Carnegie Science Study Finds Contrails Not Part of Covert Climate Manipulation

chemtrails_deesBy Derrick Broze

In a new study conducted by Carnegie Science at the University of California Irvine has concluded that there is no evidence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program. 

Researchers with Carnegie Science at the University of California Irvine and the nonprofit Near Zero have published a study which claims to conclusively debunk the possibility of an alleged secret government aerosol spraying program. The study, Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program, was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

We find broad scientific consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program. Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying program—who often reject counter-evidence as further proof of their theories—but rather to establish a source of objective, peer-reviewed science that can inform public discourse in the future by seriously addressing the underlying concerns of science, governance, and public trust.

We therefore offer the first peer-reviewed expert response on SLAP data, from both atmospheric scientists with expertise in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution.

The authors of the study conducted a survey of the leading contrail and atmosphere scientists to find out if there was sufficient evidence to support claims of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). The contrail and atmospheric experts overwhelmingly rejected evidence cited by believers of what is sometimes known as the “Chemtrails Conspiracy.”

According to the Chemtrails Conspiracy weather modification programs are actively taking place in our skies, and the “normal” contrails created by planes are actually geoengineering programs being covertly carried out. The “chemtrails” label comes from the portion of the crowd that believes these programs are delivering dangerous chemical additives to the food, water, soil, and humans below for nefarious purposes.  According to a 2013 congressional report:

The term ‘geoengineering’ describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.

In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) (or albedo-modification)method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface. Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.

The researchers at University of California Irvine and Near Zero used the Web of Science database of citations to identify authors of the most-cited peer-reviewed papers concerning contrails and atmospheric conditions between the years of 1994 and 2014. The researchers write:

Nearly 17% of people in an international survey said they believed the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP) to be true or partly true. SLAP is commonly referred to as ‘chemtrails’ or ‘covert geoengineering’, and has led to a number of websites purported to show evidence of widespread chemical spraying linked to negative impacts on human health and the environment. To address these claims, we surveyed two groups of experts—atmospheric chemists with expertize in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution—to scientifically evaluate for the first time the claims of SLAP theorists.

The team searched the terms contrails, atmospheric deposition, aluminum, barium, or strontium to narrow down the results to scientists working on those elements. The study defines “contrail expert” and “atmospheric deposition expert” as a person who co-authored one or more of the 100 most-cited papers in the search. On average these experts had been professionally active for 26 years and 22 years, respectively. After identifying 220 contrail experts and 255 atmospheric deposition experts, the researchers narrowed it down to 49 contrail experts and 65 atmospheric deposition, a total of 77 purported experts.

The surveys asked the experts to examine data from websites that promote the narrative that covert geoengineering programs are taking place. These include Geoengineering Watch ( and Global Sky Watch ( “Individuals who assert the existence of such a SLAP assume different purposes of the program,” the researchers wrote. “Initially, the most commonly inferred goals were control over population, food supply, and/or the weather.”

The two surveys examined four photographs of trails made by airplanes that are alleged to be active geoengineering, and elemental analyses of water, soil and snow samples that are supposed to contain high levels of toxins. The researchers were asked if they had ever come across evidence that might indicate the existence of SLAP.

The results show that 76 0f 77 scientists said they had not encountered evidence of a secret aerosol program. The scientists also said evidence provided by the websites could be explained by typical airplane contrails and poor data sampling. The experts say that none of the pictures showed anything out of the ordinary and that the mechanisms behind the contrails “are well documented in the peer-reviewed literature.”

Three different elemental analyses were looked at, including pond sludge alleged to contain high levels of barium, strontium, and aluminum; a sample of airborne particulates from Phoenix, Arizona; and a snow surface sample taken in July 2008 on Mount Shasta, California. The experts also examined two sets of instructions from the websites on how “non-specialists” can gather samples for testing. In both examples the experts overwhelmingly disagreed with the instructions (71% and 68%) and stated that the collection methods would contaminate the sample and alter the levels of elements.

“We wanted to establish a scientific record on the topic of secret atmospheric spraying programs for the benefit of those in the public who haven’t made up their minds,” said Steven Davis of UC Irvine. “The experts we surveyed resoundingly rejected contrail photographs and test results as evidence of a large-scale atmospheric conspiracy.”

