Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Uncinus
Sure, you could call them that

That would be exactly what they would be, "chemtrails".

But you really cant prove what you asserted, how would you know?
Have you ever tested the chemtrails for your self?

Your probably just thinking that some scientist has "modeled" this
and your thinking about that.

This seems to indicate otherwise, its in place now and it may be happening...
Its not just pie in the sky, fantasy.

Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming

Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than −2.8 W m−2 and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling (3.7 W m−2). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. iopscience.iop.org...

edit on 28-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

WOW!!!!

That link is an incredible find, as it destroys several of phage, atg, proudbird et all's arguements.

1. Cloud seeding IS GEOENGINEERING according to this:

Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling.

Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming

2. They have to get into stratosphere to spray for SRM

A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere

climate sensitivity is very sensitive to upper tropospheric cloud cover and humidity, making cirrus clouds a logical candidate for climate modification efforts. Cirrus clouds also affect OLR more than other cloud types, with their modification directly addressing the radiation imbalance imposed by greenhouse gases

3. airlines couldn't do it &
4. they couldn't put it in the jet fuel

Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail.

You just, quietly, debunk 4 of their major arguments!!!

This paper is a nightmare to those talking against geoengineering!!!

reply to post by pianopraze

That link is an incredible find, as it destroys several of phage, atg, proudbird et all's arguements.

Fairly credible actually. But yes, it is an application of cloud seeding theory to geoengineering though I don't see how it destroys any arguments. Existing cloud seeding operations are an entirely different proposition.

The introduction of efficient ice nuclei might initially increase cirrus coverage in these regions, but once a new equilibrium of cirrus coverage is established, it is unclear whether cirrus coverage would be more or less than present day conditions. This question could be explored in climate simulations using microphysically advanced GCMs. Should the method appear promising, it could be applied by introducing efficient ice nuclei into the upper troposphere using commercial airliners. Weather modification research has developed ice nucleating substances that are extremely effective at these cold temperatures, are non-toxic and are relatively inexpensive.

So the idea is that, if models (GCM=Global Climate Model, computer modelling) show it would be effective, commerical aircraft could be employed to seed existing cirrus clouds or regions where cirrus clouds would form naturally in order to increase their optical depth and thus reflect more sunlight. But they don't really know if it would increase or decrease cirrus coverage. From the abstract it's unclear if they have considered the radiative forcing effect of either result but the good news is:

High level winds would disperse the nucleant aerosol from the flight corridors. While there are risks of affecting the climate system in unforeseen ways, time scales in the atmosphere are relatively short, and this geoengineering experiment could be terminated at any time.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

And apparently they are not thinking of using "nasty" things like aluminum (eek!)

Originally posted by pianopraze
3. airlines couldn't do it &
4. they couldn't put it in the jet fuel

Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail.

You just, quietly, debunk 4 of their major arguments!!!

This paper is a nightmare to those talking against geoengineering!!!

Yeah I really love that part Doesn't get any clearer than THAT. So now all they have left to contend is when it started

reply to post by pianopraze


NO sorry....it does not:

That link is an incredible find, as it destroys several of phage, atg, proudbird et all's arguements.

I see it as a load of horse puckey speculaiton....even "pie in the sky". None of their so-called "existing delivery methods" (i.e. via the fuel, or even worse, the added plumbing and apparatus to spray directly into the hot engine exhaust!!!!) is feasible, nor safe to add to existing commercial airliners. It just does NOT work that way when the considerations of passenger and crew safety have the first over-riding concern in the aviation industry.

From the link:

2.2. Delivery mechanism

Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail. The objective would not be to seed specific cloud systems but rather to build up a background concentration of aerosol seeding material so that the air masses that cirrus will form in will contain the appropriate amount of seeding material to produce larger ice crystals. Since the residence time of seeding material might be on the order of 1–2 weeks, release rates of seeding material would need to account for this. With the delivery process already existing, this geoengineering approach may be less expensive than other proposed approaches.

