It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Contrails *do* influence the weather, here is proof by NASA

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Was it necessary to insult me, Surfer?

By the way.. I've looked at ContrailScience and Metabunk. I notice several people have gone to posting those links in the last week. Any particular reason why that's suddenly become a favored site to share just recently?




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: kimar
Just further proof of the existence of chemtrails.

It is wise to ignore anything from the contrail science site. It is an unscientific site created by an admitted hobbyist.


Well the site owner invites any corrections you have to offer. Feel free.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


By the way.. I've looked at ContrailScience and Metabunk. I notice several people have gone to posting those links in the last week. Any particular reason why that's suddenly become a favored site to share just recently?


I think those sites have been referenced for some time now in various threads. That would have to be checked of course



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
In regards to the OP, and their intent...

Yes, I too believe that contrails influence our weather. The links provided prove alterations to temperatures on specific dates where there were no flights or contrails at all. I believe there was only one time recently that the atmosphere could be studied without the influence of contrails and that was during the days post 9-11.

So, as we can all probably agree, we are affecting the weather...whether we like it or not.





posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Oh... I've been watching this forum very carefully since January. I am positive the recent increase for posting that website is very much real and noticeable. A few folks have suddenly found it to be a favorite to cite. I'm just wondering what about those two URL's make for such a popular citation above others. I've seen them linked several times now in just a few days time.

Heck.. I'd never even heard of Metabunk until this week..now I've seen it in two posts this morning alone.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Metabunk is a very good site. It has lots of knowledgable people, including many pilots, and no patience for woo and pseudoscience.


Naturally, this angers the chemtrailers, who have been slandering Mick West, who runs it, as a "disinfo agent" for years:

Link

That's from 2012.

You have to ask, what is in it for the chemtrailers that they get so offensive when people present science in a rational manner,

They are terrified that their gravy train will get derailed.
edit on 4-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Metabunk is a discussion board from what I read with a some time on it earlier this week. A discussion board much like this one...so I've been a bit confused in seeing it shown as a primary source. Nothing wrong with the site....just not what I'm used to seeing quoted for source purposes.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: havok
a reply to: Rob48

As I understand it, and from the article I read....there was an increase in temperature for those three days compared to the average daily (diurnal) temperature. So they averaged it from the three days before and three days after the time period and saw an increase.

What did I miss?




You missed the highlighted words.


The change in the temperature difference was plus 1.1 degree Celsius, equal to plus 2 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 30-year long-term mean diurnal temperature range.


The temperature RANGE increased. The temperature didn't.

Example, purely for illustration, not actual numbers:

Day 1: max 78, min 59. Range is 19 degrees. Average is 68.5.

Day 2: max 79, min 57. Range is 22 degrees. Average is 68.

The range is higher on Day 2, but the average temperature is lower.

The paper is talking about the DIURNAL RANGE.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48




You have to ask, what is in it for the chemtrailers that they get so offensive when people present science in a rational manner,

They are terrified that their gravy train will get derailed.


Who are the chemtrailers you're speaking of? The ones designing the SRM systems or the pilots and crew?

I have to wonder what's in it for the skeptics who constantly berate people who never even bring up the topic of chemtrails.

People will discuss geoengineering and how contrails effect the weather and still get insulted by someone.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

By "chemtrailers" I mean people who claim there is such a thing as chemtrails. Which there categorically is not. Cloud seeding? Yes. SRM? Theoretically yes, but NEVER done on a large scale basis to date. Contrails? Yes, and yes they do affect our weather.

This thread is a perfect example.

Simple studies of the effect of ordinary contrails on temperature ranges (including a very simple study after 9/11 which nevertheless has been badly misconstrued on here) are being presented as some kind of evidence for "chemtrails".

Contrails increase cloud cover. Cloud cover affects temperature ranges. That is very simple science and not in any way anything to do with "chemtrails", or nefarious spraying of anything.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000




Was it necessary to insult me, Surfer?

By the way.. I've looked at ContrailScience and Metabunk. I notice several people have gone to posting those links in the last week. Any particular reason why that's suddenly become a favored site to share just recently?



Where did I insult you, all I did was tell you when the last time I saw a blue day. You said it was 9/12/2001 and I was just pointing out you should get out more if you haven't seen one since then.

If you take that as an insult I can't help you there.

Also it isn't a favored site as just recently, you just haven't had much time in this forum.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Surfer.... If the date didn't ring as something of meaning to you...Those of us who were adults when the towers fell all likely recall the days following it.

There was a near 100% and total stand down of *ALL* air traffic across the Continental United States. So, that period stands out as distinct, unique, and separate from just about any period going back to the advent of commercial flight or since in terms of skies over this nation being almost totally devoid of anything man made in the air at all.

Those were some of the brightest and clearest skies or days I recall in my lifetime. It was startling for the difference over those short days, when a once in a lifetime event caused the skies to literally be emptied by order of the Government.