Interestingly, the researchers did admit that contrails are indeed lasting longer, a claim that has been made by the chemtrail crowd for some time now. However, the experts in the study were divided in the reasons they provided for the longer lasting trails. Thirty-five percent believe that aircraft are flying higher, 22% say that modern and larger engines are producing more water vapor, 18% said that more plane traffic at higher altitudes creates more contrails, and 10% believe the decreased temperature of aircraft exhaust is behind the longer lasting contrails. Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira said it’s possible that the climate is causing contrails to persist for longer periods of time.

That’s five different reasons for longer contrails offered by contrail experts. If the experts cannot even agree on what is causing the longer contrails should we readily accept the notion that there is nothing to the chemtrail theory? Despite the knee-jerk dismissal from many casual researchers, the theories might be grounded in reality.

In February 2015, while speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Professor Alan Robock discussed the possibility that the CIA is using the weather as a weapon of war. Robock has done research for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) in the past. His fears might  not be completely unfounded.

In late June, John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, spoke at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting, calling for more research into geoengineering.  There is also the issue of a 1996 U.S. Air Force document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025”  which discusses a number of proposals for using the weather as a weapon. The Environmental Modification Treaty was also signed by the United States and other nations to halt global weather modification. During the Vietnam War the US government operated covert weather modification programs under Operation Popeye. In 2012 it was revealed that the US Army sprayed toxic chemicals over the skies of St. Louis without informing the public.

These individual pieces of knowledge might not specifically point to the existence of secret spraying program, but they do indicate that the U.S. government will conduct covert programs for years before admitting it the public. Should we really expect these experts to be fully aware of what the government does behind closed doors?

Regardless of where you stand, geoengineering has been a controversial topic in recent years, both as a subject of conspiracy research and environmental concerns. One of the reasons the topic is so controversial is because of the possible risks. At least one previous study has found that geoengineering could cause the white haze and loss of blue skies that Long is observing. According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science has shown that releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere would scatter sunlight into the atmosphere. He says this could decrease the amount of sunlight that hits the ground by 20%, as well as make the sky appear more hazy.

Ironically, the promotion of geoengineering might actually cause more harm than good, including an increase in droughts. In February 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before implementation.

The scientists found that SRM techniques are likely to present “serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.” The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled, “The Impact of Abrupt Suspension of Solar Radiation Management,” seems to indicate that once geoengineering begins, the programs cannot be suspended without causing the very problem the engineering was intended to solve.

Is this first-ever peer-reviewed study on geoengineering and covert weather modification programs really the nail in the coffin the mainstream media and science experts seem to believe? Or is this just another ploy designed to distract you from the pattern of X’s being sprayed in the skies above you?

Let us know your thoughts below.


Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for and the founder of the Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of two books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion.

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Also See: 4 Peter Kirby Chemtrails Interviews

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

40 Comments on "Carnegie Science Study Finds Contrails Not Part of Covert Climate Manipulation"

  1. My thoughts?
    Liars, liars, liars. Anybody can use their own senses and know the “bug spray” that is being deployed in our skies is not in our best interests
    Science is owned by corporations.

    • Exactly. To say there is no evidence is absolutely absurd and proves beyond a doubt that those “scientists” are bought and paid for. More “ignore what you clearly observe because we say it doesn’t exist” garbage.

    • Spot the person who has never worked in the scientific field!

      • Yes, to truly lie and obfuscate requires multiple advanced degrees. Recommend Peter Kirby’s excellent “Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project,” documenting the creation of weather modification programs in the U.S. under the auspices of the military – but only if you’re interested in info outside of the controlled paradigm.

        • Weather modification… why do chemtrailers always fall back on weather modification (which has never been a secret and is nothing like what chemtrailers claim is happening)? Because they are intellectually bankrupt, that is why.

          • Brilliant analysis, dazzling evidence. I am humbled.

          • Do you want to talk about weather modification or geoengineering? They are not related. Weather modification has been openly carried out for over half a century. That has precisely nothing to do with geoengineering or climate modification, which has never been carried out and is nothing to do with either cloud seeding or contrails (which is the topic of the news article you are commenting on).

