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 Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

It comes from this article.
www.met.reading.ac.uk...

The study is of persistent contrails produced by an AWACS (the specific "single aircraft") circling over the English Channel in 2009. The evolution of contrails into cirrus clouds was examined. The study quantifies the increased forcing of contrail cirrus by using a real world occurrence.

While it is not possible to be 100% certain that cirrus clouds would not have formed in the absence of aviation activity, the balance of evidence, which includes the spatial coherence of the contrail-induced cirrus and modeling its position, very strongly suggests that the cirrus cloud is of aviation origin.


The study supports modelling which indicates that it is not the number of contrails which leads to the formation of contrail cirrus but by occasional atmospheric conditions.

The recent global modeling study of Burkhardt and Ka¨rcher [2009] suggests that contrail-induced cirrus coverage is dominated by a few major events and that contrail-induced cirrus coverage scales with ice supersaturation rather than contrail coverage


Since the AWACS remained in a region of supersaturation its circular contrail was able to be tracked. It was a single case of an aircraft remaining in an area conducive to persistent contrail formation for an extended period of time.

The radiative forcing produced by those contrail cirrus could have amounted to 7% of the total forcing produced by all other aircraft that day. It looks a little different looked at from another point of view.

Alternatively, when averaged over a year, the event generated by the AWACS aircraft contributes approximately 2 mW m2 or 0.02% of the annual global mean radiative forcing from persistent contrails from the entire fleet of civil aircraft: 5000 such events per year would need to occur to generate a global annual mean radiative forcing
of 10 mW m2.


It's another study which indicates that contrails contribute enough toward radiative forcing to be included in GCMs and that their effects could be more than current models account for, that the total warming effect of contrails could be greater than thought.

These calculations emphasize the importance of obtaining a reliable estimate of the global role of contrail induced cirrus and of understanding the extent to which they add to natural cirrus cover. In this particular instance, because of the distinct pattern of the original contrails, it has been possible to follow, with some degree of confidence, the causal sequence from contrails to contrail-induced cirrus. In normal circumstances this would not be possible, and it will be important to ascertain whether the sequence of events, and the size of the effect, that we have inferred is a regular occurrence.




edit on 3/5/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Drought conditions from 2 1/2 different chemtrail cocktails:
The properties of cirrus aviaticus (fake clouds made from jet emissions) i.e. destroying natural clouds and preventing natural clouds from forming have been extensively discussed so when you're asking for sources...let's try a real life example.

Texas had the worst drought ever this past year and it isn't over yet for some of the state.
www.reuters.com...

Last year was the driest year on record in the state and the second-hottest, according to the National Weather Service


Some parts of the state are now getting 4 inches of rain all at once - which is, if you've ever seen it, a dangerous situation and far from normal.
latimesblogs.latimes.com...

The Houston area not only had torrential rain, but some locations also had hail, funnel clouds and flash-flood warnings on Monday. The downpour stranded scores of southeast Texas drivers and left thousands without power, but it's unlikely to ease the drought that has plagued Texas for more than a year.


In the late 1990's, coincidental with the onset of chemtrails, a program of cloud seeding began in Texas which initially covered over 50 million acres.
presscore.ca...

a coordinated, State-funded program began in earnest in the latter half of the 1990s. Today, with drought a pending, if not ever present, threat to the economy and well-being of Texans, rain enhancement projects flourish within large areas of Northwest, West, and South Texas. In fact, the seven cloud seeding projects today cover nearly 31 million acres (or about 18 percent of the land area of the state).

www.license.state.tx.us...

It is likely that cloud seeding is more effective in non-drought periods. This is because seeding is predicated upon the availability of clouds—especially the right kinds of convective clouds.


Weather modification law in Texas requires the applicant for a permit to publish a "Notice of Intention to Conduct Weather-Modification Operations" in area newspapers for three consecutive weeks. This Notice apprizes the public of its right to request a public hearing on the proposed cloud-seeding project. In the absence of a call for a hearing, a permit application can be processed by the TDLR within 30-60 days.


After the worst drought in history, it is safe to conclude that rain-making was not the object but just the stated object of these efforts. Running a notice in the legal section of a newspaper, a section that few people read, in order to obtain a permit to inject silver iodide, a toxic substance, and 'other substances,' not mentioned by name, into the atmosphere seems kind of cloaked as well.