Option (1) above indicates that these two have no idea, since they haven't done any research, into whether the "material" they suggest can even be consumed by a jet turbine engine, without damaging the engine or its components.


HERE they discuss the potential "material":

Bismuth tri-iodide (BiI3) had been investigated as an ice nucleant for weather modification programs but was unsuitable because its effectivity threshold was below –10 °C. However, this makes it a suitable ice nucleant for geoengineering, targeting primarily cirrus clouds and not the clouds normally targeted in cloud seeding experiments. In addition, BiI3 is non-toxic and reagent grade bismuth metal is about 1/12th the cost of silver, suggesting BiI3 would be about 1/12th the cost of AgI.

Bismuth tri-iodide can be generated in aerosol form by combustion of an alcohol solution of BiI3 (solubility, 3.5 g/100 ml). A better aerosol generating system for this nucleant is pyrotechnic combustion. For this, a modest program of research and development would be required.

"Bismuth tri-iodide" is what they propose. (NOTE that, at least to counter all of the silly "chemtrail" claims over the last two decades, this "(Bil3)" is NON-toxic!!).


But, NOTE also the many qualifiers in the paper --- "..a program of research and development would be required." "....this geoengineering approach may be less expensive than other proposed approaches"

Etc. The paper is dated from 2009, By The Way, also. This is a conceptual idea, pure and simple.

Option (2) mentions "injection" into the exhaust.....NOT a very safe proposition for a passenger jet, at all!! And, as to the method of "generating" the metal compound of Bismuth that they propose in "aerosol form", they say this:

"A better aerosol generating system for this nucleant is pyrotechnic combustion."

I hope the word "pyrotechnic" stands out there, to you all. They also, just above, mention using an alcohol of some sort, as a liquid to carry the Bismuth, for these "pyrotechnics"!! Which is absurd, again, on a passenger airliner.

They indicate a concentration of Bismuth in the alcohol carrier of "3.5 g/100 ml". ONE litre is 1,000 ml. 100 ml X 3.5 grams = 35 grams per Litre. One Litre is about One U.S. Quart. So, for every gallon of this alcohol (which has weight of its own, per gallon) add another 140 grams for the metal. This will quickly add up to a tremendous weight penalty, and is NOT "economical" as they claim....as it will force airliners to remove payload, such as passengers and cargo.

Finally, the "Put in the fuel" meme is laughably naive. Using those figures above (I presume you would need at least that much), IF it were added to the fuel, it would act as a contaminant. There are strict standards, in the realm of a few dozen parts per million, at most, for fuel additives and contaminants. DO the math, at 3.5g/100 ml of material added to the fuel.

NOT to mention....it's Bismuth, right? Let's see at what temperature Bismuth melts:
From Wiki (anyone may look there, or elsewhere on the Web):

Melting point:544.7 K, 271.5 °C, 520.7 °F

^ ^ ^ That's for pure Bismuth. For their compound?:

Melting point:408.6 °C, 681.8 K

Interesting but also disturbing find. We need to colonize space soon or face the chance of becoming extinct if something happens to earth. It is in the best interests of humanity to leave earth and self sustain elsewhere.

reply to post by zorgon


Maybe you should think through the science, first....and read my post ^ ^ ^

Yeah I really love that part Doesn't get any clearer than THAT. So now all they have left to contend is when it started

OH YEAH....that paper wasn't conceived until 2009!!

Sorry, Herr zorg.....this is another fail for the "chemtrailers"....


Oh, BTW....I hope the melting points of the pure Bismuth, and the other "exotic" version didn't get overlooked.

They're up there, too. Hint: How hot do you think the fuel gets when it goes through combustion? And, now long do you think it wold take for that melted, maybe even vaporized "stuff" to begin to precipitate and coat all over the hot stage engine turbines? Destroying them in the process?


Here, the boiling point of Bismuth(III) iodide:

Boiling point: 542 °C, 815 K

SO.....@ about only 542° C, this stuff will boil.....this means it will vaporize, yes? Well, this will sure be a problem in the 1,800&edeg C to more then 2,000° C environment inside the engines!!


