|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 08:44 AM by Essan
|
Originally posted by Manasseh
Every claim I have made is backed up by an external source.
I have seen the debunker do no such thing.
What external source have you offered to a) show that cirrus clouds should appear on water vapour satellite images or b) that there is any practical
aspect to spraying silver iodide at high altitude?
And maybe you could also explain why contrails have been observed and studied for 100 years if they're all just silver iodide and co2?
You're confusing two completely different issues and in the process spoiling any serious discussion on what should be very pertinent issues: a) the
consequences of weather modification (cloud seeding) and b) the effect of increased air traffic creating more cirrus clouds (contrails)
Or maybe that's your aim? 
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 08:52 AM by Essan
|
reply to post by nomadrush
I have one question: Does Dr MacKay(or anyone else) have any documented proof that contrails have been recorded when atmospheric soundings have
indicated that such contrails could not occur (based on standard meteorological explanations for contrails)?
That's all the evidence we need 
Until then, there is no evidence that we can see chemtrails.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:02 AM by Manasseh
|
reply to post by Essan
Now a group of European and U.S. scientists is advocating a broad research effort to solve the puzzle and understand just what is occurring in cirrus
clouds, wispy sheets of ice crystals 6 to 10 miles above the Earth's surface.
"Based on our current knowledge, it shouldn't exist," said Marcia Baker, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences.
...
Cirrus clouds also are important in regulating the distribution of water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, in the upper troposphere.
www.sciencedaily.com...
Seriously, the scientist studying this very phenomena don't understand it, but you have complete knowledge?
he UV/IR cirrus cloud optical depth ratio was estimated on the basis of a comparison of lidar and GOES 8 measurements. Simple radiative transfer model
calculations compared with GOES satellite brightness temperatures indicate that satellite radiances are significantly affected by the presence of
cirrus clouds if IR optical depths are ∼0.005 or greater
www.agu.org...
more water vapor required to form an ice crystal than
to form a water droplet
www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:05 AM by snoopyuk
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:12 AM by Manasseh
|
Here is a site showing that cirrus clouds do show up on water vapor images
Look again at the water vapor image. Note the narrow swath of moist air aloft that extends from central Texas to the lower Mississippi Valley and into
the central Appalachians. Note the bright blob (which represents clouds) in Mississippi. Do you think that this blob represents cumulonimbus clouds
(thunderstorms) or a patch of thick, high cirrus (feathery ice-crystal) clouds? Look at the enhanced infrared image and frame your answer based on
this image. Also make your case using the visible image. Hint: For comparison sake, there are streamers of cirrus clouds moving into western Montana
from southwestern Canada.
www.ems.psu.edu...
You will need to visit the site and use the links to do the comparison.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:20 AM by snoopyuk
|
reply to post by Manasseh
hi there Mannasseh,
i think you are barking up the wrong tree so to speak....instead of looking into silver iodide and co2 introductions to the atmosphere (which is only
a very small amount ) you should be looking into the various `salts` that they are using for weather modification.
you should look into the research done by people such as Dr. Mckay, Mark Steadam, Rosalind Peterson and Clifford Carnicom.
they have looked into this subject for the last 8 + years.
if you want some good links just ask.
snoopyuk
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:26 AM by Manasseh
|
reply to post by Essan
I have persistent contrails over my house right now.
Now the closest sounding is Grand Junction (within 100 miles) at
300hpa shows a temperature of
hpa temp dp Rh
400.0 7530 -21.5 -35.5 27 0.47 265 32 327.0 328.8 327.1
395.1 7620 -22.4 -35.9 28 0.45 265 33 327.0 328.7 327.1
390.0 7716 -23.3 -36.3 29 0.44 267 32 327.0 328.7 327.1
370.0 8099 -25.9 -44.9 15 0.19 273 30 328.5 329.2 328.5
348.0 8534 -29.6 -48.6 14 0.13 280 28 329.3 329.9 329.4
319.4 9144 -34.7 -53.7 13 0.08 270 24 330.4 330.7 330.4
313.0 9286 -35.9 -54.9 12 0.07 268 25 330.6 330.9 330.6
300.0 9580 -37.9 -56.9 12 0.06 265 26 331.8 332.1 331.9
weather.uwyo.edu...