As it happened, for getting out, I was an Owner/Operator on Sept 12th, and trying my damndest to make money that would cover the near $2 diesel that day brought, up from prices under $1 I'd filled tanks with on Sept 10th in Georgia. Quite a shock..but all the time in the world to be 'out' and enjoy the skies as they existed for that short window of time.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67




The ones designing the SRM systems or the pilots and crew?


First, please show that SRM is happening, and then please show anything that shows this type of system is being designed, because as of this post all anything involving that is still in computer modeling and nothing in the field.




I have to wonder what's in it for the skeptics who constantly berate people who never even bring up the topic of chemtrails.


You may want to read some more of these chemtrail threads and see who does the most berating...shill and paid troll are the two favorites of the chemtrail believer crowd.



People will discuss geoengineering and how contrails effect the weather and still get insulted by someone.


Please refer to my reply above.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48



Theoretically yes, but NEVER done on a large scale basis to date.


So then when we agree that SRM tests are being done on a small scale.

Good, we're finally making progress.




Simple studies of the effect of ordinary contrails on temperature ranges (including a very simple study after 9/11 which nevertheless has been badly misconstrued on here) are being presented as some kind of evidence for "chemtrails".




Well it was proposed in so many SRM documents.

Like this one for example....


Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming


2.2. Delivery mechanism
Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where
cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material
could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel
and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol,
or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should
vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as
aerosol in the jet contrail.
The objective would not be to seed
specific cloud systems but rather to build up a background
concentration of aerosol seeding material so that the air masses
that cirrus will form in will contain the appropriate amount
of seeding material to produce larger ice crystals. Since the
residence time of seeding material might be on the order of
1–2 weeks, release rates of seeding material would need to
account for this. With the delivery process already existing,
this geoengineering approach may be less expensive than other
proposed approaches.

edit on 4-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000




Surfer.... If the date didn't ring as something of meaning to you...Those of us who were adults when the towers fell all likely recall the days following it.



Really, why the insult?

Pot meet Kettle.




As it happened, for getting out, I was an Owner/Operator on Sept 12th, and trying my damndest to make money that would cover the near $2 diesel that day brought, up from prices under $1 I'd filled tanks with on Sept 10th in Georgia. Quite a shock..but all the time in the world to be 'out' and enjoy the skies as they existed for that short window of time.


And with that you are still trying to say you haven't seen a blue sky since then, and when I say that you may want to get out more it is because some of who are adults have seen more than our fair share of blue skies since then.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




You may want to read some more of these chemtrail threads and see who does the most berating...shill and paid troll are the two favorites of the chemtrail believer crowd.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Sometimes it's a duck .



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67




If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Sometimes it's a duck .


And you talk about insults...Classic.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

What would be the benefit to people like me spending time and effort trying to educate people and stop them getting scammed?

The only people putting out disinformation are the chemtrail merchants. All I am doing is trying to share a bit of science.

It's the same reason I've made dozens of posts in the Apollo moon hoax thread. Trying to make even one person see through the lies they have been fed by scammers.
edit on 4-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Let me first straight-out say I am not believing into "chemtrails" whatsoever but I just found something astonishing which I really didn't know:

Check

www.nasa.gov...


This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975
...

This is correct. While contrails are just contrails (i.e., they are not CHEMtrails), it has been commonly known for several decades that contrails can effect weather -- and possibly even climate.

I remember growing up in the early 1970s near a rural area -- so rural that our local TV station had farm reports (just like the news, but about farming). I still remember that those farm reports would often discuss how the proliferation of the jet age and the contrails that come with it has led to contrail-created clouds, and how those contrail clouds can affect the amount of sunlight (something that was important to farmers).

The reason I remember is two-fold -- I (like many kids) was interested in aviation, so news reports about high-flying jets interested me. In addition, I had a really good science teacher back in the 1970s who was also interested in aviation -- and he would have class discussions about how contrails form and how they can create clouds.


edit on 7/4/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The reason I remember is two-fold -- I (like many kids) was interested in aviation, so news reports about high-flying jets interested me. In addition, I had a really good science teacher back in the 1970s who was also interested in aviation -- and he would have class discussions about how contrails form and how they can create clouds.


Wow, the disinformation campaign was happening 40 years ago!

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


As astonishing as it may sound, we are witnessing a full-blown disinformation/re-education campaign against the children of the United States. They are being taught that chemical aerosols (geoengineering/”chemtrails”) being sprayed from jets are “harmless water vapor”.

...

This textbook is being used to teach children that chemical aerosols are harmless water vapor “condensation trails”, but this is blatantly false. Jet engines do not produce condensation trails except under extremely rare conditions, and these will be too short and too high to be seen from the group. In fact, most people will never see a true condensation trail in their entire lives.



And people on here really have the brass neck to claim that chemtrailers don't lie and make ludicrous claims?

"Most people will never see a true condensation trail in their entire lives"? More days than not I can see several dozen by sitting in my garden with a beer for half an hour.




top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join