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.

 

CALIPSO - the logistical arm of aerial spraying?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


There was also the FIRE and ICE satellite programs

icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Strange I can not find the info on the FIRE part anymore.

It studied aerosols from volcanoes and forest fires. Studying their effect on clouds and weather

EDIT:

Apparently it burned up ... how ironic

www.space.com...

edit on 15-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: add link




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Black carbon nanotubes are not mineral dusts. Take your semantics on down the road.


I'm sorry, but I don't get how you made such a huge leap in logic from "the existence of carbon nanotubes technology" to "The Glory Satellite was really studying Carbon nanotubes and NOT carbon soot"

Why do you keep doing this (making these fallacious leaps in logic)? You read somewhere that carbon nanotubes exist, therefore you suddenly think that every internet mention of the word "carbon" must somehow be linked to nanotubes.

Your doing the same thing with CALIPSO. No matter what you say or how much you bastardize the actual facts to meet your own pre-conceived ideas (intentionally or unintentionally), CALIPSO is still able to study things other than cirrus clouds that were created from contrails.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Ice doesn't form aerosols. I know you know that so moving on: noctilucent cloud formation was part of the CARE experiment in 2009 wherein the U.S. Navy (NASA) collaborated using exhaust from a Black Brant XII to create artificial noctilucent clouds. So if academia is referring to that as an ice aerosol cloud then I'm safe and justified with cirrus aviaticus as the same thing.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Are you familiar with TAP ?

www.asp.bnl.gov...

www.asp.bnl.gov...


and ARM

ldap.xdc.arm.gov... %3d


Another related program is LASP

lasp.colorado.edu...
edit on 15-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: add link



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I used to have a whole list of related programs. Unfortunately my old computer broke and I lost a lot of documents and it seems that many of them have been moved or erased.

There literally are 100's being conducted by NASA

Here's another one

espo.nasa.gov...

This webpage might interest you in your investigations

www.asp.bnl.gov...

EDIT:

Most of these pages have all been changed from their originals

Notice the date which the TARFOX program began 1996 ... the same year people started complaining about persistent contrails.


eosweb.larc.nasa.gov...

The TARFOX Intensive Field Campaign was conducted July 10-31, 1996. It included coordinated measurements from four satellites (GOES-8, NOAA-14, ERS-2, LANDSAT), four aircraft (ER-2, C-130, C-131A, and a modified Cessna), land sites, and ships. A variety of aerosol conditions was sampled, ranging from relatively clean behind frontal passages to moderately polluted with aerosol optical depths exceeding 0.5 at mid-visible wavelengths. Gradients of aerosol optical thickness were sampled to aid in isolating aerosol effects from other radiative effects and to more tightly constrain closure tests, including those of satellite retrievals. Early results from TARFOX include demonstration of the unexpected importance of carbonaceous compounds and water condensed on aerosol in the US mid-Atlantic haze plume, chemical apportionment of the aerosol optical depth, measurements of the downward component of aerosol radiative forcing, and agreement between forcing measurements and calculations. A wide variety of closure studies is currently in progress.

edit on 15-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: add link



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Ice doesn't form aerosols. I know you know that so moving on: noctilucent cloud formation was part of the CARE experiment in 2009 wherein the U.S. Navy (NASA) collaborated using exhaust from a Black Brant XII to create artificial noctilucent clouds. So if academia is referring to that as an ice aerosol cloud then I'm safe and justified with cirrus aviaticus as the same thing.


Oh dear, I'm beginning to think you might be trolling. I apologize if you are not, but your statements just fly in the face of reality.

en.wikipedia.org...


Night clouds or noctilucent clouds are composed of tiny crystals of water ice up to 100 nanometers in diameter and exist at a height of about 76 to 85 kilometers (47 to 53 mi), higher than any other clouds in Earth's atmosphere. Clouds in the Earth's lower atmosphere form when water collects on particles, but mesospheric clouds may form directly from water vapour in addition to forming on dust particles.


www.antarctica.gov.au... aerosol-clouds-at-the-edge-of-space


A special atmospheric research campaign for the International Polar Year was undertaken at Davis this summer to gain improved understanding of ice-aerosol layers in Earth's atmosphere and the effects of global climate change.
[...]
The lidar detects ice-aerosols (noctilucent clouds)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Thx Mathias for your contribution. ICESAT had a couple of things in common with CALIPSO. It used lidar and it studied polar stratospheric clouds. Saw some graphic mock-ups of the CALIPSO data on these clouds. It must have been in a polar orbit just like the CALIPSO 'A-Train' but couldn't find that data.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




