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.

 

A report on the dangers of SRM.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

A good post to bring forth.


Where I differ is I think they've been doing this for years already. I'm pretty sure it was 2007 when I figured it out for myself.




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

You think SRM means chemtrails, don't you?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Considering we all breath the same air, this seems kinda idiotic.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: network dude

A good post to bring forth.


Where I differ is I think they've been doing this for years already. I'm pretty sure it was 2007 when I figured it out for myself.


I don't suppose you have any proof? Or did you just look up one day and go "hmmm. Chemtrails"?

If you did then I'm sure there would be a lot of scientists wanting to test your eyes.

Funny how people can "see the chemicals" yet you can't see the number on the plane, which is A LOT bigger than a particle.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Oannes

pardon ?

what seems idiotic ??????????????

could you clarify this please ???

PS - all publicly discussed plans and proposed schemes for SRM opoerations will have zero impact on the breathability of air at ground level

various scemes put forth - do have theoretical ebviromental risks of various serverities

but none would threaten out ability to breath

so - could you kindly explain what you allude to ?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I think it was a common sense statement that since we all breath the same air, it would be idiotic to poison it on purpose. At least that's how I read it. And I agree.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: network dude

A good post to bring forth.


Where I differ is I think they've been doing this for years already. I'm pretty sure it was 2007 when I figured it out for myself.


I wish all those who think like you do would do some real research on this subject. Not chemtrails or unicorns, but SRM, and geo-engineering.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tweetie

You think SRM means chemtrails, don't you?

I chuckled when I saw your reply. I'm probably about to be shredded. I'll try to explain where I am at with your question. I'm very sincere. Please don't dismiss me because I don't have all sorts of degrees. I value my observational skills and have learned much in life on my own. I do my own studies, mostly via observation and contemplation, and don't like overloading myself with other people's material or research though I do come across information in a serendipitous way.

Back in 2000 I emailed a company which makes jet fuel and asked if they had changed their mixture recently. I came online in '99 just for a reference point. They had and sent me a long, technical email which was beyond my comprehension. That email is long gone, unfortunately; I wish I still had it. They must be well-known if one is familiar with the industry. I was trying to understand what people online were calling chemtrails because I had noticed something very different going on in the sky in the mid-90's before I had any thought of buying a PC or heard the word chemtrail.

I always study the sky, I have since I was a child (born in '56), and watched what was happening from 2000 on. I was looking for a pattern. It took me some time but I began noticing that what were being described as chemtrails began forming (persistent contrails which spread and covered the sky and didn't dissipate as they used to) close to the time solar activity/weather would begin effecting the planet. I've been informally studying solar activity online since 2000 as well. There's a correlation. I've witnessed it over and over. I watched it for a few years before I came to my conclusion in 2007 that something was being done (up there) to mitigate the solar radiation hitting the planet, especially because the magnetic shield had been weakening more and more.

That's why I think SRM has already been in effect for years.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I don't completely accept the theory that anthropogenic influences are the only first order factors accelerating global climate change because of the vast complexity of our ecosystem. And for the same reason I don't think it is yet time for SRM and other geoengineering efforts to begin. But it doesn't hurt to do a bit of research to understand what our options are.

At some point in the future it may reach a point where we have exhausted all other options. Then, modifying the climate may become necessary. But by that time I believe that we'll have a lot more tools that can be employed without the toxic side-effects of the current crop of solutions.

Until then we can attempt to mitigate the impacts of climate change by responsibly addressing the anthropogenic influences, but above all by preparing to adapt to the inevitable environmental changes that we are destined to face.

-dex



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

Actually, you are really spot on with your observations. What you say correlates perfectly with the introduction of high bypass engines, along with exponentially cheaper and more frequent air travel.

You are free to gain knowledge anyway you see fit, but in my travels, I find that asking a plumber about my pipes yields the best results.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Aa reply to: tweetie

The things you have observed, such as more and more trails than there used to be, are quite correct. Your conclusions are skewed by the missing pieces of the jigsaw and some wrong assumptions that you've used.

