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.

 

Cloud seeding = seeds of death? Monsanto in the sky?

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   

luxordelphi
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I know that the next generation jet engines are a lot different from the previous so I have to assume that nexrad, next generation radar, is also a lot different than the previous.

Are they the same then? Do they both involve iridium satellites?


Depends on whose radar you're asking about - it's next generation for weather radar. Not so much for military stuff. The NEX part of NEXRAD is more how you process the returns, it's also got some neat extra bits for doing Dopplers on different polarizations and the like, but the difference is mostly in the processing. It's not as advanced, say, as a really agile steered beam setup like an AESA.

And no, no radar involves Iridium satellites. Iridium satellites are voice grade comm links with the ground. Or very low speed data links. At $1 to $2 a minute.




Is my weather station not interested in cloud optical depth?


Ask them.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

waynos
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Back in 17th century you'd have been right out front, wouldn't you? Lighting the pyre to burn the witch with your flaming torch. Evidence be damned.



Sorry, the fog is not natural, smells like chemicals and it snowed at 6 above. And I want to find out how to test for silver nitrate and the various chemicals used.

PERIOD.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   

network dude

Unity_99
Surely there is a way to do simple tests.

Does anyone know!

Because its time to take action.
edit on 28-3-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


Actually, you don't even need to test. In order to do any cloud seeding operation, you need to get a permit. Just go to the permit department and ask. It's there for public record. Since it's not secret, it's not nefarious, and it's not (of the devil), youo should have no problem gaining the information you seek.

But in the event that you don't find the smoking gun, look up (polar vortex) and then (Jet stream). That may point you in a find direction to comprehension.


I don't care about how ludicrously easy it is to do something so harmful to all life on earth and the environment.

What we need to the testing for, is to find presence of the chemicals used, such as silver nitrate and then sue their buttsides off, even criminal charges. Its time to stop this once and for all.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 





I don't care about how ludicrously easy it is to do something so harmful to all life on earth and the environment.




9) Does cloud seeding have any significant negative environmental impacts?

There is no evidence that suggests cloud seeding creates any significant negative environmental impacts on the environment. Measurements made since the 1950’s indicate that the amount of silver iodide deposited in a target area after a long standing cloud seeding project falls several orders of magnitude (multiples of 10) short of the amount known to be toxic to plants, animals, trees, or humans. It is often difficult to detect any silver accumulation above the background amounts naturally present in the environment. Naturally, this kind of investigation continues. See FAQ #10, “Is Silver Iodide Harmful to the Environment?”

Warm cloud seeding is not conducted nearly as frequently as silver iodide cloud seeding, and the effect of warm cloud seeding agents on the environment is not as well known. Warm cloud seeding agents are salts. Preliminary results suggest that because the amounts of seeding agent used are so small, even these warm cloud seeding materials probably do not have any significant impacts.

10) Is silver iodide harmful to the environment?

As noted in the previous response (with respect to cloud seeding), questions sometimes arise regarding the environmental effects of silver iodide aerosols used in cloud seeding, which include silver iodide aerosol complexes such as silver iodide-silver chloride. Silver iodide is the primary component of silver iodide-based ice-nucleating complexes used in cloud seeding, and all these complexes will be referred to as silver iodide (AgI). The published scientific literature clearly shows that no environmentally harmful effects arising from cloud seeding with silver iodide aerosols have been observed; nor would they be expected to occur. Based on this work, the WMA finds that silver iodide is environmentally safe as it is currently being dispensed during cloud seeding programs. (See the WMA’s 2009 Position Statement on “The Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodide as a Cloud Seeding Agent”, www.weathermodification.org.)


www.weathermodification.org...

So you have evidence that cloudseeding is harmful, because from the people who do it say different.

And here is a little more for you...

www.weathermodification.org...
edit on 30-3-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 




I don't care about how ludicrously easy it is to do something so harmful to all life on earth and the environment.

Well if you don't mind, I would care about it if you could give me some decent evidence for it being "something so harmful to all life on earth and the environment."

As a courtesy to those who read your response, if it includes "things" such as "reverse Hz" or other nebulous concepts please try to explain in terms we mortals can understand.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 





Sorry, the fog is not natural, smells like chemicals and it snowed at 6 above.


And all of this is because of cloudseeding?

Your fog smells like chemicals, and exactly what chemicals does it smell like?

And interestingly enough it can snow at that temperature.

addins.wkow.com...

And if you need more here you go...

www.sciencebits.com...
edit on 30-3-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)


edit on 30-3-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Unity_99

network dude

Unity_99
Surely there is a way to do simple tests.

Does anyone know!