So now, there are the contrail cirrus in abundance because Texas is a major air route and there are assorted 'rain- making' efforts injecting stuff as well. But there's more. Not happy with the lack of clouds and escalating drought, new methods are tried in order to more handily eliminate any clouds that might form.
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

The phenomenon, known as a distrail, is similar to the formation of a contrail, except that the ice crystals remove water from the cloud droplets instead of from the water vapor in the atmosphere. Thus it creates a hole in the cloud.


The ice crystals grow large enough to snow out of the cloud and leave a hole as they fall into lower, drier layers and evaporate.


So there you have it: the 2 1/2 methods of conquering with jet emissions. First, creating a sky full of cirrus aviaticus while telling the public that it's sun screen. And experimenting via 'cloud seeding' to create drought which culminates in 2011 with the WORST in history for Texas. And finally, the coup de gras experiments in 2007 to destroy existing clouds via perfection of the hole punch technique.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
SRM: a bloody nightmare.


Which is why nobody has done it yet, and everyone recommends extensive research before any future deployment, and avoiding that deployment if at all possible


It's being done everyday. And night. That's what we were told contrails were - sunscreen, sunblock. Tests grossly underestimating their effects showed that they were actually cooling the planet - the 9/11 study. It's only now that clouds in the tropics are such a problem and that the heat from cirrus aviaticus is becoming oppressive that we are told to be concerned about them. They've been SRM all along.

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.

www.esr.org...

Albedo is the fraction of solar energy (shortwave radiation) reflected from the Earth back into space. It is a measure of the reflectivity of the earth's surface.


Water is much more absorbent and less reflective.

www.intechopen.com... ngineering-new-findings-on-ice-nucleation-and-theoretical-basis

Two types of climate engineering have been recognized: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) stragegies and solar radiation management (SRM).


This third approach might be called earth radiation management (ERM).


The purpose of this chapter is to describe an ERM approach pertaining to cirrus clouds and to test this hypothesis against new, more reliable cirrus cloud measurements.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




WTF IS YOUR POINT?????

I love a direct question. My point: assorted aerosols are already being injected into the troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere. It's been going on since the mid-1990's, as I've read. They're called chemtrails. SRM is in action. It's not a fantasy or in a test stage. It's on. It's not called SRM, for public consumption - it's called sun screen or cooling the planet or other politico-military ditherings. The collateral damage has been extreme. Just a sampling from right here at home:

www.foxnews.com...

Meteorologists say people living on Texas' parched plains could see more dust storms as a record drought tightens its grip across the Southwest. At least six sandstorms hit Phoenix this summer, with the most powerful striking on July 5 and measuring a mile high.

photoblog.statesman.com...

The U.S. Drought Monitor map shows an angry red blotch covering almost all of Texas, denoting extreme to exceptional — the most severe — drought conditions. In the past 12 months, just 15 inches of rain have fallen, the driest such period on record.

www.docweather.com...

The question regarding the influence of contrails on drought patterns is a deep one involving many variables. With contrails, the wonderful predictive images of the high ice clouds as harbingers of storms weaves into the more darkly etched human concerns of an economy based on fossil fuels.





there you go again implying that SRM is solely spraying stuff in the atmosphere.


What is a nightmare about reforestation? Or cool roofs? Or grasslands management? Or space mirrors?


I can't believe you are this naive. THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT. Wantonly spraying whatever is cheap is win win for everyone. Try building a solar/wind house and see how interested the government is in sustainable energy. Trust me, they're not because THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT FOR THEM. THERE IS NO CONTROL IN IT FOR THEM. There are no energy, water or food needs that corporations, which run this planet, can make money off. No one wants an independent populace. It's all about the money and the control and always has been.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




WTF IS YOUR POINT?????

I love a direct question. My point: assorted aerosols are already being injected into the troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere. It's been going on since the mid-1990's, as I've read. They're called chemtrails.


All the stuff you've quoted is about ordinary aircraft exhaust - I thought chemtrails were supposed to be a secret and deliberate plan to add stuff OTHER than aircraft exhaust to he atmosphere?

Perhaps you'd better get together with fellow believers to figure out just exactly what it is that chemtrails are??



SRM is in action. It's not a fantasy or in a test stage. It's on. It's not called SRM, for public consumption - it's called sun screen or cooling the planet or other politico-military ditherings. The collateral damage has been extreme. Just a sampling from right here at home:


Actually it's called aircraft exhaust.