I can't comment, naturally, on the fuel related email that you had. The composition of jet fuel is strictly regulated, though additives have been tried to help reduce wear and tear and other reasons to do with reducing fuel burn and protecting the engine. Without a specific explanation, your linking of this email with seeing trails spreading appears to be assumption.

Another assumption which is quite wrong is your statement about "contrails which spread and cover the sky and didn't dissipate as they used to". Contrails have been known to be able to persist and spread for as long as aircraft have left them. We are talking about the old stick and string biplanes of before 1920 here too. If you don't particularly follow aviation, you won't be familiar with how such things were a rare phenomena at this time and were written about in curious terms. Then as aircraft became more numerous and had higher performance contrails were noted more regularly, being quite well known by the end of World War 2 and photographed many times from Battle of Britain dogfights in 1940 to USAAC heavy bomber streams attacking Germany from high altitude in 1944-45.

The real sea change occurred with the introduction of jets and with aircraft now routinely flying above 30,000ft, where it's always tens of degrees below zero, from about 1950 onwards meant that spotting a contrail was pretty routine if a USAF F106 or an RAF V Bomber, for example, were overhead. With the introduction of civil jets nearer to 1960 these trails were now criss crossing the planet, but numbers were still relatively tiny, compared to today. So while a persisting trail might be seen, it was often only one or two and a layman might not even notice that the trail had spread into a cloud, assuming it just got cloudy anyway.

Suddenly in the 1970's fuel prices rocketed and civil aviation demanded ever larger and more efficient engines to get more bang for buck and the bypass turbofan was developed, from its modest beginnings in the fifties, into the engines we use today. A large fan mounted on the front of the engine draws in air which is not mixed with fuel and burned, but merely compressed to produce thrust like a propeller in a duct. In the centre of this is the jet component, producing less than half of the thrust of the aircraft, reducing fuel cost and pollution massively (relative to size). A byproduct of this design of engine is that the exhaust is cooler overall and contains more water, both produced by combustion and from the ambient air drawn through the outer duct. In freezing humid conditions this will produce a thick trail where an old style jet or turboprop might have made a small thin one one, or none at all.

If the atmosphere has low humidity you'll see this trail fade out a mile or so behind the aircraft, as the ice crystals sublimate into the dry air. If humidity is high and the air cannot hold any more moisture, the trail will persist and draw a line across the sky, if it's high enough, over 100% RHI, the ice in the contrail will trigger a chain reaction of nucleation and freezing of the water vapour in the air, which is seen from the ground as a trail spreading into cloud. Understanding this process is a meteorological question though, not an aviation question.

Geoengineering explanations don't even enter into it. Persistence and spreading of trails is now, as it always was, dependant entirely on weather conditions.

Some people write about days on which there are lits of chemtrails and others on which there are no planes. This is another example of drawing the wrong conclusion from what can be seen due to lack of information. What they see is standard daily air traffic on both occasions. Only on one day it is highly humid, and on the other it isn't.

looking up and seeing a trail persist and then just deciding that must mean it's a spray, because of a total lack of understanding of what you are actually looking at, and how it came to be so, is just a cop out.
edit on 26-1-2016 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

I understand your viewpoint and I thank you for taking the time to reply to me. You are convinced the only way a contrail can visually become what is termed a persistent contrail is solely dependent upon the amount of moisture/humidity in the air and nothing else.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: tweetie

Actually, you are really spot on with your observations. What you say correlates perfectly with the introduction of high bypass engines, along with exponentially cheaper and more frequent air travel.

You are free to gain knowledge anyway you see fit, but in my travels, I find that asking a plumber about my pipes yields the best results.


Even plumbers will disagree on pipe knowledge.


The major increase in the number of planes in the air has definitely contributed to the increase in contrails, rapidly dissipating or persistent, so everyone has to acknowledge that as part of the equation because it is undeniable.

I still think all sorts of experimenting has been going on up in the atmosphere for years involving geoengineering and solar radiation management but please don't lump me in with the "they are trying to depopulate the earth, etc., crowds." We'd all be wiped out by now if that was the case. I'm not in alignment with any group think.

Thank you for the reply!!



