A Scientific Approach to Global Warming, Climate Change, and Conspiracy Allegations
As a scientist here is my approach to the topic of global warming/climate change. This first question I ask is "How accurate are your models?" If your models do not accurately represent reality, then they are wrong. Engineers know that ALL models are wrong, yet some are useful for understanding problems. So the next obvious question should be: "Are modern climate models accurate enough to be useful?"
To be fair, I will compare the idea of "Model vs. Reality" to a well known example of shoddy scientific work, where there is sufficiently strong evidence of a cover-up and conspiracy. That is the NIST Report on the Collapse of WTC 7. If we try to compare the NIST Collapse Model vs. Reality, we can see there is very little resemblance between the NIST model, and the actual collapse of WTC 7 as caught on video. This means that the NIST Model is wrong, and does not accurately represent reality. The reality being that WTC 7 closely resembles a controlled demolition, and not a natural fire induced collapse, and the first thing they should have done would be to perform thorough forensic testing of debris and evidence for signs of explosives or incendiaries in direct violation of the law for fire investigations (NFPA 921 - High Order Damage). Instead NIST contractors (who also happened to be SAIC employees with an obvious conflict of interest as Defense Department Contractors working to investigate an act of war which generated high value no-bid contracts between their employer and the US Government), NIST ingored all evidence pointing towards High Temperature Accelerants (See HTA Fire Investigations), and instead performed a "Fire Safety Investigation", in which they build a black box computer model, the data for which has never been shared publicly for peer-review, set the model up with the parameters needed to get the building to collapse in the right amount of time, and concluded that this was how the building fell, even though their model looks nothing like the actual collapse.
If the model does not accurately depict reality, then the model is wrong. The theory or model which most accurately describes the actual event is always more useful, and possibly more correct. Though this is not a definitive way to prove a model correct, it is often an easy way to prove a model is wrong, as NIST proved with their model.
How Accurate are the Models?
Modeling the Earth's Climate is an extremely complicated issue. There are many different variables each with significant effects. Climate Science is chaotic, multivariabled, and almost impossible to model accurately. What are the current models, and what are the current methods of data collection we use to check those models against reality?
Modeling the Earth's weather is a very difficult thing to do... It is an extremely complex model. Ignoring the impact of greenhouse gasses on climate is like taking a huge factor out of your model... Sure things like the sun are also huge factors in such models. But so are greenhouse gas effects caused by the massive burning of fossil fuels. There have been massive efforts to downplay or deny these effects, even claims that they are helping the earth avoid an ice age... From my perspective we need more scientists actively monitoring and analyzing the situation to help us build better, more accurate models, and science is the attempt to view such things in the most exact numbers and terms, in order to create more accurate models of what the real impact is.
The case for climate models: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-case-climate.html
Data on the Earth's climate is collected every day from a variety of weather monitoring stations based around the world and even on satellites in space. The accuracy of that data depends on the resolution and accuracy of our instruments.
In order to get higher resolution of climate data, we need more monitoring stations, with more monitoring instruments, and we need an open source, automated data center. This way, there cannot be allegations of data rigging or fraud, as some have alleged in the ClimateGate affair, where hacked emails from Climate Scientists show evidence of possible scientific misconduct.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association: http://www.noaa.gov/
The science is also clear that solar activity and solar weather conditions also have a major effect on Earth's weather, and global heating and cooling. These effects are less controllable, but eventually will be controllable through advanced space technology.
Man Made Global Warming?
The Science is clear that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and thus contributes to global warming. 1 Gallon of Gasoline will produce approximately 720 gallons of CO2 Gas by volume. Global consumption is around 55 Million Barrels of Oil per day. So it adds up. Technology is needed to stem Global Oil Consumption, and stablize the mixture of greenhouse gasses within Earth's atmosphere. We need accurate monitoring stations with an open source data sharing system, so the science cannot be faked or persuaded by economic interests.
The idea of a "Carbon Tax" will result in higher prices as the pump, which is in some ways a needed catalyst to convince people to start looking to alternatives to gasoline. Unfortunately corporate economic interests will use their powers to intervene with any national mandate which restricts their flow of money in any way. So we must be careful of a Carbon Tax, while at the same time try our best to work on alternatives to slowly ween ourselves off gasoline.