And no-one has ever said that contrails are anything except artificially generated - although the process of water cooling to ice is perfectly natural given the temperatures involved! just like this persistent contrail - a natural process artificially induced:


I sense back pedaling. Throwing boiling water into the air from a bucket is a natural process? I can see we have some differences in the way we view things. And why doesn't the sky just spontaneously turn to ice, 'given the temperatures involved?' Why does it take a jet? If it's so natural I mean? Let's be a bit reasonable and not make up natural processes. This study seems to want to say that cirrus aviaticus is a new class of cloud - not the same as clouds from natural processes at all.

www.nature.com...#/f4


Here we use a global climate model that captures the whole life cycle of these man-made clouds to simulate their global coverage, as well as the changes in natural cloudiness that they induce.



Contrail cirrus form and persist in air that is ice-saturated, whereas natural cirrus often require high ice supersaturation to form



The contrail-cirrus module, CCMod, introduces a new cloud class ‘contrail cirrus’ in the global climate model ECHAM4.



The model’s water budget was changed to accommodate for the new cloud class, enabling the simulation of the competition for available water vapour between natural and contrail cirrus.


And while I have your attention, I'm still trying to understand your statements:




Awesome demonstration that you do not understand the fundamental concepts of what you talk about. Water clouds ARE aerosol clouds, and ice IS water. Deny ignorance!


in light of the statements on the CALIPSO site. Why then is CALIPSO making a distinction between 'water clouds' and 'ice clouds?' Why are they able to work with one and not the other if they are the same as you imply?

www.antarctica.ac.uk...


Although the Antarctic atmosphere is normally freezing many Antarctic clouds contain both water droplets and ice crystals. Within a cloud, ice crystals will only form if a special type of particle is present for the ice to form on. This means that a cloud below freezing may contain many water droplets but only a few ice crystals.



The image shows a microscope photograph of a cloud sampled over the Antarctic Peninsula; the droplets appear as small spheres while the ice crystals in this cloud have taken the form of flat hexagonal prisms and starlike flakes. The exact shape of the ice crystals depends on the temperature they form at. In the interior of Antarctica the temperature is very low (less than −50°C) and here the clouds tend to be made up solely of ice particles and the clouds are more tenuous.


That seems to be saying that clouds without water in them exist but are limited by temperature. And yet at the same time it's the particle that determines ice. So help me out here - is it a typo on the CALIPSO site that comes and goes like some botisized doppler? Was your original assessment rash and ill-thought out? Or is there something strange about cirrus aviaticus that allows it to return a laser signal?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


There's a lot of info to go through regarding all these experiments but they all revolve around the same objective.

The objective of understanding the different radiative forcing qualities of aerosols.

Which is the final objective of SRM Geoengineering.

This study is about the validation of the use of Lidar

Aerosol Lidar Validation Experiment - ALIVE www.arm.gov...



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





I'm sorry, but I don't get how you made such a huge leap in logic from "the existence of carbon nanotubes technology" to "The Glory Satellite was really studying Carbon nanotubes and NOT carbon soot"


Sorry but petulance is not an argument. My reply to Uncinus had nothing to do with anything but his trivializing the difference between artificial and natural clouds.




And technically, all clouds are aerosols.


And if you try to look at it from my viewpoint which is a viewpoint of escalating chemical skies demonstrated by increasingly unnatural phenomena first observed via chemtrails, you might see how I would take the U.S. Army's funding of the study of carbon nanotubes as a possible obfuscation tool and extrapolate that on out to experimental venues. And experimental venues need statistics to show how effective or ineffective it might be. And statistics need data gathering. Information put into proposals to 'save' the environment doesn't come spontaneously. It comes through research, experimentation and data gathering. That's why when there is a global effort like chemtrails, there has to be data to co-ordinate that effort. There has to be a way to know when and where to spray and what to spray.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Lets start with basics. Would you agree that when water freezes from its liquid form, then it forms solid crystals, called ice.

And that (non-vapor) water in clouds is either trillions of tiny spherical water droplets, or trillions of tiny ice crystals of hexagonal structure?

Would you also agree that LIDAR would give very different returns from a liquid water cloud (spherical, mostly internal refraction and diffusion), compared to an ice cloud (solid water, hexagonal crystals, a combination of reflection, refraction and diffusion)?

