the height of the water vapor in upper level lows.

Also, I'm not a fan of "science" which compares measurements based on technology invented in the past few years to beliefs, assumptions, or estimates about the data in the past.

Maybe the instrument is just 40 meters more precise than the older satellite and radar technologies.
Xbw
Feb 22, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hyongx
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2012
how do they know that the clouds were moving?
MAYBE THE GROUND JUST GOT 1% HIGHER!!!!!11
Xbw
2.4 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2012
how do they know that the clouds were moving?
MAYBE THE GROUND JUST GOT 1% HIGHER!!!!!11


A logical assumption.
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2012
Just thought I'd point out that the variations in that cloud height plot are of the same magnitude as the change. And what happened in 2008? If that massive dip wasn't there, the linear fit would probably be flat.

Not to be an ass, but I'm having a hard time believing that this data actually shows the effect they say it does.
encoded
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Just thought I'd point out that the variations in that cloud height plot are of the same magnitude as the change. And what happened in 2008? If that massive dip wasn't there, the linear fit would probably be flat..

indeed!!!

I wanted to write something else but then i changed my mind, but duuno how to delete comment
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 22, 2012
Just thought I'd point out that the variations in that cloud height plot are of the same magnitude as the change. And what happened in 2008? If that massive dip wasn't there, the linear fit would probably be flat.

Just how would that be the case? Gonna remove subsequent years' data as well?
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 22, 2012
In point of fact, much of what are called "clouds" are made up of chemicals collecting in the atmosphere after being sprayed from high flying jets in the program called "chemtrails". A large part of what they spray are substances intended to take the place of water in weather causation, primarily by having a higher thermal inertia, being able to more heat than water without changing temperature as much, and, apparently, being able to shed it faster. It's one of the reasons the National Weather Service had to realculate wind chill tables, to reflect the fact the air was holding more heat than it used to. These chemicals being heavie than water explains tree limbs snapped off from the snow in New Jersey last October and clouds forming lower in the atmosphere.
deepsand
3 / 5 (20) Feb 23, 2012
Has anyone seen my tinfoil hat?
Excalibur
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 23, 2012
In point of fact, much of what are called "clouds" are made up of chemicals collecting in the atmosphere after being sprayed from high flying jets in the program called "chemtrails".

You are an idiot.

Those are contrails of water vapor, which is a natural byproduct of the combustion of aircraft fuel.
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 23, 2012
Contrails dissipate quickly. Chemtrails remain in the sky for up to an hour and stretch from horizon to horizon.
There are no photographs of chemtrails before 1997, when they were first mentioned by Art Bell.
The years around 1997 saw the beginning of the most energetic spate of hurricane seasons on record; the largest year-to-year drop in Arctic ice coverage; the warmest year in recorded history; and the strongest "el Nino", which is what is blamed for massive incidents of weather modification.
Since 1997 is also when the National Weather Service had to change wind chill to reflect the fact that the air carries more heat now.
Weather has become so strange the Post office had to issue stamps "honoring" the clouds, so people wouldn't be surprised to see, for example, mammatus clouds where they were never known before.
The past decade ahs also seen the development of the first new cloud species to be seen in half a century, the undulatus aspiratus.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (20) Feb 23, 2012
Contrails dissipate quickly.

False. Some do; some don't, just like natural clouds.

Chemtrails remain in the sky for up to an hour and stretch from horizon to horizon.

Just like contrails do.

If man-made water vapor must quickly dissipate, then so too must naturally formed water vapor. I.e., no persistent clouds from horizon to horizon.

There are no photographs of chemtrails before 1997

There were no photographs of anything before the invention of the camera. Does that men that nothing pre-existed its invention?

BTW, I remember seeing such long and persistent contrails long before 1997.

