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.

 

Methane Blue

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luxordelphi
So what seems worthwhile to me is to somehow avoid those methane skies by, perhaps, stopping jet emissions into the stratosphere.



What Jet emissions are you referring to? Regular flights, or proposed geo-engineering that isn't taking place yet?


I'm referring to stratospheric jet emissions. And to chemtrails, geoengineering on a massive global scale which has totally ruined our climate (at least in the northern hemisphere.) I'm referring to the doddering geniuses that thought trashing our skies was benign and so ok.




posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Methane blue? Wow....now I have seen the depths that ignorance of basic science can take in the forum..

Seriously Lux...clearly, science is beyond you. I have read hundreds of your posts and they are frequently peppered with science that you quote, but obviously fail to understand.

And FYI, the skies are still just just as blue as they have always been. I live in london and we have many many planes at cruising altitude going over the city and guess what...today was gloriously deep blue skies.

My advice? Get some basic education. Then you can stop being scared of clouds and understand why the sky is blue.

Unbelievable...in 2014, with all the internet at their fingertips, that anyone can be this deluded ...



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: luxordelphi

Because, and I'm not trying to insult you here, you are not understanding what you are reading.

Take a look at this picture:



The Rayleigh scattering in opalescent glass makes it look blue, because it is reflecting blue light back.

However, take a look at the light hitting the ground: it's an orange/yellow color.

If our atmosphere had the same concentrations of methane that it had 2.5 billion years ago (thousands of times more than now), the Earth would look very blue from space.

But people on the ground (wearing oxygen tanks because concentrations of methane high enough to change the sky color would kill us) would not see a blue sky. They would see more purple color due to red scatter.

So a deep rich blue sky means that we have lots of oxygen. Guess what color oxygen is when we compress it into a liquid?

Blue.




That is a GORGEOUS photo and example of what we are talking about.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: luxordelphi

I'm referring to stratospheric jet emissions. And to chemtrails, geoengineering on a massive global scale which has totally ruined our climate (at least in the northern hemisphere.) I'm referring to the doddering geniuses that thought trashing our skies was benign and so ok.


So in other words he's referring to mythology and fantasy.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: luxordelphi
a reply to: eriktheawful

Why would Rayleigh only scatter in one direction? In space, where planets are, there is no up or down. If I look through my sunglasses the wrong way, everything looks the same as when I look the right way.

Titan looks the same: inside or out. Earth looks the same: inside or out. You've got me wavering a bit on Neptune because there's no water vapor...only ice. And no free oxygen. Still...compressed ice is blue (without Rayleighs' intervention.)



No one said that Rayleigh happens in only one direction. Where in the world did you get that from?

Does not mater if there is a up or down in space (there isn't). What maters is this:

Are you out in space looking at the planet? Or are you down on it's surface, or sufficiently enough down in it's atmosphere looking back out?

Sunglass lenses made from methane (CH4) are not going to be like your normal sunglasses. That analogy apparently didn't work.

Have you not ever seen a pair of reflective sunglasses? The outside of the lenses are coated with a compound that reflects almost 90% of all light, hence why they look reflective on the outside:



Yet, when you put them on, you are able to see just fine out them.

That is because light is traveling towards your eyes, not the other way around.

Same idea with a planet's atmosphere. Light from the sun is hitting the planet. The first part it hits is it's atmosphere.

If you are in a space ship, looking at the planet, at it's atmosphere is made up of a very large percentage of methane, it will look blue to you. This is because methane reflects blue light. So the blue wavelength of color in the sun's light will be reflected back out into space, and into your eyes.

Now let's say you are standing instead on the planet's surface. The planet's atmosphere is between you and the sun.
It's going to act like a color filter we use on cameras. In this case (large amounts of methane), the gas acts as a filter and does two things:

It reflects blue light, and it absorbs and scatters the red light.

If the entire atmosphere is made up of only methane, then your sky will look redish/orange.

So why does Earth as it is now, and Titan "look the same inside and out" as you put it?

The answer is very simple:

Earth. Atmosphere: 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% everything else. Neither Nitrogen, nor Oxygen when in a gas state reflect any light.. They will absorb and scatter blue light however.
Because neither of the major components of our atmosphere actually reflect visible light, our atmosphere looks mostly transparent when you look at the planet from space.

Titan. Atmosphere: 95% Nitrogen, 4.9% methane, 0.1% other gases and materials.
The majority of Titan's atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, which, again, does not reflect any light. The 4.9% methane does, but, and this is key: it's only 5% of the atmosphere.
That's not enough to have a major enough effect when we look at the moon.
We do see a orange/tan color however, and if you notice, it's hard to see the moon's surface.
That is because of hydrocarbons that are in it's atmosphere. Those are reflecting light back, and it makes the moon's atmosphere look like brown smog.

Here is a true color image of Titan's atmosphere taken by Cassini:



The tan/orange smog, hugs Titan's troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere). As we go up, you can see the actual color of it: Blue.

