The whole chemtrail idea is far bigger than just dehydration of the atmosphere. Where I live in SW UK it appears the planning to dim the sun by making what seems like eternal cloud cover. Just yesterday when I woke at 6.30 the sk6was beautifully clear. Then I noticed the first few 'trails' and by 9am the sky was a blanket of depressing greyness. And it is truly depressing. But then I do like a good rabbit whole to peer in to. Man openly tinkers with things it has very little understanding of, because of what? Money in the form of grants and profits. Nothing else matters. #followthemoney
You are making the causal link between aircraft trails and low level cloud cover, but I am guessing that you do not have any evidence for this connection. Whatever the case may be, I pointed out in my last post that our recent very grey skies and rainfall are not unprecedented or in fact that unusual, with records going back to 1910 and 1836 respectively.
We have to trust the Met Office data for the whole of the UK. I'm sure there are specific areas where the cloud cover has been a near record or even surpassed the record. Then there's March. We've hardly seen the sun this month round here and the outlook is for more of the same, so it will be interesting to see the data for the whole month throughout the UK when it comes in.
I certainly don't advocate trusting the Met Office per se; they have demonstrated time and time again that they are a politically biased organisation. But as far as the sunshine datasets are concerned, I'm not aware that they have tampered with them significantly and unjustifiably and I don't think there is an alternative UK wide dataset for cloud cover, so it's all we've got unfortunately. The temperature datasets are less trustworthy, particularly recent 'record' high temperature measurements but as for the trend, it is interesting to note that there is a very high positive correlation between sunshine hours and increasing temperature (surprisingly!), which might suggest that both datasets are generally credible.
This is in line with what I've said since I was a young kid. Volcanoes release more "greenhouse gasses" than multiple decades of automobiles -- all at once, but nobody taxes the damn volcanoes!
Also, nobody will say what the ideal average temperature for the planet "should" be. Everything "Climate Change" is based on deviations from some magic temperature that nobody will define.
Similarly, they can't say at what point it becomes too hot, to where food production would actually be effected, instead of people just growing some southern crops a little further north. There is always talk of rising sea levels and other scary sounding events.
We all know that It's been much hotter and much cooler than it is right now -- long before the industrial revolution, and everyone is still here.
I think it's for these reasons that people are starting to realize that "Anthropogenic Global Warming," "Climate Change" and whatever other man-caused nonsense they will come up with, is a scam.
Any company can say, "We didn't release X amount of carbon over the past 5-years because we spent billions of dollars in climate friendly upgrades. We're saving the planet!" Then... a volcano erupts, and undoes more than 100-years of said "progress" -- by all humans combined. But nothing really changes climate-wise does it?
Here’s my conspiracy theory. They are performing various acts of geoengineering to supposedly suppress global warming so that when the AMO cold phase global cooling starts (coming some year soon), they can say: “See, our techniques are working”.
The Science.org extract says “According to one study, a possible jump in stratospheric water during the 1990s may have boosted global warming by up to 30% during that time”. I doubt it. The more obvious reason for the global warming over that period is that it was the sun wot did it, because of naturally reduced global cloud cover: https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5694.
I think there might be a few ways in which Hunga Tonga might have warmed the planet: direct radiative forcing, plus altering global circulation patterns which may in turn have reduced cloud cover in the tropics, allowing more direct solar insolation. But yes, there has been a lobg term multidecadal decrease of cloud cover, which may have been the dominant case of warming post 1979.
Presumably the same or similar natural climate variability that gives us the regularly-recurring 60 to 70-year cycle of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which maps neatly onto past periods of global cooling and global warming. This periodicity shows up in the Multivariate ENSO index graph from 1980, with a preponderance of warming El Ninos up to the turn of the century (the AMO warming phase) followed by a preponderance of cooling El Ninos to the present time, corresponding to the plateau AMO warm phase waning into its cooling phase: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/.
The same graph extended back to 1950 shows a preponderance of cooling La Ninas up to the mid-70s, corresponding the AMO cooling/cold phase which led to the global cooling scare of that time: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.old/.
Seems to be connected to solar activity and/or multidecadal ocean cycles. Could also be a reduction in man-made or natural aerosols or even cosmic ray flux, as suggested by Svensmark.
Quite right to have a dig at the alternative media Chris Morrison piece in the DS for going on about the El Nino without mentioning Hunga Tonga. I doubt if it was deliberate suppression. I set him right in the comments! Maybe he was only looking at the ongoing high ocean temperature which are baffling other scientists: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/03/17/scientists-dont-know-why-oceans-have-warmed/.
It's disappointing from Chris and not the first time he has gone along with the in-crowd by blaming El Nino for the spike in warming starting in summer 2023. Even Spencer & Christy blamed El Nino last year. It's very odd. I can't explain the apparent lack of critical thinking in people who are generally very critical thinkers.
I read the article in Douglas's link above. The author concludes that "The fact that no climate scientists seem to have the slightest clue what these factors might be and how they might work rather makes a nonsense of their models and pretensions about what might happen in future."
The corrupt UN IPCC only considers supposed man-made risks to the climate, not natural climate variability, but they never disclose this massive limitation to the general public.
Great idea. I am sure removing all this water will not cause massive droughts and famines? I am sure they would have tested for that first?
