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.

 

Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

page: 34
131
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Hey where did you all go ? I know you're all sitting there with you jaws dropped. Well time to face the facts and fess up boys you were wrong. Don't worry no need to apologize. If it wasn't for all of you I might not have found this document.

downloads.climatescience.gov...

Thanks

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
.downloads.climatescience.gov...

3.4. Calculating Aerosol Indirect Forcing
3.4.1. AEROSOL EFFECTS ON CLOUDS
A subset of the aerosol particles can act as
cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and/or ice
nuclei (IN). Increases in aerosol particle concentrations,
therefore, may increase the ambient
concentrations of CCN and IN, affecting cloud
properties. For a fixed cloud liquid water content,
a CCN increase will lead to more cloud
droplets so that the cloud droplet size will
decrease. That effect leads to brighter clouds,
the enhanced albedo then being referred to as
the “cloud albedo effect” (Twomey, 1977), also
known as the first indirect effect. If the droplet
size is smaller, it may take longer to rainout,
leading to an increase in cloud lifetime, hence
the “cloud lifetime” effect (Albrecht, 1989),
also called the second indirect effect. Approximately
one-third of the models used for
the IPCC 20th century climate change simulations
incorporated an aerosol indirect effect,
generally (though not exclusively) considered
only with sulfates.
Shown in Figure 3.4 are results from published
model studies indicating the different RF values
from the cloud albedo effect. The cloud albedo
effect ranges from -0.22 to -1.85 W m-2; the
lowest estimates are from simulations that
constrained representation of aerosol effects
on clouds with satellite measurements of drop
size vs. aerosol index. In view of the difficulty
of quantifying this effect remotely (discussed
later), it is not clear whether this constraint provides
an improved estimate. The estimate in the
IPCC AR4 ranges from +0.4 to -1.1 W m-2, with
a “best-guess” estimate of 0.7 W m-2.
The representation of cloud effects in GCMs
is considered below. However, it is becoming
increasingly clear from studies based on high
resolution simulations of aerosol-cloud interactions
that there is a great deal of complexity that
is unresolved in climate models. This point is
examined again in section 3.4.4.
Most models did not incorporate the “cloud lifetime
effect”. Hansen et al. (2005) compared this
latter influence (in the form of time-averaged
cloud area or cloud cover increase) with the
cloud albedo effect. In contrast to the discussion
in IPCC (2007), they argue that the cloud
cover effect is more likely to be the dominant
one, as suggested both by cloud-resolving
model studies (Ackerman et al., 2004) and
satellite observations (Kaufman et al., 2005c).
The cloud albedo effect may be partly offset by
reduced cloud thickness accompanying aerosol
pollutants, producing a meteorological (cloud)
Fig. 3.4. Radiative forcing from the cloud albedo effect (1st aerosol indirect effect)
in the global climate models used in IPCC 2007 (IPCC Fig. 2.14). For additional
model designations and references, see IPCC 2007, chapter 2. Species included in
the lower panel are sulfate, sea salt, organic and black carbon, dust and nitrates;
in the top panel, only sulfate, sea salt and organic carbon are included.
Anthropogenic
aerosols cool the
surface but heat the
atmosphere.
67
Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts
rather than aerosol effect (see the discussion in
Lohmann and Feichter, 2005). (The distinction
between meteorological feedback and aerosol
forcing can become quite opaque; as noted
earlier, the term feedback is restricted here to
those processes that are responding to a change
in temperature.) Nevertheless, both aerosol
indirect effects were utilized in Hansen et al.
(2005), with the second indirect effect calculated
by relating cloud cover to the aerosol number
concentration, which in turn is a function of
sulfate, nitrate, black carbon and organic carbon
concentration. Only the low altitude cloud
influence was modeled, principally because
there are greater aerosol concentrations at low
levels, and because low clouds currently exert
greater cloud RF. The aerosol influence on high
altitude clouds, associated with IN changes, is
a relatively unexplored area for models and as
well for process-level understanding.
Hansen et al. (2005) used coefficients to normalize
the cooling from aerosol indirect effects
to between -0.75 and -1 W m-2, based on comparisons
of modeled and observed changes in
the diurnal temperature range as well as some
satellite observations. The response of the
GISS model to the direct and two indirect effects
is shown in Figure 3.5. As parameterized,
the cloud lifetime effect produced somewhat
greater negative RF (cooling), but this was the
result of the coefficients chosen. Geographically,
it appears that the “cloud cover” effect
produced slightly more cooling in the Southern
Hemisphere than did the “cloud albedo”
response, with the reverse being true in the
Northern Hemisphere (differences on the order
of a few tenths °C).
3.4.2. MODEL EXPERIMENTS
There are many different factors that can explain
the large divergence of aerosol indirect
effects in models (Fig. 3.4). To explore this in
more depth, Penner et al. (2006) used three
general circulation models to analyze the differences
between models for the first indirect
effect, as well as a combined first plus second
indirect effect. The models all had different
cloud and/or convection parameterizations.
In the first experiment, the monthly average
aerosol mass and size distribution of, effectively,
sulfate aerosol were prescribed, and
all models followed the same prescription
for parameterizing the cloud droplet number
concentration (CDNC) as a function of aerosol
concentration. In that sense, the only difference
among the models was their separate
cloud formation and radiation schemes. The
different models all produced similar droplet
Fig. 3.5. Anthropogenic impact on cloud cover, planetary albedo, radiative flux at the surface (while holding sea surface
temperatures and sea ice fixed) and surface air temperature change from the direct aerosol forcing (top row), the 1st indirect
effect (second row) and the second indirect effect (third row). The temperature change is calculated from years 81-120 of
a coupled atmosphere simulation with the GISS model. From Hansen et al. (2005).