Why? Because 95% of it's atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, which absorbs and scatters blue light from the sun.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful


Breathtaking (quite literally) picture mate



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

If you're trying to say that the atmosphere on Neptune would act as a filter to create a sky as seen from a 'surface' that would be a different color from the one we see when we look at Neptune from our vantage point: Neptune has an extraordinarily clear atmosphere.

Extraterrestrial skies...Neptune


Judging by the color of its atmosphere, the sky of Neptune is probably an azure or sky blue, similar to Uranus's.


The Color of Air


Neptune could have a somewhat familiar looking sky but with a much deeper blue.


What color is the sky on Neptune? Why?


Judging by the primary chemical composition of the atmosphere of Neptune, you're likely to see a light baby blue not unlike what you would see here on Earth.


If you're trying to say that methane doesn't absorb red and yellow light when it's back-lit: that needs a bit of a re-think. And a 3rd dimension.

I think that your idea about purple skies and my suggestion of the progression to them has merit; mostly as a major global dimming event...starting out slowly.



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

You kind of remind me of the Avon lady of yesteryear. Because you made no contribution to this topic in your post, out of politeness, I'm just responding in non sequitur kind. Should you choose to become topical - feel free.



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: luxordelphi
White-out conditions should be the current norm in our skies because of the (observable) rate at which they are being trashed.


I think you need to explain your reasoning behind that statement and maybe provide some supporting evidence



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: luxordelphi
a reply to: 3danimator2014

You kind of remind me of the Avon lady of yesteryear. Because you made no contribution to this topic in your post, out of politeness, I'm just responding in non sequitur kind. Should you choose to become topical - feel free.



Telling you that you clearly don't understand basic science IS being topical as well as contributing to the post. As for explaining things to you, what's the point? I have read every page of chemtrail posts in the subforum (I'm hooked, you chemmies are a riot) and it's very very clear that you guys have cornered the market in ignoring facts. So I won't waste my time tying to tell where you are going wrong.

Other, more patient, members than me have already given you excellent explanations and you are STILL arguing...no suprises there!
You guys keep going on about the loss of deep blue skies when there clearly are still very deep blue skies everywhere around the world.
Your argument falls flat at the first hurdle. Forget scientific explanations for the colour of our sky (really? you are debating this?), we haven't even reached that point and you are already in the wrong.
edit on 1-9-2014 by 3danimator2014 because: Added more to my post



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014


Telling you that you clearly don't understand basic science IS being topical as well as contributing to the post.


Worth repeating a gazillion times



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: luxordelphi
White-out conditions should be the current norm in our skies because of the (observable) rate at which they are being trashed.


I think you need to explain your reasoning behind that statement and maybe provide some supporting evidence.


My statement: White-out conditions should be the current norm in our skies because of the (observable) rate at which they are being trashed.

This could be summed up in the word 'haze.' Haze could further be demoted to a subjective statistical sort of measure by changing the parameters of air quality particulates to a point where 'good' or 'moderate' air quality is no longer verifiable by observation. And by simply removing the category 'excellent.'

Atmospheric waters are further muddied by claims that the impact of aviation on climate is poorly understood which translates into: not really scrutinized.

Also poorly understood is the inclination; predisposition in human beings to see blue (as opposed to violet.)

And then there's the expectation of what should be seen which tends to cancel out what is actually seen.

What Color is Your Sky?


Have you looked at the sky recently? If so, what color was it? If you don’t know, you’re not alone, for it’s common for people not to notice the sky, much less its color. This activity will explain why the sky is not always blue.



Sometimes thick pollution causes the sky to appear white, but a clean sky is blue.



In many places air pollution causes haze that causes the sky to appear pale blue or even milky white. Layers of air pollution can cause the sky over the horizon to appear brown or gray. Air pollution can take many forms. It can be gases and vapors, mists and droplets or tiny particles of carbon or other materials.



The color of the sky provides valuable clues about its condition.



A deep blue color means a very clean sky. A deep blue sky can occur when a cold front brings in clean, unpolluted air from the north. A deep blue sky can also occur when clean air from over the ocean is pushed over the land.



A medium blue sky suggests there might be plenty of water vapor in the sky. It can also suggest the presence of sulfur from coal burning power plants. In some regions a medium blue or even pale blue sky can be caused by emissions from plants and trees.



A pale or milky white sky suggests the possibility of considerable air pollution in the form of sulfur from coal-burning power plants or certain chemical plants. In some areas this condition occurs mainly in summer when the air is still and pollution accumulates.



The GLOBE Program has developed a general classification guide for sky color:

Deep blue (unusually clear)
Blue (clear)
Light blue (somewhat hazy)
Pale blue (very hazy)
Milky (extremely hazy)


What is described here as 'Deep blue' used to actually be the norm and was not due to a cold front nor was it due to proximity to the ocean.

