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.

 

Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 56
36
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Phage
 


I posted that because that is the study done by Dr Jim Haywood and others that involved the circular clouds. The study will never say the sent a plane out to make fake clouds so we can study them. Of course it is going to say the standard lines used by all the agencies involved..


Why?

If someone created contrails in order to study them there would be no reason to hide it, since "they" say contrails are nothing sinister. Indeed any paper that tried to hide it and got found out would be seriously discredited, so it would be totally counter-productive to do as you suggest.

I am not aware of anyone doing so - but your logic for hiding the fact makes no sense.


Actually, many of the studies of contrail composition involve the aircraft testing its own contrail as it circles in a supersaturated layer of the troposphere, as in this case:

The DC-8 intercepted its own contrail after performing a twenty-minute racetrack pattern ... we estimate the length of the DC-8 contrail to be about 280 km.
www.coas.oregonstate.edu...

There have been dozens of similar studies, all for publication in scientific journals; unlike any "chemtrail" hypotheses.

jw
edit on 29-3-2011 by jdub297 because: unbold




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Funny thing about the site you linked to,because I was looking and I found this.....


As the international community continues to work toward emissions reductions, some climate scientists are turning to the concept of geoengineering-the deliberate manipulation of the Earth's climate-to offset the effects of climate change. The concept, however, raises scientific, political, and ethical questions. Join M. Granger Morgan and John D. Steinbruner to discuss the development of an international framework for geoengineering and the implications of these technologies for U.S. foreign policy


www.cfr.org...

Now what is the real truth about geoengineering is it actually being done, because the text above seems to say geoengineering is a concept? Here in case you aren't familiar with what a concept is then here...


con·cept noun ˈkän-ˌsept

Definition of CONCEPT

1: something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

2: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances


www.merriam-webster.com...

So is it a concept or is it actually happening?
edit on 29-3-2011 by tsurfer2000h because: added link



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



there you go again.

Third base!



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Did you mean to write something meaningful??



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


just because my allusion went over your head, there is no need to get snarky or project that I'm babbling.

check your messages for my reply to you in the this weeks "chemmy" thread for further details.
the one youve been alternating with this one in baseless attacks on my person

as I've pointed out there, you are doing more than a good job of making a fool of yourself and your side all by your self. and do not need me for that



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Well I see this thread has reached somewhat of an impasses, the chemical composition of the trails isn't known, the altitude isn't known, the types of planes in question are not known, atmospheric conditions at the time and between the planes are not known, so I am left with the logical conclusion we can all only be speculating as to the exact nature of the differences we are seeing. People can disagree and continue to state that their 'side' is the only valid one, I just leave it at this point unproven either way.

Still I think at the very least few people would disagree (I know some will have to), whatever the cause, we have a massive pollution problem coming from different planes, as witnessed in the videos, that is in many areas causing huge masses of man made clouds that blocks out the sun and turns once blue skies in to haze once it spreads. This should be apparent by the huge amounts of graphic footage out on the net and from satellite, and I am encouraged so many more people are looking up, seeing it, and asking questions.

I'll just leave people for now (Yes, yawn.... I know it doesn't 'prove' anything) with this link on geoengineering that is an article based around what my children were being taught in their seventh grade ( because someone here wasn't aware of this.) Yes I inow the standard comebacks already just because they were teaching it doesn't mean it's happening, yada yada, (it's just theory , no field applications yada yada unless were told etc.etc., we've been through that with all of the things posted earlier, still maybe take the time to see what some kids are being taught just for grins.

Yes, I know it's from William Thomas (debunkers don't start salivating) but the story is true, at least the part about the geoengineering being taught, it was actually written about me and my children, oddly enough, and I am the SmT in the story (Show-me Truth moniker from a message board). Small world.

truthinternational.blogspot.com...







edit on 29-3-2011 by Tecumte because: text and link added



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


In case you aren't familiar with what the governments idea of a concept is........


 

Geoengineering Cost Analysis
people.ucalgary.ca...

United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives - CLIMATE CHANGE
www.gao.gov...

An Overview of Geoengineering of Climate using Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols
www.cgd.ucar.edu...