It may well be actually achieving some SRM - but since that is incidental to the activity of flying I don't see how it fits with chemtrails being a deliberate and extra activity to normal flying.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




there you go again implying that SRM is solely spraying stuff in the atmosphere.


What is a nightmare about reforestation? Or cool roofs? Or grasslands management? Or space mirrors?


I can't believe you are this naive. THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT.


How does that actually answer my question?

I didn't ask how much money there is in it, I asked what is the nightmare about it.

If you cant' answer then please just say so - providing an answer to a question I didn't ask just makes you look like you have low reading skills - which I am sure you do not.


edit on 7-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


The properties of cirrus aviaticus (fake clouds made from jet emissions) i.e. destroying natural clouds and preventing natural clouds from forming have been extensively discussed
Yes, and other than your claims, you have presented no evidence that contrails destroy natural clouds or produce drought conditions.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


In the late 1990's, coincidental with the onset of chemtrails, a program of cloud seeding began in Texas which initially covered over 50 million acres.

And experimenting via 'cloud seeding' to create drought which culminates in 2011 with the WORST in history for Texas.
Persistent contrails (and contrail cirrus) have existed for as long as aircraft have flown high enough to produce them.

Please explain how cloud seeding creates a drought. The cloud seeding operations which are actually carried out are the seeding of low level cumulus clouds. Your quotes previous to these are about cirrus clouds. Cirrus clouds do not produce precipitation which reaches the surface. Ice crystals which do precipitate from cirrus clouds sublimate before reaching the ground and in the process carry some moisture to lower levels. As you point out, distrails cause ice crystals to precipitate to lower levels. Remember than conversation (see above) where you claimed that contrail cirrus does not produce precipitation to lower levels and thus interfere with the hydrological cycle and cause drought? Did you forget about that? Or just ignore it?

Odd that you claim that the "chemtrails" in Texas have resulted in drought. Since the late 1990's there have been just as many years with above average rainfall as below. www.c2es.org...
Last year's drought was the result of a number of meteorological conditions, including cooler sea surface temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific (La Nina) and high temperatures.



Tests grossly underestimating their effects showed that they were actually cooling the planet - the 9/11 study.

Please show which 9/11 study showed that contrails have a cooling effect. The only one I know of says the opposite, that they produce a net warming effect by increasing forcing at night more than they decrease forcing during the day.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You seem to be very confused about what studies say about the presumed effects of contrails, clouds, and precipitation. Your confirmation bias seems to prevent you from understanding what you read.


edit on 3/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



All the stuff you've quoted is about ordinary aircraft exhaust - I thought chemtrails were supposed to be a secret and deliberate plan to add stuff OTHER than aircraft exhaust to he atmosphere?

Clever fellow. If that's the proof you're looking for, you're going to have to change sides to get it.


It may well be actually achieving some SRM - but since that is incidental to the activity of flying I don't see how it fits with chemtrails being a deliberate and extra activity to normal flying.

Try to stay current. It WAS achieving SRM but now cirrus aviaticus is no longer the fair-haired boy. Something changed in the power structure.


I didn't ask how much money there is in it, I asked what is the nightmare about it.

The sweetly benign SRM proposals that you listed will never be implemented because it is cheaper to inject toxic aerosols taken from a rubbish pile, like the strontium that the military told congress had no value and couldn't be sold, and sell it on the side to a mercenary contractor newly vamped out as a weather modifier. You talk about reforestation and it is meaningless dribble when you consider the trees that Texas alone has lost and will still lose because of the wost drought in history.
www.nbcdfw.com...

A half billion trees died in Texas in 2011, the driest year on record. Millions more could die this year if the drought continues.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



All the stuff you've quoted is about ordinary aircraft exhaust - I thought chemtrails were supposed to be a secret and deliberate plan to add stuff OTHER than aircraft exhaust to he atmosphere?

Clever fellow. If that's the proof you're looking for, you're going to have to change sides to get it.


Feel free to make sense at any time.



It may well be actually achieving some SRM - but since that is incidental to the activity of flying I don't see how it fits with chemtrails being a deliberate and extra activity to normal flying.

Try to stay current. It WAS achieving SRM but now cirrus aviaticus is no longer the fair-haired boy. Something changed in the power structure.


