Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds

reply to post by Afterthought


I must admit I'm not big on "conspiracies" but more or less like to see what is going on in the world from people who strive for real news and not what the celebrities are up to.

I do have to say however that as time goes on and I hear about all these things going on around me that I didn't have the slightest clue about before, such as things like this, it brings me more and more to the conclusion that we are in fact in the Matrix. Not literally asleep inside some human battery. However think about it, we slave, we use our energy day in and day out, we get the thrill of feeling alive, but are we? Granted there could be monstrous machines out there (TPTB) that are simply using the masses of humans for their energy capabilities and then when they stop slaving they perish or they work to death.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS SEEMING OFF TOPIC BUT I REALLY JUST WANTED TO QUOTE THIS.

"We do know for a fact that it was us who blocked the sun" Im sure everyone here knows who said this...lol

reply to post by sykonot


I appreciate your contribution to this thread. Welcome to ATS.

Awakening from the great slumber causes the eyes to be blurry at first. I'm glad to hear that your gaining focus. Just don't allow anyone to hold you down and tack the blinders in place.

reply to post by mojo2012

You can purchase the article here. I'm sure that their data would be included.
www.agu.org...

If you want the raw data try this:
eosweb.larc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Phage

The Terra satellite determines the height of cloud tops by taking stereographic images of clouds. It is an automated process. It cannot tell the difference between cirrus aviaticus or natural cirrus (since they are the same thing, differing only in the manner in which their formation is triggered).

If your statement is true, then it would seem obvious why they reached the conclusion they did.

The cloud tops are lower because they were not actually measuring just cloud tops. Some of the cloud tops they were measuring were from airplanes and that means the whole study is invalid.

You can't have a valid study about clouds if your data is actually mixed with data about jet exhaust.

reply to post by ThirdRock69

Contrails are not jet exhaust per se. They are clouds of ice crystals, the same as any other high altitude clouds. They form as a result of the heated water vapor contained in the exhaust but once triggered they grow (or not, depending on the conditions) by "feeding" on ambient water vapor.

Contrails and other high altitude clouds of sufficient density to be measured were observed to have decreased in amounts between 2000 and 2010. It doesn't matter what the source of the clouds is. At it's most obvious, this would indicate that humidity at high altitudes was reduced during that time frame.

reply to post by Afterthought


Thanks for the warm welcome I have downright spilled my feelings on other topics before but this just popped into my head when I thought about blocking the sun. Ill make my posts are a little "mo better" next time lol

You see here is the problem with those that do not want to do research and believe the first thing they see on youtube the video in question. The TMC-65 well here is a link to the original video it is in Polish but use the translate from google and boy do you get something totally interesting...

www.pluszaczek.com...

For those of you who cannot translate this or are afraid to this is what is says...

TMC-65 is a machine used for cleaning and disenfecting of military equipment.The effect of this machine and the speed of "disinfection" is clearly visible on the film.

So if you use any translation tool it will tell you the same just translate from Polish to English

So you see with a little research you too can find the truth....

Sorry the video is fro

And now a video for the TMS-65 that shows its use



Which does the same thing as the TMC-65.

More fun with research....

reply to post by Afterthought


Sigh....

The Department of Transportation and PARTNER disagree with you.

....and, your link is about the emissions from the burning of the fossil fuels.....you know, Jet-A1. Which is basically kerosene!!

Your link does NOT address my comments....which were that the actual surface area of our planet that is affected directly by flights overhead is MINIMAL!

Does this video mean anything to you?:




About 75% of the Earth is covered by oceans. Probably 95% (just guessing on that number...make it 90%, or just pick a number) of air traffic is over land!

Now.....your OP is about the average GLOBAL height of cloud TOPS.....over the entire globe. This includes the oceans, does it not?

