A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

reply to post by coyotepoet


No, the world being flat was a theory only. It is not based on experience, nor experimentation.
"Chemtrails" have not advanced because there is no experience or experimentation that cannot be debunked. The people who try, who like you hold on to their belief instead of learning something that negates their beliefs, are living in a way that I cannot comprehend.
I do not fear anything without proof that I will in fact be harmed somehow. Why should I? You seem to want to believe that "they" are all out to get you....even if you have nothing besides your beliefs that something must be wrong. I won't be pulled into that paranoia. If there is evidence of something, I'm on it researching if for myself. Like I did with "chemtrail" theory. And there is no credible evidence, just a lot of people who "believe".
No thank you. I consider your mindset to be paranoid and fear-mongering.
When science can explain comfortably that the hot exhaust of a jet into a saturated, cold atmosphere makes clouds of ice crystals mingled with the pollution of jet fuel combustion, and those opposing that view say they "believe" that the lines behind planes are used for something mysterious (this year geo-engineering, last year, but all kinds of guesses in the past) and dastardly, I'll go with science. And I'll continue to try to have people understand the difference between your "belief" over my science facts. First of all, it's my right to do so, and secondly, if I can lessens someone's fear and further their education and interest in science, all the better.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


When you read a report on Stratospheric Aerosols and apply your definition to it's use of "aerosol", you are wrong.
They are reports by scientists for scientists and their use of the word applies to the actual definition of an aerosol. That's not a choice, that's a fact. If you don't use the same language (and there is a glossary in the back of most of the reports I've read on the matter who agree with me on the definition), you cannot comprehend the report. It's that simple.
It's not a matter of me using tricks or whatever, it's reading comprehension. They know what they mean and you are choosing to put a wrong meaning to it. And I'm going to continue to point that out to whoever continues to use the word "aerosol" in the wrong way.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by stars15k

 

"Truth is first ridiculed,then violently opposed and finally accepted as being self evident"

A commonly repeated theme from conspiracy believers, who apparently think that being initially ridiculed is enough to make something the truth!

Read my sig - bunkum is ridiculed too - the difference is that the truth has this inconvenient stuff called evidence that contradicts the riducule.

reply to post by stars15k


You are just speaking double talk. If aerosol is used in a report and they call it anthropogenic then that applies to chemical dust sprayed from planes as chemtrails too. Just because there are over 10 things it might apply to doesn't mean you know which one they mean unless they specifically say which one.

They always write these reports with ambiguous language so people like you can act like you know exactly where some tiny speck in the sky came from. You have no idea where it came from and I don't either. Both possibilities are valid. Although there is plenty off eyewitness and other documentary evidence to suggest it came from the planes.

reply to post by stars15k


Stars15K, Aloysius, all of you debunkers. You say you only trust science. You harp on the point that conditions at 30,000 feet are different than on the ground but again, I point out science that all of you have conveniently declined to comment on since I posted it:

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics. All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs

Science, done by scientists that says that the troposphere is warming according to satellite data. Again I ask, logically and scientifically doesn't that mean that we should have fewer days that are capable of supporting trail formation rather than more days, which has been confirmed by observation?

I expect that one or all of you will respond in typical doublespeak and refer to "all of the variables" as to why in a warmer troposphere we are observing more trail formations. And if that is your answer what would those variables be? I expect that you will continue to conveniently continue to skirt that question.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by stars15k

 

You are just speaking double talk. If aerosol is used in a report and they call it anthropogenic then that applies to chemical dust sprayed from planes as chemtrails too. Just because there are over 10 things it might apply to doesn't mean you know which one they mean unless they specifically say which one.

When they talk about aerosols they are talking about all of them.

When they talk about anthropogenic them nean all of them that are caused by human activity.

To say it means anything more specific than that is spurious accuracy - they do not refer to specific aerosols because htey are not measuring specifics - they are measuring the entire population.

They always write these reports with ambiguous language so people like you can act like you know exactly where some tiny speck in the sky came from.

no - they use very specific language, since science has to be repeatable to be any good, and so they have to explain themselves very clearly to people who might be half the world away!

You have no idea where it came from and I don't either.

So why are you suggesting a source that you have jsut admitted you dont' actualy know??

Both possibilities are valid. Although there is plenty off eyewitness and other documentary evidence to suggest it came from the planes.

Reports of contrails with often hysterical overtones of "spray" are not evidence of anything.

And AFAIK that's all your eyewitness evidene amounts to.

There is no other documentary evidence I am aware of of anything being sprayed that supports a conclusion of a current surreptitious programme of daily spraying. Just a lot of misrepresentation, bad science, and unsupported assertion.

And god knows you've shown us a lot of that!