This rules out the "Put it in the fuel" idea, as stated many, many times. (The stuff wouldn't even make it through the numerous fuel filters, without clogging them rapidly).

Leaving only the "pyrotechnic" proposal......not going to happen. Then, there is still that pesky problem of weight, and the lost payload revenue.....tsk, tsk. Airlines operate on a thin profit/loss margin already, as it is.......

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

That link is an incredible find, as it destroys several of phage, atg, proudbird et all's arguements.

Fairly credible actually. But yes, it is an application of cloud seeding theory to geoengineering.

The introduction of efficient ice nuclei might initially increase cirrus coverage in these regions, but once a new equilibrium of cirrus coverage is established, it is unclear whether cirrus coverage would be more or less than present day conditions. This question could be explored in climate simulations using microphysically advanced GCMs. Should the method appear promising, it could be applied by introducing efficient ice nuclei into the upper troposphere using commercial airliners. Weather modification research has developed ice nucleating substances that are extremely effective at these cold temperatures, are non-toxic and are relatively inexpensive.

So the idea is that, if models (GCM=Global Climate Model, computer modelling) show it would be effective, commerical aircraft could be employed to seed existing cirrus clouds in order to increase their optical depth and thus reflect more sunlight. But they don't really know if it would increase or decrease cirrus coverage. From the abstract it's unclear if they have considered the radiative forcing effect of either result but the good news is:

High level winds would disperse the nucleant aerosol from the flight corridors. While there are risks of affecting the climate system in unforeseen ways, time scales in the atmosphere are relatively short, and this geoengineering experiment could be terminated at any time.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

And apparently they are not thinking of using "nasty" things like aluminum (eek!) Perhaps something like dry ice?

edit on 2/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I scoured the paper for what they wanted to use; here is the full section describing:

2.1. Potential seeding material

An ideal ice nucleating agent for cirrus geoengineering would be one having a high effectivity (for ice nucleation) at temperatures colder than ~ –20 °C, but a very low effectivity at warmer temperatures. Bismuth tri-iodide (BiI3) had been investigated as an ice nucleant for weather modification programs but was unsuitable because its effectivity threshold was below –10 °C. However, this makes it a suitable ice nucleant for geoengineering, targeting primarily cirrus clouds and not the clouds normally targeted in cloud seeding experiments. In addition, BiI3 is non-toxic and reagent grade bismuth metal is about 1/12th the cost of silver, suggesting BiI3 would be about 1/12th the cost of AgI.

Bismuth tri-iodide can be generated in aerosol form by combustion of an alcohol solution of BiI3 (solubility, 3.5 g/100 ml). A better aerosol generating system for this nucleant is pyrotechnic combustion. For this, a modest program of research and development would be required. A pressed composite mixture of BiI3, potassium perchlorate (KClO4), aluminum and gilsonite (a natural hydrocarbon) would be appropriate.

So unfortunately it is an aluminum mix... with Bil3, potassium perchlorate and gilsonite; it is listed third, I'm not sure if it can be assumed this is the 3rd in amount or not... It is common for grocery items to list ingredients in order of amount from greatest to least, not sure if that applies to this science paper.

And if you search "forcing" on that page, you will find it throughout. So they are looking at forcing, but i'm not clear if radiative forcing (which is sun reflection) is the same as the cloud forcing they are referencing, i'm a little murky on the terms they are using:

As shown in figure 3, the shortwave cloud forcing in the midlatitude and polar regions was almost unchanged since low clouds dominate shortwave cloud forcing there, but the longwave cloud forcing difference was appreciable since it depends mostly on high clouds. These simulations suggest cirrus seeding may be most effective in the polar and midlatitude regions where global warming is more severe.

And yes, I agree they make this sound nicer, and shorter lived when they stopped.

Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment.

