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.

 

CLOSE-UP VIDEO: Pilot filming plane spraying into the air

page: 23
129
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 


"Spray with sunscreen"? See, that's where I find it to be entirely too impractical. The atmosphere isn't that stable, nothing will stay put, AND it is just TOO VAST, in surface area and volume...

...think about some imaginary "material", and how much you'd need to effectively "treat" one square meter, for instance. Take the weight of that amount...multiply by the thousands of square kilometers.

Divide that into reasonable-sized payloads to loft...using known limitations of aircraft performance and capacity...and man-hours involved, both for pilots AND ground support activities.

Crunch some numbers...I have. It is a pipe dream....


In research, have you run across other more extravagant ideas?? Like...low earth orbit mirrors, material, etc?? I've seen that, too.




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by __rich__
 


"Spray with sunscreen"? See, that's where I find it to be entirely too impractical. The atmosphere isn't that stable, nothing will stay put, AND it is just TOO VAST, in surface area and volume...

...think about some imaginary "material", and how much you'd need to effectively "treat" one square meter, for instance. Take the weight of that amount...multiply by the thousands of square kilometers.

Divide that into reasonable-sized payloads to loft...using known limitations of aircraft performance and capacity...and man-hours involved, both for pilots AND ground support activities.

Crunch some numbers...I have. It is a pipe dream....


In research, have you run across other more extravagant ideas?? Like...low earth orbit mirrors, material, etc?? I've seen that, too.



Good points, except that in the papers I linked to Teller and Lawrence Livermore did crunch the numbers, and said it was not only feasible, but indeed economically practical.

Remember, Teller came from decades of studying atmospheric patterns to see what would happen with vast amounts of nuclear fallout.

To wit:

"The starting point of the present paper is the widely-appreciated fact 2 that increases in average world-wide temperature of the magnitude currently predicted can be canceled 3 by preventing about 1% of incoming solar radiation – insolation – from reaching the Earth.4,5 This could be done by scattering into space
from the vicinity of the Earth an appropriately small fraction of total insolation. If performed near optimally, 6 we believe that the total cost of such an enhanced scattering operation would probably be at most $1 billion per year, an expenditure that is two orders of magnitude smaller in economic terms than those underlying currently proposed limitations on fossil-fired energy production.7,8,9"

www.osti.gov...

So, it's obvious Teller was commissioned with studying the cost-effectiveness of CO2 emission reduction vs. "sunscreen".



[edit on 19-7-2010 by __rich__]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Compare to this.
Little jumpy... ok really jumpy
Dc-10 Contrail



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by brutalsun
Compare to this.
Little jumpy... ok really jumpy
Dc-10 Contrail


Yes, that is a DC-10 with a short lived contrail. But is it your assertion that every contrail should be like that? If so, why?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 


OK...quick read through it, still long on promise, short on details and specfics...but, like I said, it was a quick read.

Here's the final kicker, though:


]Today, our scientific knowledge and our technological capability already are likely sufficient to provide solutions to these problems; both knowledge and capability in time-to-come will certainly be greater.

Whether exercising of present capability can be done in an internationally acceptable way is an undeniably difficult issue, but one seemingly far simpler than securing international consensus on near-term, large-scale reductions in fossil fuel-based energy production.


(I put it in 'quotes' tags, for easier readability --- instead of 'ex' tags)

Like you said...Dr. Teller may be expert at nuclear fall-out predictions...but the intent here is to keep it aloft.

I see he mentions the LEO option as well...and as to the stratospheric option, did I miss where he suggested a delivery vehicle method? Because, I've heard of unmanned rockets being proposed...

IN any case....again, this hysteria over so-called "chemtrails" is ludicrous, unwarranted and in any case premature.

Simple mis-indentfying of normal commercial aviation flights at cruise altitude, formaing contrails.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by __rich__
 


"Spray with sunscreen"? See, that's where I find it to be entirely too impractical. The atmosphere isn't that stable, nothing will stay put, AND it is just TOO VAST, in surface area and volume...

...think about some imaginary "material", and how much you'd need to effectively "treat" one square meter, for instance. Take the weight of that amount...multiply by the thousands of square kilometers.

Divide that into reasonable-sized payloads to loft...using known limitations of aircraft performance and capacity...and man-hours involved, both for pilots AND ground support activities.

Crunch some numbers...I have. It is a pipe dream....


In research, have you run across other more extravagant ideas?? Like...low earth orbit mirrors, material, etc?? I've seen that, too.



Good points, except that in the papers I linked to Teller and Lawrence Livermore did crunch the numbers, and said it was not only feasible, but indeed economically practical.

Remember, Teller came from decades of studying atmospheric patterns to see what would happen with vast amounts of nuclear fallout.

To wit:

"The starting point of the present paper is the widely-appreciated fact 2 that increases in average world-wide temperature of the magnitude currently predicted can be canceled 3 by preventing about 1% of incoming solar radiation – insolation – from reaching the Earth.4,5 This could be done by scattering into space
from the vicinity of the Earth an appropriately small fraction of total insolation. If performed near optimally, 6 we believe that the total cost of such an enhanced scattering operation would probably be at most $1 billion per year, an expenditure that is two orders of magnitude smaller in economic terms than those underlying currently proposed limitations on fossil-fired energy production.7,8,9"

www.osti.gov...

