Michael J. Murphy's most recent

**Ross Marsden** · February 4th, 2013, 11:28 AM

... We have spoken to several weatherman around the world. Many of these “community leaders” are aware that our weather is dramatically changing but very few have made the connection between the droughts, floods and other unpredictable weather to chemtrail/geoengineering programs. ...

I would like to know who these several community leader "weathermen" are (not counting Scott Stevens).

I would also like to see their data that connects "droughts, floods and other unpredictable weather(??) to chemtrail/geoengineering programs".

**Mick** · February 4th, 2013, 11:33 AM

I think by "very few" he probably means "none"

**tryblinking** · February 4th, 2013, 02:03 PM

Poor Jodi. I can't believe people get away with publicly treating professionals with such unfounded contempt.
Disgusting.

**Ross Marsden** · February 4th, 2013, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Mick

I think by "very few" he probably means "none"

Oh! I see now. I misunderstood that. OMG I fell right in! *facepalm*

**tryblinking** · February 8th, 2013, 12:48 PM

Apparently:

"WHY in the World are They Spraying?" has been winning awards in film festivals around the world.

according to MJM's latest propaganda.
No details included tho.

funny that...

**Biggerdave** · February 8th, 2013, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by tryblinking

Apparently:

according to MJM's latest propaganda.
No details included tho.

funny that...

I did ask what awards on the FB page but found myself blocked shortly after. Guess it us a secret.

**Mick** · February 8th, 2013, 12:58 PM

Here's the awards section for WITWATS and WhyWATS on IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1770768/awards
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2264390/awards

(both empty at the moment)

**George B** · February 8th, 2013, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ross Marsden

I would like to know who these several community leader "weathermen" are (not counting Scott Stevens).

I would also like to see their data that connects "droughts, floods and other unpredictable weather(??) to chemtrail/geoengineering programs".

We had a discussion a bit back where we kicked around the likely net effect of global warming on the number and frequency of persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus clouds. Since it was felt that most if not all persistent contrails formed high in the troposphere but below the tropopause . . . warming would increase temperatures there but also increase RH . . . it was speculated the temp change would be more important and therefore, a net reduction in persistent contrails would result than would be expected without the warming . . . what do you think?

**Mick** · February 8th, 2013, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by George B

We had a discussion a bit back where we kicked around the likely net effect of global warming on the number and frequency of persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus clouds. Since it was felt that most if not all persistent contrails formed high in the troposphere but below the tropopause . . . warming would increase temperatures there but also increase RH . . . it was speculated the temp change would be more important and therefore, a net reduction in persistent contrails would result than would be expected without the warming . . . what do you think?

I think the global increase in temperature of about 0.5C since 1950 is too small to make a noticeable difference. That's only 500 feet. Lost in the noise.

**George B** · February 8th, 2013, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mick

I think the global increase in temperature of about 0.5C since 1950 is too small to make a noticeable difference. That's only 500 feet. Lost in the noise.

Hypothetically . . . and 500 feet is 500 feet . . .

**Ross Marsden** · February 8th, 2013, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by George B

Hypothetically . . . and 500 feet is 500 feet . . .

Let's suppose the increase in temperature of about 0.5C since 1950 applies from the surface deep into the atmosphere.
The climate measurements show that although there has been this small temperature rise, the RH has remained more or less the dame.
If there were no changes in engine design, and there no growth in air traffic, then you could possibly detect a reduction in the occurrence of contrails of any type. But all those thing haven't been equal, changes in engine design have led to the raising of contrail critical temperature (for formation) which acts in the opposite sense. So the 500 feet (which as you say is 500 feet) would be lost in the noise.

You seem to have the idea that all contrails are persistent. You don't seen to distinguish. To get a persistent contrail, you first need to get a contrail to form. That is, the exhaust / ambient air mixture needs to reach water saturation at some point. What happens after that depends on the RH... which is reckoned not to have changed (due to global warming effects).