All quotes from this paper: link

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by pianopraze

 

I see it as a load of horse puckey speculaiton....even "pie in the sky". None of their so-called "existing delivery methods" (i.e. via the fuel, or even worse, the

added plumbing and apparatus to spray directly into the hot engine exhaust!!!!) is feasible, nor safe to add to existing commercial airliners. It just does NOT work that way when the considerations of passenger and crew safety have the first over-riding concern in the aviation industry.

From the link:

2.2. Delivery mechanism

Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail. The objective would not be to seed specific cloud systems but rather to build up a background concentration of aerosol seeding material so that the air masses that cirrus will form in will contain the appropriate amount of seeding material to produce larger ice crystals. Since the residence time of seeding material might be on the order of 1–2 weeks, release rates of seeding material would need to account for this. With the delivery process already existing, this geoengineering approach may be less expensive than other proposed approaches.

Option (1) above indicates that these two have no idea, since they haven't done any research, into whether the "material" they suggest can even be consumed by a jet turbine engine, without damaging the engine or its components.

Finally, the "Put in the fuel" meme is laughably naive. Using those figures above (I presume you would need at least that much), IF it were added to the fuel, it would act as a contaminant. There are strict standards, in the realm of a few dozen parts per million, at most, for fuel additives and contaminants. DO the math, at 3.5g/100 ml of material added to the fuel.

You mean delivery systems like this?

In the case of the present system, a significant quantity of sulfuric acid will be stored on the aircraft and ejected into the atmosphere during flight. This liquid could be injected into the engine to provide additional thrust at high altitudes to combat thrust lapse. As discussed in the previous section elevated sulfur content is detrimental to engine com- ponent life, and consequently traditional liquid injection techniques (compressor inlet injection) would not be appropriate for this system. However, some thrust augmentation may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the tur- bine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid.

people.ucalgary.ca...

The paper goes into a very detailed analysis on all aspects yes that one is on SO2, but it shows these studies addressing your concerns have been done.

ETA, they could also use existing technologies like this patent:

Link

reply to post by pianopraze

Yeah. I only had looked at the abstract before replying. Shame on me. But my "eek!" was in jest. We are surrounded by aluminum. I fear it not.

These simulations suggest cirrus seeding may be most effective in the polar and midlatitude regions where global warming is more severe.

The bit about forcing that you quote seems sort of odd. If the concern is over global warming, how can ignoring lower latitudes be effective? An often used source states this:

For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S

people.ucalgary.ca...

So it seems there is much uncertainty still about the effects that any geoengineering effort may have if they are ever undertaken. I agree with the authors of the report that more detailed computer modelling is required before any action, including real world testing, be considered. But, if the situation eventually requires it, this cirrus enhancement may be preferable to other proposed methods.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Yeah. I only had looked at the abstract before replying. Shame on me. But my "eek!" was in jest. We are surrounded by aluminum. I fear it not.

The bit about forcing that you quote seems sort of odd. If the concern is over global warming, how can ignoring lower latitudes be effective? An often used source states this:

For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S

people.ucalgary.ca...

So it seems there is much uncertainty still about the effects that any geoengineering effort may have if they are ever undertaken. I agree with the authors of the report that more detailed computer modelling is required before any action, including real world testing, be considered.

True, I remember paper where you pointed out aluminum is one of the most common items in soil... but there is still question that injecting this much might cause changes in soil PH. I remember Monsanto is readying GMOs that will grow in high aluminum content soil...

I am more worried about the geoengineers warnings that this would bring down diseases that have been up there for years, but i disremember if that was stratosphere they were worried about - this is troposphere discussed in this paper. And that this might trigger an ice age... we are at a natural historic peak, and I think an ice age is much more dangerous than the current climate even if it continues to raise a few degrees.

There are a lot of factors that will never fit into their climate modeling...

Originally posted by ProudBird
Hint: How hot do you think the fuel gets when it goes through combustion?

Well hot enough to melt the steel girders at 9/11 and cause molten metal to drip down the building... (or so the 'story' goes)

Does that count?

reply to post by zorgon

What does that have to do with the topic?
But no, burning kerosene is not hot enough to melt steel. Who said it is?

