Chemtrails: US Patent #5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming

page: 6
86
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
I'm confused.

Are we talking about "chemtrails" (aka white lines comprised of deadly dihyrogen monoxide crystals) or are we talking about the proposal to geoengineer the atmosphere by spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to replicate the cooling effects of large equatorial volcanic eruptions and thus counter global warming?

As already shown, the later is subject to a great deal of study at present and the tide of opinion is turning against it being a viable option.

I'm assuming the purpose of the thread is to argue in favour of it?
WIKI: Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)

Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is an overly pedantic naming of water.

Pedantic

–adjective
1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.

Ostentatious

characterized by pretentious, showy, or vulgar display


After all this data and discussion you are sticking with the: "Chemtrails are water/ice clouds" argument?


Again you try to contain the argument by attempting to MANDATE the discussion with a FALSE CHOICE:

Originally posted by Essan
...Are we talking about "chemtrails" (aka white lines comprised of deadly dihyrogen monoxide crystals) or are we talking about the proposal to geoengineer the atmosphere by spraying aerosols into the stratosphere...

The False choice you present: Either we are talking about Chemtrails or geoengineering.

I think it is clear to most folks in this thread that what I am suggesting is that geoengineering by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere via aircraft...
IS THE CHEMTRAIL PHENOMENON!!!


Why would you ASSUME this thread is in SUPPORT of the use of Chemtrails or whatever you want to call their attempts at geoengineering might be.


I thought my position on Chemtrail activity was clear...

I DO NOT condone it. Especially without getting the public involved in an HONEST discussion about the risk factors associated with the program such as health risks and the climate risks.

I am VERY MUCH against secrecy.

I desire transparency in government.

I might not be against it if I knew what it was!

The fact that it is secret, means that something about it JUST AINT RIGHT.

This thread originated with the SOURCE patent. It was brand new to me when I found it. It has led me on a path to discover much more information than I thought was available about this subject. Clearly the amount of information is growing with the propagation of information and the internet. But I also believe the discussion is spreading and therefore exposing more information each day.

Therefore limiting this thread to JUST the source patent would be pointless and ignorant.

So much other information supports the theories and the science.

All Chemtrail/Geoenginneering, via aircraft, (using WHATEVER substance(s)) information and discussion is welcome here.

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Thanks for that information Chadwickus.


I did mention though if they did human testing BEFOREHAND.
Before unleashing this cloud seeding into our skies.
If this has been going on since the 50s as you mention, then I wonder
if the potential affects on human health were examined BEFORE they started it.

Rather than testing the effects, AFTERWARDS when the horse had already bolted, so to speak.

Apologies if that information is there and I missed it.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by Chadwickus
 
... if they did human testing BEFOREHAND.
Before unleashing this cloud seeding into our skies.
If this has been going on since the 50s as you mention, then I wonder
if the potential affects on human health were examined BEFORE they started it.

Rather than testing the effects, AFTERWARDS when the horse had already bolted, so to speak.


My point exactly. I agree!

If there was open and honest testing of the materials showing the health and environemental affects caused by such methods... if it showed it was a just cause where the benefits outweighed the risks.

If this info was presented to and approved by the public or at least by congress and with full disclosure to the public... then it might be OK.

It is the secrecy about the Chemtrails which suggests a high probability of some SERIOUS negatives regarding the Chemtrails activity that they dont want the public to know about.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
I'll see how this thread is looking tomorrow and hopefully we can swing it around to a useful and informative discussion on the subject


Thanks for the imput, HOWEVER... No swinging needed! I think 99% of members would echo my sentiments that this thread is OFF AND RUNNING in a very constructive, useful, informational, and IS an active discussion about the Chemtrail cover-ups.


[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


Well I thought it was pretty obvious that not only is there no evidence we have yet started a theoretical geoengineering programme that science has serious doubts over, but that such a programme would not manifest itself in very limited dispersal at lower altitudes only in areas of heavy air traffic - rather it would be at stratospheric levels around the tropics.

But I thought it might be interesting to discuss how such a programme might be carried out and what the implications might be. There's also the conspiracy angle of if it were already taking place, how would we know?

However if all you're interested in is trying to prove manmade cirrus clouds are something else, well, it's your thread. I'll not interfere any more



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



....such a programme would not manifest itself in very limited dispersal at lower altitudes only in areas of heavy air traffic - rather it would be at stratospheric levels around the tropics.


Bravo!! How many times have I tried to point that out?

Each and everyone of these types of threads inevitably devolve into the "I saw them 'spraying' over me" when, in fact, they are simply seeing commercial jets leaving contrails.