Because its time to take action.
edit on 28-3-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


Actually, you don't even need to test. In order to do any cloud seeding operation, you need to get a permit. Just go to the permit department and ask. It's there for public record. Since it's not secret, it's not nefarious, and it's not (of the devil), youo should have no problem gaining the information you seek.

But in the event that you don't find the smoking gun, look up (polar vortex) and then (Jet stream). That may point you in a find direction to comprehension.


I don't care about how ludicrously easy it is to do something so harmful to all life on earth and the environment.

What we need to the testing for, is to find presence of the chemicals used, such as silver nitrate and then sue their buttsides off, even criminal charges. Its time to stop this once and for all.


I'd like to believe that you have as much drive to DO SOMETHING as you do to TALK about doing something. The companies that do weather modification aren't hiding. You can drive right up to the front door and go inside and ask questions. So now the ball is in your court. Will you be the kind of person who drives up to their fears and face them, or are you a frightened little person with a really tough sounding keyboard?

Please let us know if you decide to man up.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Unity_99

waynos
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Back in 17th century you'd have been right out front, wouldn't you? Lighting the pyre to burn the witch with your flaming torch. Evidence be damned.



Sorry, the fog is not natural, smells like chemicals and it snowed at 6 above. And I want to find out how to test for silver nitrate and the various chemicals used.

PERIOD.


So you say, but what are your reasons? What chemicals does it smell like? How do you know that what you're smelling came from a plane?

Snowing at 6 above is actually perfectly possible so that's a red herring you have on that one. I see your position as reactionary and ill thought out, which was why I drew the witch hunt comparison.

Whether that is the case or you simply didn't explain it thoroughly enough remains to be seen.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi
 

Ok, That's one.
Thanks.


Just to follow up with you on the state specific laws that govern rain making: under 3.2.3 there is a chart which shows which states require permits and which don't (some states are not listed). Also which ones require notice and not; which require record keeping & reports and not etc. It's from the mid-2000's with some regulation taken from the early 2000's. This book claims budget constraints as the reason no process is in place for some states.

46 Guidelines for Cloud Seeding to Augment Precipitation

Also, Utah, as an example, while requiring permits, has the following exemptions:

Utah Administrative Code


(4) License and Permit Not Required: Individuals and organizations engaging in the following activities are exempt from the license and permit requirements of this rule:

(a) Research performed entirely within laboratory facilities;

(b) Cloud Seeding activities for the suppression of fog;

(c) Fire fighting activities where water or chemical preparations are applied directly to fires, without intent to modify the weather;

(d) Frost and fog protective measures provided through the application of water or heat by orchard heater, or similar devices, or by mixing of the lower layers of the atmosphere by helicopters or other type of aircraft where no chemicals are dispensed into the atmosphere, other than normal combustion by-products and engine exhaust; and

(e) Inadvertent weather modification, namely emissions from industrial stacks.


In both Utah and Colorado (pretty regulated imo when it comes to cloud seeding) you can't collect rain water. I don't know exactly how this impacts on cloud seeding regulation but I'm sure it probably does.

Some states, like Nevada, have strange rules...for instance...you can't get a permit to cloud seed if you are behind in child support payments.

As far as the substances used and the amounts: I don't know if this is on the honor system or if there is actually some oversight or if they even have tracers.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Bedlam

luxordelphi
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I know that the next generation jet engines are a lot different from the previous so I have to assume that nexrad, next generation radar, is also a lot different than the previous.

Are they the same then? Do they both involve iridium satellites?


Depends on whose radar you're asking about - it's next generation for weather radar. Not so much for military stuff. The NEX part of NEXRAD is more how you process the returns, it's also got some neat extra bits for doing Dopplers on different polarizations and the like, but the difference is mostly in the processing. It's not as advanced, say, as a really agile steered beam setup like an AESA.

And no, no radar involves Iridium satellites. Iridium satellites are voice grade comm links with the ground. Or very low speed data links. At $1 to $2 a minute.




Is my weather station not interested in cloud optical depth?


Ask them.


Read some stuff on the NEXRAD (next generation radar) (and now I'm an overnight expert! lol) which is the product that gives us our nightly news weather graphic. NEXRAD returns come from items as vastly different as a raindrop and a bird and a plane and dust.

National Weather Service Radar Image


NEXRAD (Next Generation Radar) obtains weather information (precipitation and wind) based upon returned energy. The radar emits a burst of energy (green). If the energy strikes an object (rain drop, bug, bird, etc), the energy is scattered in all directions (blue). A small fraction of that scattered energy is directed back toward the radar.


