From Minute: 6 seconds: 51 till Minute: 14 seconds: 34
"09/02/2013
While covering the global chemtrail rally in Vancouver Dan Dicks of Press For Truth interviews former BC Premier Bill Vander Zalm about his stance on chemtrails and geoengineering. Vander Zalm recently filed an access to information act request for full transparency from the Canadian government on the issue of chemtrails and geoengineering.
Get updates like this everyday and support independent media by joining Press For Truth TV: http://pressfortruth.tv/register/ We rely on you the viewer to help us continue to do this work. With your help I can continue to make videos and documentary films for youtube in an effort to raise awareness all over the world. Please support independent media by joining Press For Truth TV!
As a Press For Truth TV subscriber you'll have full access to the site's features and content including Video Blogs on current news from the PFT perspective and High Quality Downloads of all Press For Truth Films, Music and Special Reports! Subscribe to Press For Truth TV: http://pressfortruth.tv/register/
For more information visit: http://pressfortruth.tv/" (youtube)
"Environment Canada meteorologist rejects Bill Vander Zalm’s chemtrail theory by Carlito Pablo on Aug 21, 2013 at 10:09 am
Story
Former B.C. premier Bill Vander Zalm has filed a freedom of information request with the government regarding chemtrails. Stephen Hui
Looking skyward comes as second nature to Bill Vander Zalm.
When you’re in the plant business, as he is, what’s in the heavens is important, be it “rain, sunshine, or some foreign thing,” the former B.C. premier explains.
A number of days ago, he filed freedom-of-information requests asking both federal and provincial governments whether they’ve been engaged in some sort of climate-control engineering.
Vander Zalm wants to know whether chemicals are being sprayed by aircraft, leaving visible, cloudlike trails in the skies. Many observers call these “chemtrails”.
If no such thing is happening, and the trails are nothing but condensation (or “contrails”) left by passing planes, Vander Zalm wants to hear that officially.
The federal and provincial governments have confirmed receipt of his request, the former premier said.
“Governments will go ahead and do things, particularly in the name of climate control or, you know, for the sake of agriculture or whatever other excuse they can use,” Vander Zalm told the Straight by phone. “They’ll keep it a secret, and they’ll go ahead and do it anyway.”
As a meteorologist with Environment Canada, David Jones has dealt with many inquiries from the public about condensation trails.
“It’s a waste of energy to pursue these things,” Jones told the Straight by phone.
The Vancouver-based weather expert said there’s nothing there but water vapour. “It’s really just plain stupid to think that you could alter the climate by, you know, somehow using aircraft to drop tiny droplets or particles in the massive volume that the atmosphere is,” Jones said. “I mean, it’s just ridiculous.”
Also if the meteorologist David Jones thinks that the "Chemtrail"-Theory is ridiculous the meteoroligical branch has to prove that there is no misuse of existing technology. The argument of "Ridiculousity" is no scientific argument! And the meteorologist David Jones knows it. The argument of "Ridiculousity" is just an argument for marginalization which is the opposite of a scientific behaviour of curiosity in an open society.
Mcboyle, Geoff R. PURPOSEFUL WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES IN CANADA: RESPONSES TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNIQUE published in: Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, v21 n1 (March 1977): 81-95 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5155531323
Professor Dr. Michael Garstang speaks only for the United States AND "overseas" which may mean the U.S. terrorities but also Asia, Africa and Europe. I guess the neighbour Canada has a similiar conduct as the United States in this matter, especially if one takes in account that David Keith made a longständing carreer in this field in Alberta ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7060#Post7060 ). For this reason it is adequate to cite Professor Dr. Michael Garstang as he is an insider of this topic.
"As a meteorologist with Environment Canada, David Jones has dealt with many inquiries from the public about condensation trails.
'It’s a waste of energy to pursue these things,' Jones told the Straight by phone.
The Vancouver-based weather expert said there’s nothing there but water vapour. 'It’s really just plain stupid to think that you could alter the climate by, you know, somehow using aircraft to drop tiny droplets or particles in the massive volume that the atmosphere is,' Jones said. 'I mean, it’s just ridiculous.'" http://www.straight.com/news/412071...jects-bill-vander-zalms-chemtrail-theory
"Realtive Humidity at Flight Level (37,000 ft/11,200 meters) less than 20% at 3 reporting stations. This measured data is hard evidence that formation of persistent contrails of water vapor – as defined by NASA – was not possible.
