Maybe the rain

Over at Chemtrails North NZ, Clare Swinney makes the claim that

Evidence suggests that rain clouds approaching Northland are being handicapped by human intervention, probably, in part, to promote the perception of “climate change.”

…and provides evidence of this by posting some satellite imagery of cloud cover covered in arrows pointing to (supposedly) man-made ‘holes’, which are (presumably) evidence of manipulation.

Putting aside the problem that the water in these holes still has to go somewhere, and that there’s still millions of tonnes of water left in the remaining cloud cover, the main problem with Clare’s argument is that her main point…

Rainfall levels appear to being reduced significantly.

…is plain wrong. Here’s the last two years of rainfall data from Whangarei Airport, measured against the historical average.


In fact, in the last five months, rainfall figures have been above or about average. June, July and August were really wet: double the average.  Before that March/April/May were drier than usual (May especially so), but that was after a wet February. And before that, a dry January, and a slightly above-average December. In other words, natural variability at play. There’s certainly no way you could make the argument that rainfall levels have been ‘reduced significantly’.

Well, I suppose you could, but…

Infrasonic undulations

…would be a good name for a band, I reckon.

That aside, it nearly beggars belief that ‘chemtrail’ believer William Remi has lived in Canterbury for any amount of time without ever having seen lenticular clouds. But, apparently, this is the case.

Lenticular clouds

William even goes on to say that the clouds formed on a day when Canterbury’s fabled Nor’wester was blowing, the classic conditions in which this phenomenon most commonly occurs (see here and here for the science, and MetVUW has lots of photos of it in their excellent gallery archives).

Colourless clouds?

This time it’s cirrus

I saw colours in it too, which one does not see in natural cloud material.

So sayeth Clare, when trying to argue that some cirrus clouds she saw on the 18th of October were, in fact, human-manufactured ‘aerosol material’.

Now, I’m not sure when refraction and iridescence stopped working in Clare’s universe, but the effect of sunlight passing through clouds and creating various colours is well-understood, often observed, and perfectly natural

A google image search reveals dozens of pictures of this phenomenon.

It’s also helpfully pointed out that the clouds in question are, in fact, normally-occurring cirrus. Surely a quick squizz at the satellite picture for that day (also provided to Clare) would certainly suggest that this is the case…

lots and lots of cirrus

Given the length and breadth of the cloud system — stretching from north of Northland, to (at least) the coast off the Wairarapa — you’d think that had this been a human operation, that it would have taken many many planes to have laid down this ‘aerosol material’. Clare saw these clouds in the morning, so, logically, the planes doing the ‘spraying’ must have been operating throughout the early hours of that day (between midnight and 6am) to have achieved that level of coverage.

So, where did these planes come from? Where did they land? Did anyone see or hear them? Can you take-off and land that many planes in NZ airspace at that time of the night and early morning without alerting someone, somewhere that something strange is going on?

Apparently so!

Errrrr, what?

…is, I imagine, the reaction that will be given to Rod Baker’s letter to Nick Smith, reproduced here over at Clare’s.

Because I’ve read through it a couple of times now, and am still not completely au fait with what Mr Baker is getting at. Particularly that last paragraph (with its fantastic non sequitur, that has Nick Smith agreeing with whatever it is that’s been suggested through the mere act of not replying). “Transfer of ions to the solar wind”? “[D]arker clouds [forming] from ionized heavy metals”? WTF?

Could someone with a more scientific bent (or just a bent of any type?) please interpret for us lay-people? Ta.