CALIPSO - the logistical arm of aerial spraying?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Do you pay much attention to what you read?

In fact this is what those that keep this chemtrail conspiracy going should be worried about....

President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

Well if this were to ever happen what are the chemtrailers going to do since they are the ones that consider chemtrails a conspiracy,

reply to post by EyeDontKnow

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".

Nanometer is just a scale of measurement. It's a measurement for things that are very small.

www.nanooze.org...

A nanometer is used to measure things that are very small. Atoms and molecules, the smallest pieces of everything around us, are measured in nanometers.

For example a water molecule is less than one nanometer. A typical germ is about 1,000 nanometers.

We can think of the smell of freshly baked cookies and that is something that happens on the nanometer scale. The molecules that are released from the cookie when it bakes are less than a nanometer in size and so they are carried through the air to our noses because they are so small.

I've read that lidar based instruments can measure things even smaller than a nanometer. The lidar in CALIPSO is used to measure 'ice and aerosol' clouds among other things.

Ice crystal sizes in cirrus vary according to the source and date of the source but a range would be 10 nanometers to 2,000,000 nanometers. Contrail cirrus ice crystals are much smaller than natural cirrus ice crystals. Aerosols - airborne particles - are nano sized.

Your question about what CALIPSO is measuring is a good question and one of the questions I began this thread for. They're definitely measuring cirrus from the top down but I contend that their emphasis has been on contrail cirrus whether willful or just because natural cirrus is scarce.

Nanotechnology creates particles of nano size that do not naturally occurr. They are created in extremely small sizes and sometimes engineered to stay that way. Some nano size materials, like asbestos, when inhaled, are very dangerous. There has been virtually no testing on the safety of these materials for human beings.

www.pbs.org...

Fundamentally the properties of materials can be changed by nanotechnology. We can arrange molecules in a way that they do not normally occur in nature. The material strength, electronic and optical properties of materials can all be altered using nanotechnology.

Created nano sized materials show up in geoengineering proposals, patents, research papers, military funding etc. and they are advertised in thousands of products currently available on the internet. The first court case involving nano materials and the reckless disregard for the safety of the public in their widespread use has been recently filed.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Aerosols - airborne particles - are nano sized.

Where did you get that idea? Lots of aerosols are in the micrometer to millimeter range range

en.wikipedia.org...



The range above is in micrometers. so anything to the right of the "1" is not nano scale.

reply to post by Uncinus

Can we agree on that? Does that make sense?

What I'm going to do here is skip right on past your fundamentals and ask you to try to wrap your head around the concepts I'm going to explain to you. Then I'll further ask you to try, for a moment, to let go of your dearly held absolutes and play in this brave new world long enough to understand its' ramifications.

In this article from nanowerk of 2009 titled, 'Molecular ice chain structure could be used to seed clouds and cause rain,' scientists from the London Centre for Nanotechnology talk about there not being an a priori rule that hexagons should form.

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

This week's Nature Materials (9 March 2009) reveals how an international team of scientists led by researchers at the London Centre for Nanotechnology (LCN) at UCL have discovered a novel one dimensional ice chain structure built from pentagons that may prove to be a step toward the development of new materials which can be used to seed clouds and cause rain.

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.

"For the first time, we have shown that ice can build an extended one dimensional chain structure entirely from pentagons and not hexagons" says Dr Michaelides.

"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."

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of A PRIORI...1 a: DEDUCTIVE...b: relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions

In this article from physorg of 2006 titled, 'Self-Assembling Nano-Ice Discovered; Structure Resembles DNA,' scientists talk about the behavior of ice in carbon nanotubes.

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 elsewhere later confirmed through laboratory experiment the existence of three of the new nano-ices. One result in particular intrigued Zeng, Bai and Wang.

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.

And you'll bear with me for two more selections. This one from RSC/Advancing the Chemical Sciences from 2009 titled, 'Making pentagonal ice.'

www.rsc.org...

Every textbook will tell you that the crystal structure of bulk ice is hexagonal, but also that the first molecules formed by the adsorption of water onto a surface, a process called nucleation, will also arrange themselves into hexagons. Now an international group of researchers have discovered that pentagonal structures of ice can be formed on copper surfaces consisting of Cu (110) substrates.

'We are saying that if we go to nickel we might also see pentagonal structures, but if we go to surfaces with larger atoms we might revert to the traditional hexagonal structures,' says Michaelides.

"I think it is nice to have found that the pentagon behaves as a more stable hydrogen network than the hexagon," he says.