We confidently conclude that these persistent jet trails are chemical aerosols of undetermined toxicity, sprayed over populations of citizens, wildlife, crops and water sheds without due process and without knowledge or consent.
PETER SPICHTINGER1, KLAUS GIERENS1 and WILLIAM READ2 The statistical distribution law of relative humidity in the global tropopause region 1 DLR, Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany 2 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
(Manuscript received June 21, 2001; in revised form August 2, 2001; accepted December 17, 2001)
"Lindenberg Meteorological Observatory - Richard Aßmann Observatory Trend of relative humidity within the upper troposphere over Lindenberg
Humidity, in form of water vapor or clouds, influences all atmospheric radiative processes within the spectral range of solar and terrestrial radiation. Furthermore, water operates in the atmosphere by means of its chemical properties and its ability to wash out aerosols. Therefore, determination of atmospheric humidity within gaseous, liquid and solid state has got a significant interest in aerology, similar to measurement of temperature, wind, and pressure. Different measures of atmospheric moisture have been established in the field of meteorology, like vapor pressure, vapor density, absolute humidity, mixing ratio, specific humidity, temperature of dew point, and relative humidity. By means of temperature and/or pressure these quantities can be converted into each other. Relative humidity has special significance for radiation balance and energy budget of the atmosphere. Furthermore the relative humidity is measured directly (in situ) by radiosounding. For these reasons the relative humidity will be considered here as measure of atmospheric moisture.
For measurement of humidity within the history of aerology, primarily tree different sensor types have been used: hairhygrometer: for kites and tethered balloons, sondes LANG and FREIBERG; up to 1971 goldbeaterskin: russian sondes RKS and MARZ; 1971 to 1992 polymersensor: radiosondes RS80, RS90, RS92 from Finland; from 1992
Measuring relative humidity at temperatures below zero is a notorious problem. Examinations by SODEN and LANZANTE [1] show that there are large systematical differences between the specific sensor types (comparison of satellite data and data of radiosondes in upper troposphere). For this reason and due to the noticed "break" in the Lindenberg data set within measurements of humidity on change of measuring instruments, Lindenberg Observatory has tried to improve humidity measurements with operational radiosondes since 1995. Since 1999 precision humidity radiosondes have been launched once a week using the Lindenberg reference sonde (FN-method, modified RS90 radiosondes, [2]). Precision humidity radiosondes using the FN-method reach accuracy in measurement of relative humidity of 1 % within the atmosphere [2]. An adjustment method for measurement of humidity with RS80-A-humicap sondes has been developed as a result of a comparison of RS80 routine sondes and the precision humidity radio-sondes. The adjustment method for RS80 humidity uses the following steps[2]: ground check adjustment for 100 % relative humidity lag correction (dependent on humidity gradient and temperature) temperature dependent adjustment deletion of measured data for relative humidity in case of icing of humidity sensor
By analysing the gradient of relative humidity within similar measuring sensors and by determining the regression line, previous measurements have been amended. It was possible to homogenize the time series of water vapor dispersion as the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere over Lindenberg. The determined amendments produce a data quality that allows an evaluation of humidity profile measurements. For Lindenberg, a first draft of the time series of relative humidity for more than 45 years has been created.
Graphic
For the 300 hPa level reliable values of atmospheric humidity are available from the early sixties on. The figure shows the relative humidity at the pressure level 300 hPa. The figure indicates a decrease of humidity of about 4 % within the last 45 years in the upper troposphere over Lindenberg.
References:
1 Soden, B.J. and J.R. Lanzante; 1996: An assessment of satellite and radiosonde climatologies of upper-tropospheric water vapor. J. Climate, 9, 1235-1250.
2 Leiterer, U., H. Dier, D. Nagel, T. Naebert, D. Althausen, K. Franke, A. Kats, F. Wagner; 2004: A Correction Method for RS80-A Humicap Profiles and their Validation by Lidar Backscattering Profiles in Tropical Cirrus Clouds. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology (JTECH), Vol. 22, No. 1, 18-29, 2005.
