Are They Spraying Anything?

reply to post by Qcuailon

Threatened? No. Annoyed would be a better term. What difference do my qualification make if the information I present is factual? I provided data and it's source. Do you have a problem with the data? Do you think there is something wrong with the math? I'll ask you again; do you find anything in the OP to take issue with?

You want a definition? Ok.

The modern concept of geoengineering (or climate engineering) is usually taken to mean proposals to deliberately manipulate the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cloud seeding does not manipulate climate. It does not attempt to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. Cloud seeders try to make rain in their little corner of the world. They have been trying to make rain since early in the 20th century. Quite a while before the threat of global warming appeared. Quite a while before "chemtrails" appeared.
www.ohiohistorycentral.org...

The UN moratorium does not seem to have affected the cloud seeders much. Why is that if cloud seeding is geoengineering?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


No, the proposals were all I needed to make a point.

reply to post by Phage


Interesting, because the information that many have reported to you that you consistently reject, is also factual.

Isn't it funny how perception becomes one's God?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Qcuailon

 

Quite a while before "chemtrails" appeared.

edit on 3/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You do realize that this qualifies as a Freudian Slip, don't you?

reply to post by Qcuailon

Can you be more specific?

It is a fact that there are many proposals on how to mitigate global warming. Can you present facts which show that any of them are being done?

It's not a slip. It's in quotation marks. I use the term often to refer to what the "chemtrail" crowd talks about.
"Chemtrails" are only supposed to have started appearing in the mid 1990's.

I guess you find nothing wrong with the OP.

reply to post by Phage


Tell you what. We're obviously having a hard time coming up with an "operational definition" for Geo-engineering.

Let me narrow it down into a fine tuned, yet simplistic version...or at least, the way that I'm delivering it.

"Anything that goes into the atmosphere with the purposes of "manipulating it" involving chemical reactions which results in pollution." is the definition that I am working with.

Now, I have already provided you sources which clearly show how they are getting ready to incorporate "cloud seeding" with "Geo-engineering." It is probably SAFE to say that they have already RUN TESTS and have tried this very method, otherwise, they would not be releasing it to the public.

So...in effect soon, "Cloud seeding and Geo-Engineering will be utterly synonymous."

Again, I will note, I don't have to agree with the "Conspiracy" to know that there are lingering trails covering the sky that were once very rare to see. I thank the "Chemtrailers" because, THEY NOTICE.

I'm sorry I don't actually fit in with the typical chemtrail conspiracy fanbase because they seem to be an easier target for some of the hardline skeptics, but I do agree that the trails that can be seen up there are filled with chemicals. Because there is a percentage of these trails that are water vapor, they will cling to water in crystalline form such as clouds, and then mix whatever solution it has created in with the cloud. Eventually, we get what is known as "precipitation," and then whatever was mixed in with those clouds, rains down on us.

If you think that it is perfectly safe, then fine. Your mind obviously won't be moved. However, I am not under that same impression.

reply to post by Qcuailon

Your definition is your own and it conflicts with the generally accepted definition.

You have not shown that anybody is "getting ready" to do anything. It is not "safe" to assume that tests have been run, particularly when there is no evidence to indicate it.

As I said. It is a fact that there are many proposals out there. Nuclear explosions to help stop global warming. Patent applied for. They must be "getting ready". You think they've been testing it?
www.faqs.org...

reply to post by Phage

Oh yes Phage, but I have...

You might want to look up about 4 or 5 responses where I posted you information and videos in a very easy to understand format. You're simply plugging your ears and closing your eyes. I teach kids who do that stuff all the time.

I'm not posting it twice silliness.

reply to post by Qcuailon

Tesla. Right. I saw it.
A mechanical oscillator. That has a lot to do with geoengineering all right.

You're right, better you don't post the silliness twice.

reply to post by Phage


Phage, what do you do when you're backed into a corner, when the information that you have presented has failed, and when someone asks you for credentials that you cannot provide, yet they keep posting information which contradicts your main point?

At this point you're deflecting and actually hoping no one checks the links that I have posted. Now personally, I don't see this as the battle that you do, because my point is clear...

1. You don't have the credentials to prove these scientists wrong because you have no background, or education in these fields.
2. Geo-engineering is real
3. cloud seeding is real
4. cloud seeding is being incorporated into geo-engineering
5. cloud seeding requires combustible components in order to operate correctly
6. These combustible components are delivered via aerosol by aircraft
7. There are lingering "contrails" composed of "chemicals" in the sky that have been noticed by many.
8. They have become more prevalent in the 21st century which led to restrictions by the UN

For some, these are contrails, for others they are chemtrails. Both = Pollution. Both are detrimental to the environment. They are one in the same whether a "Conspiracy" exists or not.

All of these features here address the OP quite adequately and are direct and to the point.

If you could look at my information with an objective mind rather than approaching this as some sort of competition, you can meet somewhere in the middle and agree that the real problem is pollution...period. That's my point. If you want to struggle in your left/right paradigm while ignoring the overall picture, then fine. But, what kind of rationale is that? Is it better to be right than to take action? What good are all of your apparent resources if they can't bring about change Phage? You can choose to remain ignorant that there's a problem that needs to be fixed and ignore your environmental duty to be a steward of this earth, but, denying the existence of "chemtrails" because of the "conspiracy" behind its name is doing nothing but allowing the pollution to continue.

reply to post by Qcuailon

What scientists do I have to prove wrong. I'm saying the makers of the movie misrepresented the test results. I'm not interpreting anything. I'm not theorizing. I'm looking at the data presented and noticing some things about that do not jibe with what the movie makers say. I'll ask yet again; if you take issue with what I say please address it.