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Any questions comments ? Got any explanations ?


Can I get an amen....Testify to the truth now brothers as you have witnesed it with your own eyes[
edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I like this video


Some more links can be found on this page
www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org.../atmospheric-testing-space-programs
edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Can you show me in this report where they are dumping chemicals? Where they are using planes to do this?
I see nothing in there that states they are dumping chemicals. Thank You.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
HAARP system satellites




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Closure experiments: During intensive field
studies, multiple platforms and instruments
are deployed to sample regional aerosol properties
through a well-coordinated experimental
design. Often, several independent methods
are used to measure or derive a single aerosol
property or radiative forcing. This combination
of methods can be used to identify inconsistencies
in the methods and to quantify uncertainties
in measured, derived, and calculated
aerosol properties and radiative forcings. This
approach, often referred to as a closure experiment,
has been widely employed on both individual
measurement platforms (local closure)
and in studies involving vertical measurements
through the atmospheric column by one or more
platforms (column closure) (Quinn et al., 1996;
Russell et al., 1997).
edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Whether it is through the direct spraying of different particles and/or the altering of the elements found in jet fuel. These experiments have been and are taking place. They use words that do not leave them open to liability when disclosing these studies. You will never get a direct clear and accurate detailing of specific chemicals and the techniques and methods used for obtaining the data in these studies. Read between the lines and it is obvious..

They make a test model. Drop samples, retrieve data then use that data to try and compare it to the natural environment. They then make a new test models and combine all the data. To make their studies as accurate a possible they need to run 100's if not 1000's of smaller test models. Then when they use the data from real World climate they can interpret the data better.