Do you disagree with any of that?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Thx Mathias. You have succeeded in showing me that this is some kind of a colossal global effort and that every tentacle leads to every other tentacle all connected in a common cause. And all starting and evolving from the same time period. There were a couple of places in the documents where overt experiments were admitted - in Mexico and in the Pacific - and for the rest, the data speaks for itself - it wasn't gathered by passively waiting for particles to float by.

Also I was interested in a few references to 'new' particles both in the stratosphere and in the troposphere. Also of interest the TAP document which states that new measuring tools were developed specifically for certain projects they had in mind. Down to 2.5 nanometers I think that document said and that was awhile ago.

Based on this information I have to revisit the post by dplum517 and say that - yes - I think the failure of GLORY did have an impact on geoengineering. And that information makes a lot of difference in an investigation because it means that whatever that was intended to do has to be jury-rigged through existing systems and that shows up in escalating errors and that's what CALIPSO is in to.

I appreciate your substantial contribution and the insight you bring.

And I'm just going to define a few terms that I needed to look up to understand the full import of your last comment.

www.wordiq.com...


The generalised concept of radiative forcing in climate science is any change in the radiation (heat) entering the climate system or changes in radiatively active gases.



The radiation balance can be altered by factors such as intensity of solar energy, reflection by clouds or gases, absorption by various gases or surfaces, and emission of heat by various materials. Any such alteration is a radiative forcing, and new balances will be reached. In the real world this continually happens in various areas, such as where sunlight is striking, depth and density of atmospheric areas with various amounts of gases, clouds, and aerosols, and where seasons alter the ground cover. A positive forcing tends to warm while a negative forcing tends to cooling.


slipr.com...


SRM stands for Solar Radiation Management, and it includes all the geoengineering schemes that increase earth’s albedo in order to reflect more sunlight back into space, and in so doing reduce the net irradiance of the earth. These schemes include injection of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, artificially increasing ocean cloud albedo by seeding said clouds with sub-micron droplets of sea water, parking a fleet of space mirrors at an appropriate earth / sun Lagrangian point, etc



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Uncinus: maybe it's late but I could almost swear that your last two posts were written by two different people - neither of them you. Familiarities of cadence and Metabunk fixations offer clues. Anyway, plodding on...




Oh dear, I'm beginning to think you might be trolling. I apologize if you are not, but your statements just fly in the face of reality.


So you've changed your mind again? And decided to what?? Say something meaningless? If you want to make a direct statement and tie something together then ok - I'll respond. But intuiting what you mean if indeed you mean anything at all is no...won't do it.

And your last post - did you even read my post? What hexagonal structure? From my last post to you quoting from the antarctica study: "The exact shape of the ice crystals depends on the temperature they form at." There's a picture - it shows a hexagonal prism and a star-like flake. Are you saying that because the star has six points it's hexagonal? What do you want me to agree or disagree with? Nonsense? And that clouds are either water drops or hexagonal ice? Quoting again from the antarctica study: "Although the Antarctic atmosphere is normally freezing many Antarctic clouds contain both water droplets and ice crystals." I don't see an either/or in there. Are you saying their study is wrong? Get a grip - make some sense.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   


Are you saying that because the star has six points it's hexagonal? What do you want me to agree or disagree with? Nonsense? And that clouds are either water drops or hexagonal ice?


What problem (now) do you have with ice crystals that are hexagonal ?...or that water is liquid, or frozen ?
You are making no sense.
It seems you will debate the sun as being the center of our solar system, if it is proposed by anyone contrary to your beliefs.

www.gps.caltech.edu...
(note, 1990)


edit on 16-2-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
That link addresses nothing about the current debate.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 





What problem (now) do you have with ice crystals that are hexagonal ?...or that water is liquid, or frozen ? You are making no sense. It seems you will debate the sun as being the center of our solar system, if it is proposed by anyone contrary to your beliefs.


The habit of tossing, injecting, exploding, spraying, shooting etc. materials into our atmosphere with the stated aim of geoengineering for whatever stated purpose is not a static activity. It is fluid, evolving and ongoing. The materials used are not static but also evolve and today involve to no small extent the use of nano size substances specifically engineered for this purpose. And this global experiment also involves data gathering because it is a "let's do this and see what happens" type of scenario.

Lidar was developed to study aerosols (tiny particles) and CALIPSO is the housing for this measuring tool.