Oh, you edited. Ok.

reply to post by pianopraze

True, I remember paper where you pointed out aluminum is one of the most common items in soil... but there is still question that injecting this much might cause changes in soil PH. I remember Monsanto is readying GMOs that will grow in high aluminum content soil...

As I recall, Dr. Lenny doubted that it would affect soil or water pH levels...lets see...oh yes:

I do not think that the spraying drives the pH in either water or land - just not enough mass present.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The problem with aluminum and crops is not so much the aluminum (because it is so common in soils) but the acidity of the soil. Aluminum has always been a problem in acidic soil.

Yes, there are many unknowns about the effects of SRM. That's why I'm against any real world application at this time. I'm glad it's not being used.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

True, I remember paper where you pointed out aluminum is one of the most common items in soil... but there is still question that injecting this much might cause changes in soil PH. I remember Monsanto is readying GMOs that will grow in high aluminum content soil...

As I recall, Dr. Lenny doubted that it would affect soil or water pH levels...lets see...oh yes:

I do not think that the spraying drives the pH in either water or land - just not enough mass present.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The problem with aluminum and crops is not so much the aluminum (because it is so common in soils) but the acidity of the soil. Aluminum has always been a problem in acidic soil.

Yes, there are many unknowns about the effects of SRM. That's why I'm against any real world application at this time. I'm glad it's not being used.

Yes I agree it is the PH, and we are using the same source to agree [Dr. Lenny Thyme] look at the part you quoted me... lol

True, I remember paper where you pointed out aluminum is one of the most common items in soil... but there is still question that injecting this much might cause changes in soil PH.

And I agree that real world application should not be carried out... at this time or any other.

Did hell just freeze over?

*looks around for flying pigs*

reply to post by pianopraze

Well, it might be a light frost.

I didn't agree that aluminum affects pH.

Both of these papers are extremely interesting and I encourage everyone to read them in their entirety.
Please do not simply skim through them.

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

IT IS MY OBSERVATION THAT THERE IS PRESENTLY AN ONGOING PROGRAM OF JET SPRAYING TO CREATE CLOUDS AND HAZE FROM 30,000+ FEET TO THE GROUND ... WHICH IS CHANGING OUR NORMAL WEATHER CHAOS & COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SERIOUS CHANGES TO PLANT & WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES AND A THREAT TO PLANETARY ECOSYSTEMS … CLOUDS AND HAZE FORM BOTH A MIRROR AND A “PLASMA ENVELOPE” THAT IS DANGEROUS TO ALL LIFE … THESE ARE USED TO AMPLIFY HAARP FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC WARFARE …
ALLAN BUCKMANN - U.S.A.F. WEATHER OBSERVER - WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST - RESEARCHER

(The above is in all caps in the document.)

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org... 15_2009_by_Rosalind.pdf

TESTING IN THE PACIFIC, ATLANTIC, GULF OF MEXICO, HAWAII & ALASKA
TESTING INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:
* Gunnery Exercises * Bombing Missions * Missile & Torpedo Firing * Underwater Detonations
* Research & Testing * Vessel Sinking * Use of hundreds of toxic chemicals, like lead, mercury, tungsten,
aluminum coated fiberglass (chaff), Airborne Obscurants like Red & White Phosphorus, fog oils, rocket and jet
fuel emissions * Undersea Warfare Training Range Exercises (USWTR) * Mid and High Frequency Sonar
Experiments * Both land and ocean exercises will use planes, drones, rockets and sonic booms * Other
classified warfare testing experiments will be conducted in these areas.

39) Alaska Science Forum – “SAD: A Sign of the Sunless Season” – November 10, 1995
www.gi.alaska.edu... What are the human health effects when
we dim the sunlight during geoengineering experiments to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the
earth?
If we geoengineer more ‘global dimming’ without reducing the negative impacts of jet produced
persistent contrails and man-made clouds, could we face a severe lack of direct sunlight which could
have adverse impacts on agricultural crop production? In order for all plants to grow photosynthesis
needs to take place. Without direct sunlight or with only ‘dimmed’ sunlight crop production will be
lowered. Can we afford the recent increase in rickets in children who don’t receive enough Vitamin D
from direct sunlight? Can we afford the recent increase in humidity from persistent jet contrails and a
reduction in sunlight reaching the earth that allows for agricultural and tree pests, molds, mildews,
viruses, and fungus to grow and proliferate?

