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.

 

DOE Atmospheric Science Meeting this month = Chemtrail evaluations??

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Found this looking for something completely different but it sure looked interesting to me.

Check out this site --
DOE Atmospheric Science Program 2005 Agenda

It looks to me like various areas of the Department of Energy are having a meeting and presenting information on various effects that aerosol impacts

one of the presentations is

Lawrence Kleinman, Brookhaven National Laboratory: "Field Studies on the Life Cycle of Aerosols and Their Direct Radiative Impacts"

another is
Sasha Madronich, NCAR: "Impacts of Secondary Organics on the Evolution of Climate-Relevant Aerosol Properties During Lagrangian Aerosol Plume Experiments"

Sounds a lot like studies on chemtrails to me -- how about you all?

jm




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
33 people have viewed this and no one thinks this is as intriguing as I do? I have been up in the air about this whole idea -- but seeing all of these presentations that are referring to aerosol applications and results is making me wonder.

Does anyone have any thoughts to share on this -- All of you who think there are no chemtrails I would love to hear what you think they are referring to in the different presentations. I really am open to everyones thoughts. Pro -or- Con

jm

[edit on 19-1-2005 by justme1640]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Well, I've tried to reply twice but lost my content so here goes once more.

I think I can see what you're getting at here. Although it may be passed off as study of aerosols released by industry, some of these titles do step across the relm into the land of "hmmm?" . Notibly these;

1330 - 1342 Patrick Arnott, Desert Research Institute, and Patrick Sheridan, NOAA CMDL: "Aerosol Light Absorption and Climate: Quantification by the Photoacoustic Method"

0843 - 0855 John Seinfeld, California Institute of Technology: "Mechanisms of Formation of Secondary Organic Aerosols and Implications for Global Radiative Forcing"

I guess its just another example of the best place to hide something is right out in the open.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Thanks astrocreep -- it was those hmmmm ones that got me wondering also.

I was also interested in Brookhaven National Labs involvement -- they are dealing with their own clean-up from years of various things seeping into the gound water that is effecting a large area of wells on Long Island and may have gotten into the bay also. So I could see where they are interested in how pollution travels whether it is ground or air related. But I came away with more hmmmmm's that made me think about the whole chemtrail study.

I have thought in the past that perhaps chemtrails are for use for good things -- like trying to block harmful rays that are getting thru because of the ozone layer problems.

As I said I am up in the air about chemtrails existing at all -- but it has given me cause for thought pro or con in the past and this is making me lean more towards it being an actual thing.

jm


dh

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by justme1640
I have been up in the air about this whole idea -- but seeing all of these presentations that are referring to aerosol applications and results is making me wonder.



[edit on 19-1-2005 by justme1640]


Me too, jm. The cited agenda items are just too relevant to chemtrail theory to be referring to something else

Interestingly, I put your link elsewhere, where it ought to have hit home, and it seems to have been subverted even there
forums.cloud-busters.com...

Sorry for the lack of credit

dh



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Finally some evidence for this phenomena...But the question still lingers: Why?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
interesting

Ok -- this gets more and more interesting to me -- I googled the title of the program and came to the page above --in the introduction to that page it said


The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.


Now it goes on to say a lot more and I admit that much of it is beyond me -- or at least I am getting confused trying to weed thru most of it. Some of it sounds like it is a study in how pollution plumes travel but then there are areas that speak of other lab experiments and field testing that makes me go hmmmmmm again.

So do we have a scientist who can read this and put it in everyday English?

jm



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Finally some evidence for this phenomena...But the question still lingers: Why?



HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHHAHA !!!!

Whew!



Evidence for chemtrails??? You owe me a monitor clean up



Why don't you google aeresols and atmospheric science. There is TONS on reference* material out there available on these topics , but none of them mention "Chemtrails."


* By refrence materials I of course mean peer reviewed scientific journals and the like, I DO NOT mean anything by Cliford Carnicom, William Thomas or any of the other chemtrail hoaxters.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
dh says:

"Me too, jm. The cited agenda items are just too relevant to chemtrail theory to be referring to something else."

Gee, dh, I gather that you mean that "Light Absorption and Climate: Quantification by the Photoacoustic Method" can't refer to measuring the light absorption characteristics of clouds, volcanic eruptions, and plain old industrial pollution, right?

Why not? Are you saying that scientists interested in climate change wouldn't be interested in using a new approach to measuring how much light these clouds absorb? I'd kind of think they would!

Or how about "Mechanisms of Formation of Secondary Organic Aerosols and Implications for Global Radiative Forcing"? Do you know who is sponsoring this kind of stuff?

"The workshop was made possible through a grant originally provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, Ecosystem Stewardship Team and contracted through the National Park Service, Intermountain Region, Denver."

These are your "chem-trail" people? ROFLMAO!!!!

Do you even know what "Secondary Organic Aerosols" are?