Where do you get this crap?
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 23, 2012
Contrails constitute as much water as in only the shred between clouds when a single cloud calves. And those tiny shreds can take no more than a minute to dissipate. deepsand's mockery of an argument essentially says that the average mouse puts out the enbergy that can pull a wagon because a horse does and they're both mammals!
deepsand's assertion that they "remember seeing such long and persistent contrails before 1997" is in the same class as claims by shills for the New World Order that they remember soldiers being required to waer American flags on their sleeves before the adoption of the backward flag NWO totem. To be sure, if challenged, deepsand would provide photographs hastily manufactured and posted to the internet by the NWO, but there is no genuine tradition of chemtrail photos before 1997. There might be errant cases of incidents, but only since 1997 will you find photographs of five, six, seven chemtrails in the sky at once.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2012
Are these "chemtrails" coming from commercial aircraft or military. Are they part of the exhaust or a seperate release? What specifically are they composed of (trying to ascertain the purpose of the release)? Why 1997? Did anyone in Jersey analize the snow to confirm chemical content? Lastly, if you see them in the sky directly over you, then you are safe from whatever is in them because by the time they make it to the ground from 10,000 feet, atmospheric wind will have moved them hundreds of miles from their point of origin.
Xbw
3 / 5 (16) Feb 23, 2012
Just when I though the Cold Fusion comments were dying down, we get a new whacko - chemtrails! Oh joy.
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 23, 2012
If you don't know the average depth of the sand in the Sahara to one millionth of a meter, it doesn't mean there isn't sand in the Sahara. The government isn't open about many things, a lot has to be pieced together. The jets are usually so high markings are not easily visible but they may be commercial, judging by how often they can be seen. When chemtrails are spread, associated contrails are rarely seen, so wherever contrails emerge seems the same spot chemtrails are spread from. The reason 1997 was the beginning comes from the same who produce the chemicals. Not many among the "rank and file" have access to equipment to do analysis of things like rain or snow, and there is no guarantee equipment the public is allowed to get can be trusted. And as for being safe, since the chemicals are meant to affect the entire atmosphere, no place would be safe. And, don't forget, whatever's in the air falls to the ground in rain and snow.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) Feb 23, 2012
Art Bell and Wayne Green are both nut cases, as are all of their believing followers.

These are the guys who pimp the books about how the Moon landing was a fraud, how you can electrically purify your blood and cure AIDS, how the real truth about the Man Face on Mars was been kept secret by the US Government, how the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is really a secret weapons program intended to be used to control weather at a great distance, etal..

Wayne was once a whiz at electronics, and a well known and respected ham operator. Before he started his several computer magazines, he published a hand-typed newsletter re. building ones own micro-computer, to which I subscribed. I once sent him a question, with the bulk of his reply being about anarchism. When I asked why that was so, he replied that I'd placed my stamp upside-down on the envelope, thus secretly signally that I was a fellow anarchist.

Both he and Art are as loonie as they come.
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (21) Feb 24, 2012
deepsand seems so certain of what they say.
What incontrovertible proof, that is, "proof" that was definitely and demonstrably not fabricated, does deepsand have that the U.S. did land men on the moon?
What is the proof that blood cannot be purified electrically? That the Face on Mars absolutely is not an alien artifact, with the truth kept secret by the government? That HAARP is not designed to be used as a weapon? That chemtrails do not contain abnormal chemicals?
For that matter, what is deepsand's proof that stamps upside down on letters were not a sign of anarchists? The flag portrayed backwards is a symbol of the New World Order.
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (19) Feb 24, 2012
Another point should be made. If chemtrails have no effect on the weather, why are the so coincidental with the spate of literally and provably unnatural weather being seen? It wouild be one thing if Art Bell looked at wierd weather occurrences, checked when they started and said that was the year chemtrails began, but he didn't. He mentioned seeing them in 1997, before the beginning of the most energetic series of hurricane seasons began; before the single largest year-to-year drop in Arctic sea ice coverage; before the Northwest Passage became free of ice for the first time in recorded history; before the development of the first new cloud species in more than 50 years, the undulatus, aspiratus; before unnatural hundred dehgree heat waves from England to Siberia; before bees began disappearing; before the arrival of "super derechos". That is strong evidence for a connection.
enigma13x
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2012
please people chem trails are really the smoke rising from gods cigaret thats why the nwo is trying to stop you smoking because god really smokes if you dont believe me then read the bible and ask your self why there is a snuff bowl in the tabernacle
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (18) Feb 24, 2012
What incontrovertible proof ...

That, JP, is precisely what all of your claims, and those of Art Bell and Wayne Green, are lacking.

For that matter, what is deepsand's proof that stamps upside down on letters were not a sign of anarchists

Are you really that dense?

Wayne ASSUMED that, because the stamp was upside down, that I must have been an anarchist. He ASSUMED that one would not so affix a stamp for any other reason.

Excalibur
3 / 5 (18) Feb 24, 2012
What is the proof that blood cannot be purified electrically?

Haven't studied either biology or Wayne Green's diagrams, have you?

That HAARP is not designed to be used as a weapon?

Haven't studied either HAARP or electronics, have you?

In fact, you haven't actually studied any Science, have you? You'd just rather suck up the pseudo-science that Art and his ilk peddle as entertainment.
Excalibur
3 / 5 (18) Feb 24, 2012
What incontrovertible proof, that is, "proof" that was definitely and demonstrably not fabricated, does deepsand have that the U.S. did land men on the moon?

