Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

China admits to dumping chemtrails for weather modification. What do they look like??

page: 35
79
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Just came across this PDF: click


Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change
in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human
caused) climate change. Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but
splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that
reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols
into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions
.
The technologies and techniques vary so much that any regulatory framework for
geoengineering cannot be uniform. Instead, those techniques, particularly carbon removal,
that are closely related to familiar existing technologies, could be regulated by developing
the international regulation of the existing regimes to encompass geoengineering. For
other technologies, especially solar refection, new regulatory arrangements will have to be
developed.

There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some
geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate.
Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third,
we may need geoengineering as a “Plan B” if, in the event of the failure of “Plan A”—the
reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we
start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological,
environmental, political and regulatory issues.



"the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions"

"some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway"


I wonder what "they" consider "very small scale"? Either way there is your proof that this is happening right there. This comes from the UK House of Commons.



Here's another for the USA: click

Titled "U.S. Climate Change Science Program; Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3; January 2009"


The first section is entitled "Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts"

Look at the table of contents alone and you will see all the proof you need that this is not just make-believe or lies, but that your own congressmen are explaining it to you already.


This YouTube video shows the same information if you're too lazy to look at the PDF yourself:




Here's an excerpt from the US PDF above:


For all their advantages, field campaigns are
inherently limited by their relatively short
duration and small spatial coverage.


"field campaigns"? "limited by their relatively short duration and small spatial coverage"?


The UK PDF seems more open about it:


In our earlier Report, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, we carried out a wide
examination of geoengineering. The Report provided us with an opportunity to consider
the implications of a new engineering discipline for UK policy-making. The broad
definition of geoengineering that we used in the earlier Report holds good: we use the term
“geoengineering” to describe activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a
change in the global climate
with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that
is, human made) climate change.2 A more succinct definition was provided by one of the
witnesses to the current inquiry, Professor Keith: the intentional large-scale manipulation
of the environment
.3



The second category of climate geoengineering methods aims to offset greenhouse
warming by reducing the incidence and absorption of incoming solar (short-wave)
radiation.38 Proposals in this category include space-based shades or mirrors to block a
portion of incoming solar radiation; and ways of increasing the Earth’s albedo (that is, its
surface reflectivity of the sun’s radiation) by increasing cloud cover, whitening clouds or
placing reflective particles or balloons into the stratosphere.
39
edit on 9-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
More information on injecting aerosols into the stratosphere:


Aerosol injection Large volcano eruptions result in the mass injection of sulphate particles—
formed from the emitted sulphur dioxide—into the stratosphere. As these aerosols reflect solar
radiation back to space, or themselves absorb heat, mass eruptions result in a cooling of the lower
atmosphere. The eruption of Mount Tambora in present day Indonesia, for example, was thought
to have produced the “year without a summer” in 1816. In the 1970s, Professor Budyko proposed
that “artificial volcanoes” be geoengineered. That is, that sulphate aerosols be injected into the
stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by these “super-eruptions”
.43




51. Dr Blackstock considered that because stratospheric aerosols and cloud whitening were
the only category of techniques that could be used with a rapid impact on the climate
system there was a need to get regulatory structures in place before large scale field tests
were started
.106 He said that field experiments designed to have demonstrably negligible
environmental and trans-boundary risks were valuable for feasibility testing deployment
technologies, and for exploring local-scale physical, chemical and biological interactions
that could damage the environment when scaled up
.107 Dr Blackstock explained that once
“you start running into the potential for transboundary impacts, or at least a perception of
transboundary impacts, and so international mistrust, international concern of what
another country will do with that technology can come up very rapidly”.108 Professor Keith
added that “governance is central at the point where we lock it, and the reason is that it is
so cheap that the challenge for the international system will be to restrain unilateral
action”.109



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

What is this, whack-a-bunk?

What exactly do you find so convincing about that video? How about the Shasta snow sample at 6:35? Is that a good example? If that were shown to be bogus, then would that give you any pause? Or is there a better one in there?


You have the data he was referring to, and are able to refute it, off hand?



Yes, I have the data he was referring to:
contrailscience.com...

No, I was not able to refute it out of hand. But after an investigation of the the weather leading up to the date of the test, and photos of the test site, then yes I was. They tested dirty summer snow, and hence found dirt.

metabunk.org...




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's another study to debunk while you're at it:




Lots of interesting information there too, huh?


The barium results in that video have been debunked.
contrailscience.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
"some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway"


And what does it look like? There's over a hundred different forms of geoengineering, depending on how you stretch the definition. Which one is being tested?

Note that your link does not included cloud seeding as a form a geoengineering (which, of course, looks nothing like contrails either, just trying to avoid confusion).



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
They tested dirty summer snow, and hence found dirt.


I don't believe you're serious.

A guy shows you the report himself, showing aluminum levels above what is allowed before government action has to be taken, according to the people he contacted to perform the water test. Come on, why don't you just get it over with and call him a liar too.




Originally posted by Uncinus
And what does it look like? There's over a hundred different forms of geoengineering, depending on how you stretch the definition. Which one is being tested?


They explicitly talk about testing injecting aerosols if you read above. If politicians are talking about it openly then the military has already done it. You can be sure of that.
edit on 10-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just came across this PDF: click


"the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions"

"some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway"


I wonder what "they" consider "very small scale"? Either way there is your proof that this is happening right there. This comes from the UK House of Commons.


