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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't cirrus formed with your theoretical "deviant ice" have different optical properties to hexagonal ice?
Yet again you supply nonsequiters, irrelevancies and disinformation, all the while still propounding bad science and chemtail lies.
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.'
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.
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)
Ordinary hexagonal ice (ice Ih) is the only stable form under ordinary cloud conditions. Cubic ice (ice Ic) might exist at very low temperatures (
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (
Well you're doing a rubbish job so far. Who has trivialized jet emissions or aerosols or cirrus aviaticus?
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.