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.

 

I was in Palmdale and the Chem-trail pollution was off the charts

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Europe is on the brink of mandating lower sulfur content in it's jet fuels.
That a good thing.
Sorry you think that's going to ruin the world by increasing C02 production 0.1 % , according to your own source.
I'm glad you are now aware that Europe has had legislation in place for a number of years mandating low sulfur in it's diesel and gasoline supplies.
If you are having trouble finding the equivalent North American legislation, just ask, I can find it for you.
You are blowing hot air when you say that taking the sulfur out of fuel emits a lot more C02, it doesn't, according to your own sources, unless you think 0.1 % i a lot....
By the way, the plant that I worked at? It had a Carbon Capture and Sequester facility built alongside it.
edit on 12-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Europe is on the brink of mandating lower sulfur content in it's jet fuels.
You have not demonstrated that.



Sorry you think that's going to ruin the world by increasing C02 production 0.1 % , according to your own source.
Strawman argument. I made no such claim.


If you are having trouble finding the equivalent North American legislation, just ask, I can find it for you.
No problem doing so. It's been happening for longer than concern about CO2.


You are blowing hot air when you say that taking the sulfur out of fuel emits a lot more C02, it doesn't
Yet another strawman argument. I didn't say that. Please review what I actually did say.


By the way, the plant that I worked at? It had a Carbon Capture and Sequester facility built alongside it.
Cool.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee




Yes that was what was said, why do you think otherwise?

Because, unless you can point out any such legislation, it does not exist. Considered, yes.

The thing about using low sulfur fuels is that their production produces a lot of CO2. Something that the EU is concerned about. Even if you are not.
www.easa.europa.eu...

What are you saying here?
edit on 12-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)





No problem doing so. It's been happening for longer than concern about CO2.


It was many years after Kyoto that we took the steps of reducing the sulfur in the on road diesel, our plant put the unit into service in 2005, i think the requirement came in 2006 for ultra low sulfur diesel.
edit on 12-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I'm saying that;


The thing about using low sulfur fuels is that their production produces a lot of CO2.


And, to refresh your seemingly short attention span, this is what you claimed I said:

You are blowing hot air when you say that taking the sulfur out of fuel emits a lot more C02, it doesn't


More is a comparative term. I made no comparison to anything. Did I? Thus, you are engaging in a straw man argument. You imply that I said that the production of low sulfur fuels produces a lot more CO2 than the combustion of jet fuel. A false allegation. I did not say that.



edit on 3/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: fema1

Wait...you were in Palmdale but chose to post an article from 2014 from the Idaho Observer? Just curious...you didn't have a camera to photograph what you observed on the day you were in Palmdale three years ago?!



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

LOL phage.
If it didn't produce a lot more C02 then why did you even mention it?
Anyways, I'm firmly in the camp that getting the Sulfur out of the fuel supply is more important than your no comparison based allegation that more C02 is generated.
I must be right, or they would not have taken the sulfur out of the diesel and gasoline supply, would you agree?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: fema1

I think the funny thing is that if you don't believe in chemtrails then ok, that's fine, I'm a skeptic too. But I remember in Earth History class they said water vapor was technically the number one greenhouse gas and that cloud cover was more responsible for warming than anything else....so here we have entire sections of the country completely covered in contrail clouds then say that global warming is due to other reasons that we must tax/regulate? hmmmm



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
a reply to: fema1

I think the funny thing is that if you don't believe in chemtrails then ok, that's fine, I'm a skeptic too. But I remember in Earth History class they said water vapor was technically the number one greenhouse gas and that cloud cover was more responsible for warming than anything else....so here we have entire sections of the country completely covered in contrail clouds then say that global warming is due to other reasons that we must tax/regulate? hmmmm


More 'science' that hasn't been looked at.
And they have told us for years the science is settled, what a joke.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

If it didn't produce a lot more C02 then why did you even mention it?
Because any process which releases fossil carbon is of concern.



I'm firmly in the camp that getting the Sulfur out of the fuel supply is more important than your no comparison based allegation that more C02 is generated.
Yes, sulphur dioxide produces acid rain. That's bad. But you're big on false dichotomies, aren't you? Can't be working on more than one problem. Right?