They use all possible methods to study the elements in the air and the effect it has on temperature and humidity. The reaction of clouds to those elements and the effects cloud cover has to the environment. They see that particles down low cause the environment to heat up. The particles up high cause the environment to cool.
edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
The discussion so far has dealt with global average
values. The geographic distributions of
multi-model aerosol direct RF has been evaluated
among the AeroCom models, which are
shown in Figure 3.3 for total and anthropogenic
AOD at 550 nm and anthropogenic aerosol RF
at TOA, within the atmospheric column, and
at the surface. Globally, anthropogenic AOD is
about 25% of total AOD (Figure 3.3a and b) but
is more concentrated over polluted regions in
Asia, Europe, and North America and biomass
burning regions in tropical southern Africa and
South America. At TOA, anthropogenic aerosol
causes negative forcing over mid-latitude continents
and oceans with the most negative values
(-1 to -2 W m-2) over polluted regions (Figure
3.3c). Although anthropogenic aerosol has a
cooling effect at the surface with surface forcing
values down to -10 W m-2 over China, India,
and tropical Africa (Figure 3.3e), it warms the
atmospheric column with the largest effects
again over the polluted and biomass burning regions.
This heating effect will change the atmospheric
circulation and can affect the weather
and precipitation (e.g., Kim et al., 2006).
Basic conclusions from forward modeling of
aerosol direct RF are:
• The most recent estimate of all-sky shortwave
aerosol direct RF at TOA from anthropogenic
sulfate, BC, and POM (mostly from
fossil fuel/biofuel combustion and biomass
burning) is -0.22 ± 0.18 W m-2 averaged
globally, exerting a net cooling effect. This
value would represent the low-end of the
forcing magnitude, since some potentially
significant anthropogenic aerosols, such as
nitrate and dust from human activities are
not included because of their highly uncertain
sources and processes. IPCC AR4 had
adjusted the total anthropogenic aerosol
direct RF to -0.5 ± 0.4 W m-2 by adding
estimated anthropogenic nitrate and dust
forcing values based on limited modeling
studies and by considering the observationbased
estimates (see Chapter 2).
• Both sulfate and POM negative forcing
whereas BC causes positive forcing because
of its highly absorbing nature. Although BC
comprises only a small fraction of anthropogenic
aerosol mass load and AOD, its forcing
efficiency (with respect to either AOD or
mass) is an order of magnitude stronger than
sulfate and POM, so its positive shortwave
forcing largely offsets the negative forcing



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Do you even understand what the hell you posted all over this thread? Why couldn't you post a little of it and then post the link?

I cannot make heads or tails out of what you posted. It looks like garbled crap.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Happily some of these tests used only sea salt as the models which could also account for the persistent nature of some of the trails. But sadly others used black carbon

A comprehensive description and evaluation
of the GFDL aerosol simulation are given in
Ginoux et al. (2006). Below are the general
characteristics:
Aerosol fields: The aerosols used in the GFDL
climate experiments are obtained from simulations performed with the MOZART 2 model
(Model for Ozone and Related chemical Tracers) (Horowitz et al., 2003; Horozwitz, 2006).
The exceptions were dust, which was generated
with a separate simulation of MOZART 2, using sources from Ginoux et al. (2001) and wind
fields from NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data; and
sea salt, whose monthly mean concentrations
were obtained from a previous study by Haywood et al. (1999). It includes most of the same
aerosol species as in the GISS model (although
it does not include nitrates), and, as in the GISS
model, relates the dry aerosol to wet aerosol
optical depth via the model’s relative humidity
for sulfate (but not for organic carbon); for sea
salt, a constant relative humidity of 80% was
used. Although the parameterizations come
from different sources, both models maintain a

