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.

 

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

page: 37
79
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Why obviously aircraft? Volcanos don't use aircraft.


Because they use volcanoes as an example, they aren't actually talking about artificially causing volcanoes to erupt.


They talk about "injecting" aerosols, into the stratosphere. You can't easily inject an aerosol into the stratosphere from the back of a truck. So the non-brain-dead method for accomplishing this would obviously be to.... any ideas yet?.... use an aircraft.



I listed the two other ideas.




Do you think that they should NOT be discussing this?


Exactly. I don't think the government should be proclaiming the need to inject ANYTHING into the stratosphere because they have no business manipulating natural climate patterns. What they do with pollution is enough. Even cloud-seeding is an extremely controversial practice, even in countries where the government does it openly like Russia or China.


They are not "proclaiming the need". They are discussing if it should be done, and how, and what local and international regulatory frameworks need to be in place.

Cloud seeding is not very controversial. It's been practiced openly for decades by many local governments in the US. Such as Utah:

www.water.utah.gov...

Local water users in Central Utah began seeding clouds as early as the 1950's. Large-scale seeding projects have been ongoing since 1973. For the dates and locations of historical seeding activities, see Historical Cloud Seeding in Utah. To see where current wintertime cloudseeding efforts are being focused, see Current Projects.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
I listed the two other ideas.


Can you explain how either would be more efficient than just using a damn plane? Consider that the aerosols would have to be regularly distributed over wide areas to have a significant effect.



They are not "proclaiming the need".


Right, they are just talking about spraying aerosols into the stratosphere because they can't think of better ways to piss away money.


No, if you read the PDFs that have been linked in these threads, they lay out plenty of reasons why they feel the need to do these things. That's the whole point of them.


They are discussing if it should be done, and how, and what local and international regulatory frameworks need to be in place.


Yet they aren't doing that for controlling robot cats, so spraying aerosols into the stratosphere obviously takes more precedence to them than your stupid analogy, doesn't it?



Cloud seeding is not very controversial.


That's your opinion. Not at all shared by everyone. It only takes so many pissed off people to create a controversy after all, and you ignoring them doesn't make them go away.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
I listed the two other ideas.


Can you explain how either would be more efficient than just using a damn plane? Consider that the aerosols would have to be regularly distributed over wide areas to have a significant effect.


Such as by a volcano, which is fixed in place. You know Mt Pinatubo boosted enough aerosols into the atmosphere to last ten years.

A tethered ballon with a pipe you can pump the aerosols through, that sounds a lot more efficient than using planes. Of course it's not without technical difficulties.

Artillery does not sound too promising. But has been suggested.

Anyway - the point is that there's MANY possible geoengineering schemes. Almost none of which look like contrails, and none of which have ever been tried.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Are you seriously suggesting volcano eruptions are being considered as a governmental solution to what they suggest is global warming? Where in the PDFs does it say they are considering actively using volcanoes as a technique to manipulate climate?

You say balloons "sound" a lot more efficient than using planes but don't elaborate on why you think this would actually be the case. Anything a balloon can do, a plane can do faster.


And your assertion that none of these things have been tested is based on nothing, as usual.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Are you seriously suggesting volcano eruptions are being considered as a governmental solution to what they suggest is global warming? Where in the PDFs does it say they are considering actively using volcanoes as a technique to manipulate climate?


No I wasn't. I was illustrating the point that you could do it from a single fixed point, and you don't need moveable dispersions points (planes). Or course you'd probably need more than one.



You say balloons "sound" a lot more efficient than using planes but don't elaborate on why you think this would actually be the case. Anything a balloon can do, a plane can do faster.


A plane has to take off and land for each load of aerosols. A tethered ballon, with a pipe leading from the ground to the balloon, could just constantly pump out aerosols 24 hours a day.

The point is that there are many different geoengineering proposals.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
No I wasn't. I was illustrating the point that you could do it from a single fixed point, and you don't need moveable dispersions points (planes). Or course you'd probably need more than one.


