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.

 

Go Fund Me- Chemtrail testing?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: R3zn8D

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: R3zn8D

I just watched the video you linked and you have a lot of facts that are true. It seems you just have some confusion on a few things, or I do.

First off, cloud seeding, it's done by small planes or rockets and it involves putting silver iodide or dry ice into an existing cloud that has potential to cause rain. Calling contrails cloud seeing is incorrect. I get that you have some official source for that, but (in my understanding) it's not at all the same thing.

Carbon suit, yet, it's one of the things that comes out of the plane exhaust. I wonder, have you looked at the amount that comes from a plane as opposed to the amount that comes from a car, or a truck? I just want you to understand which battle needs more attention. If you are against pollution (which I think everyone is) then, focusing on the biggest producers and working your way down, may be a better use of resources. (IMHO)



Carbon black soot is a cloud condensation nuclei, water sticks to the soot and makes clouds. Clouds are persisting likely due to exotic microemulsions attaching to the soot, or nanoparticle additives are acting as CCN.

I've written extensively on commercial clouds seeding using silver iodide, lead iodide, urea (fertilizer), CO2 (dry ice), and all the rest:
TOC: climateviewer.com...

Weather Modification Corporations, Universities, and Derivative Traders
climateviewer.com...

The History of Cloud Seeding: From Pluviculture to Hurricane Hacking
climateviewer.com...

Hurricane Hacking: The Department of Homeland Security enters the weather modification business
climateviewer.com...

"Calling contrails cloud seeing is incorrect."
Inadvertant cloud seeding is what the weather modification association and the american meteorological society call it:

Stratocumulus Decks – labs for inadvertent & planned cloud seeding (contrails, ship tracks)
www.youtube.com...

Simulation results of unintentional aircraft-induced cloud clearing
www.youtube.com...

Inadvertent Cloud Seeding – Hole Punch and Canal Clouds
www.youtube.com...

Aircraft-induced Hole Punch and Canal clouds – Inadvertent Cloud Seeding
journals.ametsoc.org...

Observations of a glaciating hole-punch cloud
arxiv.org...

Of course, contrails are modifying the weather and climate, likely MORE than commercial seeding:

On The Climate response to Cirrus Cloud Seeding (2015)
ams.confex.com...

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WEATHER MODIFICATION BY AIRCRAFT CONTRAILS 1970
docs.lib.noaa.gov...

Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy 1974 (CARBON BLACK) digitool.library.colostate.edu...


I wonder, have you looked at the amount that comes from a plane as opposed to the amount that comes from a car, or a truck?

Trucks aren't making clouds that trap heat and make acid rain, among other things.

If you are against pollution (which I think everyone is) then, focusing on the biggest producers and working your way down, may be a better use of resources.

I have, in fact, I mapped the world's largest polluters in 3D (Google Earth):
climateviewer.com...

Click Pollution



Heap of stuff there, and of course the heavier-than-air-Co2 is much closer to the ground...when it's on the ground.
Now this guy I mentioned in an earlier post, want's to geo-engineer from the air above, airplanes will do nicely thank you, says Keith. N.D. kindly pointed out that he also has a relationship with Bill Gates.
So here's a video of Keith trying to succour or sucker a presenter on the UK's 'Hard Talk' a while back. It might also be a good idea to follow Keith's cloud since that.

Anyway, the video.



BTW, and important, practically everywhere this video is on Youtube or elsewhere Stephen Sackur is credited with this interview, (and that includes the BBC itself see below) it is not Stephen Sackur, it is Tim Franks and one of the best 'Hard talk' interviews I have seen. Food for thought?





Better image,
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Tim Franks,

edit on 9-4-2015 by smurfy because: Text.




posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: R3zn8D


2. Define "leaders."

Define "chemtrails".

ETA: How does


Contrails trap heat
become


The ICAO has presenters discussing taking advantage of contrails to cool the planet, therefore, THIS IS GEOENGINEERING! Contrails used to cool the planet, WITH INTENT See last slide:
?