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

It's not just the number of planes, it's the type of planes too. If it was more older types, like 707s, or 727s, there would be more contrails, but still probably not as many as there are. With the ultra efficient engines used by the new aircraft, you get contrails where older engines wouldn't produce them, and persistent contrails where older engines would just produce contrails.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Oannes

pardon ?

what seems idiotic ??????????????

could you clarify this please ???

PS - all publicly discussed plans and proposed schemes for SRM opoerations will have zero impact on the breathability of air at ground level

various scemes put forth - do have theoretical ebviromental risks of various serverities

but none would threaten out ability to breath

so - could you kindly explain what you allude to ?


Pumping sulphur into the air in the form of pollution already kills millions every year. Adding more would make that worse.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hi Zap, me and you are generally on the same side of the fence, but I don't understand how you say that persistence is increased by modern engines. It has always been my understanding that if a trail can sublimate, it will and that RHI and RHW, pressure and dew point are the deciding factors, not the exhaust itself. Have you any source info I can read if I'm missing something?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: waynos

I understand your viewpoint and I thank you for taking the time to reply to me. You are convinced the only way a contrail can visually become what is termed a persistent contrail is solely dependent upon the amount of moisture/humidity in the air and nothing else.


Do you know of another mechanism?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: waynos

I understand your viewpoint and I thank you for taking the time to reply to me. You are convinced the only way a contrail can visually become what is termed a persistent contrail is solely dependent upon the amount of moisture/humidity in the air and nothing else.


Not entirely, my post was a broad overview, kept as concise as I could while still getting the point over ( I hope) about their being certain factors that need to be understood in some depth before anyone can hope to deduce spraying, without it just being a total guess. There are factors of temperature, pressure and dew point to consider, as well as nucleation particles that are naturally present in the air, as well as additional ones contained in the exhaust, etc etc. I didn't want my reply to be several pages long. 😀

If you have an alternative explanation, or even just thoughts on the matter, I'd be happy to talk about it. By the way, my reply does not eliminate the possibility of small scale experiments in aerial spraying at all. Such things are known to have been, and continue to be, considered. It's more of a rebuff to the general viewpoint in these circles that contrails cannot persist without artificial means being applied deliberately and, therefore, all the persisting spreading trails we see are chemtrails and to deny such an "obvious fact" is being dumb, or worse, a gubmint shill. This is the meme that allowed the theory to take hold in the first place.

My position is more that, OK, if you surmise that aerial spraying is taking place, I'm all ears and want to know about it, but I need a better reason to take the theory seriously than someone trying to tell me that black is white and 2+2=19, if you get my drift.

Aviation has been a point of specific interest to me since 1973, when I got my first Revell Me262 model kit aged 8. In the years since I have amassed a personal library of hundreds of volumes of aviation books, one of my special favourites being "All The Worlds Aircraft 1938", with its foreword proclaiming that , "of course there won't be a war, everyone has too much to lose". But I digress. As a photographer I've amassed over 30,000 photographs of civil and military aircraft, a tiny selection of which can be viewed on Flickr, using the name 'WayneNB'. The point of all this is that, in all this time, I've never seen anything that points towards chemtrails or GE at all, nor have I met any aviation professional who doesn't regard the theory with anything other than contempt or hilarity. I think this dichotomy of opinion is what's such a fascination for me and why I keep coming back, but when the only people that believe in it, are the ones who don't understand what would be required, we'll forgive me, but I find that quite telling.

So why am I asking for discussion? That's how we learn new things. More than once I've been asked a question or been alerted to something that sets me off on a new path of investigation.

edit on 27-1-2016 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

One of the studies I read a few years ago talked about the difference between the engines. The newer engines create contrails at a lower altitude than the older engines, and at higher altitudes, where older engines would leave contrails, the newer engines leave persistent contrails. I will have to look up the study again to find it though.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: waynos

One of the studies I read a few years ago talked about the difference between the engines. The newer engines create contrails at a lower altitude than the older engines, and at higher altitudes, where older engines would leave contrails, the newer engines leave persistent contrails. I will have to look up the study again to find it though.


Pretty sure the difference was trail/no trail. The exhaust gasses from the modern high-bypass engines are cooler therefore reaching the saturation point is more likely in the mixing phase of the plume. Once the trail is formed the RHi of the surrounding air determines persistence



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join