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: 76
36
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


I'm confused...The question was:

Aren't planes at higher altitudes more likely to leave a persistent contrail, why in this case is the "persistent/spreading contrail in that video at a lower altitude?

To which I think I provided an accurate answer.

In short, it may not really matter if a plane is at 32,000 ft or 37,000 feet. Sometimes persistent contrails will form only at the higher altitude, and sometimes only at the lower. Sometimes at both; sometime at neither. A slight difference in altitude may or may not have any bearing on whether or not a trail is produced.

If you say that my answer is incorrect, could you please elaborate with specific reasons that what I said is inaccurate.




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
WEATHER MODIFICATION
Test Technology Symposium ‘97
Session B:
Advanced Weapon/Instrumentation Technologie

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

91st American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting
ams.confex.com...

Space-Based Monitoring for Governance of Solar Radiation Management
ams.confex.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by donatellanator

Oh, and it is important to "beat" that horse when there is so much crap being spewed......crap in these threads, by one or two very prolific individuals....who just never seem to "get it".....



So what if they don't "get it"? Your compulsion to refute them is beyond rational. I am guessing you are older than your 20s so there is no excuse for rattling on and on and on to a tune of probably 10,000+ posts about this subject. Don't you feel you've wasted a great deal of time for nothing? I mean, their opinions haven't changed. And this isn't the science community, it's a message board. Let's face it, you'd be better off tying a sandwich board to your chest and screaming in the street at this point...

Leads me to believe you're receiving some sort of compensation for this. Otherwise, perhaps just a tad unhinged.



edit on 18-4-2011 by donatellanator because: extra DIV



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I have not read the possibility that the atmosphere is being treated
for the arrival of another alien race to either join us or remove us?

Who knows what deals have been made



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

This video expresses the outrage that many of us feel....but also shows some interesting attachments to certain planes I had never seen before.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
www.youtube.com...

This video expresses the outrage that many of us feel....but also shows some interesting attachments to certain planes I had never seen before.

If you are talking about the attachments seen at 7:36 to 7:42, they are air intakes that collect air samples for research on greenhouse gases. They are NOT sprayers.

The plane is from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, which is studying global climate change. This is by no means a "secret" plane, nor a secret program:
Brookhaven National Laboratory


edit on 4/18/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by gloomyblue707
 





the cemetary there is in open field area near orchards..was there for about an hour on a day there was a heavy haze in the sky with a rainbow sheen to it..


You say this cemetary is near orchards? Could you have been sprayed not intentionally, but unknowingly by a crop duster spraying the orchard? That would be something to check into.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI)

www.srmgi.org...


The scope of the study includes all technologies intended to moderate climate change by reducing the amount of short wave solar energy to reach the Earth's surface. The table below outlines a working model categorisation for different solar radiation management (SRM) research activities, and will help guide initial discussions on how governance arrangements may be differentiated.
1. Computer/desk studies: theoretical studies not involving any potentially hazardous materials, having no environmental impacts.
2. Laboratory studies: experiments and other activities conducted wi thin an appropriately contained laboratory environment: no deliberate release of potentially hazardous materials, no intentional
environmental Impacts
3. Small field trials: field trials involving activities (including release of materials to the environment) of a magnitude, spatial scale and temporal duration that lead to measurable environmental effects of a magnitude considered to be insignificant (below "de minimis" levels,).
4. Large field trials: field trials involving activities (including release of materials to the environment) of a magnitude, spatial scale and temporal duration that lead to measurable and significant environmental effects (ie exceed the de minimis levels), but that are not of a sufficient magnitude, spatial scale or duration to be considered to be deployment.
5. Deployment: activities (including release of materials to the environment) leading to environmental effects of a sufficient magnitude, spatial scale or duration to affect climate significantly

Overall working group objective
To produce discussion papers for the SRMGI conference in March 2011 that consider, and make practical recommendations on, possible governance arrangements for solar radiation management (SRM) research.

Advancing the International Governance of Geoengineering
www.srmgi.org...

Notification (Submission) in Relation to
Solar Radiation Management Research Governance Initiative (SRMGI)
www.checktheevidence.com...

SRMGI website goes live
twas.ictp.it...



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


More studies, opposition to studies, and not a single chemtrial being sprayed.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





This study supposedly shows a "contrail" that was made by an aircraft operating in conditions favorable to persistent contrails. It lasted for about 18 hours.


Interesting,because if I remember correctly and I am sure others will agree, but isn't a persistant contrail called a chemtrail by chemmies. Don't you and other chemtrailers say time after time that persistant contrails aren't contrails at all because contrails disipate rather quickly. Am I correct with my observation.So now you are actually admitting that a contrail can persist for hours. Very Interesting indeed..