I looked at the last slide here www.icao.int... . It implies that less soot might produce trails with negative RF(?). If that's even true, how nefarious would it be to mitigate the RF of contrails by LOWERING the amount of soot in the exhaust?

edit on 9-4-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bedunda


Test your blood for Barium, Strontium and Aluminium.

Great idea because anything in your blood was sprayed from an airplane.

Thanks to a recent a1c test, I've discovered those insidious bastards have been spraying me with glucose.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: R3zn8D


On The Climate response to Cirrus Cloud Seeding (2015) ams.confex.com...

From your link:

Here, we present a global modeling study of a so far understudied CEM, namely the seeding of cirrus clouds to reduce their lifetimes in the upper troposphere, and hence their greenhouse effect. Different from most CEMs, the intention of cirrus seeding is not to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth's surface. This particular CEM rather targets the greenhouse effect, by reducing the trapping of infrared radiation by high clouds.


Do you think they're basically 'spraying' cirrus clouds from planes to reduce existing cirrus clouds?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: R3zn8D


On The Climate response to Cirrus Cloud Seeding (2015) ams.confex.com...

From your link:

Here, we present a global modeling study of a so far understudied CEM, namely the seeding of cirrus clouds to reduce their lifetimes in the upper troposphere, and hence their greenhouse effect. Different from most CEMs, the intention of cirrus seeding is not to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth's surface. This particular CEM rather targets the greenhouse effect, by reducing the trapping of infrared radiation by high clouds.


Do you think they're basically 'spraying' cirrus clouds from planes to reduce existing cirrus clouds?


No sir,
For sixty years, planes have been creating clouds.

2007 spreading contrail RF completely unknown...
2011 trapping heat may be serious problem
2013 we better get rid of soot, add more sulfur

In 2015 we surpassed 100,000 flights per day globally, now all the talk in the scientific circles is "use biofuels to reduce contrails" "thin contrail cirrus"

They are actively experimenting with localized cooling using the Aviation Environment Design Toolkit (AEDT) and trying to save the aviation industry from massive carbon taxes. If they can cool the planet with contrails they hope to get carbon credits, imagine my lack of surprise.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: R3zn8D
Define "chemtrails".



Chemtrails and the Lies between the Lines
climateviewer.com...




  1. Chemtrails are invisible, contrails are filled with chemtrails, the two words can be synonymous, and do not necessarily have to be associated with depopulation conspiracies.
  2. “Chemtrail conspiracy believers” and “debunkers” are not discussing the real-world implications of aviation pollution.
  3. The Geoengineers want to make clouds.
  4. The US. Air Force wants to make clouds.
  5. The Cloud-Seeders need clouds.
  6. There are man-made clouds everywhere


The next time someone tells you, they know this or that about contrails/chemtrails, tell them:

“The scientists are still scratching their heads, why are you so damn confident?” [30]:
www.istc.illinois.edu...

edit on 4/10/2015 by R3zn8D because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: R3zn8D

  1. Chemtrails are invisible, contrails are filled with chemtrails, the two words can be synonymous, and do not necessarily have to be associated with depopulation conspiracies.



Arg! you are one of "those" people!
I think we are done here.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: R3zn8D
Contrails trap heat and are the single largest unknown in the IPCC reports:
Chemtrails Explained: The Geoengineering SRM Field Experiment

Watch on Youtube
www.youtube.com...

IPCC 5th Assessment, Clouds and Aerosols: Supplementary Material 2007
www.ipcc.ch...

Coordinating Lead Authors:
Olivier Boucher (France), David Randall (USA)
Lead Authors:
Paulo Artaxo (Brazil), Christopher Bretherton (USA), Graham Feingold (USA), Piers Forster (UK), Veli-Matti Kerminen (Finland), Yutaka Kondo (Japan), Hong Liao (China), Ulrike Lohmann (Switzerland), Philip Rasch (USA), S.K. Satheesh (India), Steven Sherwood (Australia), Bjorn Stevens (Germany), Xiao-Ye Zhang (China)
Contributing Authors:
Govindasamy Bala (India), Nicolas Bellouin (UK), Angela Benedetti (UK), Sandrine Bony (France), Ken Caldeira (USA), Anthony Del Genio (USA), Maria Cristina Facchini (Italy), Mark Flanner (USA), Steven Ghan (USA), Claire Granier (France), Corinna Hoose (Germany), Andy Jones (UK), Makoto Koike (Japan), Ben Kravitz (USA), Benjamin Laken (Spain), Matthew Lebsock (USA), Natalie Mahowald (USA), Gunnar Myhre (Norway), Colin O’Dowd (Ireland), Alan Robock (USA), Bjørn Samset (Norway), Hauke Schmidt (Germany), Michael Schulz (Norway), Graeme Stephens (USA), Philip Stier (UK), Trude Storelvmo (USA), Dave Winker (USA), Matthew Wyant (USA)
[names in bold are Geoengineering SRM advocates]

