New Air Monitoring Satellite Launches Today.

Today EASA will launch into space a new satellite, Sentinel 5P, which should be of interest to this particular sub forum. It's the first satellite put up specifically to monitor air quality and look for pollution and its sources and is a join effort between EASA (the European NASA) and the Dutch government. One would imagine that if chemtrails really existed out there, this would spot them in a heartbeat, or the dastardly PTB would have prevented the project?

It's main measuring instrument is called Tropomi, and this description shows why it should be of interest to us.

Tropomi (TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument) will be a spectrometer sensing ultraviolet (UV), visible (VIS), near (NIR) and short-wavelength infrared (SWIR) to monitor ozone, methane, formaldehyde, aerosol, carbon monoxide, NO2 and SO2 in the atmosphere. It extends the capabilities of the OMI from the Aura satellite and the SCIAMACHY instrument from Envisat.[5]

Sentient 5P website : sentinel.esa.int...

Here is another quick source of info, there are others.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: waynos

One would imagine that if chemtrails really existed out there, this would spot them in a heartbeat, or the dastardly PTB would have prevented the project?

You mean, 'If jet exhaust exists in the atmosphere', don't you? Because among other things, the chemicals they list include the components of jet exhaust...

...to monitor ozone, methane, formaldehyde, aerosol, carbon monoxide, NO2 and SO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't see them mentioning anything about 'mystery spraying', do you?

I did notice they omit radioactive elements, ongoing omission of emissions from Fukushima meltdowns. I don't expect them to tell us the truth about results either, just like they don't mention the levels of radioactive elements in the biosphere, our water and food.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: waynos


You mean, 'If jet exhaust exists in the atmosphere', don't you? Because among other things, the chemicals they list include the components of jet exhaust...

I'd have thought it would pick up the pollution from any number of sources

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: waynos


You mean, 'If jet exhaust exists in the atmosphere', don't you? Because among other things, the chemicals they list include the components of jet exhaust...

I'd have thought it would pick up the pollution from any number of sources

Yes it will. Show me one spectrograph reading from space of fuku fallout.

I don't mean the tons of projected, computer modeled or made up crap either.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: waynos


You mean, 'If jet exhaust exists in the atmosphere', don't you? Because among other things, the chemicals they list include the components of jet exhaust...

I'd have thought it would pick up the pollution from any number of sources

Yes it will. Show me one spectrograph reading from space of fuku fallout.

I don't mean the tons of projected, computer modeled or made up crap either.

I think this might be the forum you're looking for

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: waynos


You mean, 'If jet exhaust exists in the atmosphere', don't you? Because among other things, the chemicals they list include the components of jet exhaust...

I'd have thought it would pick up the pollution from any number of sources

Yes it will. Show me one spectrograph reading from space of fuku fallout.

I don't mean the tons of projected, computer modeled or made up crap either.

I think this might be the forum you're looking for

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lol, the super threads about Fukushima, parts one and two, have gone "missing".

Nice misdirect.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: waynos


You mean, 'If jet exhaust exists in the atmosphere', don't you? Because among other things, the chemicals they list include the components of jet exhaust...

I'd have thought it would pick up the pollution from any number of sources

Yes it will. Show me one spectrograph reading from space of fuku fallout.

I don't mean the tons of projected, computer modeled or made up crap either.

I think this might be the forum you're looking for

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lol, the super threads about Fukushima, parts one and two, have gone "missing".

Nice misdirect.

Oh well I tried to help. Good luck with your searching

Further:

"Shown" to who? Anything really polluting is ignored in the MSM anyway. They cover that stuff up. Liability and 'unnecessary panic' might result.

For instance. The fires in California are producing toxic smoke, they are warning people bout that, sort of...

Theres this index appearing on some news channels, warning levels include "Dangerous","Unhealthy", etc. They advise wearing 'masks', staying inside, closing windows, setting air handlers to recirculate... etc., etc. Not one report have I seen relating specific toxins recorded in specific areas, over time, or right now.

There are no websites to go to that are displaying any of this data. Ongoing, unchecked fires are still burning , winds are shifting direction constantly, I can sense and see the pollution in the sky overhead, and I am clueless what toxin danger levels exist, when and where.

In fact, the Weather channel on Cable has temporarily discontinued its daily "Particulate Count" slide level indicator at the bottom of the screen. Its probably off scale... who wants to cause 'undue' concern?

They have this information somewhere, they are monitoring for it, they are keeping it covered up.

They always do that. They will do the same thing wth any results they get from this new satellite, too.

a reply to: intrptr

So essentially you don't trust the air quality monitoring data. Got it

a reply to: mrthumpy

So essentially you don't trust the air quality monitoring data. Got it

What data? "Elevated", "Unhealthy" and "Dangerous" good enough for your kids at school?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mrthumpy

So essentially you don't trust the air quality monitoring data. Got it

What data? "Elevated", "Unhealthy" and "Dangerous" good enough for your kids at school?

Get involved with some Citizen science then

www.sciencedirect.com...

Don't just sit on your ass bitching about the data you're given. Get off it and do something

a reply to: intrptr

www.easa.europa.eu...

There is their website. Now you can go there directly and explain how things really are to them, as I don't think we care all that much. You can explain to them all about how they don't know anything about science, since you are omnipotent in the ways of pollution by airplane. Perhaps then, you could pass by a thread without wrecking it with off topic tears.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mrthumpy

So essentially you don't trust the air quality monitoring data. Got it

What data? "Elevated", "Unhealthy" and "Dangerous" good enough for your kids at school?

Get involved with some Citizen science then

www.sciencedirect.com...

Don't just sit on your ass bitching about the data you're given. Get off it and do something

I'm questioning, you're 'bitching' about that.

Citizen science? Citizens depend on 'Scientists' and media outlets for accurate up to date information.

Not color bars, deflection, and insult.

Like we're beginning to see here form one ATS wrecking crew.

a reply to: network dude

Perhaps then, you could pass by a thread without wrecking it with off topic tears.

Meh, you're one of the wreckers.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mrthumpy

So essentially you don't trust the air quality monitoring data. Got it

What data? "Elevated", "Unhealthy" and "Dangerous" good enough for your kids at school?

Get involved with some Citizen science then

www.sciencedirect.com...

Don't just sit on your ass bitching about the data you're given. Get off it and do something

I'm questioning, you're 'bitching' about that.

Citizen science? Citizens depend on 'Scientists' and media outlets for accurate up to date information.

Not color bars, deflection, and insult.

Like we're beginning to see here form one ATS wrecking crew.

Not all that interested then. Figures

One would imagine that if chemtrails really existed out there, this would spot them in a heartbeat, or the dastardly PTB would have prevented the project?

a reply to: waynos

More to the point, one should be asking, why in earth is this topic in a conspiracy section?

a reply to: TheInfiniteFantastic

Because chemtrails are a conspiracy theory and this topic is relevant to it.

originally posted by: TheInfiniteFantastic

One would imagine that if chemtrails really existed out there, this would spot them in a heartbeat, or the dastardly PTB would have prevented the project?

a reply to: waynos

More to the point, one should be asking, why in earth is this topic in a conspiracy section?

.