The evidence for man made global warming is valid since we add tens of Billions of Gallons of CO2 to the atmosphere daily, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heating IR radiation.
Peak Oil? The Oil Companies spent $Billions fighting Carbon Tax Legislation, First they got their lobbyist to pry certain encourageable authors to hide legislation or sneak loopholes within the Bill. At the same time they hired all sorts of internet and other media propaganda masters to insert doubt about man made global warming along with Al Gore's limited hangout "Carbon Tax". Then ClimateGate happened where scientists had their private emails hacked and read thoroughly enough to expose some evidence of unscientific tampering of the data and it erupted into a massive scandal. Who paid for and funded that hack attack? You guessed it!
Sources and Recommended References:
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milankovi?, who worked on it during his internment as a First World War POW. Milankovi? mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.
The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.
Similar astronomical theories had been advanced in the 19th century by Joseph Adhemar, James Croll and others, but verification was difficult due to the absence of reliably dated evidence and doubts as to exactly which periods were important. Not until the advent of deep-ocean cores and a seminal paper by Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton, "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages", in Science (1976) did the theory attain its present state.
Geothermal conditions such as core heat, and volcanic acctivity can cause fluxautions in Global Temperature, and must be accounted for in our models.
Special Interest Groups
According to data from a A recent Study, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms. Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.
Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.
Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.
Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they've made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It's timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they're up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires' destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.
On the one hand there are the opportunists, like Al Gore, who took advantage of climate change with fear mongering and hype. On the other hand are people like the Koch brothers, who sink massive amounts of secret funds into Climate Denial propaganda. The only scientific solution to this problem is to perform more detailed and careful scientific work (aka experiments) Build better models, take better/more data.
Controlling Global Weather is one of the important steps towards becoming a full Type 1 Civilization. We are a long ways away from a global, open-source, calibrated weather monitoring system. But it could happen in the near future. Current methods of Weather Modification are un-proven and experimental at best. The ultimate system would be a large shielding array of lenses around the entire earth, which could focus or direct light away from certain areas. Even a large area of mirrors or reflective mylar surfaces would work. They could function to provide shade/cooling, or light/heat to every area on the planet.
Cloud seeding, a form of intentional weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. The usual intent is to increase precipitation (rain or snow), but hail and fog suppression are also widely practiced in airports.
The most common chemicals used for cloud seeding include silver iodide and dry ice (solid carbon dioxide). Liquid propane, which expands into a gas, has also been used. This can produce ice crystals at higher temperatures than silver iodide. The use of hygroscopic materials, such as table salt, is becoming more popular after promising research.
Cloud seeding to increase snowfall is done when temperatures within the clouds are between 19 and minus-4 degrees Fahrenheit (between minus-7 and minus-20 degrees Celsius). This is the range at which silver iodide does its best work, as demonstrated by decades of research. Introduction of a substance such as silver iodide, which has a crystalline structure similar to that of ice, will induce freezing nucleation.
Dry ice or propane expansion cools the air to such an extent that ice crystals can nucleate spontaneously from the vapor phase. Unlike seeding with silver iodide, this spontaneous nucleation does not require any existing droplets or particles because it produces extremely high vapor supersaturations near the seeding substance. However, the existing droplets are needed for the ice crystals to grow into large enough particles to precipitate out.
In mid-latitude clouds, the usual seeding strategy has been based on the fact that the equilibrium vapor pressure is lower over ice than over water. The formation of ice particles in super cooled clouds allows those particles to grow at the expense of liquid droplets. If sufficient growth takes place, the particles become heavy enough to fall as precipitation from clouds that otherwise would produce no precipitation. This process is known as "static" seeding
Seeding of warm-season or tropical cumulonimbus (convective) clouds seeks to exploit the latent heat released by freezing. This strategy of "dynamic" seeding assumes that the additional latent heat adds buoyancy, strengthens updrafts, ensures more low-level convergence, and ultimately causes rapid growth of properly selected clouds.
Cloud seeding chemicals may be dispersed by aircraft (as in the second figure) or by dispersion devices located on the ground (generators, as in first figure, or canisters fired from anti-aircraft guns or rockets). For release by aircraft, silver iodide flares are ignited and dispersed as an aircraft flies through the inflow of a cloud. When released by devices on the ground, the fine particles are carried downwind and upward by air currents after release.