Sea salt: The GISS model has a much larger sea
salt contribution than does GFDL (or indeed
other models).
Global and regional distributions: Overall, the
global averaged AOD is 0.15 from the GISS
model and 0.17 from GFDL. However, as shown
in Figure 3.8, the contribution to this AOD from
different aerosol components shows greater
disparity. For example, over the Southern Ocean
where the primary influence is due to sea salt in
the GISS model, but in the GFDL it is sulfate.
The lack of satellite observations of the component contributions and the limited available
in situ measurements make the model improvements at aerosol composition level difficult.
Climate simulations: With such large differences in aerosol composition and distribution
between the GISS and GFDL models, one
might expect that the model simulated surface
temperature might be quite different. Indeed,
the GFDL model was able to reproduce the
observed temperature change during the 20th
century without the use of an indirect aerosol
effect, whereas the GISS model required a
substantial indirect aerosol contribution (more
than half of the total aerosol forcing; Hansen
et al., 2007). It is likely that the reason for this
difference was the excessive direct effect in
the GFDL model caused by its overestimation
of the sulfate optical depth. The GISS model
direct aerosol effect (see Section 3.6) is close to
that derived from observations (Chapter 2); this
suggests that for models with climate sensitivity close to 0.75°C/(W m-2
) (as in the GISS and
GFDL models), an indirect effect is needed.very large growth in sulfate particle size when
the relative humidity exceeds 90%.
Global distributions: Overall, the GFDL global
mean aerosol mass loading is within 30% of
that of other studies (Chin et al., 2002; Tie et
al., 2005; Reddy et al., 2005a), except for sea
salt, which is 2 to 5 times smaller. However,
the sulfate AOD (0.1) is 2.5 times that of other
studies, whereas the organic carbon value is
considerably smaller (on the order of 1/2).
Both of these differences are influenced by
the relationship with relative humidity. In the
GFDL model, sulfate is allowed to grow up to
100% relative humidity, but organic carbon
does not increase in size as relative humidity
increases. Comparison of AOD with AVHRR
and MODIS data for the time period 1996-2000
shows that the global mean value over the ocean
(0.15) agrees with AVHRR data (0.14) but there
are significant differences regionally, with the
model overestimating the value in the northern
mid latitude oceans and underestimating it in
the southern ocean. Comparison with MODIS
also shows good agreement globally (0.15), but
in this case indicates large disagreements over
land, with the model producing excessive AOD
over industrialized countries and underestimating the effect over biomass burning regions.
Overall, the global averaged AOD at 550 nm is
0.17, which is higher than the maximum values
in the AeroCom-A experiments (Table 3.2) and
exceeds the observed value too (Ae and S* in
Figure 3.1).
Composition: Comparison of GFDL modeled
species with in situ data over North America,
Europe, and over oceans has revealed that the
sulfate is overestimated in spring and summer and underestimated in winter in many
regions, including Europe and North America.
Organic and black carbon aerosols are also
overestimated in polluted regions by a factor
of two, whereas organic carbon aerosols are
elsewhere underestimated by factors of 2 to 3.
Dust concentrations at the surface agree with
observations to within a factor of 2 in most
places where significant dust exists, although
over the southwest U.S. it is a factor of 10 too
large. Surface concentrations of sea salt are
underestimated by more than a factor of 2.
Over the oceans, the excessive sulfate AOD
compensates for the low sea salt values except
in the southern oceans.
Size and single-scattering albedo: No specific comparison was given for particle size
or single-scattering albedo, but the excessive
sulfate would likely produce too high a value
of reflectivity relative to absorption except in
some polluted regions where black carbon (an
absorbing aerosol) is also overestimated.
As in the case of the GISS model, there are several concerns with the GFDL model. The good
global-average agreement masks an excessive
aerosol loading over the Northern Hemisphere
(in particular, over the northeast U.S. and Europe) and an underestimate over biomass burning regions and the southern oceans. Several
model improvements are needed, including
better parameterization of hygroscopic growth
at high relative humidity for sulfate and organic
carbon; better sea salt simulations; correcting
an error in extinction coefficients; and improved biomass burning emissions inventory
(Ginoux et al., 2006).
3.5.1C. COMPARISONS BETWEEN GISS AND
GFDL MODEL
Both GISS and GFDL models were used in the
IPCC AR4 climate simulations for climate sensitivity that included aerosol forcing. It would
be constructive, therefore, to compare the similarities and differences of aerosols in these two
models and to understand what their impacts are
in climate change simulations. Figure 3.8 shows
the percentage AOD from different aerosol
components in the two models.
Sulfate: The sulfate AOD from the GISS model
is within the range of that from all other models
(Table 3.3), but that from the GFDL model exceeds the maximum value by a factor of 2.5. An
assessment in SAP 3.2 (CCSP 2008; Shindell et
al., 2008b) also concludes that GFDL had excessive sulfate AOD compared with other models.
The sulfate AOD from GFDL is nearly a factor of
4 large than that from GISS, although the sulfate
burden differs only by about 50% between the
two models. Clearly, this implies a large difference in sulfate MEE between the two models.
BC and POM: Compared to observations, the
GISS model appears to overestimate the influence of BC and POM in the biomass burning
regions and underestimate it elsewhere, whereas
the GFDL model is somewhat the reverse: it
overestimates it in polluted regions, and un-from sulfate and POM. This points out the
importance of improving the model ability to
simulate each individual aerosol components
more accurately, especially black carbon.
Separately, it is estimated from recent model
studies that anthropogenic sulfate, POM, and
BC forcings at TOA are -0.4, -0.18, +0.35 W
m-2, respectively. The anthropogenic nitrate
and dust forcings are estimated at -0.1 W m-2
for each, with uncertainties exceeds 100%
(IPCC AR4, 2007).
• In contrast to long-lived greenhouse gases,
anthropogenic aerosol RF exhibits significant
regional and seasonal variations. The forcing
magnitude is the largest over the industrial
and biomass burning source regions, where
the magnitude of the negative aerosol forcing
can be of the same magnitude or even stronger
than that of positive greenhouse gas forcing.
• There is a large spread of model-calculated
aerosol RF even in the global annual averaged
values. The AeroCom study shows that
the model diversity at some locations (mostly
East Asia and African biomass burning regions)
can reach ±3 W m-2, which is an order
of magnitude above the global averaged forcing
value of -0.22 W m-2. The large diversity
reflects the low level of current understanding
of aerosol radiative forcing, which is
compounded by uncertainties in emissions,
transport, transformation, removal, particle
size, and optical and microphysical (including
hygroscopic) properties.
Figure 3.3. Aerosol optical thickness and anthropogenic
shortwave all-sky radiative forcing from the AeroCom
study (Schulz et al., 2006). Shown in the figure: total AOD
(a) and anthropogenic AOD (b) at 550 nm, and radiative
forcing at TOA (c), atmospheric column (d), and surface
(e). Figures from the AeroCom image catalog (http://
nansen.ipsl.jussieu.fr/AEROCOM/data.html).
(a) Mean AOD 550 nm
(b) Anthropogenic AOD 550 nm
(c) Anthro. aerosol TOA forcing (W m-2)
(d) Anthro. aerosol atmospheric forcing (W m-2)
(e) Anthro. Aerosol surface forcing (W m-2)
In contrast to longlived
greenhouse
gases, anthropogenic
aerosol radiative
forcing exhibits significant
regional and
seasonal variations
edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


