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: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

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

'Clouds' aren't pollution.




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

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

'Clouds' aren't pollution.


Can't argue with that



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
EDITED TO INCLUDE THE CORRCT QUOTE/PERSON QUOTED:


originally posted by: intrptr

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

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.



True, but not all of the visible ice crystals in a contrail are condensing on particulates from jet exhaust. That jet exhaust could be a seed that starts a contrail, but once the contrail starts (and under the right conditions for persistence), it is the ice crystals themselves that become a nucleation point...

...i.e., ice crystals in a persistent and spreading contrail nucleate onto existing ice crystals in the contrail (in a chain reaction) and other ambient particulates, NOT onto the soot from burnt jet fuel.

If you would call a persistent spreading contrail "artificially created clouds that abnormally reduce sunlight" rather than calling them "pollution", then your argument might gain more traction. Considering a persistent contrail is almost made up entirely of water ice (like a cloud) with very little if any of the original burnt jet fuel soot remaining in the persistent contrail, it is hard to convince people to call it "pollution", due to most people's definition of pollution.


edit on 14/3/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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


True, but not all of the visible ice crystals in a contrail are condensing on particulates from jet exhaust. That jet exhaust could be a seed that starts a contrail, but once the contrail starts (and under the right conditions for persistence), it is the ice crystals themselves that become a nucleation point...

...i.e., ice crystals in a persistent and spreading contrail nucleate onto existing ice crystals in the contrail (in a chain reaction) and other ambient particulates, NOT onto the soot from burnt jet fuel.





I know. My point is that the initial condensation would still take place and a contrail would still form without the particulates in the exhaust as there are plentiful cloud condensation nuclei naturally in the atmosphere. Even a hydrogen powered jet with nothing other than water in the exhaust will still form a contrail.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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


True, but not all of the visible ice crystals in a contrail are condensing on particulates from jet exhaust. That jet exhaust could be a seed that starts a contrail, but once the contrail starts (and under the right conditions for persistence), it is the ice crystals themselves that become a nucleation point...

...i.e., ice crystals in a persistent and spreading contrail nucleate onto existing ice crystals in the contrail (in a chain reaction) and other ambient particulates, NOT onto the soot from burnt jet fuel.





I know. My point is that the initial condensation would still take place and a contrail would still form without the particulates in the exhaust as there are plentiful cloud condensation nuclei naturally in the atmosphere. Even a hydrogen powered jet with nothing other than water in the exhaust will still form a contrail.


Sorry -- I quoted the wrong person in my post.

I meant to use this quote from intrptr:

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

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.


I edited my post above to include the correct quote.

edit on 14/3/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 11:45 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.


Um....no.

Aerosols interact both directly and indirectly with the Earth's radiation budget and climate. As a direct effect, the aerosols scatter sunlight directly back into space. As an indirect effect, aerosols in the lower atmosphere can modify the size of cloud particles, changing how the clouds reflect and absorb sunlight, thereby affecting the Earth's energy budget. Aerosols also can act as sites for chemical reactions to take place (heterogeneous chemistry). The most significant of these reactions are those that lead to the destruction of stratospheric ozone. During winter in the polar regions, aerosols grow to form polar stratospheric clouds. The large surface areas of these cloud particles provide sites for chemical reactions to take place. These reactions lead to the formation of large amounts of reactive chlorine and, ultimately, to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere. Evidence now exists that shows similar changes in stratospheric ozone concentrations occur after major volcanic eruptions, like Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, where tons of volcanic aerosols are blown into the atmosphere (Fig. 1).


Types of atmospheric aerosols:

Volcanic Aerosol Three types of aerosols significantly affect the Earth's climate. The first is the volcanic aerosol layer which forms in the stratosphere after major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo. The dominant aerosol layer is actually formed by sulfur dioxide gas which is converted to droplets of sulfuric acid in the stratosphere over the course of a week to several months after the eruption

and:

Desert Dust The second type of aerosol that may have a significant effect on climate is desert dust. Pictures from weather satellites often reveal dust veils streaming out over the Atlantic Ocean from the deserts of North Africa. Fallout from these layers has been observed at various locations on the American continent. Similar veils of dust stream off deserts on the Asian continent. The September 1994 Lidar In-space Technology Experiment (LITE), aboard the space shuttle Discovery (STS-64), measured large quantities of desert dust in the lower atmosphere over Africa


and finally, for you:

Human-Made Aerosol The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Sulfate aerosols are believed to survive in the atmosphere for about 3-5 days.

www.nasa.gov...

knowledge is power.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Wasn't you asked in a thread about the SF bay area, why so many complaints come from here? I answered then, I am always outside, always looking up, I know what time is with the pollution here as well as LA.