Did Art and Wayne neglect to tell you about the mirrors planted on the Moon by men, precisely aimed so as to reflect a laser beam aimed at them back to Earth?

Since you are so enamored of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), I submit that there is an alien life form, undetectable by human means, inside your head making you post your ridiculous assertions.
enigma13x
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2012
my little alien is a smart ass from the plant uranus
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 24, 2012
No doubt of the same species that placed said mirrors on the Moon so as to support JP's story.

PosterusNeticus
3.6 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2012
julianpenrod :
shills for the New World Order that they remember soldiers being required to waer American flags on their sleeves before the adoption of the backward flag NWO totem.


Not many among the "rank and file" have access to equipment to do analysis of things like rain or snow


I sincerely hope you stop ignoring all the people in your life who have told you to get help, and that you go and get that help. The things you're saying are... well, insane. I know you don't see it, but the rest of us do. I'm not saying this to be mean. I am genuinely concerned because you are clearly not OK.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 24, 2012
deepsand's mental processes are well displayed in their retort. I asked for deepsand's proof that upside down stamps are not signals used by anarchists and deepsand literally exploded, "Are you really that dense?" What's dense about i? A display of distaste for official rules, performed in a surreptitious manner, is exactly what an anarchist would engage in.
Nowhere did I say that deepsand was an anarchist!
I said that putting a stamp upside down likely was an anarchistic move. Most likely wouldn't be aware so mistakes probably wouldn't misbrand someone.
Wayne Green may have been in error assuming that about deepsand, but deepsand's seeing an accusation in my statement where there wasn't one suggests a guilty conscience, or deep imbecility.
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 24, 2012
Notice Exaclibur's idea of "proof". "Haven't studied either biology or Wayne Green's diagrams, have you?", "Haven't studied either HAARP or electronics have you?" No discussion of the issue, only mockery. Characteristic of those who are defending a subject that doesn't deserve it. Like PosterusNeticus' "disproof" of my statements, "insane", "you are clearly not OK". I mentioned many times New World Order shills cannot argue legitimately for their agenda because it is all a criminal betrayal of humankind, so they restrict their replies to summary but non-validated dismissal, arrogance, contempt, viciousness, mockery, vulgarity. They also utilized tactics like the dog pile, groups of individuals ganging up on one, and the "last word", keeping posting messages over and over and over, generally sinking to the level of just saying, "You don't know what you're talking about", hoping to appeal to the dull witted who think just being the last post proves you're right.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 24, 2012
Consider what is offered by Excalibur, and echoed by deepsand, as "proof" that men landed on the moon, "mirrors planted on the moon by men, precisely aimed so as to reflect a laser beam aimed at them back to Earth". Mirrors could have been landed on an unmanned spacecraft. And they're not necessarily "aimed" since any flat surface will reflect light back to Earth. And where is the proof they did ever reflect light back? The claims of "scientists" who didn't stop fen-phen being made public or who didn't contest the provably questionable assertions about banned weapons systems in Iraq, or the "scientists" who only discovered in the last five years that sharks leap out of the water? There is absolutely no proof independent of claims by demonsrably questionable "scientists" that there are mirrors there placed there by humans.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2012
OK, so, just to dupe the public into believing we have walked on the moon, we spent billions of dollars to send unmanned landers there to set up mirrors. And we continue to spend billions on jet fuel to seed the atmosphere with a mystery chemical to an end you aren't sure of......then you want anyone who doesn't believe you here to prove YOU wrong. You follow it up by attempting to associate scientists with a major gaffe by a pharmaceutical company and blame scientists for not stopping the government from inventing an excuse to invade a country.......

How did you get out of the straight jacket and why the hell did you log on to this of all websites?
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2012
In a finite hierarchy, there is a group at the absolute top, with no one to tell them what to do or even what to spend or not spend, since they are in charge of all money. Governments work at that level. They can dip as they wish into the universal pool of money, so expense means nothing. Taxes are used to keep people from getting enough money to start their own enterprises, cost is used to "justify' not providing the people what they derserve. But, as I said, any surface on a probe could reflect a laser back to the earth. But a mirror is not a million dollar expenditure. But, face it, where is there absolute proof, other than "scientists'" claims, a laser beam has been reflected back? And the unnatural changes in the weather show the chemicals being sprayed have an effect. Even just reducing the amount of sunny days makes people more depressed and the light blue of clear skies was shownin the "rank and file".
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 24, 2012
To clear a problem of unwanted deletion of text, I was saying that clear skies and sunny days can keep many if not most from becoming depressed, and it was demonstrated that the light blue color of skies can produce feelings of inspiration in many if not most. Both of these, the New World Order seems intent on preventing. There are places in the U.S. that seem not to have more than 30 days of genuinely pleasant, clear, sunny weather, anymore. Indeed, anyone born since the Seventies at least seems not to know what genuinely good weather is.
Excalibur
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 24, 2012
deepsand's mental processes are well displayed in their retort. I asked for deepsand's proof that upside down stamps are not signals used by anarchists and deepsand literally exploded, "Are you really that dense?" What's dense about i?