It was an observation (now) several days ago that prompted this thread. The sky was patchy with clouds and these clouds themselves were patchy. In between the sky looked almost black - it was such a dark blue. Part of this was the contrast with white clouds but there was no cold front nor was there any ocean breeze. Mostly the sky here in summer has become very hazy (pale blue) to extremely hazy (milky) with an occasional silvery white sky.




edit on 1-9-2014 by luxordelphi because: no post



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014




You guys keep going on about the loss of deep blue skies when there clearly are still very deep blue skies everywhere around the world.


Why not read what NASA has to say about deep blue?

What Color is Your Sky?


Deep blue (unusually clear)


I always liked the Avon lady. First off...she always wore pink. Second...nothing ever seemed to phase her. She existed in a world of her own and didn't seem impacted by real events at all. Even if you told her you were terminally ill, she was prepared with a statement about the newest lipstick colors.

Thought you might like to know how the communist regime in China deals with the blue sky issue. Kind of interesting.

Beijing's blue skies...or little white lies?


edit on 1-9-2014 by luxordelphi because: they just tell their people the sky is blue and that's the end of it


...and a quote from that article:


“Ordinary people can feel that the air is bad, and see that the sky isn’t blue,” says Meng Si. “When you see that gap for youself, it’s easy to feel disgusted that the government is treating us like idiots.”

edit on 1-9-2014 by luxordelphi because: in case you feel daunted by the length of the article

edit on 1-9-2014 by luxordelphi because: I still have 97 more minutes to edit



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi


Lux. I can't answer you properly now as I am in bed and on my phone. But I think i can safely assume that you read some science on Nasas Web site and either didn't get it and think it's backing your ideas up or you are twisting what is being written to try to convince us.

I'll see which one tomorrow.

Regarding the Avon lady..i have no idea what you are getting at. Are you trying to insult me? I don't get it.


Either way, I'm sure even your old Avon lady might have had a more solid grasp of basic ( and it really is badic) science than you.

Now...you might be trying to insult me because I am "new"...except I'm not. I have been reading chemmies delusional posts for years. I have quite probably read every post I this sub forum. I know your replies and how you think and your manner of arguing very very well.

It's only now...With chemtrail devotees ignorance running at an all time low (or high?) that i feel compelled to comment.

Have a good night. And incidentaly, China big cities have a level of pollution that is above and beyond anything anywhere in the States will get. I have no doubt their skies are mike white. No doubt at all

edit on 1-9-2014 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

So you think white-out conditions should be the current norm in our skies based on nothing more than your opinion. Got it. Thanks



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
anyone who actually believes that :

" methane is turning our skies blue "

realy REALY needs to look up 2 pieces of information :

1 - the refractive index of methane gas

2 - the LEL [ lower explosive limit ] of methane gas

hint I have supplied neither value - despite the fact I can answer the second from memory - just to make you do some basic research

PS - the " jumping jack flash " delusion - I refuse to even call it a hypotheis - its that fooking retarded - is one of my benchmarks for detecting idiots



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: luxordelphi

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luxordelphi
So what seems worthwhile to me is to somehow avoid those methane skies by, perhaps, stopping jet emissions into the stratosphere.



What Jet emissions are you referring to? Regular flights, or proposed geo-engineering that isn't taking place yet?


I'm referring to stratospheric jet emissions. And to chemtrails, geoengineering on a massive global scale which has totally ruined our climate (at least in the northern hemisphere.) I'm referring to the doddering geniuses that thought trashing our skies was benign and so ok.


You mean contrails and clouds?



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

so, I read your links....and? What I took from them is that pollution can affect the colour of the sky. As we all already knew.

Just to reiterate, no one is suggesting that persistent contrails font have the capacity yo turn into cirrus clouds and make the day slightly milky. Would we all prefer 100% deep blue skies all the time? Sure. But persistent contrails are with us to stay. And after all, they are just a form of clouds. Nothing nefarious.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

No...I'm not trying to insult you with Avon et al; just trying to get you to see a contrast here and the end result of Pollyanna ways. And kind of a down home view of the corporate (for public consumption) mind set when it comes to the environment.

Still...I appreciate your kind of keeping the thread going because judging by today's contributions there are still some things of interest to discuss here.

And to me it's interesting that European and UK and American and Canadian capitalism sort of moved all their polluting interests to China. Interesting also how you seem to think that the atmosphere over Chinese cities just sits there and doesn't mingle globally.

And I'll take your last post as a concession because 'slightly milky' is at least a move in a realistic direction.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: luxordelphi

So you think white-out conditions should be the current norm in our skies based on nothing more than your opinion. Got it. Thanks


My deduction is based on thin cirri which is barely quantifiable. And on the 290 + MT of water vapor annually being dumped into the stratosphere by aviation. I gave you a simple explanation (classed for ages 11 and up) based on simple observation and the subtle change to standards.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join