People need to think outside their little boxes, sometimes.......I think they look up, and they live somewhere that has a lot of air traffic overhead, over their tiny portion of the World, and think that extrapolates to the entire planet.....

or the cloud's are at there normal place in our atmosphere and the expanding earth theory is bang on,in all seriosness i bet thease people get paid a fotune to come up whith crap like the clouds are sinking wee are doomed/saved or whatever else stupid science which is a fancy word for guesswork,if shtf to bad what can we do,apart from blaming iran with our last gasp of what is considerd air

reply to post by haven123

crap like the clouds are sinking wee are doomed/saved or whatever else stupid science which is a fancy word for guesswork

No.

They don't say we're saved. They don't say we're doomed. They say that for a ten year span the average global level of cloud tops followed a slight downward trend. That isn't guesswork, it's an observation.

Nor is it guesswork that, everything else being equal, a sustained trend in lowered cloud tops would result in a cooling trend. It is based on the physics of radiative forcing.

But who really knows, these Global Warming Groupies are dangerous folks.

Anyone who believes groupthink is not a problem in the insular self-righteous climate science community, should read the Hockey Stick Illusion or wade through just a few of the infamous emails hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.)www.counterpunch.org...

And just an aside, Paul Crutzen in his research noted that injection of Sulfates under "mitigation"
could affect cloulds.

To compensate for a doubling of CO2, which causes a greenhouse warming of
4 W/m2, the required continuous stratospheric sulfate loading would be a sizeable
5.3 Tg S, producing an optical depth of about 0.04. The Rayleigh scattering optical
depth at 0.5 ?m is about 0.13, so that some whitening on the sky, but also colorful
sunsets and sunrises would occur. It should be noted, however, that considerable
whitening of the sky is already occurring as a result of current air pollution in the
continental boundary layer.

Locally, the stratospheric albedo modification scheme, even when conducted at
remote tropical island sites or from ships, would be a messy operation. An alternative may be to
release a S-containing gas at the earth’s surface, or better from balloons, in the tropical stratosphere. A gas one might think of is COS, which may be the main source of the stratospheric sulfate layer during low activity volcanic periods (Crutzen, 1976), although this is debated (Chin and Davis, 1993).

However, about 75% of the COS emitted will be taken up by plants, with unknown
long-term ecological consequences, 22% is removed by reaction with OH, mostly
in the troposphere, and only 5% reaches the stratosphere to produce SO2 and sulfate particles (Chin and Davis, 1993). Consequently, releasing COS at the ground is not recommended.

However, it may be possible to manufacture a special gas that is
only processed photochemically in the stratosphere to yield sulfate. The compound
should be non-toxic, insoluble in water, non-reactive with OH, it should have a
relatively short lifetime of less than about 10 years, and should not significantly
contribute to greenhouse warming, which for instance disqualifies SF6.
214 P. www.springerlink.com...

reply to post by Phage


where do you get all this in dpth info ?

reply to post by haven123

The information about contrail formation is readily available from a variety of sources. Here is just one:
journals.ametsoc.org...

The information about the observed change in average cloud top levels comes from the article in the OP as well as others such as this one which I linked earlier:
www.worldclimatereport.com...

My conclusion that a reduction in the amount of high level clouds is due to reduced humidity at those altitudes is a statement of the obvious; lower humidity = fewer clouds. This says nothing about the cause of that reduced humidity.

reply to post by Phage


i wasnt being cheeky i am somtimes in aww of the stuff you know i was hoping you were going to be a nasa prof or somthing,epic

reply to post by haven123


I cannot speak for ATS member phage directly, but......there are certain members of ATS who strive to understand science, and thus express it for the benefit of ALL other ATS members.....

....on the 'flip-side', there are other certain ATS members who seek to spread what can only be called "dis-info"....for what ever vile reasons that only they know.

It is up to every other ATS member (and any casual readers., as guests) to infer the difference.

That is all.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Phage

 

The Terra satellite determines the height of cloud tops by taking stereographic images of clouds. It is an automated process. It cannot tell the difference between cirrus aviaticus or natural cirrus (since they are the same thing, differing only in the manner in which their formation is triggered).