LOL...what's the matter you need some glasses or maybe an English tutor to explain what it says?

Just kidding, I know it's all worded using the same language lawyers and scientists use for liability and legal purposes. But yes I understand it. I am actually still reading it myself. There is a glossary at the end of the document. Some words do not mean or aren't being used in the same way that the normal interpretations are.

Aerosol for example just means particles in the air and distribution just means the way it spreads

I posted the link many times. Here it is again

downloads.climatescience.gov...



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Here is the link to the site page that has the other reports like this from 2004 until now. The report I was using was from 2009. There are 8 reports like this one in total available at this link available in pdf or html

www.globalchange.gov...

2004-2005 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2006 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2007 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2008 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2009 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2010 report pdf only downloads.globalchange.gov...

2011 report pdf only downloads.globalchange.gov...

Notice the legal disclaimer attached to these documents....

This document describes the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) for FY 2009. It provides a summary of the achievements of the program, an analysis of the progress made, and budgetary information. It thereby responds to the annual reporting requirements of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Section 102, P. L. 101-606). It does not express any regulatory policies of the United States or any of its agencies, or make any findings of fact that could serve as predicates for regulatory action. Agencies must comply with required statutory and regulatory processes before they could rely on any statements in this document or by the CCSP as a basis for regulatory action.

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Excellent Excellent Work My friend.

Dont let the persistent over-zealous debunkers get you down.

The closer to the truth you get the harder they will fight to discredit you and your data in any possible way.

Their ferocity is a sure sign that we are getting closer to the truth.

Regarding the so-called debunkers: Anyone who seriously thinks that this Chemtrail theory is all just BS and that who believe are all just a bunch of nut-cases wouldnt pay it any mind, wouldn't visit the thread, wouldn't post, wouldn't bother.

With so much zealous opposition to this conspiracy theory, really more than any other current active conspiracy that I can think of, it is clear that this subject demands much higher levels of research and investigation.

Something is up.... and weve got them running scared!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
From the newest report published in Dec 2010

The USGCRP and its participating agencies have been
engaged in preparations for COP-16, which was held
from 29 November to 10 December 2010, in Cancun,
Mexico.
International Civil Aviation Organization’s Committee
on Aviation Environmental Protection. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), as an arm of DOT,
participates in the work program of the International
Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Committee
on Aviation Environmental Protection “to develop
and assess standards and recommended practice
concerning aircraft/engine emissions (including
oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and particulate
matter emissions).” For example, FAA is conducting
a study to identify and assess metrics for CO2
emissions from aircraft that may potentially be used
to set standards for the certification of new aircraft
(including the benchmarking of existing aircraft)
and to monitor the operational performance of the
commercial aircraft fleet. The results of the study
will be provided within the work program of ICAO’s
Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection for
considering development of the aircraft CO2 standard by the end of 2012.



new topics

top topics



 
131
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join