Because the compexities of modern air travel, and the routes flown, and the reaction of the engines in the atmosphere, are just too difficult to convey properly, sometimes.


AS TO the 'patents'....this is where what 'Essan' said bears repeating: It would be done WELL higher than normal cruising altitudes for commercial airline traffic, AND for maximum effect it would have to be nearer the Equator, where sunlight is most concentrated.

This makes my chuckle at those who live in VERY Northern latitudes who think they are being "chemtrailed"!

ALL the above assumes that the very-high-level 'experiments' (should they ever be conducted) are for global climate control....

Others have the temerity to bring up exotic hypotheses...which include HAARP and 'weather control' as in, being able to "steer" major hurricanes and cyclones by usiing HAARP and the jetstreams...

I just wish the stage would clear, and people would focus on one "conspiracy" at hand at one time.....



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


So we are certain that there is no high-level spraying of any substance in Iraq currently that is utilized for triangulation purposes?

Just wondering.

And are we also certain that there are no high-level spraying of any substance by the US military prior to covert high altitude jumps?

Just wondering.

There is just so much information out there that it is hard to process it all...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 



So we are certain that there is no high-level spraying of any substance in Iraq currently that is utilized for triangulation purposes?


I'm sorry?

Iraq?

Triangulation?

The fact that GPS is far, far more accurate in classified military applications should be sufficient.

I'd daresay that...the GPS would be primary...but just for giggles and grins, I can conceive of, for safety of troops, a "Plan B" as a just-in-case scenario....

But, just exactly how "high-level" do you wish to allege??



The primary gist of most of these discussions in on VERY high (above the ability of conventional aircraft to acheive) altitudes...meaning a delivery system OTHER than jet airplanes.

I think this simple fact keeps getting glossed over....



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sorry "high altitude" not "high level".

I am curious, because I am just certain I heard somewhere that the military may be spraying nano particles for the purpose of weapons trianagulation and/or subterfuge prior to high altitude jumps for their ops teams, and was hoping that someone would correct me as this forum is filled with subject matter experts on the limitations of government technologies.

That's all. Forgive my term usage. I was trying to keep up with everyone.

So, you are saying that "no" the military does not have jet aircraft releasing nano particles and H20 behind their jets in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Whew! That takes a load off.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Hi Weed,
I don't think it is correct that they would spray near the Equator, the opposite would be true since the Stratosphere is at a lower level at the poles, and I may be wrong here, but I thought there is a natural drift towards the poles anyway. It is not really relevant here but sulphur is itself a greenhouse gas, so any idea of using it only points out the culture shift from Global warming to Climate change. In other words this means that the scientists are already looking at causes apart from greenhouse gases for the Earth heating up. I'll look for some info on that.



[edit on 28-10-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AS TO the 'patents'....this is where what 'Essan' said bears repeating: It would be done WELL higher than normal cruising altitudes for commercial airline traffic, AND for maximum effect it would have to be nearer the Equator, where sunlight is most concentrated.


No.
It would not need to be WELL higher than normal cruising altitudes.

IN FACT... If you would read all the sources... YOU WOULD SEE that more than once the sources state that the activity would be done WELL WITHIN normal cruising altitudes. 28,000-38,000 ft.

This altitude level has been purposed in a number of different sources by scientists and climatologists. NOT JUST the OP Patent, but if you look at the other research papers and things I have linked in later posts they echo this suggestion.

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I guess my point wasn't clear....

The reason, IF there is something being presented into the very high upper atmosphere to somehow alter or diminish the sunlight intensity, then it's fairly obvious that the EQUATOR receives mush, much more solar radiation than higher latitudes nearer the poles.....

But, as to the height differences....if you're referring to the tropopause, it actually is at higher altitudes nearer the equator.

WIKI snippet:


Troposphere
The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 7 km (23,000 ft) at the poles and 17 km (56,000 ft) at the equator, with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. This promotes vertical mixing (hence the origin of its name in the Greek word "τροπή", trope, meaning turn or overturn). The troposphere contains roughly 80% of the mass of the atmosphere. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


Hmmmmm.....

Then, please SHOW us.

Demonstrate to everyone, do the math. Please calculate HOW they can carry the needed heavy payloads, given that they must also carry fuel to keep them flying for the duration of the time aloft, plus safe reserves for landing.

Keep in mind that it is IMPOSSIBLE for all of the normal passenger jets, the ones that produce the contrails that are mistaken constantly by this paranoia called "chemtrail" studies...to be carrying extra payloads of this sort. Not only is it impossible, because of carrying capacity limitations, but there is NO provision for this so-called "spraying" to be conducted.