3 U. Leiterer, H. Dier, W. Adam, 2001: Aerologischer Schichtaufbau der Atmosphäre und Trends über Lindenberg Klimastatusbericht 2000. Deutscher Wetterdienst Offenbach, ISBN 3-88148-368-3, 7-14" http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/appmanager/bvbw/dwdwwwDesktop;jsessionid=k9hSShGJtYLw11DJx42R063r2LykpJBcl8WqZ8FGZ1n5J47zBlXQ!-424574392!979054940?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=dwdwww_main_book&T14608849251144917050626gsbDocumentPath=Content%252FForschung%252FFELG%252FMOL3%252Fmol3__feuchte.html&switchLang=en&_pageLabel=_dwdwww_spezielle_nutzer_forschung_physik
Type of sensor: : hairhygrometer (up to 1971); goldbeaterskin: 1971 to 1992; Polymer (from 1992); since 2000 online correction
"Environment Canada meteorologist rejects As a meteorologist with Environment Canada, David Jones has dealt with many inquiries from the public about condensation trails.
“It’s a waste of energy to pursue these things,” Jones told the Straight by phone.
The Vancouver-based weather expert said there’s nothing there but water vapour. “It’s really just plain stupid to think that you could alter the climate by, you know, somehow using aircraft to drop tiny droplets or particles in the massive volume that the atmosphere is,” Jones said. “I mean, it’s just ridiculous.”
It would be very easy to believe David Jones if he could prove for each in question coming chemtrail that the humidity in the specific area of the observed chemtrail is very high. This is a very simple method and task for a meteorologist as seen above in the two videos ("New Facts"). For British Columbia, I am sure, there exists also meteorological data in these altitudes - alone because pilots need as much information as possible about the incoming weather for their future flights. For David Jones it must be an easy task as a professional in his field to deliver.
Thomas Schlatter, NOAA, explained this in 2003 in Weatherwise.org: "Natural cirrus clouds form high in the troposphere, usually at temperatures below -40 degrees F, when there are sufficient ice nuclei (tiny particles that ice crystals can grow on) in the air and when the water vapor content is high enough. Upward motion in the high troposphere causes the cooling that brings air to saturation and forms the ice crystals in natural cirrus clouds. Contrails (an abbreviation of condensation trails) form when jet aircraft inject water vapor into the high troposphere or lower stratosphere, thereby bringing the air to saturation." http://web.archive.org/web/20010309094441/http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html
So why doesn't David Jones act scientifically instead of making concerns of conscious citizen "ridiculous". "Ridiculousity" maybe an adequate reaction toward his colleagues when they make obvious professional mistakes. But towards people out of the common populace? Those who pay his job? And he decides that this a "waste of time" when he discusses this topic with "Non-Professionals"? That is only arrogance. This is not didactic at all. And when he is not explaining this subject he does not have to wonder that more and more people "believe" in chemtrails. They don't get a chance by David Jones to learn otherwise. This conduct of David Jones is not very consistent towards this topic. On the one side he proclaims that Contrail-Nonbelievers are "ridiculous" on the other side he is not willing to come down to the ground to educate people why they would be "ridiculous" to keep their beliefs.
He defrauds HAARP or other possible electromagnetic influence on the dispersed trails for the creation of ice nucleids (ionizing) that the suspected climate changing method has at least two parts when he writes: "It’s really just plain stupid to think that you could alter the climate by, you know, somehow using aircraft to drop tiny droplets or particles in the massive volume that the atmosphere is, (...)" This is only one of the necessary parts to get influence on the weather with today's methods.
These suspicions by concerned citizens would be dissolved into nothing if the temperature and humidity would not be right for the development of clouds in the targeted air space. It's just that simple.
And as a meteorologist he can not demonstrate this to the populace?
Unfortunately, there is nothing concrete from David Jones to handle with - except his argument of "ridiculousity". In the real sense of the word: whitewash. And no science at all.
"Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Completely Debunked by US Airline Pilots (Chem-trails)"
Unfortunately, your contribution is not very essenceful. It might be right, that more planes are filling the sky. Just yesterday I saw on different places different trails leaving jets. On the one place the sky was covered - although no big airport was close to the area - with trails in the sky, on the other one two planes crossed the sky and left trails which dissolved after a short while.
The fact that you put this video anonymously into the net without essential footage makes it questionable if this video is really carrying a message to enlarge the cognition about the circumstances which shape these trails to longlasting clouds.
You might watch the following videos which uses scientific methodology in meteorology and put questions about the structure of the trails on the table.
If you call me stupid you ought to give me arguments which make me less "stupid". Just putting a picture with a radar scanner on the video does not say anything. Do you have certified documents which enhance the analysis about the content of those trails? On what base are they made of? What kind of methods were being used to make those studies?
You maybe smart but without acceptance on my side that your knowledge is based on facts you are only "stupid" as me. Learning goes another way than just insulting other people as being stupid: They convince through evidence.