Well, a little bit of reading shows exactly what they mean.

Nor is geoengineering confined to modelling and the distant future. Professor Keith
told us that the Russians were already carrying out testing,100 though Dr Blackstock added
that the Russian tests were “extremely subscale”.101


Subscale. Yup. Doesn't sound much like "chemtrails".

Scientists have long known that aerosols in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, and so some geoengineering schemes had proposed cutting global temperatures by deploying aerosols. The Russian scientists put that plan into action by placing aerosol generators on a helicopter and a car chassis, so that they could spew sulfates at heights of up to 656 feet (200 meters) and see how much that cut back on sunlight.

www.popsci.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Here's another for the USA: click

Titled "U.S. Climate Change Science Program; Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3; January 2009"


The first section is entitled "Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts"

Look at the table of contents alone and you will see all the proof you need that this is not just make-believe or lies, but that your own congressmen are explaining it to you already.


It does not say in that PDF that anything is being deliberately sprayed.

I think you might be misunderstanding what they mean by "forcing" in the document. Here's an explanation:

en.wikipedia.org...


"Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2)."

In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere."



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sorry Phage, but it says


Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions.


700 ft into the air isn't the stratosphere. Did you know that?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Scientists have long known that aerosols in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, and so some geoengineering schemes had proposed cutting global temperatures by deploying aerosols. The Russian scientists put that plan into action by placing aerosol generators on a helicopter and a car chassis, so that they could spew sulfates at heights of up to 656 feet (200 meters) and see how much that cut back on sunlight.

www.popsci.com...


That's probably what David Keith was referring to as the only "test" that has been done so far. He basically said it was a publicity stunt. 13:50 in the video:



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Yes, I know. The testing referred to in the report is the Russian testing. If you read the document you showed us, that is quite plain. You skipped paragraphs there.

If you can find a reference to stratospheric testing I'd be interested in seeing it.
edit on 6/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
They tested dirty summer snow, and hence found dirt.


I don't believe you're serious.

A guy shows you the report himself, showing aluminum levels above what is allowed before government action has to be taken, according to the people he contacted to perform the water test. Come on, why don't you just get it over with and call him a liar too.



Did you read the test. I linked to it?

Did you see where the sample was taken?

Do you know what you'll get if you test dirty summer snow?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




A guy shows you the report himself, showing aluminum levels above what is allowed before government action has to be taken, according to the people he contacted to perform the water test. Come on, why don't you just get it over with and call him a liar too.

What water test? The test was on old snow.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 

So that would be the Dr. Keith referred to in the UK report. Right?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
What water test? The test was on old snow.


You are confused.

"I sent this water -- see this right there it says 'back yard rain gauge'"

Francis Mangels, USDA Biologist





Around the 1:20 mark.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Oh. Ok, I thought you were talking about the snow sample.

You understand that there is dust in clouds right? It gets lifted up by the same thing that causes clouds to form. You understand that there is dust in the air, right? When rain falls through air, it collects that dust.

Aluminum is one of the most common elements found in soil dust. I guess you missed my thread about that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The test would have been more convincing if they had tested for things like silicon and iron along with the "scary" stuff.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
You understand that there is dust in clouds right? It gets lifted up by the same thing that causes clouds to form. You understand that there is dust in the air, right? When rain falls through air, it collects that dust.


And you understand that this guy with the analysis on the paper, whose name is given and occupation is given as a USDA biologist, is saying that the aluminum levels in his water sample are above those that would call for government action, because it represents such a severe problem?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Mangels is not a USDA biologist. He worked in the the USDA Soil Conservation Service. He has a PhD in forestry.

The federal government has no MCL for aluminum.

California sets the MCL for aluminum in drinking water at 1.0 mg/l. That's about what that sample showed. Would I drink it? Sure, if I was thirsty. But I don't make a habit out of drinking out of rain gauges.

How long was that rain gauge out there? Don't know.
How clean was the rain gauge before the sample was taken? Don't know.
What other contaminants may have been in the sample? Other contaminants found in soil dust? Don't know. The test is meaningless.

Then there are these tests that they don't tell you about in the movie for some reason.
www.mtshastanews.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Mangels is not a USDA biologist. He worked in the the USDA Soil Conservation Service. He has a PhD in forestry.


I would imagine that's still more relevant than your own degree, which is in...?


The federal government has no MCL for aluminum.

California sets the MCL for aluminum in drinking water at 1.0 mg/l. That's about what that sample showed. Would I drink it? Sure, if I was thirsty. But I don't make a habit out of drinking out of rain gauges.


I'm sure you have no problem drinking your fill of tap water, too. That's fine. Your call, buddy.



The test is meaningless.

Then there are these tests that they don't tell you about in the movie for some reason.
www.mtshastanews.com...


I could use all the same excuses you just used and tell you that the test you link to is also meaningless.


It's not hard to come up with lame excuses to deny anything. All it is, is moving the goal posts. You ask for chemical tests but then unless the particles can all be traced directly back to coming out of an airplane (impossible), it won't ever be good enough anyway, so you may as well safe yourself the trouble and not even ask because you will never be satisfied.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   


You ask for chemical tests but then unless the particles can all be traced directly back to coming out of an airplane (impossible),


So if its impossible, then why do all the chemmies claim it is possible, and that it comes from airplanes?





new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join