            Chemtrailers always seem to act like they have discovered some top secret programme when they learn about cloud seeding. Newsflash: the rest of the world has known about it for a long, long time.

          • @Colophon – Dude, if you think that Weather Mod is “cloud seeding” you are so far behind the curve that there is no point in continuing a conversation. Why don’t you read Peter Kirby’s book?

          • “”Chemtrails Exposed” is light on the science and heavy on the information enquiring minds want to know; the who, what, when, where, why, and how. It’s heavy on presenting well-organized information from the best sources in an easy to read and understand fashion. ”

            Light on the science. You don’t say!

            Given that he says “This book serves as a preliminary investigation into violations which should result in the largest class-action lawsuit in history”, and it was published five years ago and no such class-action lawsuit is forthcoming, I will save my money and safely assume that its an assemblage of the usual garbage about chemtrails and HAARP.

            From the blurb: “According to all United States federal government organizations, chemtrails do not exist and/or are a conspiracy theory. They say the white lines in the sky stretching from horizon to horizon are normal jet contrails. Somehow, I assume using theoretical physics, these contrails can first appear as small white lines high in the sky then, over the course of hours, expand as they float down to earth first creating small clouds and finally a haze. ”

            If he doesn’t understand how contrails behave then why should I believe a word he says about so-called “chemtrails”? He clearly believes, as every chemtrail believer in the world does, that contrails shouldn’t persist and spread. That’s the whole cornerstone of the chemtrail theory, and it is utter bunkum.

          • Then perhaps you can explain how the time-tested formula for the time a contrail will last, incorporating temperature, altitude, humidity and barometric pressure, suddenly became totally obsolete. All of the brand-new, as of around 1998, never previously seen “persistent contrails” violate this formula, which was, for decades, “hard science.” Did the laws of physics change?

          • Who on Earth told you that persistent contrails suddenly appeared “around 1998”? They’ve been around for 100 years now, and the parameters for their formation have been known since the 1940s!

            It’s very simple: once a contrail has formed, it will persist as long as the surrounding air is ice-supersaturated (RHi > 100%). If the surrounding air has RHi less than 100% then the ice crystals can sublimate and the trail will dissipate.

            In what way is this not following the laws of physics? Above 100% the equilibrium favours deposition, below 100% it favours sublimation. The only thing that has “changed” is that modern engines are more efficient so they are more likely to form a contrail in the first place (higher contrail factor). Once the contrail has formed it will persist or not persist according to the same laws of physics as ever.

            Clearly the author of that book doesn’t understand how contrails form, so why should I waste £7 on reading what he thinks about chemtrails?

            As I said, the cornerstone of the chemtrail hoax is that contrails don’t or shouldn’t persist. That is complete nonsense, as they have persisted since the dawn of high-altitude flight. It’s truly astonishing that in 2017, when planes are as commonplace as they are, people are still puzzled by the sight of contrails in the sky!

          • “chemtrail hoax” = SO open to investigation you have to brand the entire subject as if the question is settled in advance! If ice saturation is required for “persistent contrails” then how do we get them at high summer at low altitudes? You are so good at deceptive and wholly unscientific jargon – I guess if you can’t convince ’em with the facts you just baffle them with BS. And if “persistent contrails have been in the sky, then can you post some photos before, say, 1970 that show ANYTHING like the hazy, contrail criss-crossed skies we’ve had since the late 90’s? Can you explain the research that has shown that the ONLY “persistent contrails” observed over the course of weeks in some cases, are coming from “unidentified” flights that don’t show up on Flight Explorer? How do planes flying at high altitudes on warm, dry days leave no contrails, when planes flying much lower leave “persistent contrails”?

            I suspect that with what you’re being paid to defend the space in this comment thread you can easily afford a few pounds to pick up Kirby’s “Chemtrails Exposed.” Go ahead, you might learn something – Or perhaps you’re not being paid to learn anything.

          • Do you seriously believe I am being “paid” to reply to your comments on a year-old Disqus thread that is probably being read by nobody other than us two?

            I have never seen a persistent contrail “at high summer at low altitudes”. If you have a photo or video of such a thing, with the flight and altitude identified, then why not show me? The lowest I ever see persistent contrails are at about 25,000 ft, in the British wintertime, and at that altitude they normally arise from aerodynamic contrails rather than engine contrails.