So traditional chaff (not nano) could certainly show up on NEXRAD. This would happen through a combination of errors i.e. chaff deflected returns which did not get differentiated by the operator or automatic editing from precipitation and so get presented in the view we see.

Nano aluminum chaff is going to be very reflective because of its' out of proportion surface area. There is a hint of this in the following Q&A:

WDTB's Dual-Polarization Radar FAQ Page


Q: In the Non-Precipitation Echoes module, chaff is described as having low reflectivity. From my experience, chaff usually has very high reflectivity values. Areas of chaff often look like thunderstorms at first glance. Can you explain this discrepancy between the training material and what we see locally?



A: The Non-Precipitation Echoes module had no intention of setting reflectivity thresholds regarding chaff. In fact, chaff can appear on radar as just about any reflectivity value. From the point of view of the training, Correlation Coefficient (CC) and Differential Reflectivity (ZDR) are the important parameters.


So the questioner is telling them that their reflectivity values are trash and don't hold true in real life observation.

They answer by saying that chaff can have any reflectivity value.

Ok then.

AESA is basically a cloaked communication system using a phased array?? I'm not sure how this system would employ chaff.

Also, imo, the previous Q&A comes about because there's so much undisclosed stuff in the atmosphere these days. Everybody wants to experiment.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

luxordelphi

So traditional chaff (not nano) could certainly show up on NEXRAD. This would happen through a combination of errors i.e. chaff deflected returns which did not get differentiated by the operator or automatic editing from precipitation and so get presented in the view we see.


Absolutely traditional chaff shows up on NEXRAD. I'm not debating that at all. There have been lots of chaff drops that have shown on weather radars. An example is the one over Huntsville recently. A chaff drop on a weather radar generally shows a characteristic return called a 'chaff tail' which will develop shortly after the drop. Newer chaff de-activates in the sunlight after the drop and prevents the usual tail formation. In which case, a NEXRAD can distinguish a chaff drop by comparing horizontal and vertical polarization returns. Chaff tends to be stretched out in the direction of the wind. This gives it a different return in one polarization than the other.



Nano aluminum chaff is going to be very reflective because of its' out of proportion surface area. There is a hint of this in the following Q&A...

So the questioner is telling them that their reflectivity values are trash and don't hold true in real life observation.


Not so much. He's telling them to use differential reflectivity, which is the thing I just told you about with the difference between reflectivity on different polarizations.



AESA is basically a cloaked communication system using a phased array?? I'm not sure how this system would employ chaff.


No. It's a very advanced radar. Not that you can't communicate with it, too, I suppose.

Another issue with nanoparticulate aluminum, is that it goes 'boom'. It's spectacularly pyrophoric. In its native form, it'll just explode upon distribution. Once oxidized, it is no longer conductive and is a fine abrasive, but not much in the way of a radar reflector.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Unity_99

waynos
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Back in 17th century you'd have been right out front, wouldn't you? Lighting the pyre to burn the witch with your flaming torch. Evidence be damned.



Sorry, the fog is not natural, smells like chemicals and it snowed at 6 above. And I want to find out how to test for silver nitrate and the various chemicals used.

PERIOD.


Cloud seeding along with other weather mitigation processes use combustion which produces ultra-fine (nano size) particles. This much is known. What seems to be secret is what the exact substances used today are and how exactly they are produced.

The dangers of ultra-fine particles are only recently starting to be addressed even though releases (through a robust nanotech industry) have been going on for some 15 to 20 years.

These particles amount to nothing (0) if you test for them in a standard way. Various air quality monitoring organizations are starting to realize that they need to be counted by particle, not by total substance amount. It's like the situation with asbestos where there is no safe level of exposure - even one particle in the world is too much if it gets inhaled by somebody.

Some years back I engaged in an effort to get local government to test air quality. There had been an unusual amount of chemtrailing which culminated in 3 plane crashes (small planes) withing a fairly small geographical area. Reading the reports it was almost as if these planes had flown through an invisible stratospheric volcanic plume. But they hadn't. The testing was set up and ongoing when it was brought to a screeching halt by unknowns. And never resumed. And the results were never made public.

So it's hard to give a recommendation on how to go about testing. You might start here (sometimes we are the ones who need to educate our governments so that they know how best they can protect us):

2011 December Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development


The federal government collects information about what is going on in the environment to help Canadians make decisions every day. It monitors many different aspects of the environment, including solar flares, weather, air quality, migratory birds, fish, insects that carry human diseases, forests, water quality and quantity, changes in permafrost, and the ecology of national parks.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 




Cloud seeding along with other weather mitigation processes use combustion which produces ultra-fine (nano size) particles.
How so?

(Side note) Have the Navy pilots stopped firing on the telephone company workers out there?




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join