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


It appears the attachments in the video are not sprayers so in that reguard the video was mis-leading. The overall sentiment of the video however express's a very real mis-trust of our government and the corporations making decisions "behind the scenes" that are not in the best interest of the people and certainly making decisions without our consent.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Tecumte
 


I'm confused...The question was:

Aren't planes at higher altitudes more likely to leave a persistent contrail, why in this case is the "persistent/spreading contrail in that video at a lower altitude?

To which I think I provided an accurate answer.

In short, it may not really matter if a plane is at 32,000 ft or 37,000 feet. Sometimes persistent contrails will form only at the higher altitude, and sometimes only at the lower. Sometimes at both; sometime at neither. A slight difference in altitude may or may not have any bearing on whether or not a trail is produced.

If you say that my answer is incorrect, could you please elaborate with specific reasons that what I said is inaccurate.


Yes, I do believe you are confused.

If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying that the difference in the two trails is due to a difference in atmospheric conditions between the two planes. If I recall we seem to have covered this quite a few times.

I believe the difference is caused by the actual difference in the makeup of the exhaust plume itself. I think we have covered that a number of times as well.

As both scenarios explaining the video might be plausible we are simply left to decide which best fits. I understand your opinion and I think you understand mine.

Again, though I see the issue I raised regarding manipulating clouds structures by seeding goes ignored.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


It is not ignored.

Many of us are waiting for any evidence to be produced.

Same with differences in exhausts making contrails - we do know that some differences in exhausts matter - there'e a study done comparing old a/c (a 707 with JT3 engines) with a newer one (A300 with CFM56's) - you can read the whole paper here - elib.dlr.de...

And yes there is a difference - the newer engines will make contrails at a lower altitude than the old ones - exactly as expected.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


There's no problem with having distrust.

IMO there is a problem when lack of trust becomes "proof" that something is wrong.

Lack of trust - suspicion - should have you looking for evidence to keep a check on things - it should not become the evidence.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Here you go why don't you take a gander at this...

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

This is where your linked pdf is adapted from. Also you should look at page six and try to understand what the pros and cons are.

I have to ask you this. How can you constantly post things without even knowing what your posting. Maybe you should actually try to understand what your posting because it would help you understand what is going on.



NOTE: Successful governance requires a wide range of viewpoints. The SRMGI team welcomes your submissions on geoengineering research and governance.


twas.ictp.it...

Just wondering if you are going to submit your geoengineering research you have since you seem to have such a vast knowledge and could tell them with their research.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Tecumte
 


It is not ignored.

Many of us are waiting for any evidence to be produced.

Same with differences in exhausts making contrails - we do know that some differences in exhausts matter - there'e a study done comparing old a/c (a 707 with JT3 engines) with a newer one (A300 with CFM56's) - you can read the whole paper here - elib.dlr.de...

And yes there is a difference - the newer engines will make contrails at a lower altitude than the old ones - exactly as expected.


I was waiting for you to produce evidence that the atmospheric conditions of the huge spreading plume was actually different than the one that quickly dispated. Do you have any?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Alright here is a little question. How does anything that uses the solar power work when you block the sun from getting to these solar panels? Can't wait to see these replies. Since it seems nobody as addressed this situation I thought I would see what others have to say about this.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
sorry double post..
edit on 18-4-2011 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I used the word contrail in quotation marks because that's what the study calls it. I could of used "man-made cloud" or "chemtrail" just the same. It doesn't matter what you want to call it. It's still a nasty cloud from a plane that is NOT A NORMAL CONTRAIL



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Here you go why don't you take a gander at this...

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

This is where your linked pdf is adapted from. Also you should look at page six and try to understand what the pros and cons are.

I have to ask you this. How can you constantly post things without even knowing what your posting. Maybe you should actually try to understand what your posting because it would help you understand what is going on.



NOTE: Successful governance requires a wide range of viewpoints. The SRMGI team welcomes your submissions on geoengineering research and governance.


twas.ictp.it...

Just wondering if you are going to submit your geoengineering research you have since you seem to have such a vast knowledge and could tell them with their research.


You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly have no idea what you're talking about. You make no sense. Are you trying to be funny? Do you think you're funny? You're not funny, you're just being ignorant. Why don't you explain in detail what it is that I posted that makes you laugh so much?

You should of seen your face when the Geoengineering / Chemtrail forum was created by ATS. Now that was funny...


EDIT:
By the way you're incorrect in saying that your link to Alan Robock's study in where my .pdf was adapted from. You're also incorrect about me understanding what I posted. Seems to me you're incorrect about a lot of things. Maybe you should try to understand what you post a little more. Might help you not look so ignorant.
edit on 18-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join