All types from all sources for decades.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


All types from all sources for decades.


Yes. You seem to have a habit of blaming everything on aircraft exhaust. I'd hate for others to believe lies over facts, so I offered some facts to explain what you were trying to say, but seemed to not quite articulate.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Well here is a bomb shell from the CFR about BS on climate change for an excuse to use Aerosols!





posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: fema1

So, those jets are flying in the stratosphere?

But tell me, where does he say that SAI is being done?
www.cia.gov...

edit on 3/14/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: fema1
Been lots of talk of geoengineering over the years, wouldn't surprise me if it's being done.
I'd hazard a guess that any attempt to geoengineer will meet with disaster.
In an effort to save the planet from the threat of C02, something much worse will happen.

An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols


We provide an overview of geoengineering by stratospheric sulphate aerosols. The state of understanding about this topic as of early 2008 is reviewed, summarizing the past 30 years of work in the area, highlighting some very recent studies using climate models, and discussing methods used to deliver sulphur species to the stratosphere


This study describes an approach to cooling the planet, which goes back to the mid-1970s, when Budyko (1974) suggested that, if global warming ever became a serious threat, we could counter it with airplane flights in the stratosphere, burning sulphur to make aerosols that would reflect sunlight away.


An alternative would be to use a precursor gas that is quite long-lived in the troposphere but oxidizes in the stratosphere and then allow the Earth's natural transport mechanisms to deliver that gas to the stratosphere, and diffuse it prior to oxidation. OCS might serve as a natural analogue to such a gas (Turco et al. 1980), although it is carcinogenic and a greenhouse gas.


It might also be possible to create a custom molecule that breaks down in the stratosphere that is not a carcinogen, but using less reactive species would produce a reservoir species that would require years to remove if society needs to stop production. Problems with this approach would be reminiscent of the climate impacts from the long-lived chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), although lifetimes are shorter.


Our generic platform is a jet-fighter-sized aircraft carrying a payload of 10 metric tons of finely divided aerosol, or an equivalent precursor mass, to be distributed evenly over a 2500 km flight path during an 4-hour flight (while few aircraft are currently capable of sustained flight at stratospheric heights, platform design issues are neglected at this point). The initial plume cross section is taken to be 1 m2, which is consistent with the dimensions of the platform. Note that, with these specifications, a total aerosol mass injection of 10 Tg of particles per year would call for 1 million flights, and would require several thousand aircraft operating continuously in the foreseeable future. To evaluate other scenarios or specifications, the results described below may be scaled to a proposed fleet or system.


Enhancing aircraft fuel with added sulphur compounds (H2S, Sn) could increase the particle mass in a jet wake. It is well established that ultrafine sulphate particles are generated copiously in jet exhaust streams during flight

If we imagine enhanced jet fuel sulphur contents of 5 per cent by weight (10–100 times current amounts) for geoengineering purposes, then the annual consumption of approximately 50 Tg of such fuel during stratospheric flight (approx. half the amount used by current commercial aviation) could emit up to 2.5 Tg of sulphur that would eventually generate roughly 10 Tg of sulphate aerosol. The total number of particles emitted—for Ep∼1×1017 kg−1 fuel—would amount to approximately 5×1027. This number, uniformly dispersed over a 10-km thick layer from 15 to 25 km, yields an average concentration of approximately 1×103 cm−3 with a particle radius of roughly 0.06 μm; in other words, an ideal geoengineered solar shield. These estimates (i) assume no unexpected chemistry or microphysics in the early wake that would alter the emission factor significantly, (ii) allow for an ideal distribution of sulphate mass among the particles, and (iii) ignore coagulation following emission.

edit on 14-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


You seem to have a habit of blaming everything on aircraft exhaust.

