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.

 

ACE Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystem/Glory project

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I know the chemtrial debate has been up for discussion before but I would like to try and spin a theory on why how and so on.

If you're not familiar with NASA program ACE or Glory project it has to do with aerosol spray In the ozone.Here is a description of the ACE project along with the link to that specific page. There are many indicators I see that link this project, one in particular look at 5. Impacts of aeolian fertilization

ae·o·li·an. I believe aeolian fertilization
[ēˈōlēən]. Is There term for aerosol spray.
geology.

relating to or arising from the action of the wind:
"fluvial and eolian sediments"
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

ACE Ocean Ecosystem Science

ACE ecosystem measurements target:
1. Phytoplankton CO2 uptake (i.e., photosynthesis)
2. Carbon flow through ecosystems
3. Harmful algal blooms
4. Climate forcings on ocean ecosystems
5. Impacts of aeolian fertilization
6. Ecosystem structure influencing carbon uptake
7. Organic carbon stocks
8. Reduce uncertainties in model predictions

acemission.gsfc.nasa.gov...

This is the direct link to NASA page referring to the ACE program.

dsm.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Now meet Glory part of what NASA calls the A-Train of satellites that retrieve the data from the aerosol spray. This seems to be the direct device used to spray the aerosols it operates at lower altitude than the other satellites. It's not bluntly out there but I believe there is a second part to the aerosol spraying by the name of PARASOL lot of the instructions are in French but anyway it travels at low earth as well it also is part of this A-Team mission aerosol-cloud-system.

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov...

There are earlier projects that seemed to do the same thing only this seems more low earth orbit spraying than using aircraft.

And lastly here is the patent for the US gov spraying apparatus and so on it's all it the print and whether this design is for plane module or satellite not sure exactly.

www.uspto.gov...

Let me know if I'm beating a dead horse here or not haven't seen much of this explained or proven.




posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

Interesting theory. I have a couple quick questions. Why would NASA offer most of the information needed, then obscure the last little bit by putting it in French? And how would this equate to white lines in the sky?

It's interesting stuff, so thanks for posting. I haven't seen this before.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
This I believe is the bigger picture chemtrails I feel have been debunked this however is something that has not. The French part is one of the satellites was French made y the name of PARASOL I didn't want to dive into that yet want to research get translations a reply to: network dude



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
Now meet Glory part of what NASA calls the A-Train of satellites that retrieve the data from the aerosol spray. This seems to be the direct device used to spray the aerosols it operates at lower altitude than the other satellites.

But do you also understand what the 'spray' part means? Where in the Glory project are they talking about airplanes/satellites spraying anything? The project is an observation tool. Only 10% of t he aerosols are man-made and also described at the Glory website:


The other 10 percent of aerosols are manmade, or anthropogenic. Fossil fuel combustion produces large amounts of sulfates. Biomass burning, a common method of clearing land, yields smoke comprised mainly of organic matter and black carbon. Diesel engines are another especially prolific producer of black carbon. Deforestation, overgrazing, drought, and excessive irrigation change the soil, often leading to higher rates of dust entering the atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bunkrbuster




ACE Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystem/Glory project


So what exactly does this have to do with chemtrails, or geoengineering?

Seems this would be a better thread for the fragile earth forum. Quick hint just because aerosols are mentioned along with NASA, it doesn't automatically mean it has to do with chemtrails or geoengineering.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Here's a little literature I had other parts saved searching through all my stuff now getting sidetracked with more stuff.
This to me has some indications of or intentions to inject aerosols into the atmosphere these are different studies and full literature on link site.

[4] The climate effects of black carbon aerosol geoengineering have the potential to be severe, mostly due to stratospheric heating [Ferraro et al., 2011]. In particular, as in nuclear winter simulations, one potential consequence is catastrophic ozone loss [Toon et al., 2007; Mills et al., 2008]. However, one advantage black carbon could have over sulfate aerosols is that less aerosol mass is needed, which could mediate the expected negative impacts. For example, more radiatively efficient particles means less aerosol mass would be required to achieve a desired level of surface cooling. Also, aerosols that stay in the atmosphere longer require a lower replenishment rate.