2.3 Aerosol Injection Scenarios
An issue that has been largely neglected in geoengineering proposals to modify the stratospheric aerosol is the methodology for injecting aerosols or their precursors to create the desired reflective shield. As exemplified in Section 2.4, climate simulations to date have employed specified aerosol parameters, including size, composition and distribution often with these parameters static in space and time. In this section we consider transient effects associated with possible injection schemes that utilise aircraft platforms, and estimate the microphysical and dynamical processes that are likely to occur close to the injection point in the highly concentrated injection stream. There are many interesting physical limitations to such injection schemes for vapours and aerosols, including a very high sensitivity to the induced nucleation rates (e.g. homogeneous nucleation) that would be very difficult to quantify within injection plumes. Two rather conservative injection scenarios are evaluated, both assume baseline emission equivalent to ∼2.5 Tg S/yr (which ultimately forms about 10 Tg of particles): 1) insertion of a primary aerosol, such as fine sulfate particles, using an injector mounted aboard an aircraft platform cruising in the lower stratosphere; and 2) sulfurenhanced fuel additives employed to emit aerosol precursors in a jet engine exhaust stream. In each case, injection is assumed to occur uniformly between 15 and 25 km, with the initial plumes distributed throughout this region to avoid hot spots. Attempts to concentrate the particles at lower altitudes, within thinner layers, or regionally — at high latitudes, for example — would tend to exacerbate problems in maintaining the engineered layer, by increasing the particle number density and thus increasing coagulation. Our generic platform is a jet-fighter-sized aircraft carrying a payload of 10 metric tons of finely divided aerosol, or an equivalent precursor mass, to be distributed evenly over a 2500 km flight path during an four-hour flight (while few aircraft are currently capable of sustained flight at stratospheric heights, platform design issues are neglected at this point). The initial plume cross-section is taken to be 1 m2 , which is consistent with the dimensions of the platform. Note that, with these specifications, a total aerosol mass injection of 10 Tg of particles per year would call for one million flights, and would require several thousand aircraft operating continuously into the foreseeable future. To evaluate other scenarios or specifications, the results described below may be scaled to a proposed fleet or system


Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere
acd.ucar.edu...

Using WACCM/CARMA to study astratospheric sulfur injection geo-engineering scheme
www.cesm.ucar.edu...

Geoengineering Nanotechnology
www.nsf.gov...


edit on 30-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
...Still I think at the very least few people would disagree (I know some will have to), whatever the cause, we have a massive pollution problem coming from different planes, as witnessed in the videos, that is in many areas causing huge masses of man made clouds that blocks out the sun and turns once blue skies in to haze once it spreads. This should be apparent by the huge amounts of graphic footage out on the net and from satellite, and I am encouraged so many more people are looking up, seeing it, and asking questions...

I would say everyone here knows that contrails that create clouds can potentially be a problem due to blocking sunlight and/or acting as a blanket that could potential raise global temperatures. I don't think anyone on this thread has ever said otherwise.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Our generic platform is a jet-fighter-sized aircraft carrying a payload of 10 metric tons of finely divided aerosol, or an equivalent precursor mass, to be distributed evenly over a 2500 km flight path
10 metric tons over 2,500 km. That's 4kg per kilometer. 9 pounds.
You really think that you would be able to see 9 pounds (think of a bag of flour) of particles much smaller than the wavelength of light, spread over a kilometer? You really think that much material would be visible as it spread out 6 miles overhead?

Here's something for comparison. A chalkliner (one of those machines that make lines on athletic fields) uses ground chalk, particles much larger that what is being discussed.

For quantity needed, follow this simple rule of thumb: one 50 lb. bag of chalk will stripe approximately 300' L x 2" W x 1/16" D line.

www.hooverfence.com...
Fifty pounds of chalk to make a stripe 2 inches wide and 300 feet long. Compare that to 9 pounds of "spray" for a stripe 3,281 feet long and 100 feet (a wingspan) wide, and spreading. One pound of chalk per square foot of striping, one pound of "spray" per 36,455 square feet, not to mention the depth, of sky. If they were spraying something (particles much smaller the the wavelength of light) you would not see it, so why the arm waving over "chemtrails"?



There are also legal, moral, ethical, financial, and international political issues associated with a manipulation of our environment. Commentaries (Lawrence, 2006; Bengtsson, 2006; Kiehl, 2006; Cicerone, 2006;MacCracken, 2006) to Crutzen (2006) address some of these issues and remind us that this approach does not treat all the consequences of higher CO2 concentrations (such as ocean acidification; others are discussed in Robock (2008)).

