A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

reply to post by coyotepoet

From what I've seen, these trails are only noted in NATO countries. I may be incorrect about that because I haven't done any comprehensive research into where they appear, but if that's the case then we are only talking 28 countries rather than the whole Earth. Of course, that begs the question that if it is geoengineering why just limit it to NATO countries, but that is what we are doing...questioning.

What's interesting is that the overwhelming number of "chemtrail" spotting is done in English speaking countries, or countries that have a large proportion of people who speak English as a second language. This suggests that the whole "chemtrail" phenomenon is a verbal meme. It's very similar to the way that "chupacabras" only seem to be spotted in Spanish speaking countries and crop circles spread outwards from Britain to the US and Canada, but you seldom hear reports from, say, France or Argentina.

reply to post by DJW001


Those same countries happen to also be the ones with the most commercial air traffic. You aren't going to be seeing a lot of Contrails in places where nobody travels by air. Even in the US, the trails are much more common in the congested Northeast and very rare in the rural Southwest. They are also more common in the higher latitudes where conditions are better for lingering condensation or ice, and they are more rare in the subtropical zones.

Contrails.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


The information regarding the size of the particles comes from the people formulating the theories involved in geoengineering.

The smallest a human eye can see is .1mm across. In order for the particles to remain suspended for any amount of time their total surface area would have to be far less than .1 mm or they would sink

The most optically efficient aerosol for climate modification would have sizes, Rp, of the order of 0.1 μm or somewhat less (here we use radius rather than diameter as the measure of particle size, and assume spherical, homogeneous particles at all times). Particles of this size have close to the maximum backscattering cross section per unit mass; they are small enough to remain suspended in the rarefied stratospheric air for at least a year and yet are large enough and thus could be injected at low enough abundances to maintain the desired concentration of dispersed aerosol against coagulation for perhaps months (although long-term coagulation and growth ultimately degrade the optical efficiency at the concentrations required—see below). As the size of the particles increases, the aerosol mass needed to maintain a fixed optical depth increases roughly as ∼Rp, the local mass sedimentation flux increases as , and the particle infrared absorptivity increases as (e.g. Seinfeld & Pandis 1997). Accordingly, to achieve, and then stabilize, a specific net radiative forcing, similar to those discussed in §2d, larger particle sizes imply increasingly greater mass injections, which in turn accelerate particle growth, further complicating the maintenance of the engineered layer.

source

That study also includes some interesting notes on the sheer numbers of aircraft needed to implement any of the proposed geoengineering theories.

To the OP:

You have included an impartial and unfair bias in your question. You cannot attach connotations of rationality and such to one of the choices and connotations of irrationality to the other choice. I will not engage in answering you until you have put forth a non biased set of options from which I might pick from.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Essan

 

Now, if someone were claiming that noctilucent clouds ... were evidence of stratospheric spraying for geoengineering purposes, then maybe they would have an argument worth discussing further?

Is that what you are claiming? Because that is a valid possibility as well.

I'm not claiming it, indeed, I daresay I coud disprove the idea, but IMO it's a lot more likely than the idea that contrails are anything but contrails.

I guess it's not been suggested before before few people see nocties, and those of us who do are not prone to assuming conspiracies whenever we see something we can't immediately understand.

I am willing to admit that Chemtrails might be possible. I would like to see some experimental evidence to back up the claim. After reading about just a SMALL portion of the experiments carried out by government organizations more in the forefront of the public eye I can only IMAGINE what those fools are up to within the more restricted agencies.

Then again if the Chemtrails ARE true it does not necessarily mean that whatever it is they are dumping is BAD. Maybe they are dumping a chemical that makes everyone smarter, or less likely to want to raep and murder.

THEN AGAIN It is pretty rare that I see a classified government experiment coverup that involves something beneficial for mankind. I have yet to see "project we love our fellow humans" or "project Full Belly, a government attempt to feed all of mankind". It is usually a project where they treat us like guinea pigs and do some heinous insidious awful things to people.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


You do understand that when the particles are inserted into the atmosphere they are most likely being heated and are in a very condensed form.. The small particles in any cloud are invisible when the water is removed and taken by itself. Yet when all the particles are clumped together in a group we see the cloud they form.

When the particles are dispersed and the moisture no longer there they become invisible to the human eye but during the release and dissipation they would still be visible as a persistent contrail that eventually forms a cloud and dissipates.

reply to post by DJW001


DJW001:

What's interesting is that the overwhelming number of "chemtrail" spotting is done in English speaking countries, or countries that have a large proportion of people who speak English as a second language. This suggests that the whole "chemtrail" phenomenon is a verbal meme.