[5] These factors can largely be controlled by particle size and altitude of injection. Smaller particles have slower fall speeds and are more radiatively efficient, meaning less is needed, and the degree of solar absorption and consequent self-lofting is greater. Particles injected at higher altitudes have a longer distance to fall and are less susceptible to stratospheric removal processes, like midlatitude tropopause folds, and scavenging by deep convective clouds, although if the particles are self-lofting, as is the case for black carbon aerosols, this becomes less of an issue [Rohatschek, 1996; Pueschel et al., 2000]. Ban-Weiss et al. [2012] already performed some work on sensitivity to altitude of injection, but they used prescribed aerosol layers, meaning their investigation did not analyze circulation patterns in as much detail as our study, nor could they explore the role of self-lofting.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Dually noted I have been looking at this subject for a while and should have waited to post when I had all put together. Had a moment last night and something clicked. I do believe there is lots of connection to chemtrails and not due to its name trust me. a reply to: tsurfer2000h



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Bunkrbuster

You missed the most important part of the paper...


Simulations of stratospheric geoengineering with black carbon (BC) aerosols using a general circulation model with fixed sea surface temperatures show that the climate effects strongly depend on aerosol size and altitude of injection. 1 Tg BC a−1 injected into the lower stratosphere would cause little surface cooling for large radii but a large amount of surface cooling for small radii and stratospheric warming of over 60°C. With the exception of small particles, increasing the altitude of injection increases surface cooling and stratospheric warming. Stratospheric warming causes global ozone loss by up to 50% in the small radius case. The Antarctic shows less ozone loss due to reduction of polar stratospheric clouds, but strong circumpolar winds would enhance the Arctic ozone hole. Using diesel fuel to produce the aerosols is likely prohibitively expensive and infeasible. Although studying an absorbing aerosol is a useful counterpart to previous studies involving sulfate aerosols, black carbon geoengineering likely carries too many risks to make it a viable option for deployment.




This to me has some indications of or intentions to inject aerosols into the atmosphere these are different studies and full literature on link site.



No this has indications they are doing exactly what they have been doing for many years...computer modeling to see the effects that would happen if tried...and they even say it is to risky to even be a viable option.

Computer modeling doesn't mean they are actually intending to do it, but they are researching the effects of what happens if they were to do it.

There is a difference.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Bunkrbuster




I do believe there is lots of connection to chemtrails and not due to its name trust me.


So it's connected to something that has yet been proven to actually exist...how does that work, because chemtrails are just a fantasy of the man who started the hoax Will Thomas, and jumped on by those looking to make a quick buck from the gullible.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Sorry for cutting and pasting it just seems better to read it as they print it. Why I think it's dealing with chemtrails it's injection of aerosols and simulations at different altitudes how else could they perform injections at different atmospheric levels unless self injecting. And that's where I believe glory and parasol satellites would come in. The whole data imagery is done with a large array of satellite they call the A-Train. Why those two satellites stick out is there particular travel path is aimed lower and followed by the other imagery satellites. I have more info on the PARASOL satellite will post soon.

simulations of polarized reflectance using smooth particles show a poor fit to the measurements, whereas very rough-faceted particles provide an improved fit to the polarized reflectance. In this study a new microphysical model based on a mixture of 9 different ice crystal habits with severely roughened facets is developed.

Insufficient knowledge of the habit distribution and the degree of surface roughness of ice crystals within ice clouds is a source of uncertainty in the forward light scattering and radiative transfer simulations required in downstream applications involving these clouds. The widely used MODerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Collection 5 ice microphysical model assumes a mixture of various ice crystal shapes with smooth-facets except aggregates of columns for which a moderately rough condition is assumed. When compared with PARASOL (Polarization and Anisotropy of Reflectances for Atmospheric Sciences coupled with Observations from a Lidar) polarized reflection data, simulations of polarized reflectance using smooth particles show a poor fit to the measurements, whereas very rough-faceted particles provide an improved fit to the polarized reflectance. In this study a new microphysical model based on a mixture of 9 different ice crystal habits with severely roughened facets is developed. Simulated polarized reflectance using the new ice habit distribution is calculated using a vector adding-doubling radiative transfer model, and the simulations closely agree with the polarized reflectance observed by PARASOL. The new general habit mixture is also tested using a spherical albedo differences analysis, and surface roughening is found to improve the consistency of multi-angular observations. It is suggested that an ice model incorporating an ensemble of different habits with severely roughened surfaces would potentially be an adequate choice for global ice cloud retrievals.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