What - aviation-induced cirrus was affecting the weather, but now it isn't?

Sorry - I missed the change - what happened to it?





I didn't ask how much money there is in it, I asked what is the nightmare about it.

The sweetly benign SRM proposals that you listed will never be implemented..


Successful reforrestation projects

Cool roofs project - which is not finished and led to the formation of the EU Cool roofs council


because it is cheaper to inject toxic aerosols taken from a rubbish pile, like the strontium


I thought the toxic injection stuff was sulphurs, aluminium and barium.

Where is this new info about Strontium coming from?


You talk about reforestation and it is meaningless dribble when you consider the trees that Texas alone has lost and will still lose because of the wost drought in history.


ROFL........reforestation would be a very good think to do there then wouldn't it??

Amazing - you highlight exactly where reforestation would be perfect and say it is useless - your lack of critical thinking never ceases to amuse me!



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes, and other than your claims, you have presented no evidence that contrails destroy natural clouds or produce drought conditions.

Ok...just one more time...contrail cirrus destroy natural clouds. If contrail cirrus destroy natural clouds, contrail cirrus cause drought.

www.dlr.de...


In addition, the study highlights for the first time that contrail cirrus are capable of reducing natural cloud coverage and optical depth by consuming moisture that would otherwise be available for growth and maintenance of the natural clouds.




Persistent contrails (and contrail cirrus) have existed for as long as aircraft have flown high enough to produce them.

????????????????????? I'm not the choir. A persistent contrail is a freak. Contrail cirrus - always been around?? - I'm thinking no and that's all for that detail. Drought and floods are common but not historic drought and not biblical floods. Cause and effect.


Please explain how cloud seeding creates a drought.

abcnews.go.com...


If the cloud isn't precisely downwind from the target area, the rain will fall in the wrong place anyway. And if the seeding is done at the wrong time, or on the wrong cloud, it may cause "cratering," or large holes in the cloud that cause it to fall apart. So an errant effort can destroy the clouds that might otherwise produce rain.


www.ranches.org...


George Bomar, retired Senior Meteorologist of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has long been a proponent of cloud seeding in Texas. However even he states in a conclusion to one of his papers on cloud seeding, “Seeding at the wrong time and in the wrong place(s) may actually decrease the rainfall. It now seems possible, given continental clouds with weak updrafts, to seed in such ways as to hasten the dissipation of clouds, leading to ‘craters’ in the cloud field.”



Dr. Doswell states “…Cloud seeding requires the presence of a ‘suitable’ cloud for seeding. The definition of ‘suitable’ is such that the cloud might well go on to produce precipitation even if it is not seeded at all! All that seeders can hope to do is wring a bit more out of such a cloud than would otherwise fall. However, production of precipitation produces downdrafts, which kill clouds! This is one of the problems with identifying the true net result of seeding ... the desired effect can kill off the clouds, perhaps prematurely.


(to be continued...)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Wrong:


Ok...just one more time...contrail cirrus destroy natural clouds. If contrail cirrus destroy natural clouds....


No, from the very source that you cited: (www.dlr.de...)

In the very first paragraph:


....changes of high (cirrus) cloudiness. An important but poorly explored component of the latter are contrail cirrus, comprising the familiar line shaped contrails and the irregularly shaped cirrus clouds that evolve from them.


"Them" ^ ^ ^ being the contrails.

Could not be more clear that the paper cited does not support your assertion that contrails "destroy natural clouds".

Time and again it has been pointed out that the presence of persistent contrails contribute to MORE cirrus cloud formation, not less.

In fact, this is a major "complaint" of the "chemtrail" believers, who lament because they see a contrail (which they incorrectly call a "chemtrail") that is formed, and then appears to "spread".....so, these uneducated 'believers' in non-science think that it is a "chemtrail", based on their flawed assumptions and lack of knowledge.

In fact, what is "spreading" is just more cirrus-type clouds.....spurred to form because of the contrails' presence. The contrails contribute to more clouds, once the trigger mechanism has been kicked off (by the passage of the jet) in conditions that allow for this to occur.

It is that simple.

It's not rocket science, it is very, very basic science, and very easy to research, and then to comprehend. If one cares to read the sources and material properly, and not with a determined (and incorrect) bias.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes, and other than your claims, you have presented no evidence that contrails destroy natural clouds or produce drought conditions.