And last this recent, from 2011, article from PNAS titled, 'Structure of ice crystallized from supercooled water.'

www.pnas.org...

(continued next post)

reply to post by Uncinus


(continued from previous post)

At ambient conditions, ice is considered to exist in two crystalline forms: stable hexagonal ice and metastable cubic ice. Using X-ray diffraction data and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that ice that crystallizes homogeneously from supercooled water is neither of these phases. The resulting ice is disordered in one dimension and therefore possesses neither cubic nor hexagonal symmetry and is instead composed of randomly stacked layers of cubic and hexagonal sequences.

We refer to this ice as stacking-disordered ice I.

They go on to talk about the possibilities of the ice reverting back to its' stable hexagonal phase.

So nanotechnology has been in the process of creating fundamentally different structures for ice. Some of these fundamentally different structures have been found or observed in the 'higher atmospheres.' One study links this form of fundamentally different structure for ice to 'disordered' ice.

I'm starting to feel like I'm reading about 'ice-nine' from Vonnegut and not about something that is really happening. Was Vonnegut a prophet?

There are a number of different ways to look at this and I'm sure you'll tell me yours. Mine is that we're altering the structure of ice to meet our geoengineering needs and releasing that capability into the atmosphere.

reply to post by Uncinus

Where did you get that idea? Lots of aerosols are in the micrometer to millimeter range range

Lots of aerosols are nanometer size. And here you go since you all only seem to understand wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

In general, the smaller and lighter a particle is, the longer it will stay in the air. Larger particles (greater than 10 micrometers in diameter) tend to settle to the ground by gravity in a matter of hours whereas the smallest particles (less than 1 micrometer) can stay in the atmosphere for weeks and are mostly removed by precipitation.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Where did you get that idea? Lots of aerosols are in the micrometer to millimeter range range

Lots of aerosols are nanometer size....

He knows that. He said that. His chart showed that.

His response was in reaction to your comment here:

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Aerosols - airborne particles - are nano sized.

that can be misconstrued as saying that ALL aerosols are nano-sized.

Aerosols are simply particles that are suspended in air. They can be nano-sized, such as many of the gases in consumer products and industrial pollutants (such as Freon and CFCs) that some people claim are causing climate change -- or they can be larger than nono-sized (micromillimeter to millimetermeter), such as some dusts, smoke, bacteria, and pollen.

to simply say:
"Aerosols - airborne particles - are nano sized",
without using the word "some" as a quantifier, is a misleading statement.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Can we agree on that? Does that make sense?

What I'm going to do here is skip right on past your fundamentals and ask you to try to wrap your head around the concepts I'm going to explain to you. Then I'll further ask you to try, for a moment, to let go of your dearly held absolutes and play in this brave new world long enough to understand its' ramifications.

So you see no need on actually agreeing on fundamentals? You want to leap blindly into esoterica and jump madly around?

That kind of renders all other discussion pointless. You can't build your castle in the air. You need to start with some solid foundations.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

to simply say: "Aerosols - airborne particles - are nano sized", without using the word "some" as a quantifier, is a misleading statement.

And yet I don't think anyone was mislead because we were talking about geoengineering and about designer nano particles for use in geoengineering. Uncinus' statement in response to mine:

Where did you get that idea? Lots of aerosols are in the micrometer to millimeter range range

was meant to mislead and meant to once again make it look like aerosols in a geoengineering thread are just fairy dust...mineral dust. Nothing to write home about.

Designer nano particles are a hot topic for solar radiation management. Aerosols of micron size like volcanic ash are not. A 50 micron size particle of ash fallout will reach the ground in hours while a 1 micron size will reach the ground in years. But that's not always true because ash fallout is a natural earth process and the particles collide and get together and make larger particles that fall faster and smaller particles fall together with larger ones and they also rain out because they saturate the atmosphere and give ice a place to form clouds which then rain. Plus we're looking for consistent maintained global coverage without the obviousness of chemtrails.

The designer nano particle needs to stay airborne as long as possible and needs to reflect more than it absorbs and needs to repel other particles so that it can stay small and aloft. It needs to be a particle that would create drought conditions because it can't create rain clouds because that would rain out the particle. It should be limited in reacting with anything because that would create larger particles that might fall faster or attract rain.

Whatever is done (and has already been done) eventually this designer nano particle will fall to earth. Why worry?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Health risks associated with the inhalation of airborne particles are known to be influenced by particle size. Studies have shown that certain nanoparticles, with diameters

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

to simply say: "Aerosols - airborne particles - are nano sized", without using the word "some" as a quantifier, is a misleading statement.