Note: - Worldwide persistent jet contrails are creating climate change and exacerbating global
warming. Geoengineers are planning a myriad of experiments to slow global warming without first
using our advanced technology to decrease the pollution emitted by jets or have jet fly at altitudes that
reduce the persistent jet contrails that make man-made cirrus clouds.

Maybe the bee populations are currently being affected by SRM projects that are kept hush hush?
www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

4) SRM may limit Honey Bee food pollination because the bee navigates and communicates though the use of ultraviolet light. And we have no idea what the cumulative impacts of toxic chemicals, particles, and reduced sunlight will have on all of our pollinators endangering food production.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Both of these papers are extremely interesting and I encourage everyone to read them in their entirety.

How can you take it seriously when it says:

JET CONTRAILS HAVE ONLY BEEN “PERSISTENT” IN LAST 15+ YEARS
AND ARE CREATED MOSTLY BY MILITARY JETS

Which is blatantly false. Jet contrails have always been persistent. The basic tool for predicting contrail persistence is the Appleman chart, which was created in 1953. Persistent contrails have been observed since the 1920s, and were common in WWII.

So why should you take anything in those presentations seriously if they can't get those basic facts right?

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Hard to follow the conspiracys

Not really.

Here...its simple really.

from March 2000 to February 2010. They found that global average cloud height decreased by around 1 percent over the decade, a distance of 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction stemmed from fewer clouds forming at very high altitudes.

The researchers reported their results in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The Terra satellite is set to continue collecting data through the rest of this decade, which will help determine whether or not the cloud lowering is a consistent trend.

Maybe its just them messing with the data again, then again, why would they do that?

I'm sure the accuracy of the data gathering varies 10% at least. So they have a 1% improvement in data accuracy I guess.

reply to post by Uncinus


In order for me to take you seriously, can you please quote which paper you took that from and where the sentence exists in the appropriate paper?

For the record, both papers discuss numerous claims and data, if you are going to base your opinion on one solitary sentence, I'm going to have to doubt your credibility.
As far as contrail persistence, I do not remember seeing it when I was growing up and I was outside all the time. Before you react, no, I didn't grow up in Seattle where the sky is usually cloudy, which would've obstructed my view.

reply to post by pianopraze


NO. This has been brought up countless times, already:

people.ucalgary.ca...

The paper goes into a very detailed analysis on all aspects yes that one is on SO2, but it shows these studies addressing your concerns have been done.

Incorrect.

Read through it more carefully. It was a commissioned study, and delved into only the "economics" of various programs, using speculative cost analysis methods. Has nothing about specific technological roadblocks.

I certainly hope your internet there was not a concerted "information overload' ploy....but judging by the number of stars received, even if not the intent, it served its purpose (apparently). People skim those very long studies, and think that what YOU tell them is in it, actually is.

I challenge anyone to look through that study (from, I might add...2010!!.....and find a place where it mentions that any of the ideas presented are actually currently underway.

This is the sort of "rumor and gossip" type of nonsense that plays into the hands of the "chemtrail" merchants and con artists, and you willingly (or unwittingly) are helping them con people along the way.

ETA, they could also use existing technologies like this patent:

NO!! No where in that study is that patent mentioned!! Why continue to lie and obscure the issue?

In addition, IF someone wanted to actually build the device in the patent....then not only would it be known about, but there would then be photographic evidence of ts existence.

Where are these photos? And, where are the documents for the actual construction of anything like what's in the patent?


Do you NOT understand that the possibility of future geoengineering projects, should they ever be implemented, means to some people a potential business opportunity, and thus a profit stream.....they (many of these concepts) are jockeying for attention, to be "The One" selected someday, if it comes to pass.