Ok...just one more time...contrail cirrus destroy natural clouds. If contrail cirrus destroy natural clouds, contrail cirrus cause drought.

www.dlr.de...


In addition, the study highlights for the first time that contrail cirrus are capable of reducing natural cloud coverage and optical depth by consuming moisture that would otherwise be available for growth and maintenance of the natural clouds.


So where there does it say anything about drought??


(and I note that it says "reduces natural cloud coverage" - which is not the same as destroying natural clouds.....)

Still I am impressed that you have adopted the practice of using scientific data instead of hearsay - it makes a nice change.





Persistent contrails (and contrail cirrus) have existed for as long as aircraft have flown high enough to produce them.

????????????????????? I'm not the choir. A persistent contrail is a freak.


You were doing so well with evidence based discussion - so what is your evidence for this?


Contrail cirrus - always been around?? - I'm thinking no and that's all for that detail. Drought and floods are common but not historic drought and not biblical floods. Cause and effect.


biblical floods and droughts have been around since..well...biblical times...that's how they get the name!!



shame - for a while you were doing quite well on the factual front




Please explain how cloud seeding creates a drought.

abcnews.go.com...


If the cloud isn't precisely downwind from the target area, the rain will fall in the wrong place anyway. And if the seeding is done at the wrong time, or on the wrong cloud, it may cause "cratering," or large holes in the cloud that cause it to fall apart. So an errant effort can destroy the clouds that might otherwise produce rain.


www.ranches.org...


George Bomar, retired Senior Meteorologist of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has long been a proponent of cloud seeding in Texas. However even he states in a conclusion to one of his papers on cloud seeding, “Seeding at the wrong time and in the wrong place(s) may actually decrease the rainfall. It now seems possible, given continental clouds with weak updrafts, to seed in such ways as to hasten the dissipation of clouds, leading to ‘craters’ in the cloud field.”



Dr. Doswell states “…Cloud seeding requires the presence of a ‘suitable’ cloud for seeding. The definition of ‘suitable’ is such that the cloud might well go on to produce precipitation even if it is not seeded at all! All that seeders can hope to do is wring a bit more out of such a cloud than would otherwise fall. However, production of precipitation produces downdrafts, which kill clouds! This is one of the problems with identifying the true net result of seeding ... the desired effect can kill off the clouds, perhaps prematurely.


(to be continued...)




Yep - still looking for how it causes a drought tho - and evidence that it actually has done so......


edit on 7-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The cloud seeding operations which are actually carried out are the seeding of low level cumulus clouds. Your quotes previous to these are about cirrus clouds.

If you're not a multi-tasker and can't talk about more than one type of cloud at a time, I understand. If you're trying to say that I'm confused - go back to the drawing board.


distrails cause ice crystals to precipitate to lower levels.

More confusion? I was talking about the experiments of punching holes in clouds and their effect which is drought to the ants on the ground. And why are you twisting what I said and trying to make it seem like what you said? Is there an agenda?

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...


The ice crystals grow large enough to snow out of the cloud and leave a hole as they fall into lower, drier layers and evaporate.


The same thing happens as the plane flies within the cloud, but it produces a line.


What part of evaporate don't you understand?


If the layer is dropping or thinning, the holes will remain until the entire deck disappears. The GOES false color loop shows the cloud deck progressing across Texas into Louisiana. As it moves, the holes grow and disappear until this "Swiss cheese" cloud begins to dissipate as it moves over the Mississippi valley.


What part of 'cloud begins to dissipate' is unclear?


The phenomenon, known as a distrail, is similar to the formation of a contrail, except that the ice crystals remove water from the cloud droplets instead of from the water vapor in the atmosphere.


In this scenario, contrails, jet emissions, rather than sucking the moisture from the atmosphere, suck it directly from an existing cloud.


Thus it creates a hole in the cloud.


And there you have it - contrails eating clouds over Texas in 2007.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


contrail cirrus cause drought.
You have claimed this. You have provided no source for this and you have not explained how contrail cirrus cause drought.