And yet I don't think anyone was mislead because we were talking about geoengineering and about designer nano particles for use in geoengineering. Uncinus' statement in response to mine:

Where did you get that idea? Lots of aerosols are in the micrometer to millimeter range range

was meant to mislead and meant to once again make it look like aerosols in a geoengineering thread are just fairy dust...mineral dust. Nothing to write home about.

Nonsense. My post included a diagram that clearly showed that aerosols range from the nanometer to the micro and millimeter range, and mineral dust is just one of them. So how could that possibly be meant to mislead?



What definition of "aerosol" do you use? Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes, and you are referring to something else?

Lets try to establish a common framework for discussion.

reply to post by Uncinus

So you see no need on actually agreeing on fundamentals? You want to leap blindly into esoterica and jump madly around?

So Mr. Fundamentals: it doesn't mean anything to you that pentagon ice is being created on copper? And that a few years back nickel was already being thrown around as the next step. It doesn't mean anything that the pentagon is the 'new' 'more stable hydrogen network? It doesn't mean anything that trying to recreate this, others found new ice and named it 'stack disorder' because it didn't seem to know if it was pig or goat all in the same little piece? It doesn't mean anything that this is happening in the upper atmosphere? It doesn't mean anything that 'there is no a priori rule that hexagons should form'?

Pretty soon all the references on the web to hexagon ice will be replaced and it'll be a hallucination that someone had and like it never happened. Scientists will 'always have known' whatever the new crystal structure of ice is. Where are the fundamentals that you want me to agree on?

Or was this just another metabunk thing? That went south.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

to simply say: "Aerosols - airborne particles - are nano sized", without using the word "some" as a quantifier, is a misleading statement.

And yet I don't think anyone was mislead because we were talking about geoengineering and about designer nano particles for use in geoengineering. Uncinus' statement in response to mine:

Where did you get that idea? Lots of aerosols are in the micrometer to millimeter range range

was meant to mislead and meant to once again make it look like aerosols in a geoengineering thread are just fairy dust...mineral dust. Nothing to write home about.

That's kind of the point I'm trying to make...

YOU'RE the one trying to link CALIPSO with designer nano particles and geoengineering. We are trying to point out that there is no reason to believe that the purpose of CALIPSO is to study designer nanoparticles, NOR is it involved in geoengineering. CALIPSO is simply studying the affect aerosols and clouds have on climate.

You saw the word "nano" is a link about aerosols and immediately jumped to the conclusion that CALIPSO must be involved in nefarious geoengineering endeavors involving designer nanoparticles, rather than seeing the word "nano" as just meaning "small". I really think it was the use of the term "nano" that got you immediately thinking "conspiracy".

Industrial pollution and CFCs are aerosols on the nano scale, but they aren't not part of an intentional geoengineering effort. They are just pollutants. There are also aerosols larger than the nanoscale -- on the microscale and even larger. There are also natural aerosols. All of these aerosols, plus clouds, can be studied by CALIPSO to learn how they affect climate.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Pretty soon all the references on the web to hexagon ice will be replaced and it'll be a hallucination that someone had and like it never happened. Scientists will 'always have known' whatever the new crystal structure of ice is. Where are the fundamentals that you want me to agree on?

I want you to agree that the evidence indicates that ice clouds normally form with crystals of hexagonal structure. Possibly cubic structure (which may actually just be stacking disordered hexagonal structures). And that pentagonal structures are very unusual, and have only been observed in caged compounds and (most recently) on the surface of copper.

I'd also like you to agree that clouds, both water and ice, are technically aerosols.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Uncinus' statement in response to mine:

Where did you get that idea? Lots of aerosols are in the micrometer to millimeter range range

was meant to mislead

How do you know it was meant to mislead?

and meant to once again make it look like aerosols in a geoengineering thread are just fairy dust...mineral dust. Nothing to write home about.

And again how do you conclude that?

It is clear that there are aerosols involved in many geo-engineering proposals - AFAIK that has never been concealed by any debunkers, nor has there been any attempt to mislead people into believing otherwise.

You are using emotive and prejudicial language laced with implications in response to precise and defined facts - so it looks to me like you are he one doing all the attempts at misleading here.

Why do you not use rational language to discuss rational concepts?

reply to post by Uncinus

Nonsense. My post included a diagram that clearly showed that aerosols range from the nanometer to the micro and millimeter range, and mineral dust is just one of them. So how could that possibly be meant to mislead? What definition of "aerosol" do you use? Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes, and you are referring to something else?