Getreadyalready:

Those same countries happen to also be the ones with the most commercial air traffic. You aren't going to be seeing a lot of Contrails in places where nobody travels by air. Even in the US, the trails are much more common in the congested Northeast and very rare in the rural Southwest.

Essen:

those of us who do are not prone to assuming conspiracies whenever we see something we can't immediately understand.

Now you guys are catching on. This is a different kind of dialogue even though we are still arguing our own sides. Verbal memes, increased air traffic, a predisposition to conspiracy, all very good points that take the dialogue beyond "Do they or don't they exist." I admit, the meme concept is intriguing and one I will have to give more consideration. I also admit that though I don't live in fear, I am one prone to the idea of conspiracy. As far as increased plane traffic in said areas-hard to argue. However, I live in the rural Southwest and they are not very rare at all. In fact, they are rather frequent. I also live quite a ways from an airport and in an area that doesn't normally get a lot of air traffic (and yes, I have checked with FlightAware) and yet on some days the sky is filled with lines from horizon to horizon even when the weather/temperature is not conducive to contrail formation. Which, again, is part of the reason I became interested in this topic at all.

reply to post by coyotepoet

and yet on some days the sky is filled with lines from horizon to horizon even when the weather/temperature is not conducive to contrail formation.

So you know what is happening weather wise at 35000 ft.? You seem to forget one important thing...

The weather at 35000 ft(where contrails can form)is drastically different than what it is at ground level, so unless you were at that altitude you cannot say the weather and temperature is not conducive for contrails, because you have no way to tell the weather that high while on the ground. And I think you already knew that.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


This video explains how some particles can be designed and levitated into the upper atmosphere. To give them a longer airborne lifetime. I recommend watching the whole video but the part I am refereing to is at 7:30 to 9:00 of the video.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I cannot see how a video discussing the methods to achieve sustained elevation of sulfites has anything to do with the visibility of the materials proposed by geoengineers for use as climate control.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


You are assuming compressed particles, that the particles are suspended in a liquid prior to release, and that the spreading of these particles would leave any sort of a "trail".

Care to readdress me without the assumptions?

I recommend you read some of the papers put out by the experts. These are papers by David Keith.
people.ucalgary.ca...

Other experts are Alan Robock, Dr. Jane Long, Julio Friedman, Ken Caldeira, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner among others.

Ken Caldeira

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

11/11/09: Appearing on the Charlie Rose Show, Freakonomics author and University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that pumping sulfur dioxide through garden hoses into the stratosphere to build a sun-blocking haze is the "so sensible" solution to global warming.

Below is a short transcript of the following video

Transcript:

LEVITT: So, it seems like if you really think global warming is a terrible problem, you need a solution that's faster, and that's more certain, or easier to do. So, turns out geoengineering, extremely controversial but so sensible.

I mean, there are ideas out there that are cheap, they're totally versible, totally reversible, which is incredibly important. You wouldn't want to do anything that's irreversible, because the science isn't that certain. And they don't require massive behavior change. We're not saying we should go out tomorrow and build one of these machines say, to put sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, but what we are saying is, "How can that not that be part of the debate?" We're just trying to give geoengineering a seat at the table. . . .

ROSE: Explain how it would work.

LEVITT: It's pretty straightforward.

ROSE: You pour sulfur dioxide in the air and it puts a shield.

LEVITT: Exactly. It puts a shield. Really, the science is based on what Mother Nature has been doing for eons, which is when there are big volcanic eruptions, among the other things that are spewed out is sulfur dioxide. And it sprays it so high it gets into the stratosphere. The key is that getting the sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere where it forms into this haze which reflects something like one to two percent of the sunlight. And that's enough to cool the earth. And all you need to do is just have a steady flow of it. And if you can figure out a way to get it up there, Nathan's idea and his compatriots is to just essentially build a glorified garden hose. They put one at the north pole and south pole. It sounds like scientific fiction, but they have the engineering solution. It wouldn't be that hard. And if you don't like it, you just turn the spigot off . . .
Category:
News & Politics
Tags:
global warming SuperFreakonomics Freakonomics geoengineering Levitt Myhrvold Steven Levitt Charlie Rose climate change science fiction

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

You are assuming compressed particles, that the particles are suspended in a liquid prior to release, and that the spreading of these particles would leave any sort of a "trail".

Care to readdress me without the assumptions?

You are incorrect about the assumptions I made.

1 ) I said condensed not compressed. Condensed means that many particles are close together.