If your statement is true, then it would seem obvious why they reached the conclusion they did.

The cloud tops are lower because they were not actually measuring just cloud tops. Some of the cloud tops they were measuring were from airplanes and that means the whole study is invalid.

You can't have a valid study about clouds if your data is actually mixed with data about jet exhaust.

What you say is so true. In any study there is supposed to be a control. Like when they give people pills to see how they will react, there is a control group that gets sugar pills in order to see the difference. With the current environment so messed up with all the admitted and not admitted atmospheric injections, there is no control. The only windows of control that there have been were 9/11 and the Iceland volcano which both showed that without jet emissions (whatever they may in the end turn out to be) everything was a lot nicer.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Sources to back up this claim?:

The only windows of control that there have been were 9/11 and the Iceland volcano which both showed that without jet emissions (whatever they may in the end turn out to be) everything was a lot nicer.

A "lot nicer"? Care to quantify that?

Airliners contribute a tiny fraction, over-all, to the total pollution from internal combustion fossil-fueled engines. Compared to the hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, diesel railroad locomotives, gas-powered lawnmowers and leaf blowers, diesel electrical generators, etc, etc, etc.....

Originally posted by ProudBird
there are certain members of ATS who strive to understand science, and thus express it for the benefit of ALL other ATS members.....

....on the 'flip-side', there are other certain ATS members who seek to spread what can only be called "dis-info"....for what ever vile reasons that only they know.

Yes, its fairly easy to spot the ones decicated to true science.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Sources to back up this claim?:

The only windows of control that there have been were 9/11 and the Iceland volcano which both showed that without jet emissions (whatever they may in the end turn out to be) everything was a lot nicer.

A "lot nicer"? Care to quantify that?

Airliners contribute a tiny fraction, over-all, to the total pollution from internal combustion fossil-fueled engines. Compared to the hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, diesel railroad locomotives, gas-powered lawnmowers and leaf blowers, diesel electrical generators, etc, etc, etc.....

No - you don't get any links because you've been given the links and you don't read them preferring your own pseudo-self-serving-'science' full with mis-information and dis-information to anything real.

Everyone knows what I'm talking about when I say 'a lot nicer.' No X's, grids, rainbows in wierd places, white lines, super-reflectant haze, artificial clouds and chemical spew.

Show me a study with a car, motorcycle etc. et al ad infinitum ad nauseaum of ONE instance where these caused cirrus aviaticus. Cirrus aviaticus are a cirrius problem. They cause drought conditions which mean more geoengineering with toxic silver iodide and assorted other toxic cocktails in order to make it rain. We used to have a natural weather system. Then atomic bombs got exploded in the upper atmosphere and so it began...the days of geoengineering the sky.

If you want to protect your precious flights - I'd join the chemtrail bandwagon because it will prove that jet emissions, while extremely serious environmental considerations, are not raping the environment the way deliberate chemical injections are. You are working at cross purposes - 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' - I think it was Churchill but I don't really know. You can't have it both ways.

reply to post by luxordelphi

No - you don't get any links because you've been given the links and you don't read them preferring your own pseudo-self-serving-'science' full with mis-information and dis-information to anything real.

Alright the guessing game..I love games..

The only windows of control that there have been were 9/11 and the Iceland volcano which both showed that without jet emissions (whatever they may in the end turn out to be) everything was a lot nicer.

Well that is because on 9/11 planes were grounded, as far as the volcano there were no flights grounded in the US so nothing changed as far as planes flying. England and parts of Europe yes USA,well no,sorry..

Everyone knows what I'm talking about when I say 'a lot nicer.' No X's, grids, rainbows in wierd places, white lines, super-reflectant haze, artificial clouds and chemical spew.

Do you mean like these....





Amazing how blue the sky is in these pics.
BTW the sky stayed blue after I took these pics...

Sorry answered two posts with one, easier this way...