According to these fine scientists and geoengineering dudes, we really have no clue how much sun is currently being blocked or reflected by contrails, let alone how they are formed, allegedly.

We further assess the 90% uncertainty range to be +0.02 to +0.15 W m–2 to take into account the large uncertainties associated with spreading rate, optical depth, ice particle shape and radiative transfer. A low confidence is attached to this estimate.
www.ipcc.ch...

The Bottom Line

The only difference between these contrail RF studies and the list of “official” geoengineering SRM field experiments is the scientists in the experiment didn’t have to pay for the planes.

One experiment used a helicopter and car to make clouds
another used planes and boats to make clouds
one wanted to use boats and blimps to make clouds
the last used salt flares to make clouds
The only thing left for an experiment to be considered a geoengineering SRM experiment, according to Jack Doughty’s definition, is to stand under some man-made clouds and measure how much sunlight was blocked.

Every single contrail RF study fits the definition, is a geoengineering SRM field project, and is “the project that shall not be mentioned.”

The ICAO has presenters discussing taking advantage of contrails to cool the planet, therefore, THIS IS GEOENGINEERING!

Contrails used to cool the planet, WITH INTENT See last slide:
www.icao.int...
Recent research results on the climate impact of contrail cirrus and mitigation options, Ulrich Schumann, 2010
#Winning



So is that a yes or no to the Go Fund Me campaign?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: R3zn8D


Chemtrails are invisible

Then you're in the wrong thread, bro. Perhaps you could push your convoluted and heretical (in the view of the chemmunity) ideas in a more appropriate thread.

"Look up", LOL.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
How peculiar... A conclusive experiment appears to threaten some people... I wonder why..



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude


What would it take to prove chemtrails are either real, or a paranoid delusion? From all I have seen here, the only real way to do this is to fly up and test a trail that everyone agrees fits the narrative of a chemtrail.

Jet exhaust can be measured in static tests on the ground… if the rotors are turning the fuel is burning.


Why is it that you are against all the debunkers here? You seem to have a hangup with the pollution. we all do. Some of us just understand that until you develop anti-gravity, planes will probably still be used. I think it's great that you don't drive or contribute to the worlds problem. But you do realize that quite a few people still drive right? I just would think that rather than hate on the airlines for their minuscule part in the worlds pollution, you could rally against say, coal fired power plants, or steel smelting operations. It's like sending out the army to kill a mosquito. Effective, but silly and misguided.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


I just would think that rather than hate on the airlines for their minuscule part in the worlds pollution…

There it is, true colors…


you could rally against say, coal fired power plants, or steel smelting operations

I have and I just did to remind all that industrial pollution (including jet exhaust) are the larger problem source, not miniscule. Nice reverse argument.

I included my solution of not owning a car to show its a personal choice to be or not be a part of the problem.

All of it runs on petroleum which the west is waging aggressive war over. But lets talk chemtrails. I guess thornorthwinds was right.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Do you have some numbers to back that up? How much pollution comes from airlines as opposed to ground transportation?

And please, don't try to be that coy super smart guy who thinks he can insinuate some agenda by "reading between the lines".