What's dense about that is that it is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary").
Excalibur
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 24, 2012
Consider what is offered by Excalibur, and echoed by deepsand, as "proof" that men landed on the moon, "mirrors planted on the moon by men, precisely aimed so as to reflect a laser beam aimed at them back to Earth". Mirrors could have been landed on an unmanned spacecraft. And they're not necessarily "aimed" since any flat surface will reflect light back to Earth. And where is the proof they did ever reflect light back? The claims of "scientists" who didn't stop fen-phen being made public or who didn't contest the provably questionable assertions about banned weapons systems in Iraq, or the "scientists" who only discovered in the last five years that sharks leap out of the water? There is absolutely no proof independent of claims by demonsrably questionable "scientists" that there are mirrors there placed there by humans.

To put it succinctly ... bullshit, a big steaming heap of it.

And, all of it an exercise in argumentum ad ignorantiam.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 24, 2012
Notice Exaclibur's idea of "proof". "Haven't studied either biology or Wayne Green's diagrams, have you?", "Haven't studied either HAARP or electronics have you?" No discussion of the issue, only mockery.

You make naked assertions claiming that there are invisible pink elephants in the room, and demand that others prove you wrong?

Have you taken leave of your sense?

It is evident on the face that you have not studied any of the cited subjects, as having done so would have stopped you from making such foolish statements, and are therefore not qualified to speak on them.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2012
Just when I though the Cold Fusion comments were dying down, we get a new whacko - chemtrails! Oh joy.

What's really bizarre is that the chemtrail planes are also trying to control/poison/whatever it is they're doing over the planet's oceans. All that vast population of humans in the waters must really be a prime target.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2012
Those aircraft would be camouflaged craft from the V mother-ships.

The dispersants are designed to cause Earth lifeforms to rapidly mutate into forms more compatible with and/or useful to the V reptilians.
camel
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
a friend's sister-in-law makes $65 hourly on the laptop. She has been laid off for 6 months but last month her pay was $19426 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more NuttyRich dot com
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 25, 2012
To act indignant and ofiicious and arrogant and pretend that there is fault in what someone says doesn't mean there is fault. But that's all that Excalibur does. When I condemn what another says, I point out flaws. All Excalibur does is spout the new phrase "science" frauds seem intent on using to weasel their way out of proving what they say. Before when they said, "There is no God", "The is no New World Order", "September 11 was not fabricated by the Bush Administration", when challenged to prove their statements, they chirped, "You can't prove a negative, therefore, whatever someone says that is phrased as a negative, as long as they're a 'scientist'" has to be believed without being proved!" Now, they seem to have a new catch phrase. But Excalibur cannot demonstrate any fault in anything I said, which is why they won't try. But note, too, the use of the New World Order tactic of mouthing empty, pointless doggerel, just to get the last word.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 25, 2012
Not surprising that a nay-sayer like antialia physorg would make the literally moronic statement they did. I specifically said that a purpose of chemtrails was to contaminate all the earth's atmosphere to control weather everywhere. Dedicated more to mockery than actually discussing the issue, like all New World Order quislings, antialias physorg pretends I said that the purpose of chemtrails was to poison people, and, from there, antialias physorg jokes about chemtrails being used to poison "the vast population of humans in the waters". To "disprove" me, antialias physorg attacks something I didn't even say. But the machinations of such as Excalibur and deepsand are no better.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2012
Read and study the fallacies of "appeal to ignorance" and "argument from authority," both of which you repeatedly employ.
Excalibur
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2012
JP, all you've done is make naked assertions. You haven't got the tiniest shred of verifiable empirical evidence to support any of your claims.

You are the ipse dixit man.
PosterusNeticus
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2012
I specifically said that a purpose of chemtrails was to contaminate all the earth's atmosphere to control weather everywhere.