Temperature cold enough. Possibly, although the dew point suggests no.
However, the Relative Humidity is no where near close enough.
300 hp (approx 30,000 ft) shows a RH of 12%.
There is your proof.
250.0 10810 -47.7 -66.7 9 0.02 280 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:32 AM by snoopyuk
|
reply to post by Manasseh
hi there,
have you seen my two posts above ???
snoopyuk
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:35 AM by Manasseh
|
reply to post by snoopyuk
i think you are barking up the wrong tree so to speak....instead of looking into silver iodide and co2 introductions to the atmosphere (which is only
a very small amount ) you should be looking into the various `salts` that they are using for weather modification.
Hi SnoopyUK
The nickname for silver iodide is "silver salt"
Look at what China said they would use to modify the weather.
I can provide links if you need them.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:37 AM by Essan
|
Originally posted by Manasseh
Seriously, the scientist studying this very phenomena don't understand it, but you have complete knowledge?
What's your point?
Are you saying that natural cirrus clouds are chemtrails?
Now that's the sort of study chemtrail believers should be doing 
(Too much wine to comment on it here and now  )
Originally posted by Manasseh
reply to post by Essan
I have persistent contrails over my house right now.
And latest soundings indicate that persistent contrails should not be forming
Now in that case we have something to discuss!
Do you have some photos? Ideally we need wide angles shots showing persistence as well as close up to help identify the aircraft involved.
This is how we prove chemtrails
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:37 AM by snoopyuk
|
reply to post by Manasseh
yes but i REALLY think you should be looking at the more common methods... i will send you a u2u and i will give you some `info`
snoopyuk
[edit on 7-9-2008 by snoopyuk]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:41 AM by Manasseh
|
reply to post by snoopyuk
I have no secrets. Please share your info in public.
No disrespect meant, but I don't do this because I'm simply worried
about the effect is has on my family. I'm worried about the effect it
will have on mankind, so all should have access to the knowledge.
I will show a 1973 report
Silver iodide is currently the most favored cloud seeding material in weather modification projects.
...
Silver levels in soil, plant and litter material are being monitored twice a year on a mountainous area in southwestern Colorado,
...
Consistent increases in silver concentration were found in soil and pine foliage within 200 meters of one generator site.
www3.interscience.wiley.com...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:45 AM by snoopyuk
|
reply to post by Manasseh
yes but have you looked at more recent reports , that list the amount of barium , Aluminium and other salts that are used ??
U2U sent to you.
snoopyuk
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 09:52 AM by Manasseh
|
reply to post by snoopyuk
The problem with aluminum and barium is that they readily dissolve in the environment, where as silver doesn't.
Yes, I have seen the reports, and I believe they are designed to throw us off the path.
I did find this
Of the ice-forming materials, the most commonly used is silver iodide. The second major category is focused on cloud systems where the warm
(coalescence) process predominates. In those environments, hygroscopic (water attracting) materials such as salt, urea and ammonium nitrate can be
utilized. Of the hygroscopic materials, the most commonly used are salts.
www.nawcinc.com...
Both methods use salts to attract water in the atmosphere.
Ever tried to grow a plant in soil with excessive salt?
Urea??!! They are basically spraying manmade pee on us.
That probably gives them a chuckle
It was the first organic compound to be artificially synthesized from inorganic starting materials, in 1828 by Friedrich Wöhler, who prepared it by
the reaction of potassium cyanate with ammonium sulfate
...
Urea is, in essence, a waste product. It is found and retracted from urine
...
Urea can be irritating to skin and eyes. Too high concentrations in the blood can cause damage to organs of the body.
en.wikipedia.org...
Gives the term "piss on em" a whole new meaning now, doesn't it
I hope we can wake some people up to the catastrophic events
that have and will result from our government playing God. 
[edit on 7-9-2008 by Manasseh]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 10:17 AM by Essan
|
Leaving aside cloud seeding (which is a seperate issue) - we finally have an opportunity to prove that some contrails cannot be contrails!
Manasseh, it's by my reckoning about 09.15am where you are. The last sounding at Grand Junction was at 12z (06.00am local time) which means it's
possible atmospheric conditions have changed since, but unlikely unless a front has passed through.