One of the scientists involved in the movie has agreed with me that the claim in the movie that geoengineering is causing a rise in pH levels is not valid. He has yet to respond to my other questions about the data presented.

Yes, pollution is a problem. No, there is nothing to indicate that geoengineering is being undertaken. And there is certainly nothing to indicate that the contrails seen today are any different than the contrails which have been seen for decades.

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

Okay, looking forward to your pics

As Phage has already pointed out though, the weather sounding aren't for prediction, merely observations.

So, in other words you have no science. If the weather supports it and there is a lot of air traffic, you should have your contrails. You want to have the option to say that there is no way to know. That is not science. After looking at the data, you should be able to say on what days contrails were visible. I am willing to let you do it after the fact.

And Wacky, please stay out of it. You have no science either.

reply to post by BillfromCovina

I gave you an interpretation of the sounding data.
I said that it was likely you would see contrails from aircraft flying above 34,000 feet.
Did you?

reply to post by Phage


Excellent, now we're making ground.

Lets just assume that the "contrails" of today are no different than the "contrails" of yesterday. We can probably agree that because of population growth, that there are probably more of them. Considering all of our recent "atmospheric anomalies" would it not be intelligent to start to consider cutting down on some of the things that may adversely affect the environment? I would suspect that this is the reason why the UN chose to limit the amount of geoengineering practices that had been occurring.

reply to post by Qcuailon

Geoengineering (to most of the world and the UN, not withstanding your personal definition) refers to intentional efforts to mitigate global warming. Contrails and other forms of pollution are not intentional, they are the byproduct of our lifestyles. Would it be good to reduce them? I think so.

The section of the UN resolution regarding geoengineering is not addressing pollution. It is addressing intentional efforts to influence climate. Contrails are not intentional, they are an inevitable result of flying aircraft in the stratosphere. If we want to eliminate contrails we have to prevent aircraft from flying in the stratosphere.

Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed.

www.cbd.int...
Nothing about aerosols.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

The upper air observations which are used to determine if conditions are conducive to contrail formation are not predictive. They are actual observations obtained by releasing a balloon with an instrument package.

But I'll take a stab at it (I'm not in California) Looking at the observations from Edwards at 12:00 UTC there's a very good chance that you are seeing contrails forming from aircraft flying above 34,000 feet. Even though the relative humidity is not very high, the temperatures are very cold (-53.4C and lower).

Phage, I am sorry I did not see your earlier post. I just went outside and I see none. Would you like a picture. You can join in this game too.

reply to post by BillfromCovina

No picture necessary.
I did say "a good chance" but perhaps there haven't been any planes at that altitude for a while. A quick look here shows there aren't any right now.
flightaware.com...

Would you agree to a slight change in your proposition? How about you tell us when you see contrail activity. We can (or better yet, you can) check the upper air data and see if the conditions are indeed conducive to contrail production. Actually there was an attempt to do just that but unfortunately it didn't get too far.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Qcuailon
reply to post by Phage

 

1. You don't have the credentials to prove these scientists wrong because you have no background, or education in these fields.

What scientists?

2. Geo-engineering is real

Indeed - Carbon Captureis going on right now, chloro-fluoro-carbons are being gotten rid of - two well known examples of geo-engineering going on rightnow and in the recent past.

3. cloud seeding is real

Yep.

4. cloud seeding is being incorporated into geo-engineering

No. There is 1 paper suggesting that it be done - iopscience.iop.org...

5. cloud seeding requires combustible components in order to operate correctly

No - carbon dioxide - dry ice - is a common chemical used for cloud seeding.

6. These combustible components are delivered via aerosol by aircraft

Ground based burners and rockets are actually more common than aircraft for delivbering silver iodide. Only aircraft deliver CO2, but that is not combustible!

7. There are lingering "contrails" composed of "chemicals" in the sky that have been noticed by many.

Close enough.

8. They have become more prevalent in the 21st century which led to restrictions by the UN

No. The UN restrictinos were in response to all sorts of proposals for geo-engineernig - from carbon capture to ocean seeding to mirrors in space, and feas that we really do now know what hte consequences of such actions might be to biodiversity - hence any geoengineering that might affect biodiversity is banned. If it can be shown that some geoengineering does not affect biodiversity then it is not banned.

For some, these are contrails, for others they are chemtrails. Both = Pollution. Both are detrimental to the environment. They are one in the same whether a "Conspiracy" exists or not.

no they are not.

Believers in chemtrails are perfectly happy that contrails also exist - but they insist that there is SOMETHING EXTRA in chemtrails - that they are different than contrails, and therefore worse than them.

All of these features here address the OP quite adequately and are direct and to the point.

No they do not.

the OP was about the misrepresentation of test results - your contributions are interesting and reasonable insofar as you say pollution is bad (but you keep missing the point that chemtrails are supposedly worse then contrails), but pretty much irrelevant to it (as are my replies to you)

reply to post by Phage

Looking at Ozmans thread I see that the very first observation of chemtrails didn't match his data. He noted low clouds. You want me to tell you when I see them and then you want to cook the figures later. If you have science on your side, you should be able to look at the data and say yes on no and I will supply the pictures. If the data does not match what people are seeing then you have to be willing to say that chem-trails are not con-trails. When people are talking about chem-trails, these usually last all day and spread out.