They're primarily carbon particulates, the major sources of which are "... 1) exhaust from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, emitted locally and
transported from distant sources; 2) formation during transport of secondary organic material from heavy hydrocarbon (>C8) compounds originating from vegetation, industrial processes, and diesel combustion; 3) meat cooking, especially charbroiling over wood or natural gas; and 4) vegetative burning emissions from wildfires, prescribed burns of forests and crops, and woodburning in campfires, fireplaces and wood stoves. Raw vegetative material from plant detritus, pollens, molds and spores also contributes to carbon, primarily in the coarse (PM10 minus PM2.5) particle size fraction."


dh, what in the world does that have to do with "chem-trails"?

By the way, if you would just maybe do a teensy-weensy bit of real research, you could find out about all this stuff all by yourself by using a Top-Secret CIA Program called "Google".

Look.

ocs.fortlewis.edu...

Sheesh.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I gotta admit I don't know muc about these chemtails.
Judging from the way the government handles everything else, I has a real problem thinking they would do this intentionally, for good or evil.

Now, there are plenty of companies doing bad things to us and the planet, with either the blessing of governments or with the governments closing their eyes. (Yes, not just our government!)

Good find, jm

Some of those talks look mighty suspicious, even w/o chemtail involvments. I just don't know enough about science.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
justme says:

"So do we have a scientist who can read this and put it in everyday English?"

Of course you do -- you probably have several.

But you don't need a "scientist". You're supposed to be a "researcher", right? all you need to do is what I suggested in my previous post and start Googling things like "radiative forcing" and read what's available for all of us. This is exactly what Mr. Roark is saying, too.

Don't wait for a scientist to do your thinking for you. Besides, you're not going to listen because he is not going to tell you what you want to hear. He will tell you the truth, and if the truth goes against what you want to believe, you will blow it off.

Don't do that, jm! That's the difference between denying ignorance and perpetuating it.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Try looking through the Archives of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences

you can browse the abstracts on line. Warning, they are highly technical, but this is exactly what that meeting will be about.


Here is another one that even has a contrail article



Here is another good place to start.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
justme says:

"So do we have a scientist who can read this and put it in everyday English?"

Of course you do -- you probably have several.

But you don't need a "scientist". You're supposed to be a "researcher", right? all you need to do is what I suggested in my previous post and start Googling things like "radiative forcing" and read what's available for all of us. This is exactly what Mr. Roark is saying, too.

Don't wait for a scientist to do your thinking for you. Besides, you're not going to listen because he is not going to tell you what you want to hear. He will tell you the truth, and if the truth goes against what you want to believe, you will blow it off.

Don't do that, jm! That's the difference between denying ignorance and perpetuating it.


OK -- you owe me an apology -- if you will read my posts you will see that I have said that I have been up in the air about this whole idea -- and that I have even thought and have stated here before that I feel that if there are chemtrails that I feel they could be done for the good of mankind. I asked for someone to help me with the technical stuff in the information -- I WOULDN'T do that if I didn't plan on reading it and trying to understand it. And you have offered no help you have only attacked me. I HAVE NEVER BLOWN ANYONE OFF --- I think that if you read all of my posts (from when I began on ATS) you will find that I am a reasonable person who is here to learn.

However, I will not take someone knocking my character in the manner you did above without responding to it.

jm

btw Howard Roark -- thank you for the links I will look at them - if I have questions because as I said a lot of the scientific stuff is beyond my high school studies (although in 51 years of reading I have picked up some things) can I ask you for clarification. I will ask here if I feel I can without fear of being attacked by Off the Street again.


[edit on 19-1-2005 by justme1640]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
JM, please don't be so defensive.

Most of those links are pretty technical. I am not an atmospheric scientist, but it is not that hard figure out the general sense of what they are talking about. Most research papers are about rather mundane things. How ice particles form in clouds, and things like that. That is how scientists build up data from which they base their theories and models on.

You probably won't actually learn much from reading the abstracts except for (hopefully) a basic appreciation for the fact that there are a lot of people studying the atmosphere in great detail.

The logical conclusion from that is that either all of these people are in on the chemtrails "operations," or that chemtrails do not exist.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Justme, you are correct; I apologize for saying that you would blow me off. I apprciate your open-mindedness about the "chem-trail" issue.

However, Ther is no reason whatsoever that you cannot take it upon yourself to find out more about some of these things.

When you said "Sounds a lot like studies on chemtrails to me -- how about you all?", I assumed (incorrectly, it appears) that you had correlated the titles with "chem-trails" based on your understanding of the subjects being mentioned. But you later said you don't understand them. Okay, nothing wrong with that.

But that being the case, why did you equate them with "chem-trails"? Regardless of your knowledge or belief or open-mindedness or anything else, I'd think you have at least some sort of obligation to research some of these things for yourself.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Perhaps my definition of chemtrail is completely different than what most people mean by it - my definition would be that anything that is intentionally sprayed from an aircraft (as an aerosol) that isn’t water (so in my mind is a chemical) -- as I said I have wondered about the possibility -- and being an optomist by nature I tended to look for a positive reason there could be such a thing -- so I was looking for a reason that this could be done that would be beneficial. As an example - blocking the harmful rays of the sun in times when the ozone is high (or low whichever is the harmful one - sorry tired) Or from one of the abstracts (that I managed to sort of understand I think) was a study done about how the Daily Temperature Range was effected by the stopping of flights on 9/11. It did state that it made a difference -- but my understanding of whether it was a good difference or a bad difference is fuzzy. So my thoughts would go along the line of more contrails (from more flights) could equal lower temperature which could be a good thing.