edit on 7-12-2015 by Bunkrbuster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I did read that but it does show there interest into it and with some more research I do believe it will show fruitful. a reply to: tsurfer2000h



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Maybe maybe not but here in Phoenix we get heavy doses at intervals of these engineered
Clouds so I would like to think it wasn't going on but hard to not see. a reply to: tsurfer2000h



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Bunkrbuster




Maybe maybe not but here in Phoenix we get heavy doses at intervals of these engineered
Clouds so I would like to think it wasn't going on but hard to not see.


Heavy doses of what...contrails?

They aren't engineered, they are a by product of flying and have been since the early 1900's when the first one was seen.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
This I believe is the bigger picture chemtrails I feel have been debunked


you say this, then go on to say this?:



Maybe maybe not but here in Phoenix we get heavy doses at intervals of these engineered
Clouds


I think you are confused a bit.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bunkrbuster




Maybe maybe not but here in Phoenix we get heavy doses at intervals of these engineered
Clouds so I would like to think it wasn't going on but hard to not see.


Heavy doses of what...contrails?

They aren't engineered, they are a by product of flying and have been since the early 1900's when the first one was seen.



Yes I've seen plenty of contrails before and fully aware of how they are formed also.

Did you happen to look at the opening statement there's a link to gov patents and talk about devices that could be used for call them chemtrails I guess.

So where exactly is feedback here just calling me gullible, lots of people have I feel more than proven "chemtrails" also where I live is a heavy high altitude flight path and whatever the planes are emitting are not contrials.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
This I believe is the bigger picture chemtrails I feel have been debunked


you say this, then go on to say this?:



Maybe maybe not but here in Phoenix we get heavy doses at intervals of these engineered
Clouds


I think you are confused a bit.


Yes I wish to bring this up for discussion I won't in my head leave out others opinions and rule out any other scenarios. but I will definitely try and put out facts as to I see them to be.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
Did you happen to look at the opening statement there's a link to gov patents and talk about devices that could be used for call them chemtrails I guess.

It is just a classification for a lot of things, including e.g. this hair dryer

A hair dryer (1) with a static atomizing device (4) is provided, which has the capability of generating an electrostatically charged microparticle mist of 3 nm to 100 nm.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Bunkrbuster




Did you happen to look at the opening statement there's a link to gov patents and talk about devices that could be used for call them chemtrails I guess.



So gov't patents are your argument...sorry but patents aren't proof of chemtrails.



So where exactly is feedback here just calling me gullible,


So where exactly did I say you were gullible?

I said chemtrail pushers like the gullible.



lots of people have I feel more than proven "chemtrails" also where I live is a heavy high altitude flight path and whatever the planes are emitting are not contrials.


Well first thing is no they haven't.

Second thing is how do you know they aren't contrails?



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
Did you happen to look at the opening statement there's a link to gov patents and talk about devices that could be used for call them chemtrails I guess.

It is just a classification for a lot of things, including e.g. this hair dryer

A hair dryer (1) with a static atomizing device (4) is provided, which has the capability of generating an electrostatically charged microparticle mist of 3 nm to 100 nm.

Damn wrong one derrrr let me try that again



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bunkrbuster




I do believe there is lots of connection to chemtrails and not due to its name trust me.


So it's connected to something that has yet been proven to actually exist...how does that work, because chemtrails are just a fantasy of the man who started the hoax Will Thomas, and jumped on by those looking to make a quick buck from the gullible.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join