So, it's obvious Teller was commissioned with studying the cost-effectiveness of CO2 emission reduction vs. "sunscreen".



[edit on 19-7-2010 by __rich__]


Good one Rich, I missed that sublety re; the bean counting in the Teller pdf. respect, Mike.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by alpinebeer
www.youtube.com...

is all I'm gonna say bout this subject



Funny stuff.

Snake oil salesmen never really did disappear, did they?

Interesting what he's doing at the end of the video... the sales pitch.

That's all ~I~ have to say about this subject.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I would like to suggest to you a movie, the name is "blindness" 2008.
Look for it at the imbd website.

There are those who are more blind than those who don't have eyes to see.
And those have eyes, but they do not see.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   



Good one Rich, I missed that sublety re; the bean counting in the Teller pdf. respect, Mike.


What I find odd is that it seems Teller was commissioned to do this research, at all.

Meaning the concept of AGW or anthropogenic global warming, might be true.

And if it is, instead of reducing emissions, which would cut profits, it could be cheaper to spend $1 Billion/ yr to spray particulates in to the upper atmosphere.

This was an actual study paid for by US taxpayers.

Now...just for the sake of argument, let's say this method worked.

The status quo could come out and yell :"See? We TOLD YOU man-made climate change was a myth! The climate is cooling!"

All the while debunking the obvious "sunscreen" efforts as mere water vapor trails.

It's the perfect conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__



Good one Rich, I missed that sublety re; the bean counting in the Teller pdf. respect, Mike.



It's the perfect conspiracy.


Your last four words say it all. I found this pdf, it looks like a saved blog but it has some interest to this thread, and might just enlarge or help discussion here,

gators911truth.org...



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Contrails will only form into long-lasting visible cirrus-like cloud formations when the air temperature is at -40C/lower and the humidity level is at 70%/greater.
Chemtrails will form any where any time
"X" marks the spot



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
thanks for wasting those few minutes of my life lol.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by brokedown
 

Not exactly. But close.

The atmospheric pressure needs to be considered. If it's cold enough at a low enough altitude, where the pressure is higher, contrails can form at -35º. They can form at ground level.

There is no particular relative humidity requirement if the air is cold enough. At temperatures of less than about -46º contrails can form and persist at 0% humidity. These temperatures are not terribly unusual 6 miles up.

[edit on 7/19/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by brokedown
 

Not exactly. But close.

The atmospheric pressure needs to be considered. If it's cold enough at a low enough altitude, where the pressure is higher, contrails can form at -35º. They can form at ground level.

There is no particular relative humidity requirement if the air is cold enough. At temperatures of less than about -46º contrails can form and persist at 0% humidity. These temperatures are not terribly unusual 6 miles up.

[edit on 7/19/2010 by Phage]


Especially considering that jet turbines are adding water by means of the combustion process, just as a car engine would. And that cold thin air, does not require much water in order to locally saturate the air.

But its amazing how much pushback from chemmies I have gotten on that. Some refuse to believe the air is cold up there, or that it is thinner with less capacity to hold water. And then its back to their mantra of ice crystals can only last for 7 seconds in the atmosphere, which someone just made up. Cirrus, and snow, certainly tend to disprove that



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

Not just jets. Not many IC powered aircraft are flying that high any more but they exhaust hot wet stuff too.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by crustas
 


Referencing a movie to support a position on a fake phenomena? That makes sense.

I'd like you to check out "Roadrunner" with "Wile E. Coyote" to support my theory that it is possible to ride an anvil to the bottom of the grand canyon and suffer no worse than a stupid expression on your face.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by AwakeinNM]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 

And let's not forget the short-lived antigravity effect which allow the "oh, damn" expression to be clearly seen.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
We seem to have some disinfo agents on here. Can you guess who they are lol? Some of the most obsurd disinformation I have heard to date. Some people can shake hands with an alien and they still wont believe they exist. Now I havent seen hardcore proof of aliens, but please muzzleflash..........this plane is dumping ALL of his gas out? What's he going to fly home with? Seeding the skies was even paracticed in Vietnam during the war and this is historical fact...you guys are bad disinfo agents, if that.

Here is hardcore proof that THEY DO still seed the clouds for weather modification even today Muzzleflash and all other naysayers....her ya go smart guys.....a government site from Texas The state of Texas admits to seeding the skies for weather modification.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Phenomium]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by firepilot
 

Not just jets. Not many IC powered aircraft are flying that high any more but they exhaust hot wet stuff too.


Very true, as evidenced by the photos from WW2 of skies full of contrails, and stories of persistent contrails too.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium

Here is hardcore proof that THEY DO still seed the clouds for weather modification even today Muzzleflash and all other naysayers....her ya go smart guys.....a government site from Texas The state of Texas admits to seeding the skies for weather modification.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Phenomium]


Why do some of you keep trying to prove something that no one is arguing against??? It just makes no sense to me, since everyone in here agrees that cloud seeding projects occur, no one is denying it is happening, yet people keep coming in blustery and acting like they can prove something that is not even in dispute by anyone!



new topics

top topics



 
129
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join