That is the topic...

but why I don't engage with you anymore about it. We been all over this road before. I say something and you put words in my mouth.

late



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude


You seem to have a habit of blaming everything on aircraft exhaust.

That is the topic...

but why I don't engage with you anymore about it. We been all over this road before. I say something and you put words in my mouth.

late


Just when you say things that aren't true. And I am nice enough to provide verifiable, undisputed links and all.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: fema1
Well here is a bomb shell from the CFR about BS on climate change for an excuse to use Aerosols!




Can you do something that nobody else who has posted that video clip has ever done? Just post the exact words IN CONTEXT where he "admits" anything about geo-engineering.

Sadly, I think lots of folks looked at the title, and didn't bother to listen to the clip. I look forward to you explaining this.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
So many planes keep on flying above every major city around the world, day after day, while each and every one of these planes always leaves a contrail, simply doesn't wash.

You cannot remove the environmental factors required, which aren't present each and every day, around the world, right?

You have another excuse, which is engines make the contrails now, in most any type of environment...


Of course, no proof for this claim, to excuse it all away..


Planes would not be flying in every direction, going nowhere,

Some of these planes are going directly west, to the vast Pacific Ocean...!!

Where could these planes possibly land, is the real question...

They are flying over an international airport, but none of them need more fuel in crossing the Pacific!

Why are the planes above the city, all the time? No reason, flying over cities is just for fun!!



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Where could these planes possibly land, is the real question...


There's this place called "Asia." Try using Google Maps.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1


Where could these planes possibly land, is the real question...


There's this place called "Asia." Try using Google Maps.


Yes, but there's no reason they always fly above the city, on the way to Asia.

The planes have to start from one point, and fly to another point. Like Beijing, for example.

No starting point chosen will fly anywhere NEAR this city, enroute to Beijing.

But these planes all fly over the city, - that is simply impossible



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Contrary to what you apparently believe, flying from point A to point B in a straight line is NOT the most efficient way to get somewhere. The most efficient way to get there is to fly the great circle route. That means when flying to Beijing, you fly up the West Coast of the US, circle under Alaska, down the West Coast of Russia, and into China. It does NOT mean flying straight out over the Pacific, over Hawaii, to China. If they flew that route, they WOULD need more fuel.

One of the benefits of a High Bypass Turbofan is that they are extremely efficient. A Boeing 707, depending on model, had a fuel capacity of between 17,000 gallons of fuel and 23,000 gallons of fuel. Using the first bypass turbofans developed, they had a range of between 3600 nautical miles, and 5000 nautical miles.

A Boeing 737 Max, using a new turbofan, has a fuel capacity of about 6900 gallons of fuel, and can fly 3500-3800 nautical miles. So using less than half the fuel of an older engine, an aircraft can fly as far, or in some cases with the larger aircraft, even farther.

A Boeing 777-200LR was set up as a record flight from Hong Kong to London. The total distance was 13,422 statute miles non-stop. You never could have done that with older engines.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Planes would not be flying in every direction, going nowhere,

Some of these planes are going directly west, to the vast Pacific Ocean...!!

Where could these planes possibly land, is the real question...

They are flying over an international airport, but none of them need more fuel in crossing the Pacific!

Why are the planes above the city, all the time? No reason, flying over cities is just for fun!!

There are regularly scheduled non-stop flights from New York, Washington DC, and Chicago to Tokyo and Beijing. From Dallas, Texas, you can fly non-stop to Sydney Australia, as well as to Tokyo or Beijing.

I once needed to go to Guam, and I did so by first flying non-stop from Dulles Airport (in Virginia, near Washington DC) to Tokyo. On the way back, I went through Honolulu, and flew non-stop from Honolulu to Washington DC. That flight path took us over southern California.


edit on 18/3/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Contrary to what you apparently believe, flying from point A to point B in a straight line is NOT the most efficient way to get somewhere. The most efficient way to get there is to fly the great circle route. That means when flying to Beijing, you fly up the West Coast of the US, circle under Alaska, down the West Coast of Russia, and into China. It does NOT mean flying straight out over the Pacific, over Hawaii, to China. If they flew that route, they WOULD need more fuel.



I never said they all fly in a straight line. I said they fly from Point A to Point B, and no flight paths would go over the city I live in, whether it's a straight line, or a great circle. That's the problem here.




top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join