What does this have to do with "chemtrails" btw?

edit on 3/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

If it didn't produce a lot more C02 then why did you even mention it?
Because any process which releases fossil carbon is of concern.



I'm firmly in the camp that getting the Sulfur out of the fuel supply is more important than your no comparison based allegation that more C02 is generated.
Yes, sulphur dioxide produces acid rain. That's bad. But you're big on false dichotomies, aren't you? Can't be working on more than one problem. Right?

Not big on that at all, I just seen no logic whatsoever in what you were saying.
If the Europeans were concerned about the increase of C02 and felt it outweighed the benefits of the Sulfur reduction, they would not have mandated low Sulfur ground transportation fuels.
I tried to get where you were coming from, in the end I just put it down to you being fanatical about any increase whatsoever in C02. Alarmist.
Can't even deal with real pollution cause it might generate some C02.
As of today, there is no process of desulfurization that doesn't take energy.
Get a horse.
edit on 12-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Phage, we are doomed!
Move to a polar region, this gonna cook you down there on the islands.
2020 IMO sulfur cap

The International Maritime Organization on October 27
announced it was going ahead with a global sulfur cap of 0.5%
on marine fuels starting from January 1, 2020, ending years of
uncertainty.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


What does this have to do with "chemtrails" btw?

Not a heck of a lot. Taking the sulfur out of the Jet will change the contrails to a degree, according to the article you linked.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It is not common to see contrails, because certain conditions must exist first, and this is somewhat rare, generally.

These other trails are seen daily, around the world, and that would never, ever happen if it were actual contrails. Because the conditions for contrails to form are rare - not around the world, daily.


Why lie about things that anyone can easily check for themselves?

The dark green on this chart shows where conditions are right for persistent contrails




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: fema1

Please write the President and demand he make an Executive Order to stop it.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: cosmania
That's not pollution, they spray that to mask us observing Nibiru. Cloud up the sky so we can't see above us. They know it's there, they're hiding it!


Lol, yah they sow the sky with jet exhaust pollution to cover up the mystery alright.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: cosmania
That's not pollution, they spray that to mask us observing Nibiru. Cloud up the sky so we can't see above us. They know it's there, they're hiding it!


Lol, yah they sow the sky with jet exhaust pollution to cover up the mystery alright.

Jet exhaust pollution will be there whether you see contrails or not. Contrails are sometimes caused by jet exhaust (under the right conditions, such as the conditions that often occur at 30,000+ feet), but they are not actually jet exhaust itself.

Well, that's not completely accurate...a small part of a contrail might be the by-products of the burnt jet fuel, but the majority of a contrail is water that was pre-existing in the air even before the plane flew through it.

Granted, the fact that the pre-existing atmospheric water vapor is condensed out of its invisible vapor state and into a visible cloud of ice crystals could be an issue because of the reduction of sunlight caused by a contrail cloud, but a cloud of ice crystals isn't usually the definition of "pollution" that most people have.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for agreeing with me, round about wise. The water in the atmosphere needs particulates to begin to condense on, that particulate is the exhaust chemical compounds and soot that exits the jet engine.

And you're right, conditions have to be right for it to persist and cloud over the sky, reducing the suns light. I know, I live in the sf bay area, see it over head 24/7. Even when its not 'visible' as vapor or ice I still see this 'brownish' haze up there and I know its from the constant airline traffic at altitude.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for agreeing with me, round about wise. The water in the atmosphere needs particulates to begin to condense on, that particulate is the exhaust chemical compounds and soot that exits the jet engine.



The exhaust particulate isn't actually required though, there's enough condensation nuclei in the atmosphere already



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for agreeing with me, round about wise. The water in the atmosphere needs particulates to begin to condense on, that particulate is the exhaust chemical compounds and soot that exits the jet engine.



The exhaust particulate isn't actually required though, there's enough condensation nuclei in the atmosphere already

Yah, from the last ten thousand jet flybys. Not required, lulz.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for agreeing with me, round about wise. The water in the atmosphere needs particulates to begin to condense on, that particulate is the exhaust chemical compounds and soot that exits the jet engine.



The exhaust particulate isn't actually required though, there's enough condensation nuclei in the atmosphere already

Yah, from the last ten thousand jet flybys. Not required, lulz.


Right because before jets there were no clouds

lulz



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join