The whole chemtrail idea is far bigger than just dehydration of the atmosphere. Where I live in SW UK it appears the planning to dim the sun by making what seems like eternal cloud cover. Just yesterday when I woke at 6.30 the sk6was beautifully clear. Then I noticed the first few 'trails' and by 9am the sky was a blanket of depressing greyness. And it is truly depressing. But then I do like a good rabbit whole to peer in to. Man openly tinkers with things it has very little understanding of, because of what? Money in the form of grants and profits. Nothing else matters. #followthemoney
You are making the causal link between aircraft trails and low level cloud cover, but I am guessing that you do not have any evidence for this connection. Whatever the case may be, I pointed out in my last post that our recent very grey skies and rainfall are not unprecedented or in fact that unusual, with records going back to 1910 and 1836 respectively.
Apologies I haven't read your previous post, too many things to read some catch my eye others slip the net. Plus I haven't sussed your game play yet.
Yes I make a casual (did you mean causal?) link using anecdotal evidence, doesn't all science start observations?
And I'm fully aware of historical weather patterns but I'm struggling to recall such persistent cloud cover in my limited 52 years of observations.
We have to trust the Met Office data for the whole of the UK. I'm sure there are specific areas where the cloud cover has been a near record or even surpassed the record. Then there's March. We've hardly seen the sun this month round here and the outlook is for more of the same, so it will be interesting to see the data for the whole month throughout the UK when it comes in.
I certainly don't advocate trusting the Met Office per se; they have demonstrated time and time again that they are a politically biased organisation. But as far as the sunshine datasets are concerned, I'm not aware that they have tampered with them significantly and unjustifiably and I don't think there is an alternative UK wide dataset for cloud cover, so it's all we've got unfortunately. The temperature datasets are less trustworthy, particularly recent 'record' high temperature measurements but as for the trend, it is interesting to note that there is a very high positive correlation between sunshine hours and increasing temperature (surprisingly!), which might suggest that both datasets are generally credible.
This is in line with what I've said since I was a young kid. Volcanoes release more "greenhouse gasses" than multiple decades of automobiles -- all at once, but nobody taxes the damn volcanoes!
Also, nobody will say what the ideal average temperature for the planet "should" be. Everything "Climate Change" is based on deviations from some magic temperature that nobody will define.
Similarly, they can't say at what point it becomes too hot, to where food production would actually be effected, instead of people just growing some southern crops a little further north. There is always talk of rising sea levels and other scary sounding events.
We all know that It's been much hotter and much cooler than it is right now -- long before the industrial revolution, and everyone is still here.
I think it's for these reasons that people are starting to realize that "Anthropogenic Global Warming," "Climate Change" and whatever other man-caused nonsense they will come up with, is a scam.
Any company can say, "We didn't release X amount of carbon over the past 5-years because we spent billions of dollars in climate friendly upgrades. We're saving the planet!" Then... a volcano erupts, and undoes more than 100-years of said "progress" -- by all humans combined. But nothing really changes climate-wise does it?
Again, nobody is taxing the volcanoes. 🤣😂
Here’s my conspiracy theory. They are performing various acts of geoengineering to supposedly suppress global warming so that when the AMO cold phase global cooling starts (coming some year soon), they can say: “See, our techniques are working”.
The Science.org extract says “According to one study, a possible jump in stratospheric water during the 1990s may have boosted global warming by up to 30% during that time”. I doubt it. The more obvious reason for the global warming over that period is that it was the sun wot did it, because of naturally reduced global cloud cover: https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5694.
I think there might be a few ways in which Hunga Tonga might have warmed the planet: direct radiative forcing, plus altering global circulation patterns which may in turn have reduced cloud cover in the tropics, allowing more direct solar insolation. But yes, there has been a lobg term multidecadal decrease of cloud cover, which may have been the dominant case of warming post 1979.
so the question becomes: What caused the decrease in cloud cover?
Presumably the same or similar natural climate variability that gives us the regularly-recurring 60 to 70-year cycle of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which maps neatly onto past periods of global cooling and global warming. This periodicity shows up in the Multivariate ENSO index graph from 1980, with a preponderance of warming El Ninos up to the turn of the century (the AMO warming phase) followed by a preponderance of cooling El Ninos to the present time, corresponding to the plateau AMO warm phase waning into its cooling phase: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/.
The same graph extended back to 1950 shows a preponderance of cooling La Ninas up to the mid-70s, corresponding the AMO cooling/cold phase which led to the global cooling scare of that time: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.old/.
thanks!
Seems to be connected to solar activity and/or multidecadal ocean cycles. Could also be a reduction in man-made or natural aerosols or even cosmic ray flux, as suggested by Svensmark.
Quite right to have a dig at the alternative media Chris Morrison piece in the DS for going on about the El Nino without mentioning Hunga Tonga. I doubt if it was deliberate suppression. I set him right in the comments! Maybe he was only looking at the ongoing high ocean temperature which are baffling other scientists: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/03/17/scientists-dont-know-why-oceans-have-warmed/.
It's disappointing from Chris and not the first time he has gone along with the in-crowd by blaming El Nino for the spike in warming starting in summer 2023. Even Spencer & Christy blamed El Nino last year. It's very odd. I can't explain the apparent lack of critical thinking in people who are generally very critical thinkers.
I read the article in Douglas's link above. The author concludes that "The fact that no climate scientists seem to have the slightest clue what these factors might be and how they might work rather makes a nonsense of their models and pretensions about what might happen in future."
Seems to be a reasonable conclusion.
The corrupt UN IPCC only considers supposed man-made risks to the climate, not natural climate variability, but they never disclose this massive limitation to the general public.