It must be a terrible thing to go through life with a brain that's miswired for excess paranoia. Just imagine if this sort of thing actually made sense to you; if it seemed perfectly reasonable and likely. I shudder to think we're all one head injury/disease/malfunction away from being this guy.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2012
Note, again, as I described, New World Order non-argument tactics. They dismiss what I say buy don't justify the dismissal, they mock, but nowhere do they actually provide evidence contesting my statements. None provided lists of photographs provably before 1997 with 4, 5, 6, 7 chemtrails in the sky. They don't even try to explain the spate of patently unnatural weather since 1997. They insist chemtrails are composed only of water vapor, but do not prove it. They say normal contrails persist for hours, but do not prove it. They accuse me of using logical fallacies, but do not demonstrate it. There used to be a story going around about inmates at Bellevue passing notes around accusing the doctors of being crazy. The antics of the ilk of deepsand, Excalibur and PosterusNeticus resemble the actions of the inmates.
Anda
Feb 25, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2012
Note, again, as I described, New World Order non-argument tactics. They dismiss what I say buy don't justify the dismissal, they mock, but nowhere do they actually provide evidence contesting my statements

Others are NOT required to disprove your claims.

THEY ARE YOURS TO PROVE.

Your antics resemble those of a resident of a lunatic asylum.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2012
Excalibur said chemtrails "are contrails of water vapor". But Excalibur refuses to prove it.
deepsand said contrails remain in the sky for up to an hour and stretch from hoirizon to horizon, but they refuse to prove it.
deepsand said they "remember seeing such long and persistent contrails long before 1997", but they refuse to prove it.
And, no matter how much the ilk of deepsand and Excalibur prate to the otherwise, if someone is honorable and has proof that discredits a statement, they will not waste a second demonstrating that those statements are false! Those who do not disprove something which is false either are so dishonorable they don't want to protect others from falsehoods or they are completely unable to disprove it!
enigma13x
not rated yet Feb 26, 2012
one dose have to admit that there is a group of super rich powerful people that may or may not be working together to further their control over the people of the world after all what is there to work for once you can buy anything you want? answer control of the population governments etc after all its not like in has not happened before sieg heil
enigma13x
not rated yet Feb 26, 2012
as for contrails well..... i have no idea what they would be used for if it was chemical dispersal the water system seems easier and cost effective and i could find more effective ways to control people than to make it a cloudy day as for contrails its all in the name "con"
enigma13x
not rated yet Feb 26, 2012
and before anyone says anything i do know about cloud seeding lets not be specious people

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2012
Those who do not disprove something which is false either are so dishonorable they don't want to protect others from falsehoods or they are completely unable to disprove it!

Fallacious clap-trap.

You are wholly lacking for ability to logically reason.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2012
one dose have to admit that there is a group of super rich powerful people that may or may not be working together to further their control over the people of the world after all what is there to work for once you can buy anything you want? answer control of the population governments etc after all its not like in has not happened before sieg heil

One also has to admit that there may or may not be an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster, as it is logically the case that one or the other must be true.

So what? What is gained by entertaining the question?
Excalibur
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2012
Perhaps JP's been too long without his tinfoil hat.
enigma13x
not rated yet Feb 26, 2012
have you seen the flying spaghetti monster too?

yesterday as i was walking down some stairs,
i saw a man who wasn`t there.
he wasn`t there again today,
I sure do wish he`d go away!

always question with out questioning there comes no answers
SteveL
not rated yet Feb 26, 2012
OK, so we have a reducing trend in cloud height. What about cloud density and total global cloud cover? I'd think these to be just as important to climate.
HROLLER
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
Geoengineering

physorg.com/search/?search=geoengineering

Unilateral Geoengineering
Non-technical Briefing Notes for a Workshop
At the Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC, May 05, 2008

patriotportal.yolasite.com/resources/GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf
HROLLER
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
Aerosols being sprayed in our atmosphere are also called "chemtrails".

What in the World Are They Spraying?
youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

"Why in the World are They Spraying?"
youtube.com/watch?v=s3__ssxTvNc

WAKE YOUR STUPID IGNORANT DUMB A$$ UP!!!
youtube.com/watch?v=XXtGGpaYqNo&feature=share
PosterusNeticus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
What really astounds me about the conspiracy nutjobs is how their logic circuits seem to work in reverse. When faced with an idea that should read as completely illogical, they see the opposite. And when asked to consider a logical alternative, they simply shut down and fall back on the conspiracy shtick.

Think for a moment about the enormous number of people that would have to be complicit. If commercial airliners were fitted with storage and dispersal mechanisms, filled from storage at the airports, then tens of thousands of perfectly ordinary people from all over the world would have to be "in on it". Everyone from airline mechanics to airport personnel to flight crews, plus everyone who ever took enough college physics to know that these are just contrails, would have to be willfully taking part and keeping the Big Scary Secret.