            And yes of course there are photos from before 1970 showing crisscrossing contrails. I have some from an old weather book that were taken in my home town, Farnborough, in the 1940s. Here’s one. I know that’s Peter Kirby has seen it because he posted it on ActivistPost! Of course he says that they are chemtrails, because it doesn’t fit his narrative!

          • As for the planes not showing up on flight trackers, that can be disproved by anybody with a flight tracker. Here’s a photo I took this morning, when the sky was totally crisscrosses with contrails. It’s taken through the FR24 app so the plane details are superimposed. As you can see, both of the new trails being added to the “grid” are from commercial flights, one EasyJet and one Ryanair. Within a minute or two these trails had also spread out just as much as the older ones next to them.

            Here’s another one from Sunday. Again clearly identified commercial flights, as always. The idea that they don’t show up on flight radar is just 100% totally incorrect. I think the people who use that line just assume that nobody will actually try it for themselves!


  2. Always nice when the flat earthers, bought off scientists and other government shills expose themselves for the cretins that they are.

  3. What do you say from whom? A Carnegie Study?
    Ah, the name Carnegie says it all. Liars they are.
    People had their urine tested before leaving to another location, about four weeks temporarily. A high level of heavy metals was measured in their urine.
    They didn’t know their location was a regular “death dump” by airplanes (thus heavy metals being dumped in the air) .
    After an absence of about four weeks they had their peep tested again directly on return.
    A very low contents of heavy metals had been measured in their urine.
    And we are meaning bloody Chemtrails, the kind of biochemical war the US/CIA is carrying out against humanity. A military project. Full plan and conscious carried out. Remember US for America/Air Force is carring out these “death dumps” now for decades to “control the weather”. Liars.
    To change our DNA, that is what it is.

  4. Westcoastliberal | August 15, 2016 at 4:31 pm | Reply

    Their first mistake was investigating “contrails” and not “chemtrails”. Oops, better luck next time.

  5. Would you trust your leaders to tell you the truth?

    • No, which is why you have to trust replicable independent studies. None of which ever find any evidence for chemtrails.

      • If my dear leaders said there was no GOD (not God nor gods) and they rightly did so because they had studied all of science and determined that there was no proof … sorry, I know better 🙂

        IMnsHO and E (experience) … but to each their own.

        • I would never believe in something as vague and woolly and unprovable as a god. I accept that it is impossible to prove either way, but I see no benefit in believing in what seems to me very likely to be a man-made construct created in antiquity to keep the peasants compliant. As far as I can see, religion causes nothing but misery.

          • I agree with you completely, and that was also my own view … until I actually experienced (personal and primarily subjective) what I took to be God at the time, but when I thoroughly researched the entire field, I came to believe that the man-made institutions (religions) only related to “their” own “version” which is a God or god, not GOD.

          • Todd Burgess | August 16, 2016 at 5:16 pm |

            You are one religiously devout paid disinformant.

          • Well then would you be so kind as to tell me where I can pick up my pay?

          • Just look in the mail. Or, perhaps it’s coming by direct deposit.

  6. ” After identifying 220 contrail experts and 255 atmospheric deposition experts, the researchers narrowed it down to 49 contrail experts and 65 atmospheric deposition, a total of 77 purported experts.”

    How does 49+65 equal 77 ?!?!?!?!?

    i wonder what the ones they cut out would have had to say? Also, did anyone fly through various trails to test the composition of them? Instead of analyzing other’s data, why didn’t they do this type of research directly? If no one is looking for the info, why would they think anyone would have it for them to see?

    Someone needs to go up there and fly some equipment through those trails, many of them, many many times… not sift through other people’s work for an answer people probably haven’t been looking for.

    Also “The results show that 76 0f 77 scientists said they had not encountered evidence of a secret aerosol program.” So what did that one guy have to say then? Not included, conveniently.


    • I thought about the need for collecting samples from behind some of these planes, or at least trying to find out if they are all commercial jets, or military jets, and where they take off and land. This would be a dangerous task to say the least. Somehow, the chemicals need to get on the planes. Some think they are added to jet fuel. Some think they are injected into the exhaust. Can anyone get samples of jet fuel? Can anyone track fly ash or other metals like aluminum or barium to see if 100% of it can be accounted for? The US population would not be happy to discover we are being sprayed. Anyone who gets too close to the truth, if indeed it is occurring, risks being rubbed out. It will require courage and sacrifice.