Not only that but volcanoes release almost incomprehensible amounts of material into the atmosphere. Krakatoa alone is suspected to have caused famines in Europe, on the other side of the world, when it erupted.

Or rather than littering the ground with multiple setups spewing crap into the air (and think of the effort it would require to launch the aerosol 6-30 miles into the stratosphere), why not just use an airplane???


A plane has to take off and land for each load of aerosols. A tethered ballon, with a pipe leading from the ground to the balloon, could just constantly pump out aerosols 24 hours a day.


Even according to these PDFs, climate manipulation has to be handled more carefully than just straight dumping tons of crap into the same place constantly. That's why they are putting so much emphasis on modeling aerosol dispersal, so they know how to more efficiently tackle this "problem." Taking off and landing a plane is obviously not a huge logistics problem. It happens every day by the thousands. If the military can't take off and land planes then there is something wrong.


The point is that there are many different geoengineering proposals.


And none of them that you can show that would be any more efficient than just using airplanes to inject the stuff straight into the stratosphere like the PDFs also mention explicitly.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
No I wasn't. I was illustrating the point that you could do it from a single fixed point, and you don't need moveable dispersions points (planes). Or course you'd probably need more than one.


Not only that but volcanoes release almost incomprehensible amounts of material into the atmosphere. Krakatoa alone is suspected to have caused famines in Europe, on the other side of the world, when it erupted.

Or rather than littering the ground with multiple setups spewing crap into the air (and think of the effort it would require to launch the aerosol 6-30 miles into the stratosphere), why not just use an airplane???


No, you don't understand. The theory is to use a balloon, in the stratosphere. Like, five miles up. Now you dangle a long hose from this ballon, and pump up aerosols from the ground. It's super efficient in terms of energy needed per kilo of aerosols, but there are other practical problems, like the wind.

Again, there ARE lots of different geoengineering schemes being proposed. We can debate their relative merits, costs, and risks- and that's exactly what scientists are doing.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Actually Unincus, it'd probably need to be quite a bit more than 5 miles up - the obvious place to conduct dispersal of aerosols with minimum effort would be around the equator, where the stratosphere is considerably higher.

(the reason Pinatubo - and for that matter Krakatoa and Tamboro - produced a global cooling effect was because they are in the tropics and the aerosols spread out into both hemispheres)

Spraying at mid or high latitudes would not produce global dispersal - so you'd need many more aircraft (or balloons or whatever) - with as many in the S Hemisphere as in the N Hemisphere. More expensive. Less effective.

Still, if we suddenly get reports of a massive increase in persistent contrails over Ecuador, Indonesia, the Congo and the Indian Ocean then it may point to the chemmies being right

edit on 11-6-2011 by Essan because: typo



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
No, you don't understand. The theory is to use a balloon, in the stratosphere. Like, five miles up. Now you dangle a long hose from this ballon, and pump up aerosols from the ground. It's super efficient in terms of energy needed per kilo of aerosols, but there are other practical problems, like the wind.


So in other words, your argument is that using a balloon with a 5-mile hose running up to it from the ground, would be a more efficient means of spraying aerosols than using an airplane.


The stratosphere is actually between 6 and 30 miles into the air, unless you're at the poles, and only then is it closer to 5 miles.


And what would the practical problems be with just using a damned plane again? You have to take off and land them? That's it?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The issue is that passenger jets rarely fly high enough for that spraying you are so adamant about claiming is occurring to be effective.


edit on 6/11/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Any comments on my points? Operations would logicaly take place around the equator.

btw, I've even identified the obvious base from which to conduct them (if they were intended to be secret - though I fail to see why they would be, especially given the effects would be as obvious as a smack in the face). Wonder if anyone else has?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
The issue is that passenger jets rarely fly high enough for that spraying you are so adamant about claiming is occurring to be effective.


I never said passenger jets were doing it.



