It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Methane Blue

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:24 PM
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Your post is very interesting. The lower explosive limit for methane gas is: 4.4%. Also, I guess I should mention the conflagration triangle: oxygen; heat; fuel.

Neptune's atmosphere is 1.5% methane.

Now what?

(You will please explain why you think that the speed of light in a vacuum is germane to this discussion.)

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 04:07 PM

originally posted by: network dude

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?

Haze sounds like a really harmless thing. It sounds like a really natural thing. It is neither.

Haze Over the Central and Eastern United States

Summarizing the results of various studies dating to the mid-1970s, the microphysical basis of haze is described, with emphasis on the fact that a large component of haze appears to be anthropogenic.

Haze, however, does more than limit visibility and impair health. The same airborne compounds resposible for haze also produce acid rain (Urone and Schroeder 1978, Husar 1990). As a result, haze is linked to the acid precipitation-induced demise of Douglas fir trees in the eastern United States (Mitchell 1994), as well as to the accelerated crumbling of concrete, mortar, and statuary.

Numerous studies have shown that clouds that form in hazy air, on average, produce less rainfall than those that evolve in less contaminated environments (Monastersky 1992). In addition, when present in patches or bands, haze can affect the strength and distribution of surface heating. In this manner, haze can subsequently influence patterns of convective development and regional precipitation (e..g, Lyons 1980).

Evidence also is mounting that haze plays a significant role in determining the global energy balance, since it not only diminishes the amount of solar energy reaching the surface, but also reduces the rate at which the atmosphere radiates longwave energy to space (Ball and Robinson 1982, Penner et al. 1994). One study concluded that because of haze, some parts of the eastern United States experience an annual solar radiation deficit of about 7.5% (Ball and Robinson 1982). A more recent estimate by William Chameides of the Georgia Institute of Technology (Raloff 1999) suggests that the reduction of photosysnthesis due to haze in China could be robbing that country of more grain than the entire nation imports.

Haze can hinder severe weather spotting, as demonstrated by this pair of photographs of supercell thunderstorms viewed from similar distances...

The reduction in visual quality caused by haze, however, is more than cosmetic. Campbell (1983), Evans and Cohen (1987), and Zeidner and Shechter (1988) all indicate that poor visual air quality causes heightened levels of anxiety, tension and depression in humans. In a similar study, Jones and Bogat (1978) linked increased interpersonal aggression and hostility to reductions in visual air quality.

This article concerns itself mostly with sulphur dioxide although a number of different aerosols can produce haze. Sulphur dioxide is a good place to start, though, because even this article is afraid to touch aviation (because of their strong lobby.) And jet engine combustion produces particles small enough to contribute to haze.

There's an interesting component to this article that touches on the purely visual and explains the why's and wherefore's behind that.

In contrast to the scattering of sunlight by air molecules, the scattering produced by hygroscopic sulfate aerosols is not wavelength-dependent. Because such particles are comparable in size to the wavelength of light, the scattering they produce is a complex function of particle size and wavelength. If the aerosols are all the same size, the sky might take on a faint red or blue hue depending on the size of the aerosols and on whether the part of the sky being viewed is seen by scattered or transmitted light. But if a range of aerosol sizes exists, as is most often the case, no particular color is favored and the sky appears white (reflecting a loss of spectral purity in the scattered light). In addition, because the aerosols represent a net increase in the total number of particles that naturally would be present in the atmosphere, the tendency for whitening is further increased. These extra particles also enhance the atmospheric absorption (attenuation) of sunlight --- and therefore reduce the amount of light that reaches the ground. This effect is most notable at sunrise or sunset and is responsible for the early fading of the sun noted in Figure 1.

So this post is long enough - read the article if you're interested. Milky blue skies are trashed skies.

edit on 2-9-2014 by luxordelphi because: why does spell check on ATS want to use the UK spelling for sulphur???!!!

You will perhaps begin to understand why the volcano sulphur thing is always so annoying to me.
edit on 2-9-2014 by luxordelphi because: one more edit just for you

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 04:16 PM
a reply to: luxordelphi

What about cloud cover? It's the same thing. If a storm front is coming in, you are going to have to deal with a non blue sky. While it's sad and all, it's also life. The contrails are man made, but they are unavoidable with today's airline flights. As far as your geo-engineering, once there is some sort of scientific indication that it's happening, I'll stick to the idea that it's not what you see up there in the sky.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 03:06 AM
So, just to make sure we're all on the same page here:

If the sky's white, it's chemtrails.
If the sky's blue, it's chemtrails.
If the sky's covered with clouds, it's chemtrails (and maybe HAARP too!)


new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in