An electronic mechanism was tested in 2010, when infrared laser pulses were directed to the air above Berlin by researchers from the University of Geneva. The experimenters posited that the pulses would encourage atmospheric sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide to form particles that would then act as seeds.
Aerosol Cloud Spraying
Different chemical compounds have different effects when applied to water and cloud vapor. Some can cause the droplets to condense, triggering precipitation, and some can make cloud disperse.
Cloud dipersal agents
Salt Crystals and other Hygroscopic Materials can be used as cloud dispersal agents. Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract and hold water molecules from the surrounding environment. So when these materials are sprayed into a cloud, they tend to disperse clouds by sucking up the water molecules through absorption or adsorption.
Cloud formation / seeding agents
By spraying trails of chemical agents mixed with dust adjacent to developing storm structures, you can trap evaporating water vapor into clouds. The clouds will shade the ground and absorb evaporating moisture.
Silver Iodide causes cloud moisture to freeze and create ice crystals. Silver Iodide is an example of a Glaciogenic Material and is the most commonly used chemical in cloud seeding.
Chemtrail or Contrail?
Through my investigation I have found a lot of over-sensationalized hype about "Chemtral Conspiracies", with not much in terms of hard scientific evidence. I've found pictures alleging to be the inside of Chemtrail spraying planes, only to later find out they were Ballast tanks from stability tests of aircraft...
So I decided to put together a guide for all the chemtrail "researchers" out there, on how to collect scientific data and evidence on Chemtrails, in a way that scientists and other educated / technically-minded people will have to start taking seriously. The first step is understanding contrail physics, and the neccesary data points that need to be collected. The following graph shows the weather and atmospheric conditions under which contrails form:
The two easiest data points to collect are Temperature and Relative Humidity, which you can usually look up and find on any local weather website or information service. It is a bit more difficult to accurately measure the exact Altitude of a cloud or contrail in the sky, but there are methods for doing this. Unfortunately taking accurate data requires expensive equipment such as a laser ceilometers.
Another technique for approximating the altitude of contrails is described here http://contrailscience.com/measuring-the-height-of-contrails/
Keeping daily logs like this of suspected chemtrail activity is a good first step toward scientific documentation of this phenomena. I reccomend creating an excel spreadsheet file and keeping daily logs of activity in your area to go along with photographs.
The Physics of Jet Engine Exhaust Streams and the Ramjet Engine
Rain Water Testing for Heavy Metals
If you suspect that overhead clouds are being sprayed with toxic heavy metals such as Barium, Strontium, Mercury, Silver, or other metals, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to purchase a water testing kit to test your rain water with in order to determine if these elements are present in your rain water.
Flight Data and Aircraft Tracking
Another very useful tool for anyone serious about investigating "Chemtrails", is to use live Flight Radar Data, to track suspected chemtrail spraying aircraft in real time. If indeed such a large scale chemical spraying program exists, it will be possible to see, in real time, where these suspected flights are taking off from and where they are landing. This makes it possible to do an on-the-ground follow-up investigation at the airports in question and put names, places, and faces on who might potentially be behind such programs.
Use this website to track suspected aircraft in real time.
HAARP as a Weather Mod Technology
As I spoke about in my Video on HAARP, HAARP style Ionospheric Heating as a Weather-Mod technology is not a very practical weather control technology. The cloud seeding works much better and more directly than ionospheric heating from a remote location in Northern Alaska. The power output of HAARP is small compared to the power content of storm systems, and the small amount of ionospheric heating it can provide pales in comparison with the effects of radiation energy from the sun.
For more information please review my Page on HAARP.
Space Mirror Arrays
The ultimate weather control technology would be a massive array of mirrors in space, positioned between the earth and the sun. the mirros could be angled to reflect light or shade to different areas on the earth.
The disadvantage of this type of system is that it could be used, in the wrong hands, for great destructive harm. Focus all the mirrors on a country's Government buildings, for example. You could fry people from space like bugs under a magnifying glass. Even if the array were to be set up so that every person on earth controlled a separate mirror, people could still organize collectively to do great harm, by agreeing to all focus their mirrors onto select targets together. Even if all the Governments of the world were given control of a piece... what would happen? Would we even be able to handle such a tool/weapon?