  7. Carnegie doing science for Rockefeller, tells you this? You buy it?

    I’ve got bridge I can sell you rather cheaply too. Care to write your check for two million dollars? The bridge? Oh it’s in Brooklyn, NY. I actually own it by way of some horse thieving one of my great, great, grandfathers did a while back. You pay me now, I’ll get you the bridge over the next thousand years or so.

  8. Who wrote their report? Snopes?

  9. Thanks Carnegie Science at the University of California Irvine, I can quit worrying about the crap they are not spraying. I’m sure it’s not aluminum and barium nano particulates and other crap.
    The world over can rest assured, there, there kiddies nothing to see. Don’t look up.

    • No, DO LOOK UP. Look up how contrails form. Then stop worrying about ridiculous hoaxes like chemtrails. There are enough real problems to worry about without filling your head with fantasies.

  10. You’d think an organization such as Carnegie Science at UC Irvine would have collected samples and analyzed them according to their own scientific principles instead of just looking at others’ work and criticizing that. Also, if there is such a “weather modification” program it is covert and just asking scientists if they have encountered evidence of such a program is ridiculous. When you see the names Carnegie or Rockefeller involved in any scientific discussion, you should be suspicious of the conclusions they reach.

  11. Why doesn’t someone point a a spectrometer or a spectrophotometer at one to see what elements and compounds are in a chemtrail?
    Of course the U.S. government are doing the pointing, they will conveniently forget the difference between a contrail and chemtrail and give us false information.

  12. thank Gaia for some sense – these well meaning trailers lack the same critical thinking as AGW chaps – great to focus their energy against actual issues e.g. Fuku Flu – fracking – GMOs – there is a lot to go around.

  13. Carnegie and Rockefeller? Good lord this lot are responsible for development of the AIDS virus. They ahve been actively involved with depopulation agenda for years and years! Seen it all now!

  14. What a bunch of absolute total and utter liars! Do they honestly think we are THAT stupid?!

    • The majority of people ARE that stupid and lazy, only listening/watching/reading MSM, and all these “scientists” rely on that.

  15. It took me no time at all to see that this is a deliberately deceptive article, probably placed there to deceive anyone who is still ignorant of the spraying or on the fence about it. The very title contains the word “contrails,” and the article then goes on to use that term almost interchangeably with “chemtrails,” when the two terms describe decidedly different conditions.

    Most (if not all) planes flying at high altitude will leave some degree of “contrail” or trail of condensation. These trails are analogous to what happens when you first start up your automobile on a very cold morning. At first, there is a certain amount of hot air leaving the exhaust pipe that turns atmospheric moisture into steam, so that you have a short trail of steam. The same happens in aircraft, but when you look at the “contrail,” it is only a multiple of the plane’s length — perhaps 10 times (and I admit, this number is just speculation off the top of my head). The contrails soon dissipate into the atmosphere and disappear completely.

    By contrast, the “chemtrails” remain following the aircraft that leave them. Like a plume of smoke, they widen and take on a roughly triangular shape, crossing the entire visible sky, and they remain for hours on end. About 14 paragraphs into this article, there is a photograph that clearly depicts “chemtrails” covering the entire sky visible in the picture.

    Normal condensate trails do not remain in the sky for hours and hours. Nor are these phenomena explainable as “clouds,” which have very definable shapes and movement.

    Never mind the egregious simple arithmetic error pointed out below by Tabbytha (“‘After identifying 220 contrail experts and 255 atmospheric deposition experts, the researchers narrowed it down to 49 contrail experts and 65 atmospheric deposition, a total of 77 purported experts.’ … How does 49+65 equal 77!?”) The article is a piece of total deceptive propaganda.

    • Wow, it’s almost as if people can be experts in more than one field!

      “Normal condensate trails do not remain in the sky for hours and hours”.
      Yes they do, that is why they are called persistent contrails!

      Again we see that the whole chemtrail belief is based on this one misconception. Where did it come from? Who first told people that contrails shouldn’t persist in the sky?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.