Anyway, I think MJM's thinking about this matter only extends as far as imaging that the chemicals in the "spray" can somehow magically manipulate weather systems to both induce floods (a consequence of weather) and droughts (getting into the time-scale of a climate consideration), and other unspecified unpredictable weather at the same time, though possibly in different parts of the world.

Maybe he is trying to fold cloud seeding into the discussion, as so many other chemtrail leaders and activists seem to be doing

That whole statement of MJM's is very carefully crafted. See how he name-drops "unpredictable weather". We all know (especially those who are doubtful of the science) the weather is unpredictable Right? Truth! It's like he is using a dog whistle. The believers will hear that phrase and a little light comes on; others will hear it and nothing happens - like it's inaudible.

**JFDee** · February 9th, 2013, 12:53 AM

Accidentally, I was thinking about the possible effects of global warming on contrail formation while replying to a blog post at Contrailscience.

Even if there is no increase in RH, the absolute amount of water vapor in the air (from ground up) is rising. These 500 ft were added with respect to the water holding capacity, right?

Now, what about vertical convection and global warming? The verdict may not be out yet if tropical storms or 'normal' thunderstorms will increase in violence or in frequency (or both).
However, is it far fetched to assume there may be an increased transport of humidity through the atmospheric layers, up to contrail levels? Or even an extension of the troposphere?

**George B** · February 9th, 2013, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Ross Marsden

If there were no changes in engine design, and there no growth in air traffic, then you could possibly detect a reduction in the occurrence of contrails of any type. But all those thing haven't been equal, changes in engine design have led to the raising of contrail critical temperature (for formation) which acts in the opposite sense. So the 500 feet (which as you say is 500 feet) would be lost in the noise.

Thanks . . . I was thinking more into the future assuming the engine efficiencies as a constant more or less for all aircraft at that altitude range . . . and I am aware not all contrails are persistent contrails . . . you answered my question. . . Thanks!

**tryblinking** · February 10th, 2013, 12:19 PM

Um, not to be a debbie downer, but off topic from #248, n'est pa?

**Ross Marsden** · February 10th, 2013, 02:02 PM

To be fair, I tried to bring it back on topic at #251.

**tryblinking** · February 11th, 2013, 10:22 AM

Here's the awards section for WITWATS and WhyWATS on IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1770768/awards
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2264390/awards

(both empty at the moment)

Also, as a point of debunking interest, there only seems to be a handful of 10-star positive reviews by users. Perhaps someone here with the necessary critical qualifications might like to put that right?

**Steve Funk** · February 11th, 2013, 06:36 PM

http://www.gaiamtv.com/video/chemtra...campaign=10day

Has anyone seen this? The trailer which you can access through geoengineering watch is only a minute and a half long. Requires a paid subscription for the rest, but there is a free 10 day trial.

Name: OM_ORIGshow-MichaelM_1.jpg
Views: 156
Size: 11.9 KB

**tryblinking** · February 12th, 2013, 01:26 PM

Has anyone seen this?

see post #236 (I think it's probably the same vid). From that 90seconds, I didn't fancy seeing much more.

**Jay Reynolds** · February 18th, 2013, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by tryblinking

Also, as a point of debunking interest, there only seems to be a handful of 10-star positive reviews by users. Perhaps someone here with the necessary critical qualifications might like to put that right?

Murphy is asking for reviews of his latest movie, you can do that via your facebook, google, or twitter account using this page:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2264390/...?ref_=tt_ov_rt

**Jay Reynolds** · February 22nd, 2013, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Jay Reynolds

Murphy is asking for reviews of his latest movie, you can do that via your facebook, google, or twitter account using this page:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2264390/...?ref_=tt_ov_rt

I see that Murphy's movie is going in a downward direction. He is asking for your rating.

**Jay Reynolds** · February 22nd, 2013, 10:57 AM

My review of the movie is here.

**Jay Reynolds** · February 25th, 2013, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Jay Reynolds

My review of the movie is here.

On Friday, Michael J. Murphy became incensed that I had taken up his offer to review his movie but panned it. He then called upon his minions to come out and "show their support". So far, no support.......