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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
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.


Really? the language itself tells you?

See you use words that are emotive such as "intend to mislead" - I do not claim to know what you are thinking when I say those are emotive - I am just commenting on the words themselves.

However you claim to know what uncinus was thinking - so I don't see how the method of coming to a conclusion can possibly be the same. Perhaps you could explain that?





And again how do you conclude that?


The same way you conclude:




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


Again there is a disconnect in this rationale of yours - I look at your use of language and can see it.

How is it that you can look at Uncinus's language and know his exact thoughts?





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.


And here's a great example of you using emotive language - "colossal", and "Mom's apple pie and Grandma's homemade buttermilk" - AFAIK no-one has attempted to enclose any geo-enginering in a crust along with some apple, nor churn it or do whatever else you do with buttermilk
.

And to address the implied statement that somehow we are all saying that geoengineering is harmless - well that is just deliberate ignorance and lying on your part - you have been on threads where debunkers have noted, admitted or even highlighted that there are potentially major problems with geoengineering.

eg www.abovetopsecret.com...
or www.abovetopsecret.com...

coming here and saying otherwise is a great example of your duplicity and attempts to deceive people.




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 





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


According to this late geoengineering study:

www.intechopen.com...

published in October 2011 titled 'Cirrus Clouds and Climate Engineering: New Findings on Ice Nucleation and Theoretical Basis'...

optical properties (except for the white sky effect which is, apparently, to be avoided) are not a concern or are no longer a concern. The only thing that is a concern is getting rid of natural cirrus which, according to this study, causes the earth to retain more heat than it deflects.

The activity of chemtrailing is described, as a future proposed activity, in great detail, mirroring perfectly existing activity, down to the heavy metal used to 'seed' the sky and create cirrus aviaticus (artificial clouds) in order to rid the planet of natural cirrus and, by default, cause drought conditions.

This is not in line with my own personal theories on chemtrailing and the reasons it was initiated in 1996 or so but priorities and aims change as inevitability approaches.

There are a couple of pieces missing i.e. what effect did the original chemtrailing with its' varied 'seeding' materials have and is this now solving another man-made problem. And what effect did the creation of deviant ice have or is having and how prevalant is 'stacking disorder I' ice.

I would urge interested parties i.e. pro and con chemtrails to read the study because it is in large part how I came to tie CALIPSO to cirrus aviaticus and global coverage. If the document is too technical and there is interest I will be happy to select excerpts that explain the tie-in.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Gaul: metabunk is not an argument. If you have no passion for your subject and just enjoy needling people as a form of entertainment or as an exercise in Machiavellian debate...ok. But this is not the way a consensus is reached nor is it the path to common ground. It's entertaining...yes...in a self-centered, self-serving kind of a way.

Your defense of Uncinus and Phage is completely unnecessary - there has been nothing in this thread directed personally at either of them. Phage has a gift, the gift to be able to read a technical paper and go to the crux of it. Uncinus has studied his subject and is well versed in the party line. Still...observation remains the bedrock of science.

This thread was my own thought. CALIPSO struck me as the perfect logistical tool for global cirrus aviaticus coverage. And your own attempts to derail this thread early on coupled with other attempts to trivialize serious issues haven't escaped my notice. When any Joe or Jane feel they can't come into a thread and and say what they think for fear of ridicule, for me, all entertainment value is lost. Particularly when your ridicule is based on absolute nonsense.

And I've got some advice for you: don't find yourself on the wrong side in the end.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Your comments in www.abovetopsecret.com... were clearly a personal attack on Uncinus - another example of your dishonesty.

And of course Metabunk is not an argument - it is a forum - who ever said it was an argument??


Yet again you supply nonsequiters, irrelevancies and disinformation, all the while still propounding bad science and chemtail lies.

You should be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


I mean if the ice were non-hexagonal, then it would refract light differently from hexagonal ice, and so would easily be detectable from the ground.

This does not seem to have happened. All ice seems normal.
edit on 19-2-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Apparently "cubic ice" can form under normal atmospheric conditions - without need for particular seeding.

The refractive indices of cubic ice have been extensively researched.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Yet again you supply nonsequiters, irrelevancies and disinformation, all the while still propounding bad science and chemtail lies.


Methinks Thou dost protest too much.

I think you're just looking for a fight. My statements about metabunk not being an argument obviously completely escaped you. Metabunk is a tactic. It has nothing to do with what is right or what is wrong or what is fact and what is fiction. This is what you bring to the chemtrail threads - a tactic.

Reproving and rebuking tactics like the trivialization of jet emissions and aerosols and cirrus aviaticus is a thankless job but someone has to do it with you lot. You're like what my mom used to tell me about boys: give them a hand and they'll take the whole arm. You get away with nothing in my thread - I'm going to call you on every little thing.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


There's some doubt about cubic ice though:

www.rsc.org...


Analysis of the diffraction data shows that in the ice crystals the stacking of the atomic layers is disordered. 'The crystals that form have randomly stacked layers of cubic and hexagonal sequences,' Murray says. 'As each new layer is added, there is a 50% probability of it being either hexagonal or cubic.' The result is a novel, metastable form of ice with a stacking-disordered structure.

Re-examination of what had previously been identified as cubic ice suggests that this was stacking-disordered structures too, Murray says. 'Cubic ice may not exist.'

The key question for cloud physics, says Chris Westbrook, of the department of meteorology at the University of Reading, UK, is whether this disorder in the frozen droplet has an effect on the eventual shape and surface properties of the much larger crystals that grow from them. 'That will determine whether this process is important for understanding the effects of clouds on climate and precipitation.'


Here's the actual paper:

www.pnas.org...