The trivializing of these ongoing endeavors by statements like yours, quoted above, and others, quoted elsewhere in this thread, is, IMHO, ill-considered.

There are no chemists in this thread and even if there were, the study of nano spans more scientific fields than just chemistry.

To give an idea of how very foreign nano can be, let's start with ice.

www.nanowerk.com...=9536.php

In this article from nanowerk from 2009 titled, 'Molecular ice chain structure could be used to seed clouds and cause rain,' various structures of ice are discussed.


Although the structure of regular ice is well known at the macroscale, its structures are much more mysterious and less well understood at the nanoscale - particularly when ice forms at an interface with matter as is the case in the higher atmosphere on particles of dust.



"This discovery leads to fundamental new understanding about the nature of hydrogen bonding at interfaces (there is no a priori rule that hexagons should form) and suggests that when people are searching for new ice nucleating agents which can be used to seed clouds and cause rain, they do not necessarily need to focus on materials that have hexagonal surfaces - other types of surfaces may be good too."


I mentioned carbon nanotubes earlier in this thread as an obfuscation material under development for the military. Let's look at ice and carbon nanotubes in this article from physorg in 2006 titled, 'Self-Assembling Nano-Ice Discovered; Structure Resembles DNA.'

www.physorg.com...


Chemistry professor Zeng and two members of his UNL team recently found double helixes of ice molecules that resemble the structure of DNA and self-assemble under high pressure inside carbon nanotubes.



The experiment was a follow-up on a 2001 discovery through computer modeling by Zeng and another team of four new kinds of one-dimensional ice inside carbon nanotubes.



Scientists at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago confirmed the existence of a chain of octagon-shaped ice crystals inside a 1.4-nanometer carbon tube, just as Zeng and company expected.


I've read a lot of papers on the atmosphere and the only truly common theme in them is that scientists and researchers say over and over again, "it is little understood."



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Killer thread on infiltration of conspiracy sites! Chemtrails and geoengineering are easy threads to derail because the scientific proofs are complicated and involve extensive knowledge of several fields. Observation on the other hand is simple and difficult to debunk. Chemtrails get a lot of attention because they are so visible and in your face and that's why I think they get a lot of attention from debunkers as well. Convincing a global population that they are hallucinating is a tough task and debunkers are rarely truly knowledgeable.

Still there have been a number of times for me, on ATS, reading a thread where my initial (silent) reaction was no that's impossible. Morgellons was one of those instances. Through my research on nano, which I find riveting, I discovered that not only is it possible, it's probable and it is probably only the very teeny tiny tip of the iceberg.

Appreciate your support.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

.....To give an idea of how very foreign nano can be, let's start with ice.

www.nanowerk.com...=9536.php

In this article from nanowerk from 2009 titled, 'Molecular ice chain structure could be used to seed clouds and cause rain,' various structures of ice are discussed.



So does LIDAR measure "nano scale ice",.....or real-world common airborne ice, or land-based ice ?
Why would it need to survey anything "nano" ?....(even if it could)
It seems that anything "nano" these days, is viewed with suspicion.....either because it's too small to comprehend, or suddenly, it becomes "ultra-manufactured" by deviant sources.....and may be attributed to "secrets".
edit on 16-2-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
And your last post - did you even read my post? What hexagonal structure? From my last post to you quoting from the antarctica study: "The exact shape of the ice crystals depends on the temperature they form at." There's a picture - it shows a hexagonal prism and a star-like flake. Are you saying that because the star has six points it's hexagonal? What do you want me to agree or disagree with? Nonsense? And that clouds are either water drops or hexagonal ice? Quoting again from the antarctica study: "Although the Antarctic atmosphere is normally freezing many Antarctic clouds contain both water droplets and ice crystals." I don't see an either/or in there. Are you saying their study is wrong? Get a grip - make some sense.


I'm trying to establish what the common ground is. If we are using different terminology and assumptions for the fundamentals, then we will just be talking at cross purposes on the more complex topics.

Ice crystals have a hexagonal structure. That's just basic science.

geology.com...


The molecules of water that form each tiny ice crystal naturally arrange themselves into a hexagonal (six sided) structure. The result will be a snowflake with six sides or six arms.

The image of a snowflake at right has six arms. These six arms reflect the hexagonal structure. Ice crystals are "minerals" because they have this natural hexagonal crystalline structure.


Can we agree on that? Does that make sense?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join