2 ) The liquid I was referring to was water vapor in the atmosphere.

Care to readdress my statement correctly this time?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

2 ) The liquid I was referring to was water vapor in the atmosphere.

Water vapor is a gas, not a liquid.
Why would water vapor cause aerosols to "condense"?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

2 ) The liquid I was referring to was water vapor in the atmosphere.

Water vapor is a gas, not a liquid.
Why would water vapor cause aerosols to "condense"?

edit on 3/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You aren't exactly catching my drift. The reference to condensed particles was meant to say that when particles for geoengineering are released they are released together, not one little particle at a time. The large group of particles are therefore condensed.

I never said water vapor would cause the particles to condense. I referred to the water vapor condensing around the particles because the particles were hot.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Keep right on nit picking and offering all sorts of statements other than a direct answer of my initial question. You have yet to explain why you are able to determine how the particles will behave and will be dispersed. Not to mention how is it you know that the geoengineering particles will form a visible trail?

I ask this because the document I provided (which was in response to your statement that you dont know who is saying the particles would be invisible) has yet to be discussed in any of your responses.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Keep right on nit picking and offering all sorts of statements other than a direct answer of my initial question. You have yet to explain why you are able to determine how the particles will behave and will be dispersed. Not to mention how is it you know that the geoengineering particles will form a visible trail?

I ask this because the document I provided (which was in response to your statement that you dont know who is saying the particles would be invisible) has yet to be discussed in any of your responses.

First, you are the one who is trying to ni pick. Second, you're changing your initial question now. That was not your initial question. Last I'm not sure which comment you are referring to. Please post the specific quote you are wanting me to comment on. My answer earlier was simple the particles are invisible when dispersed but visible when in a condensed cluster during release. Last I know they would be visible because of common sense.

reply to post by MountainLaurel

Secondly being an outdoorsy type, having a horticulture background in my education, I started to notice trees were dying off in my area, Rosalind Peterson has done some some very good research in Sonoma CA that illustrate how these "strange chemtrails" could very likely be a big cause of these dying and unhealthy trees popping up at a rapid and unatural rate. I was also noticing that I couldn't see stars at night anymore hardly, even when we were camping in places where the stars where once so beautiful, and city lights couldn't cause what was once a sky full of stars to dwindle so drastically. The days seemed to become more overcast, more often, but still at this point I had not made the connection.What finally connected the dots for me was when I was traveling through CA and started to notice these weird trails in the sky left by airplanes in these bizzare tic tac toe type patterns by several planes at once? I had never seen anything like this in my life! Then it got even weirder when I was traveling long enough distances to actually watch the whole sky change to a milky color, and then once I drove far enough away the sky would go back to normal where the planes weren't flying. Now that I am paying attention I see these things almost daily, and it seems to be esculating! There is no doubt in my mind that these are not normal contrails that I have seen most of my life, just plain commen sence to me.

You see common sense goes a long way and it's first hand accounts like this one that are especially meaningful. This person explains it perfectly through their own eyewitness account. They are not talking about all planes but are talking about planes in certain areas that fly in criss cross patterns. If you haven't had the unfortunate opportunity to see these planes first hand. Then YOU really don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by network dude

 

In my defense, I did break the rules of that thread and provide evidence for my thoughts.

Sarcastic much? In my defense, I did consider your suggestion, sarcastic or not, as a valid possibility. I suspect that is more than you did for the other items on the list.

I have looked into this for years. I was reading Rense long before I came to ATS. And I did think about all the possibilities that could exist. I have even thought that it's possible that at some point, there was spurratic spraying. But I don't buy into the theory that every line in the sky that lasts for "x" number of hours, is a chemtrail. I think it's all contrails. I am even willing to subscribe to Getreadyalready's idea that it would be invisible and low altitude spraying.

But when I look at the terrible affects that the chemies claim are happening, I just don't see it. You show me something in the form of real evidence, not pattens or ideas, evidence, and I will look at it, objectively. Most people here would look objectively if anything real came along. You guys just refuse to listen to anything that doesn't fit into the "they are spraying us" box.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
Are you willing to admit that at least some of the trails across the sky are indeed “chemtrails” whatever their purpose may be?

Yep - I am willing to admit anything that verifiable evidence tells me, or at least strongly suggests to me, is happening.

And I'm willing to admit degrees of possibility & probability too.

got any such evidence? 'cos so far all I've seen all over the 'net on chemtrails is supposition, assertion, bad science, etc., and that tells me, or at least strongly suggests to me, that there is no such evidence.