I honestly am not in the pollution fight. Of the "rights of the airlines" for that matter. It's just frustrating to have this conspiracy being pulled in so many nonsensical directions out of idiocy and misunderstanding. I don't like the idiots who point to a contrails and scream chemtrail. I will argue that SRM portion of Geo-engineering doesn't seem to be happening now, but I fully expect it to take place at some point. (unless we find that we aren't all going to burst into flames by next year)

You don't seem to be a chemtrail screamer. So why the hate?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: R3zn8D


Chemtrails are invisible,


so why do all leading chemtrail claim proponents alledge that " chemtrail spraying " is visible

watch any of the vids by chemtail proponents



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude


I just would think that rather than hate on the airlines for their minuscule part in the worlds pollution…

There it is, true colors…



And yet with all those variables, scientists can still give us an approximate percentage of the air pollution produced by cars in the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, motor vehicles produce roughly one-half of pollutants like VOCs, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Seventy-five percent of carbon monoxide emissions come from automobiles. In urban areas, harmful automotive emissions are responsible for anywhere between 50 and 90 percent of air pollution. All told, that's quite a lot of air pollution coming from our vehicles.

auto.howstuffworks.com...

My point to the minuscule part is per capita. A plane that carries 100 passengers is better and pollutes much less than 100 passengers all driving their own cars to the same destination. It's like mass transit. A much better idea that individual transportation. Or am I wrong on that?


ETA: Good lord I almost forgot about Cow Farts! Where is the outrage on that!!!!!
edit on 10-4-2015 by network dude because: added stupid theory to go along with the other one.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
What would it take to prove chemtrails are either real, or a paranoid delusion? From all I have seen here, the only real way to do this is to fly up and test a trail that everyone agrees fits the narrative of a chemtrail. The only issue I see with this is determining what is a chemtrail and have that answer accepted by all chemtrail pushers.

Having seen the success of go-fund-me projects, I have no doubt we could raise enough money to rent the plane and get the air samples, so that part is easy. I would like to hear from the chemtrail side on this to understand if they would be receptive to this idea. In the past, the only argument I have heard is how expensive it would be. having that part removed, are there any other reasons this might not work?


Please leave the "do they exist-I know what I see" discussion for another thread.


To have a study that was acceptable to the conspiracy folks you would have to somehow ensure that the "chemtrail" folks were unaware that the particular event was going to be tested. If the results are harmless then "they knew we were testing", only if the results are harmful will they be accepted. You cannot win so no point in testing.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

just my opinion - but an ignored " elephant in the room " is the shipping industry

there is ZERO regulation on the composition of marine fuel - and with each vessel burning upto 20 tons / hour

thats something for people who smuggly fill thier cars with reduced sulphur fuels



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Do you have some numbers to back that up? How much pollution comes from airlines as opposed to ground transportation?

You're pretty good giving me homework and statistic searches… so you can deflect any of that, too.

I can tell you in a heartbeat whose the worse polluter. Cars have catalytic converters.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


I don't like the idiots who point to a contrails and scream chemtrail.

Meaning what, "contrails" don't pollute? Jet exhaust contains toxic compounds. The deflection is the argument that its some mystery that we should be focused on, not the actual pollution.

But you defend the industry which pollutes the environment and blocks the suns light, bringing threads to keep everyone arguing the mystery, in a wider scope burying any real search for truth under a "ton of internet".



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: stayinglowkey

originally posted by: network dude
What would it take to prove chemtrails are either real, or a paranoid delusion? From all I have seen here, the only real way to do this is to fly up and test a trail that everyone agrees fits the narrative of a chemtrail. The only issue I see with this is determining what is a chemtrail and have that answer accepted by all chemtrail pushers.

Having seen the success of go-fund-me projects, I have no doubt we could raise enough money to rent the plane and get the air samples, so that part is easy. I would like to hear from the chemtrail side on this to understand if they would be receptive to this idea. In the past, the only argument I have heard is how expensive it would be. having that part removed, are there any other reasons this might not work?


Please leave the "do they exist-I know what I see" discussion for another thread.


To have a study that was acceptable to the conspiracy folks you would have to somehow ensure that the "chemtrail" folks were unaware that the particular event was going to be tested. If the results are harmless then "they knew we were testing", only if the results are harmful will they be accepted. You cannot win so no point in testing.



Well apparently there is a clear difference between a chemtrail and a contrail so they couldn't really use that argument unless they wanted to admit they couldn't tell them apart



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join