Now, unfortunately all the local webcams seem show a clear blue sky - as would be expected based on the soundings. But maybe you can provide photos
to the contrary?
www.wxnation.com...
It's also possible if you're 100 miles away that conditions are sufficiently different there?
Nonetheless, this is how we prove/disprove chemtrails
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 10:22 AM by Manasseh
|
reply to post by Essan
Somehow, I have a feeling that no matter what I show you, you are going to say otherwise.
So, I will continue to show info to those who will listen. You my friend, will have no excuses on judgement day.
In late March and early April 2004, The Plant Disease Information Office started to receive an unusual number of phone inquiries and samples of ailing
Eastern red cedar, Juniperus virginiana, from throughout the state. The calls and samples continued to increase into May. Although this native species
is usually considered relatively trouble-free in Connecticut, this year we are seeing dramatic and conspicuous damage on trees in all age and size
classes, care regimes, and locations, including natural stands and managed landscapes.
...
The damage to the red cedars that we’re observing this year is significant but also serves to predispose and weaken the affected trees. This makes
them more vulnerable to secondary or opportunistic pests.
...
This winter’s unusually high snowfall levels resulted in extensive use of de-icing salts. De-icing salts cause damage through direct contact of salt
solutions with plant foliage ("spray zone" injury) and through chemical and physical modification of the soil as a result of accumulating salt and
uptake of salt ions by plant roots.
vvv.caes.state.ct.us...
Beetle kill my butt.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 10:26 AM by OzWeatherman
|
Im going to say this once and only once to show the Ops lack of knowledge of satellite imagery.
The reason contrails show up on the vis images and not the water vapour is due the wave length at which the satellite is programmed to read. The water
vapour satellite imagery is derived from wavelengths of 6-7 µm, the infrared satellite imagey is derived from wavelengths of 10-12 µm, and the vis
satellite images are simply recorded from light scattered off the clouds.
So as you can see, there are to different ways of viewing the atmosphere, and the Ops clear lack of knowledge has drawn him to an incorrect
conclusion.
Although I know this will not change his mind, here is a couple of links about the weather satellites in orbit at the moment for the rest of you
www.bom.gov.au...
www.bom.gov.au...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 10:41 AM by Manasseh
|
reply to post by OzWeatherman
You may be right. I may not know a lot about satellite images, but I do have the library of the world at my fingertips.
High-spectral resolution radiances were measured from above the cirrus at a number of wavelengths between 0.3 and 16.7 µm, thereby covering a large
range of ice crystal size parameter space and complex refractive index. It is shown that consistency between retrieved optical thickness and ice
crystal effective radius at both solar and infrared wavelengths could only be achieved if the ice aggregate model was assumed. Moreover, differences
between the ice aggregate model and spectrally resolved brightness temperature measurements were generally well within ±1 K between the wavelengths
of 3.3 and 16.0 µm in the clean atmospheric window regions.
www3.interscience.wiley.com...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 10:47 AM by Essan
|
Originally posted by Manasseh
reply to post by Essan
Somehow, I have a feeling that no matter what I show you, you are going to say otherwise.
You give up that easily?
I will certainly argue that if you can show (contrary to local webcams) that there are persistent contrails forming in the vicinity of Grand Junction
this morning then we need to look into meteorological conditions before drawing any final conclusion. But it would be the most pervasive argument you
can offer. I would have thought you'd have jumped at the chance to prove us wrong?
Why am I suspicious about your reaction to be being given an easy opportunity to prove meteorology wrong?
[edit on 7-9-2008 by Essan]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 10:47 AM by Byrd
|
Originally posted by Manasseh
Here is the most current WATER VAPOR satellite image. Not a contrail in sight.
Because contrails are too small to show up on that scale, and they're short and localized points of water vapor. I can take you outside here in
Dallas and show you a nice small cloud and I guarantee you won't be able to find it on that satellite image.
Does that mean that the cloud (which I can see, fly to, and photograph) isn't water vapor? No, but it does mean that it isn't large enough or that
it has enough water vapor in that small area to show up on the satellite image.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