Recently, climate modellers have begun efforts to provide more quantitative assessments of the complexities of geoengineering by sulfate aerosols and the consequences to the climate system (Rasch et al., 2008; Robock et al.,
2008; Tilmes et al., 2008a,b).

www.cgd.ucar.edu...


edit on 3/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



10 metric tons over 2,500 km. That's 4kg per kilometer. 9 pounds. You really think that you would be able to see 9 pounds (think of a bag of flour) of particles much smaller than the wavelength of light, spread over a kilometer? You really think that much material would be visible as it spread out 6 miles overhead?


Yes, it will be visible. When any particle is heated and released into the atmosphere it will cause the moisture in the surrounding air to condensate around it and becoming a visible chemtrail.

As the study below points out there are many types of aircraft with different payload and dispersal capabilities. The item you selectively decided to quote and evaluate was the"generic platform".

The report also details how the aerosol would be injected into the exhaust stream of the aircraft. Causing it to appear as if it was a contrail.

people.ucalgary.ca...

EDIT:
Why no comment on this quote?

www.cgd.ucar.edu...

2) sulfurenhanced fuel additives employed to emit aerosol precursors in a jet engine exhaust stream



edit on 30-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Yes, it will be visible. When any particle is heated and released into the atmosphere it will cause the moisture in the surrounding air to condensate around it and becoming a visible chemtrail.


You mean like the soot particles which are found in jet engine exhaust? So how do those particles multiply and spread to form a full layer?

BTW, condensate is a noun not a verb.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah well BTW the only thing you can argue is that my grammar is flawed,

The rest of your statement is based on flawed semantics that are completely erroneous and based on illogical word games.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
When any particle is heated and released into the atmosphere it will cause the moisture in the surrounding air to condensate around it and becoming a visible chemtrail.


So all aircraft will at all times produce visible contrails?

Ah, I see a problem.....



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   


So how do those particles multiply and spread to form a full layer?
reply to post by Phage
 


Why don't you ask the people doing it this question?

I didn't invent the stuff or study it so I can't answer that question.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


You are not applying my statement in the context in which it was meant. I am referring to the injected aerosol particles that flow into the exhaust stream of the aircraft..

Nothing is absolute and I am not saying all aircraft at all times.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Essan
 


You are not applying my statement in the context in which it was meant. I am referring to the injected aerosol particles that flow into the exhaust stream of the aircraft..

Nothing is absolute and I am not saying all aircraft at all times.


So injected aerosol partices produce ice crystals but those from jet engine exhaust do not?

Anyway, what has any of this to do with geoengineering? As you well know, no-one has ever proposed any form of geo-engineering involving tropospheric aircraft. Let alone commerical airliners - which produce almost all observed "chemtrails". Like these:







Or are you admitting these are not chemtrails? In which case maybe you can provide a picture of what real chemtrails, caused by geoengineering, look like? So I might identify one should they ever occur over Britain



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I'll tell you why. The CFR has declared that any techniques for geoengineering in the stratosphere fall under global governance laws.

Studies however are not regulated in the same way and are allowed to take place in localized areas such as the troposphere. Where they would be less likely to affect adjoining regions or countries.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





In which case maybe you can provide a picture of what real chemtrails, caused by geoengineering, look like? So I might identify one should they ever occur over Britain


Here are the pictures you requested. Satellite images

Sorry I wasn't on a ship underneath them to take a picture from below.




posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
When any particle is heated and released into the atmosphere it will cause the moisture in the surrounding air to condensate around it and becoming a visible chemtrail.


So all aircraft will at all times produce visible contrails?

Ah, I see a problem.....


I think what Mathias might be saying is that the more particles in general produced possibly the more visable a contrail will be. Again if I recall, simply running planes to produce more carbon was sighted as one way to create clouds in certain geoengineering proposals. It's really in some ways like creating the black/blue exhaust a car produces when it runs too rich or burns additives.
edit on 30-3-2011 by Tecumte because: wording correction



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew



So how do those particles multiply and spread to form a full layer?
reply to post by Phage
 


Why don't you ask the people doing it this question?

I didn't invent the stuff or study it so I can't answer that question.


Well, just my thought on this but as contrails are said to be spreading into the nasty mess we see in the video on their own, it's not a hard stretch to think that any unburnt carbon or other additives would perhaps pick up extra moisture and spread right along with them to create an even worse mess.

But just as a side note I seem to recall another method discussed was the potential use of electromagnetic energy. There are many pictures out there on the net that absolutely show bizarre patterns of what some claim is this energy producing the very square and right angle patterns in the clouds. If there are metallic particles present in the plumes seems it might be another way to spread them out the using this tech. Just a thought.



new topics




 
36
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join