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


OH, please. They very much categorize everything. They do not mention "chemtrails" or anything like "chemtrails", because they do not exist. And these people are the experts, not someone who continues to use a word wrong, to suit himself.
So they are just hiding "chemtrails" from people by not mentioning it? Really, you think that? Where is your proof? Or is it just your belief because you are paranoid? That is what fearing "they" are doing something to you without proof or fact is called.
Aerosols in the atmosphere are known and tracked every single day. They have been studied and their origins have been traced. They are mapped out for you online everyday as well.
Aerosol Mapping
There are 508,000 hits using "stratospheric aerosol studies". Most of them are scholarly.
None of them are about "chemtrails". Unless they are from "chemtrail" websites by people who don't know what the word "aerosol" means.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by stars15k

 

Science, done by scientists that says that the troposphere is warming according to satellite data. Again I ask, logically and scientifically doesn't that mean that we should have fewer days that are capable of supporting trail formation rather than more days, which has been confirmed by observation?

why?

reply to post by stars15k


It's not about fear at all. It's about health. You and your fellow debunkers are the ones who seem to be in fear of the truth getting out.

reply to post by coyotepoet


And your sense that this somehow negates the difference between ground level to flight altitude conditions is what?
Simply because there are changes noted between the two does'nt compute to anything but that there are differences in the temperature. It's knowledge, but does not seem applied by you correctly.
What is the source of the quote?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I don't fear for my health, or that of any other person because of some dirty air and ice crystals miles over my head. I know that for a fact, because anything that small at that altitude will remain suspended for days, if it settles to my breathing space at all. That's basic physics. It's also the truth.
Not afraid of the truth at all.
I'm afraid someone who believes in "chemtrails" might someday teach my grandchildren science.

reply to post by coyotepoet

They talk about an average increase in tropospheric temperatures of about 0.5º per decade over the tropics (where the maximum change is). So, over the tropics the average temperature seems to have risen 1.0º in the past twenty years. I live in the tropics and I rarely see contrails because the conditions are (and have been) not very conducive to contrail formation.

But seeing as how the upper air data in more temperature regions regularly show temperatures well below -40º at aircraft flight levels, there is no reason to think that the warming would make contrails less prevalent, not for 50 to 100 years anyway.

reply to post by stars15k


As no one has mentioned the article I posted earlier, about a real world study following some of the same things attributed to "chemtrails" are in fact from air pollution, ground level, from half a world away, I'm thinking you are again avoiding anything that negates your belief.
Face it, finding something from that far away in the atmosphere over your head makes the whole concept of "chemtrails" seem kind of silly. Imagine how far something that small and distributed directly into the upper atmosphere must spread before settling out. Something the debunkers have been saying for quite a while.....nothing over your head is settling out on you. It will distributed in the atmosphere very far away, days away time wise, and therefore very diluted.
Real science.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by stars15k

 

It's not about fear at all. It's about health. You and your fellow debunkers are the ones who seem to be in fear of the truth getting out.

Nah.....I see no possibility of you ever letting any truth out.....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Nah.....I see no possibility of you ever letting any truth out.....

There is a big difference between intentionally spreading disinformation and trying to get to the bottom of something, trying to understand something, trying to share information. Because that is all the "chemmies" are doing. It is not about hiding the truth, it is about not being completely satisfied by the "truth" you are peddling.

Okay then debunkers, educate me. I have 2 questions:

1) Can cirrus clouds and cumulus clouds share the same sky?
2) Do the presence of cumulus clouds make it more or less likely that the temperature is right for persistent contrail formation or does their presence make any difference one way or the other to persistent contrails?

I've got no agenda, just trying to understand more because I admit that I don't know as much about meteorology as I'd like to. Thanks.

What specific kind of aerosol does it say they are using here?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
United States Government Accountability Office

On page 62 ...table 7....of this report. Just one of many studies using SRM techniques.

www.gao.gov...

Commerce

Research examining the possible implications of aerosol-based geoengineering proposals for the peak power output of large solar-power-generating plants

2008-2009 In-house NOAA’s Earth Division
$45,000 2009 SRM -
stratospheric
aerosol injection

PROOF ?

edit on 28-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text

What does this say?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

CLIMATE CHANGE
A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts
www.gao.gov...

Preliminary Observations on Geoengineering Science, Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues
www.gao.gov...

Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO’s analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2 , which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating federal responses to climate change indicated that their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate geoengineering activities. However, federal officials also noted that a large share of existing federal climate science research could be relevant to geoengineering. Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for such activities in fiscal year 2010. Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and existing climate science efforts.

Examples of SRM approaches in the study include the following:
• increasing the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through activities such as
painting building roofs white, planting more reflective crops or biomass,
or covering desert surfaces with reflective material;
• increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere by whitening clouds over the
ocean or injecting reflective aerosol particles into the stratosphere to
scatter sunlight; and
• space-based methods to use shielding materials to reflect or deflect
incoming solar radiation.
Examples of CDR approaches in the study include the following:
• enhancing biological, physical, or chemical land-based carbon sinks to
capture and store carbon in biomass or soil (carbon sequestration), or in
chemically reactive minerals (land-based enhanced weathering);

Global distribution of contrail radiative forcing
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

edit on 28-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text

reply to post by coyotepoet

Simplified:

1) Cumulus clouds form at much lower altitudes than cirrus clouds. Cumulonimbus cloudtops can reach the altitudes of cirrus clouds. They reach those altitudes because of the very strong convective cells within them.

2) There is no direct relationship between cumulus and cirrus clouds. Cumulus clouds are formed by warm moist air from the surface rising to cooler levels where the water vapor condenses. Cirrus clouds are not normally formed by convective activity but by the horizontal convergence of air masses.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

It says that not a lot of money was spent on researching (modelling) SRM methods.