It's nonsense, but for some reason the nonsense makes sense to these people. Absolutely fascinating.
HROLLER
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
Why do you say that Geoengineering is a conspiracy?

Want to know about Chemtrails, HAARP , VLF, UHF and weather modification? Want to prove it to a non-believer? Here you go!

sincedutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/want-to-know-about-haarp-vlf-uhf-and-weather-modification-want-to-prove-it-to-a-non-believer-here-you-go/
HROLLER
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
U.S. Patent # 5003186

google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=2OLQ6Uw9S5w8lxG4-rrO3A&cp=21&gs_id=2f&xhr=t&q=U.S. Patent %23 5003186&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&pbx=1&oq=U.S. Patent %23 5003186&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=1&biw=1024&bih=634&cad=b&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 26, 2012
And, still, the right wing "nay sayers" and "debunkers" demand proof of statements they disagree with, but refuse to provide proof of their own statements. And, when I say that, if someone respects truth and the rights of others and can prove something is untrue, it is their obligation not to just tell the other to prove their statement, but to disprove it themselves, and deepsand says I don't know how to "logically reason". And PosterusNeticus says, if such a program were occurring, many, many people would be in on it, like airport personnel and flight crews. How many people carry out a traditional chemical analysis of the gas they order at a gas station? So many, it is still admitted, don't know what's in their food! And the military instituted a program called SERE for Survival, Elude, Resist, Escape, which, among other things, prepared troops to endure torture, and people like this are going to reveal everything about chemtrails just from drunkenness?
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 26, 2012
deepsand says that, if no one has observed a phenomenon, "What is gained by entartaining the question?" So the ilk of deepsand would say nothing was ever gained from sailing to America, which no European had seen; or in mixing chemicals in ways no one had ever done before; or creating electric currents no one had seen before? That is deepsand's definition of "science", that, if you haven't seen it before, don't even think about it?
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2012
There is a possibility that maintains the acknowledged emergence of chemtrails in 1997 yet allows for individuals not becooming suspicious of new mixtures of jet fuel as well as other important features of meteorology.
That chemtrails did not start in 1997. That jet fuel always contained substances to pervert the weather steadily over the decades. That's why no one noticed anything new going on, because they were using the same mixtures they were using from the beginning! And 1997 was not the year chemtrails started, rather, it was the year the air became so filled with chemicals it was at saturation and any new chemicals condensed out. That would explain the fact that the last new cloud species before undulatus aspiratus was around 1950, when jets first became widespread, and the recongized annual numbers of tornadoes were constant at about 180 before 1950, but rose steadily since.
Excalibur
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
And, still, the right wing "nay sayers" and "debunkers" demand proof of statements they disagree with, but refuse to provide proof of their own statements.

Which of the following word(s) do you not understand?

YOUR CLAIM; YOURS TO PROVE.

Others are NOT required to disprove your claims.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
Well, HROLLER, how about you just SHUT YOUR STUPID IGNORANT DUMB A$$ MOUTH UP!!!

I'm familiar with the tripe that you spout, courtesy of good old Wayne Green. It's as JUNK SCIENCE.

PS: Patents don't mean diddly squat. Anyone can put any BS on a Patent Application; and, as long as no one else has already patented it, it's a go. The issuance of a patent PROVES NOTHING ABOUT THE CLAIMS made in it.

julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 27, 2012
The right wing "nay sayers" don't mind how foolish they make themselves look. I said they refuse to prove their own claims, the claims they themselves make, but Excalibur's counter to that is that "Others are NOT required to disprove your claims". I didn't refer to them not disproving my claims, I only said they refuse to prove their own claims! They refuse to prove the claims they themselves made! Of course, fdor the dimwit audience they seek to attract, this is meaningless. They refuse to understand that the ilk of deepsand and Excalibur won't prove their own statements, and they viciously accuse me of offering no proof of my statements, although I have.
And, in the end, if something is not proved, that doesn't mean it's disproved! If such as deepsand and Excalibur want something disproved, they have to do it!
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2012
No, that's not the way logic works.

Your claims remain but mere speculation unless and until you provide proof of them. In assailing your failure in this regard, others make no claim of their own, but simply say that you have nothing of factual value, that all you have is unsubstantiated beliefs and/or opinions, which are worth no more than the fact that support them.

And, logic has nothing to do with right/left wings.
Excalibur
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
The right wing "nay sayers" ...

ROTFLMAO.