Re: cloud seeding...
Here is the full paragraph from George Bomar(in his 1997 article):

Timing and targeting are critical determinants in seeding clouds for rain enhancement. Seeding at the wrong time and in the wrong place(s) may actually decrease the rainfall. It now seems possible, given continental clouds with weak updrafts, to seed in such ways as to hasten the dissipation of clouds, leading to ‘craters’ in the cloud field.
Bomar also says this:

The seeding enables the clouds to produce rain more efficiently, as evidenced by measurements of greater rain amounts in seeded clouds that grow to the same height as their non-seeded counterparts.
wrri.nmsu.edu...
Cloud seeders know what conditions are best for rain enhancement and which are unlikely to provide results. If they don't get results they don't get contracts so they target clouds with which they are most likely to be successful.

Charles Doswell also says that seeding the wrong clouds could prevent them from producing rain but he is more skeptical than Bomar about whether it really has any net effect on rainfall.
www.flame.org...

Neither of the scientists quoted say nothing about inducing (or reducing) drought. They talk about the affects on individual clouds. The possibility of reducing rainfall from a single cloud does not constitute a drought.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


If you're trying to say that I'm confused - go back to the drawing board.

You were talking about contrails destroying cirrus clouds. You were talking about cloud seeding to enhance precipitation. Cloud seeding targets cumulus clouds.

The article is talking about what kind of cloud?

The TERRA MODIS true color image taken on Jan 29, 2007 at 17:10 UTC shows an altostratus cloud deck over north central Texas that consists of relatively small, supercooled water droplets.


Still another kind of cloud. But different clouds have different characteristics. Cloud seeders don't target altostratus and contrails don't often (if ever) form where altostratus does.

Yes, an aircraft flying through altostratus, which form at altitudes lower than cirrus, may cause them to precipitate if they may not have otherwise done so. But If the conditions at lower levels cause that "forced" precipitation to evaporate before reaching the ground they would cause any natural precipitation from those clouds to do the same. If the lower levels were cooler and more humid, the precipitation would reach the ground. There is no difference.
Altocumulus do not contribute a significant amount of rainfall, even if it manages to reach the ground.

However, altostratus clouds themselves do not produce significant precipitation at the surface, although sprinkles or occasionally light showers may occur from a thick altostratus deck.

www.crh.noaa.gov...

Occasionally, these clouds can produce very light precipitation. In dry areas(deserts) the precipitation may be a visible shaft or column coming from the cloud, but it evaporates before it hits the ground(virga is the term for this).

www.universetoday.com...

You have presented nothing which indicates that contrails, distrails, or cloud seeding causes droughts.

edit on 3/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



You have presented nothing which indicates that contrails, distrails, or cloud seeding causes droughts.


That's not entirely accurate. I have presented no wiki-links or voices from God or billboards in neon stating 'contrails, distrails and cloud seeding cause droughts.' That much is true.

I have presented a historic drought in Texas, God love her, and back-tracked looking for clues based on the thread 'cloud tops dropping.'

Cloud tops are dropping closer to earth according to NASA. What does that mean for you and me? Let's look at the article for clues. It starts with a rather alarming statement:

www.livescience.com...


The sky is falling… sort of. Over the last 10 years, the height of clouds has been shrinking, according to new research.


but then goes on to say that this is good because it will cool the earth - sunscreen.


Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.


which sounds eerily similar to what we were once told about chemtrails - sunscreen.

Then, kind of a scary statement when one considers how important normally functioning circulation in the atmosphere is to the amount of water we might see on earth:



"We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower," study researcher Roger Davies of the University of Auckland in New Zealand said in a statement. "But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude."


So changes in circulation patterns but then, truly alarming, we are told that nobody really understands clouds at all:


Clouds are a wildcard in understanding Earth's climate.


And we are further alarmed in our ignorance of clouds by the statement:


Most of the reduction stemmed from fewer clouds forming at very high altitudes.


So kind of like a detective novel that starts with the report of a missing person - 'fewer clouds forming at very high altitudes' - we realize that some clouds are missing. Where have they gone? Why have they gone? Can they come back by themselves? Or are they dead? Did they leave of their own accord or did someone abduct them? And kill them?

Texas is also missing clouds - rain clouds. Could it be, gasp!, a serial cloud abductor?

I rounded up the usual suspects, without much trouble at all, and found 3 clear instances of cloud destruction of 3 different types of clouds (which if you recall we really don't know clouds at all.) These were cirrus created by jets eating natural cirrus and rain clouds being destroyed by cloud seeding and another cloud destroyed by jets punching holes in it. The gun was still warm and I saw the perp fleeing. I'm thinking I could get a jury to convict in the same time that you wait for flashing neon.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join