SO, you are now forced to consider only the Military, and/or contracted sources. BUT, you still have to show how the manpower, the hours needed, and the payloads can possibly approach the needed levels to carry the vast amounts that are alleged, here.

I hope this makes sense....because in all the patent information found, again this is only the suggestion of what may be possible, should it become necessary, in order to axccomplish the saving of the Earth's climate --- at least, that IS their intent.

It is a benign intent...not nefarious. THOSE ideas come from the paranoid websites, as I keep mentioning.

OH, and if you look more into it, there are OTHER crazy and very out there ideas being suggested, too. They just talked about it last night on the "Daily Show", guest was a co-author of "Freakonomics".

I'm sure the clip is up on YouTube by now....



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I had no idea that the military publishes specifications of their in-use warfighter and warfighter performance technologies! Wow. They didn't use to do that. All of their specs and outsourced equipment was always held back at least ten years when I was affiliated with them. Nice to know how so definitively what they have in their arsenal. Well, who am I to question the military's disclosure, right? The world must be a safe enough place that they feel they can share this information with all of us.

Good to know that they do not have this ability. I can sleep better at night knowing they aren't unloading any harmful chemicals into the air. They used to have a bad habit of wreaking environmental havoc. Just ask SAIC.

They must be a changed agency now. Go Obama!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Cute.


I can sleep better at night knowing they aren't unloading any harmful chemicals into the air.


Yes. Unless you sleep close to a freeway, or in the inner city, or near a factory that is polluting the air and the local waterways, or unless you're near a source of PCBs, or ou live in a house with Radon in the basement, or a newer house with the latest craze, the "Toxic Chinese Drywall" (not kidding, real story...during the housing boom ten years or so ago, along the Gulf Coast, mostly) or you have the dreaded Black Mold infesting your home, or the formaldehyde from cheap laminated pressboard furniture, or you just installed new wall-to-wall carpeting and it';s outgassing the toxins, OR you are using your cellphone a lot and risking brain cancer, OR, OR, OR.....the list is nearly endless.

Yes, there are FAR, FAR more terrors and dangers right here at ground level....

Oh, forgot the mercury in the seafood...and the trans-fats, and salt, too mcuh sugar, aspartame.....

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If the list is endless do we really need one more?

Awww, who am I kidding! The government wouldn't hurt us or allow anyone else to. They certainly didn't put a seal of approval on those cellphones or dry wall. They didn't set the "safe" standards for pollution that has it so we can't eat fish caught in our rivers.

That was somebody else.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
What you said originally was quite clear, And that was to reinforce what another poster had erroneously said to whit, (That the spraying would take place around the Equator) That is clearly wrong, any spraying that would take place, will be around around the poles. It is the poles that are more affected by the heating up of the planet. By keywording on the search engine I found this no nonsense and revealing link which confirms what I have been saying,

"Because stratospheric air naturally spirals toward the poles, and because the Arctic regions are more vulnerable to global warming, it makes sense to spray the sulphur aerosol at high latitude"
Here's the link, it will take a while to read,
www.timesonline.co.uk...

BTW, you don't need to worry about the spreading problem, if they use jets, the Sulpher will be in the fuel...just fill 'er up.

I thought I would add this second link while you're having your tea,

this is about secret chemspraying on post-war Britain,
www.guardian.co.uk...









[edit on 29-10-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


It's actually very old news. The idea has been mooted for many years Lots of problems with it though. Like it causes other environmental problems. I wouldn't expect Obama to be up to date with latest scientific research though



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
"Because stratospheric air naturally spirals toward the poles, and because the Arctic regions are more vulnerable to global warming, it makes sense to spray the sulphur aerosol at high latitude"
Here's the link, it will take a while to read,
www.timesonline.co.uk...


I'm not calling you a moron, but I am calling the author of that article a moron if he thinks it makes more sense to spray the high latitudes because the polar regions are more sensitive to warming, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Global ocean currents and air movements play a key role in redistributing the heat the Earth receives around the planet. So if you don't stop the bulk of the heat from entering the planet's environment, then spraying at the poles does nothing to prevent the heat from the equatorial regions to be redistributed and warm up the poles anyway.

Now if you find someone who has a planetary modeling system set up in a supercomputer and has run simulations to prove that spraying polar regions will be more effective, please cite that source, but hopefully you're smart enough to realize that you can't believe the nonsense in the claim I quoted now that I've explained why it makes no sense.





new topics
top topics
 
86
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join