Do Marjon and NotParker know of this?
SteveL
not rated yet Feb 27, 2012
It would make sense to me that if the atmosphere is warming up as recent climatic trends seem to indicate, it should expand. This expansion should reduce the atmospheric specific gravity compared to clouds on average. This should tend to cause clouds to trend towards condensing at a lower elevation.

As for the spike in the 2008 readings, well some AMSU channel 4 data failures from NOAA 15 in 2008 make it difficult to correlate atmospheric temperatures with cloud height during that year.

Looking into this further I find it interesting that there are unexplained "drifts" reported from AMSU-Channel 7, MSU-Channel 2, all 3 channels on NOAA-16 are not used due to "unexplained drift" and NOAA 17 is no longer operational. I still haven't found information on which direction these "unexplained drifts" skew the data. I also found a note where several months of data were removed from processing because it was deemed "Inconsistant".

I've found few details on these inconsistancies.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 27, 2012
The right wing "nay-sayers" won't even acknowledge their own actions and responsibilities.
As I pointed out, and such as deepsand and Excalibur repeatedly refuse to accept, they made statements, too, statements which they insist on not backing up. Excalibur stated that persistent trails, the ones that stretch from horizon to horizon and last for hours are "water vapor", while deepsand insisted that normal contrails can stretch across the sky and remain for hours and that there were photographs of chemtrails before 1997. Yet neither of them backed up these statements.
And, the fact of the matter is, if you disagree with what someone says, you are making a claim of your own! And that requires proof as much as any other claim! Or else, you are a wanton, counter-productive sociopath merely talking just to interrupt everybody else.
Excalibur
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
And JP just keeps on repeating the same basis BS ad nauseum.

Let us know, JP, if and when you come up with empirical evidence to support any of your notions. Until then, stop wasting perfectly good photons.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2012
Yet another demonstration of New World Order machination, Excalibur ordering others to provide evidence for their statements, even after they have, then making pronouncements of their own, such as that chemtrails only contain water vapor, and refusing to prove those statements. And acting like it makes no sense to require them to live up to the standard they demand of others. And, through it all, avoiding addressing the issue of their patent hypocrisy by simply not mentioning it, as if it isn't happening. That's a quality often cited in the craven. And, always, the evidently pre-programmed entourage to give Excalibur and deepsand that automatic 5 / 5 (2) rating, even when their comments are outright disingenuity.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
The people on this thread are a bit whacky but weather modification is no conspiracy theory.

http://weathermodification.com
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 27, 2012
Cloud seeding is both quite localized and yielding of highly variable and ill controlled results.

And, it is not what the nut cases here are speaking of.
Excalibur
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2012
There may be something to the claims of alien visitations after all, as JP is clearly having great difficulty understanding both written English and the logic systems employed by Earthlings.
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
Cloud seeding is both quite localized and yielding of highly variable and ill controlled results.

And, it is not what the nut cases here are speaking of.

I see you have no concept of climate whatsoever.
What kind of effects do you think releasing large amount of humidity have? And their long term effects?

Anyway even contrails are chemtrails, after all how do you think jet engines work?
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 28, 2012
And we see that you don't know that "chemtrails" is a term used by conspiratorialists to refer to something other than contrails, by which they mean the aerial dispersing of unspecified compounds by "The New World Order" for purposes that are not clear..
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2012
And we see that you don't know that "chemtrails" is a term used by conspiratorialists to refer to something other than contrails, by which they mean the aerial dispersing of unspecified compounds by "The New World Order" for purposes that are not clear..

http://inhabitat....-change/
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2012
That has nothing to do with what JP is talking about.
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2012
That has nothing to do with what JP is talking about.