The freezing of water to ice is fundamentally important to fields as diverse as cloud formation to cryopreservation. 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. Stacking disorder and stacking faults have been reported earlier for metastable ice I, but only for ice crystallizing in mesopores and in samples recrystallized from high-pressure ice phases rather than in water droplets. Review of the literature reveals that almost all ice that has been identified as cubic ice in previous diffraction studies and generated in a variety of ways was most likely stacking-disordered ice I with varying degrees of stacking disorder. These findings highlight the need to reevaluate the physical and thermodynamic properties of this metastable ice as a function of the nature and extent of stacking disorder using well-characterized samples.

edit on 19-2-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


I mean if the ice were non-hexagonal, then it would refract light differently from hexagonal ice, and so would easily be detectable from the ground.

This does not seem to have happened. All ice seems normal.
edit on 19-2-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)


You bring up a fascinating point. A point that speaks to halos and sun dogs and cirrus aviaticus rainbows and all 'new' optical light phenomena. There's a study I read recently about the 22 and 46 degree halos but it's going to take a bit of time to find.

Never, ever even occurred to me that it could be the deviant ice causing some of this stuff. I've seen the white outs too but never thought of trying to tie those two together. Thx for the heads up.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Except of course that those are NOT new phenomena. All of them are perfectly explained by the hexagonal structure and refractive index of frozen water, and have been seen for thousands of years.

www.atoptics.co.uk...


Ordinary hexagonal ice (ice Ih) is the only stable form under ordinary cloud conditions. Cubic ice (ice Ic) might exist at very low temperatures (



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
[I think you're just looking for a fight. My statements about metabunk not being an argument obviously completely escaped you. Metabunk is a tactic.


Metabunk is a forum - and the posts and information on there are as good or as bad as they are.

To quote or mention posts on metabunk is no different from mentioning posts from anywhere else.

To try to label metabunk as a "tactic" is meaningless and just more disinfo from you - why did you raise it in the first place??



It has nothing to do with what is right or what is wrong or what is fact and what is fiction.


sources and information are everything to do with what is right and wrong - your inability to realise this is at teh source of your problem!



This is what you bring to the chemtrail threads - a tactic.


Except I didn't bring it to this thread - you did!!



Reproving and rebuking tactics like the trivialization of jet emissions and aerosols and cirrus aviaticus is a thankless job but someone has to do it with you lot. You're like what my mom used to tell me about boys: give them a hand and they'll take the whole arm. You get away with nothing in my thread - I'm going to call you on every little thing.


Well you're doing a rubbish job so far.

Who has trivialized jet emissions or aerosols or cirrus aviaticus?
edit on 19-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Apparently "cubic ice" can form under normal atmospheric conditions - without need for particular seeding.

The refractive indices of cubic ice have been extensively researched.


Cool, cool, very cool links.

www.nature.com...


Here we present laboratory experiments demonstrating that cubic ice forms when micrometre-sized droplets of pure water and aqueous solutions freeze homogeneously at cooling rates approaching those found in the atmosphere.



Under specific conditions this may lead to enhanced dehydration of the tropopause region5.


That sounds like drought conditions to me and brings me back to the attempts to create cirrus aviaticus in the Tropics for ERM. Since mid-latitude solutions did not work in the Tropics, deviant ice could have been introduced. According to the ERM paper, drought conditions were not sought but were collateral and a side-effect of depleting natural cirrus.

gwest.gats-inc.com...


The optical properties of hexagonal and cubic ice are generally considered to be identical (Warren, 1984, Mastrapa et al., 2008), however, the existing data do not necessarily validate that assertion.


The citations given as links to the optical discrepencies are not immediately understandable to me. Some study is required.

Also from the second link - the amount of time that this cubic ice will take to form to hexagon ice is stated as one hour to 6 days when the temperature warms in certain degrees, however, it doesn't specify how long it lasts without temperature warm-up. That seems to indicate that it is part of a cycle and could be natural although previously undiscovered. Still...the 'stacking disorder' ice seems to put the lie to this. Anyway - a lot to consider.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Except of course that those are NOT new phenomena. All of them are perfectly explained by the hexagonal structure and refractive index of frozen water, and have been seen for thousands of years.

www.atoptics.co.uk...


Ordinary hexagonal ice (ice Ih) is the only stable form under ordinary cloud conditions. Cubic ice (ice Ic) might exist at very low temperatures (



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Well you're doing a rubbish job so far. Who has trivialized jet emissions or aerosols or cirrus aviaticus?


Nobody has and gotten away with it in this thread.

This thread is to talk about CALIPSO and the logistical implications of CALIPSO able to track global cirrus aviaticus coverage. And the inability of CALIPSO to track and stack clouds capable of producing rain. And the inability of CALIPSO to track aerosols close to the ground. In fact, CALIPSO seems perfectly set-up to track cirrus aviaticus almost exclusively. And CALIPSO's abilities as willfully set seem perfect for tracking artificial clouds - clouds of aerosols - cirrus aviaticus.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Well you're doing a rubbish job so far. Who has trivialized jet emissions or aerosols or cirrus aviaticus?


Nobody has and gotten away with it in this thread.


that would be because nobody has done it AT ALL - strawman!


As for CALIPSO measuring cirrus - ...well..yes....that is what it was designed to do.

Wiki page on CALIPSO

your OP showing how this is used to support "spraying operations" is, of course, completely devoid of any actual evidence of "spraying operations" in the first place - which makes the concept of a link nothing more than speculation.

This is on a par with all chemtrail conspiracy "evidence" I have seen so far.
edit on 19-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Completely forgot...if it doesn't say so in wikipedia, it ain't so to you. My argument was a slam dunk pages ago -you got nothing but tedium.




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join