I was talking nano in answer to a posters' question. You were, I believe, talking pollen, extrapolating from your earlier 'mineral dust' trivializations. I think some common ground is a good idea. I propose we begin with jet emissions. Not chemtrails; just ordinary jet emissions. Because the lack of common ground goes deep.

Here is a study looking for an identifiable signature for jet emissions so that in future they could be measured and quantified separate from other emissions and pollutions.

www.areco.org/pdf/ParticulateEmissionsJetEngines1996.pdf

The results of this study suggest that the range of size of particulate emissions from some jet engines clusters below 1.5 µm and that the emissions contain heavy metals.

Little is known about the particulate component of jet engine emissions...

Particles collected from the exhaust stream of two types of jet engines were examined using scanning electron microscopy. Analysis indicated that 100 percent of the particles collected were below 1.5 µm in size.

For this study, information was collected on a relatively unstudied component of jet engine exhaust—particulate emissions.

Particle size is an important factor in determining particulates’ toxicity to organisms.

...found high concentrations of submicron particles in the exhaust of jet engines for the engines’ entire power range (16–19). Those studies found no particles larger than 1 µm in jet emissions...

The data collected agree with these previous findings...

Physical data showed that 100 percent of the exhaust particles collected were less than 1.5 µm in size.

The EPA recommends that “inhalable particulates” (those less than 10 µm) be separated into two size classes, above and below 2.5 µm. Particles larger than 2.5 µm tend to be deposited in the airways, whereas particles smaller than 2.5 µm penetrate deeper into the lungs, depositing primarily in the alveolar regions...

In addition to its implications for human health, particle size also affects how these emission products will behave in the environment. Particles less than 0.1 µm have a settling velocity in still air of only 0.3 mm/sec (22) and therefore remain suspended in the atmosphere for a long time.

So basically all the particles were less than 1.5 microns and the bulk of the particles were less than 1 micron in size which means they are nano size (just going by your definition.) These are the particles that are so dangerous because they can go places in the human body that larger particles can't. This study is about JUST jet emissions - we're not talking chemtrails here. Also you'll notice that a couple of places in the excerpts I chose and other places in the text itself the authors mention that little is known about these emissions and hence the studies to learn what they are and what size they are and how toxic they are. Lead was in there too. What puzzles me is how you all know everything about jet emissions and the atmosphere and yet the scientists and researchers doing these studies always have a common chorus: 'it is little understood.'

Here's a recent study from 2010 published in 2011 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... and their very first sentence is:

Among combustion-derived air pollutants, little is known about jet kerosene characteristics and effects.

They go on to describe what they call the 'primary' particles as spherical and measuring 9.9 nanometers which is .0099 micrometers and btb they alter the immune system in human beings.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Why change the subject?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

YOU'RE the one trying to link CALIPSO with designer nano particles and geoengineering. We are trying to point out that there is no reason to believe that the purpose of CALIPSO is to study designer nanoparticles, NOR is it involved in geoengineering. CALIPSO is simply studying the affect aerosols and clouds have on climate.

Your post is a good post, IMO, because it is direct. And because it is direct, it's easy to respond to. CALIPSO using lidar is studying designer nano particles whether it wants to or not. They've got their wavelengths set to receive 'backscatter' from nano size particles. For the past decade or even 15 years, nanotechnology companies have been spitting out designer nano particles like there's no tomorrow. They are everywhere. And just by default, if not intent, CALIPSO will find some. As far as geoengineering - of course they're studying with the intent of applying their studies to what they call 'geoengineering proposals' currently on the table. Still...nothing gets done without field work. The experiments have to start somewhere and sometime. And CALIPSO can measure those and supply the data to go forward. Your statement makes no sense given the current global climate both literally and figuratively. This is not a time to passively study clouds. Geoengineering proposals on the one hand and statements by scientists, researchers and environmentalists urging caution have been coming out almost daily. Big men on campus have been jumping on the geoengineering bandwagon. NASA is a contractor for the military.

You saw the word "nano" is a link about aerosols and immediately jumped to the conclusion that CALIPSO must be involved in nefarious geoengineering endeavors involving designer nanoparticles, rather than seeing the word "nano" as just meaning "small". I really think it was the use of the term "nano" that got you immediately thinking "conspiracy".