I stated that I could see that some of the presentations refered to pollution but others sounded to me like they are testing to see how aerosols function -- as an example is the one titled

Lawrence Kleinman, Brookhaven National Laboratory: "Field Studies on the Life Cycle of Aerosols and Their Direct Radiative Impacts"

or
Sasha Madronich, NCAR: "Impacts of Secondary Organics on the Evolution of Climate-Relevant Aerosol Properties During Lagrangian Aerosol Plume Experiments"



Also I see that you are and engineer and I assume that Howard Roark is also in some type of science field so perhaps reading the abstracts is clearer for you than they are for me-- I spend a good portion of the time reading and rereading them and trying to find definitions for some of the scientific terms that don’t always show up in the dictionary.

And to be honest if I had titled the thread without the chemtrail reference would we be having a discussion at all that I could learn from. And I did open the thread to have a dialog that I could learn from. I have honestly wondered if I contacted some of the authors of the abstracts if they could dumb down some of the content so I could understand it. So maybe I am also hoping that you could do the same.


I apologize for reacting so strongly before -- I hope over time we can get to know each other better and that won’t happen again.

I also admit that I am not good at putting down in writing what is running around in my brain and I do realize that reading my rambles can be difficult.

jm


dh

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Much as I love 'em, I've yet to discover why Off The Street and Howard Roark are so keen to dump the chemtrails idea
What motivates them in their scientific reductionism that they're always here
Like me, they've struggled to find a single photo from the 'eighties, for example, even small scale, that ressembles the skies as they are now everyday
The people who look and analyse the photographic detail are just believing the evidence as it presents itself - it's just a question of looking up
And what's so reprehensible about believing in a genocidal governance?
It's just the way the world is, and the more people who get a hook on what's going on the better
If this is genuinely a meeting of 'global warming' types, they're completely on the wrong track anyway
And the agenda items smell to hell of a covert agenda



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
@ dh
I don't know hwere you live, but I live in MI near an Ari Nat'l Guard Base. I gott tell you, the skies look about the same as they always have


@ just me
I hear your pain.
Of course we always have the option of searching for ourselves. I've told folks the same here on ATS on occasion.

But, this is not the case. When we talk about such scientific information, I think it would be nice if the experts around here would help out a little. Give us their educated opinion. Explain a little. Provide a link that talks in layman's terms. Help deny ignorance. Like Howard Roark did
.

Usually, that has been my experience here.
Looking up the kind of information not easily understood is not really an option for us non-science types. If we could find it ourselves, we would. Just as we try to help those who may need help in area where we are knowledgeable.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dh

Like me, they've struggled to find a single photo from the 'eighties, for example, even small scale, that ressembles the skies as they are now everyday



How about some pictures from the late 1950’s and early 1960’s? Check out these pictures and the dates that they were taken

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

Note the last picture in particular. 1958.

Edited to add: Yes, I realize that not all of the clouds in the above photos are contrails. Many of them are normal, ordinary clouds. Yet that is precisely the same type of cloud structure that the chemtrails point to all the time as proof of chemtrail activity.

Now look at this graph.




Llook at the air traffic level in 1958. It is well under 100 billion passenger km flown, and 5 billion tons-km air freight traffic. Now look at the peak just prior to 911, 3,500 billion passenger km flown an increase of 3,500 %!!! Air freight traffic increased to 100 billion tons-km, an increase of 2,000 % !!!

Even in the period from 1990 to 2001, both passenger and freight traffic doubled.

More traffic means more contrails.

The other thing to remember is that water is a combustion byproduct. Jet engines work by pushing exhaust products out the back end. An inefficient engine does not completely combust the fuel, thus it pushes a lot of partially burned fuel out the back end. This results in an exhaust that is rich in soot and petroleum compounds at the expense of water vapor.

Check out the crap coming out of the engines of these old jets
www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...



Modern jet aircraft are equipped with highly fuel efficient turbofan engines. This higher fuel efficiency means that more fuel is converted to water vapor per pound of thrust produced, so that compared to the older turbojet engines, they produce more water in their exhaust per mile flown.

More water means more contrails.



It’s really just as simple as that.




[edit on 21-1-2005 by HowardRoark]


dh

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Yes, Howard - 3, 5 and 6 are rather good and I'll be hanging on to them for further reference.
Number 4 looks like perhaps some evidence of sylph activity way back then
Thanks

Although having looked at the other chemtrail thread currently upfront, which appears to carry similarly tagged URLs, I'm a bit confused
Somebody's hoaxing?

[edit on 24-1-2005 by dh]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join