Would you like to explain how hooking up a 6- to 30-mile long hose from the ground to one of these balloons to pump aerosols into the stratosphere would be any more efficient than just using planes? I suppose you think it's more efficient to hammer nails with your fist, too?



Originally posted by Essan
Any comments on my points? Operations would logicaly take place around the equator.


Weather is a global phenomenon. Its dovetail into over-all climate is obvious. I don't doubt they would do this stuff wherever they could manage it.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Fuel costs of balloon: 0;
Jets: Enough so that airlines can't stay in business charging 2-300 bucks a seat with 150 or so passengers on each flight.

This is not a hard concept.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
No, you don't understand. The theory is to use a balloon, in the stratosphere. Like, five miles up. Now you dangle a long hose from this ballon, and pump up aerosols from the ground. It's super efficient in terms of energy needed per kilo of aerosols, but there are other practical problems, like the wind.


So in other words, your argument is that using a balloon with a 5-mile hose running up to it from the ground, would be a more efficient means of spraying aerosols than using an airplane.


The stratosphere is actually between 6 and 30 miles into the air, unless you're at the poles, and only then is it closer to 5 miles.


And what would the practical problems be with just using a damned plane again? You have to take off and land them? That's it?


By "efficient", I mean use less energy.

Once the ballon is in place, all you need is the energy to pump the aerosols up the pipe. Since you are only raising the aerosols, and not a plane as well, then obviously it would use less energy.

That's why we use pipelines to move large quantities of oil over moderate distances. It's far more efficient than using trains.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Fuel costs of balloon: 0


First, there is a cost to fill the balloon with lighter-than-air gas. Then there is the cost of the 6+ mile long hose made to dangle down and pump the aerosol. Then there is the cost of the generator that will inevitably have to push the aerosol through 6+ miles of that hose to inject it into the stratosphere. Then there is the cost of electricity to run that generator.

Did I mention that the Pentagon awards blank checks for contracts with companies such as KBR? What makes you think black-ops wouldn't be funded by blank checks too? Because our economy is so robust and there is obviously no evidence of "mishandling" of funds in the DoD?



Jets: Enough so that airlines can't stay in business charging 2-300 bucks a seat with 150 or so passengers on each flight.

This is not a hard concept.


No, actually that is a pretty damned hard concept. Now you're telling me that instead of the military or private interests associated with the military or government doing this, it's commercial airline companies. You're intentionally offering an idea that is totally stupid, aren't you?




Originally posted by Uncinus
By "efficient", I mean use less energy.


What makes you think cutting back on energy consumption would be a priority of domestic covert operations?
edit on 11-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Ever wonder why we use weather balloons as opposed to weather aircraft?

And now you're telling me that the private sector is flying aircraft around at stratospheric altitudes for some covert black ops spooky stuff? Or that the military is doing the same and no one is noticing on radar?

Seriously, are you a troll, or just that daft?
edit on 6/11/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Ever wonder why we use weather balloons as opposed to weather aircraft?


Who is "we"?


And now you're telling me that the private sector is flying aircraft around at stratospheric altitudes for some covert black ops spooky stuff?


There are already individuals in the private sector working on planes capable of reaching the boundaries of outer space to replace government programs. I haven't been keeping up with that progress but I'm sure you're familiar with what I'm talking about. There are a lot of things going on right now.


Or that the military is doing the same and no one is noticing on radar?


Oh no, it shows up on radar. And that's the point when you "debunkers" start screaming "chaff." I know all your lame tricks.



Seriously, are you a troll, or just that stupid?


Not as stupid as saying commercial airline companies would ever have interest in doing these things before military and other interest groups.

edit on 11-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh no, it shows up on radar.


Do you have an example of a long thin trail on radar?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I think you miss the whole point of the ballon and hose idea. It's just one of the common ideas listed.

Obviously it's not suitable for a secret operation, even if it were practical.

Large unmarked planes are not really suitable either, as they would be too easy to distinguish from normal planes.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
www.libertyforlife.com...



edit on 11-6-2011 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
79
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join