Asbestos, which the EPA says has no safe levels, is nano size. Particles of unsafe substances that are that small can compromise all of the body's defenses and create terrible illness and metals can create mental problems as well as physical. Nano size particles of a substance often behave in completely different ways than the bulk size. And where a bulk size substance might not be toxic, a nano size of the same substance could be. There has been virtually no testing of the many many new substances created daily and far more important and credentialled people than me are urging caution and testing. That's what I think of when I see the word nano. Also a test with rats where nano size particles were able to cross the blood brain barrier.

Industrial pollution and CFCs are aerosols on the nano scale, but they aren't not part of an intentional geoengineering effort. They are just pollutants. There are also aerosols larger than the nanoscale -- on the microscale and even larger. There are also natural aerosols. All of these aerosols, plus clouds, can be studied by CALIPSO to learn how they affect climate.

Sure...all of this is true. It's also true that designer nano is new, unknown and the few tests that have been done are scary and some of them covered up. What do you think black carbon nanotubes were going to be for? They were designer nano particles that were going to be released in the atmosphere. (Or have been released in experiments - that I haven't been able to verify but I will - just a question of time.) We're not living in an Ozzie & Harriet world; and even those days were not what we thought based on the FOIA and declassified documents. Given prior behavior patterns, your scenario is unrealistic and mine is far closer to reality.

reply to post by Uncinus

I want you to agree that the evidence indicates that ice clouds normally form with crystals of hexagonal structure. Possibly cubic structure (which may actually just be stacking disordered hexagonal structures). And that pentagonal structures are very unusual, and have only been observed in caged compounds and (most recently) on the surface of copper.

I'll tell you what my problem with agreeing to this is:

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

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.

So where ice forms in the higher atmosphere...they're saying this is how it may form.

"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."

And here they are saying that there's no reason for it to form hexagons as opposed to pentagons. (The cloud seeding part of this will be important later in my reply.)

And what about the octagon ice in the carbon nanotube?

On the subject of the deviant ice: there is a really big reason why it may be needed and why it may not be forming naturally that way in the upper atmosphere as this seems to indicate. That reason is one of the most recent geoengineering studies which deals with ERM - earth radiation management.

www.intechopen.com...

I'm just going to give you the super-short version which is that there's a problem with the tropics and cirrus aviaticus. Where cirrus aviaticus has been able to supplant natural cirrus in mid-latitudes and to some extent in the sub-tropics, the tropics remain problematical. There are a variety of reasons hypothesized for this but they don't amount to much more than temperature and saturation and anvil clouds and updrafts and troposphere height. So it could be that the deviant ice was developed for use in getting cirrus aviaticus in the tropics to be efficient in supplanting natural cirrus.

In order to solve this dilemma, I can see an effort to create a different ice, a more primitive ice, a more unstable ice that would then wanting to come into line with normal ice grow to achieve that end, stealing water from natural cirrus to do it which would trump the conditions preventing that now. I can also see this ice crippling itself through stacking disorders once loosed.

On the other hand, I can also see this whole deviant ice business as a countdown to singularity, the pentagon versus the hexagon being indicative.

I'd also like you to agree that clouds, both water and ice, are technically aerosols.

On that one, I'll just quote from NASA:

terra.nasa.gov...

Indeed, if there were no aerosols in the atmosphere, there would be no clouds. It is very difficult to form cloud droplets without small aerosol particles acting as "seeds" to start the formation of cloud droplets.

They go on to talk about how alot of aerosols in the clouds and how few aerosols in the couds have different effects. I'm going to have to say that from this it seems like clouds have aerosols as part of them and aerosols can initiate their beginnings but it seems like there is a differentiation between the two. But perhaps you could explain your thought and I may agree.

Why change the subject?

On the contrary, I brought the subject back from fantasy realms involving pollen and mineral dusts to jet emissions of nano particles which are in CALIPSO's sights.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

How do you know it was meant to mislead?

The same way you know:

You are using emotive and prejudicial language laced with implications in response to precise and defined facts - so it looks to me like you are he one doing all the attempts at misleading here.

And again how do you conclude that?

The same way you conclude:

Why do you not use rational language to discuss rational concepts?

It is clear that there are aerosols involved in many geo-engineering proposals - AFAIK that has never been concealed by any debunkers, nor has there been any attempt to mislead people into believing otherwise.

What a colossal piece of disinformation that is. You all have made every effort to make geoengineering projects and materials look like Mom's apple pie and Grandma's homemade buttermilk.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Wouldn't cirrus formed with your theoretical "deviant ice" have different optical properties to hexagonal ice?