Then what exactly was he talking about? And stop your sock puppetry its very annoying.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2012
What I am saying is that high flying jets have been spraying substances into the air to contaminate the atmosphere to make weather control possible. One substance seems intended to take the place of water in weather causation. To do this, it likely has higher thermal inertia, is more capable of absorbing, storing and releasing heat. It doesn't even need to be nonharmful since, if it causes things like autism, which no one saw before, "scientists" will just say "autism was always here" and the significantly large population of the gullible will accept it.
Called "chemtrails", these chemical sprays do not dissipate, they stretch from horizon to horizon, often lasting for hours. They were first acknowledged seen in 1997 by Art Bell. Their appearance coincided with the start of the strongest spate of hurricane seasons on record; hundred degree heat waves from Londond to Siberia; tornadoes forming where they were unknown, like Brooklyn.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2012
In addition, the single largest year-to-year drop in Arctic sea ice coverage; the National Weather Service recalculating wind chill to reflect that air stores more heat now; the Northwest Passage being open for the first time in history; bees disappearing; the Post Office having to issue special stamps "commemorating" cloud types, so when people see clouds they never saw before as climate changes, they won't be surprised; the arrival of unprecedented hundred mile per hour straight line wind storms called "super derechos"; the development of the first new cloud species in half a century, the undulatus aspiratus. It would be one thing if Art Bell looked at a record of events and necessarily said chemtrails started in 1997, but he drew attention to them in 1997, before this weird weather began.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2012
Among other things, too, while photographs of five, six, seven chemtrails in the sky are common nowadays, even in the years immediately preceding 1997, when technology was not so much different than, say. 2003, when that many chemtrails could be photographed, there are no pictures of more than one errant trail in the sky, and that likely a picture under special circumstances, like taking off, not in full flight.
There is a troubling possibility to chemtrails starting in 1997. They were spread since jets first began flying and, in 1997, the air had become so super-saturated, any new chemicals simply condensed out. The last new clouds species before undulatus aspiratus was about 1950, when jets first began flying in earnest. Too, according to the Oklahoma Severe Weather Survey, tornadoes, apparently a senstive reaction to air derangement, were roughly constant at about 180 a year but, in about 1950, they began their steady increase in numbers.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2012
I can't beleive people keep engaging this guy, go to chemtrails.com and have a party, but this is just encouragement to equate chemtrails to every story on this site....
"New cloud formation on Saturns moon Titan linked to Enceladen chemtrails!".....what the saturn government doesn't want you to know.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2012
FTA:
Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on.


It provides nothing of the kind, it's a ridiculously small deviation over an even less valid time frame. It's an EXCUSE to get more grant money to study spurious climate theories. No different than the guys in the middle ages who used to sell religious relics...and people apparently are still buying...
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2012
Again, note the dependence of "nay-sayers" on New World Order tacics of deceit, mockery. Despite what rubberman claims, never did I place comments that invoked chemtrails with respect to every topic on PhysOrg. But the audience New World Order shills address are those so corrupt they don't need something to be true to accept it, just that it toes the "official story" line.
Again, if rubberman is so certain chemtrails don't exist, are they making that "conclusion" based on "proof"? And, if they have incontrovertible "proof" that chemtrails don't exist, then provide it. That would settle the issue!
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2012
Despite what rubberman claims, never did I place comments that invoked chemtrails with respect to every topic on PhysOrg.


Your last 3 rants link your "chemtrails" to heat waves in various locations, tornados, localized windstorms, hurricanes, arctic ice loss and the, ahem, disappearance of bees. That covers alot of ground......
why did I even respond (rubbing temples)
Excalibur
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2012
Then what exactly was he talking about?

If you haven't figured that out by now, it doesn't matter.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2012
rubberman repeats their accusation that I link chenmtrails to "every story on this site".
I never linked them to nanoparticle behavior, supposed black matter dispersal in the universe, response to stress, new birds discovered in the rainforest, the sinking of the Costa Concordia, signs of volcanic activity on the moon, robot technology, programming breakthroughs, discoveries in new fault lines.
The ilk of rubberman launches accusations with no regard for legitimacy and counts on those already dedicated to hate to embrace them even if lies.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2012
It is my goal to spread my ilk to the farthest reaches of the land. I am currently liquifying my ilk to be added to jet fuel along with.....ooops, you got me...they're real.
Excalibur
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 29, 2012
Project Panspermia?
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2012
Recognize a crazy person and let them post a few times. After being ignored they will go away. Keep responding and it's like feeding a stray dog, it keeps coming back for more. Ignore them and they will abuse far less of our time.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2012
I pointed out that such as deepsand and Excalibur have an apparent pre-programmed 5 / 5 (2) approval system and it changed to 5 / 5 (1). Note, those who gave them those approvals didn't come forward to dispute it and say their "opinion" was "genuine". But look through all the material. I gave fully fleshed out explanations and are greeted with rankings of only 1, the ilk of deepsand and Excalibur give mocking, insipid replies and are ranked 5 stars. And, now, rubberman seems to have arranged their own pre-programmed approvals, 5 / 5 (3) in rubberman's case, for replies no less moronic that deepsand's and Excalibur's. Apparent testimony to the character of most who read items on the PhysOrg site.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2012
To avoid abuse, low-balling legitimate statements and promoting what amounts to little more than insipid doggerel, a change may be necessary in PhysOrg's rating system. To publish the identities of those giving rankings, so it can be determined if the same group is calculatedly misrepresenting the "legitimacy" of a craven. And, perhaps, require a statement of explanation of why someone gave a ranking. Or, perhaps, eliminating rankings and requiring only replies.