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.

 

Geoengineering - caught in the act?

page: 12
121
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The height that the trails are laid must be succinct with the available weather conditions such as wind. What the trails consisted of would also contribute to how quickly (or delayed) they behaved as they spread out. Think suspended nanoparticles.

For example, if I were flying with intent of causing clouds to obscure China's energy source, I'd have to remain outside of China's no fly zones in order to succeed. So, once you knew the winds, the humidity, prevailing currents, etc., then you could decide what your flight route would be as well as deciding what the best equipment and chemical additives would be necessary in order to keep the trails suspended in the atmosphere until they reached China. Your cruising altitude would be known once all the other variables are considered.




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Even at the link you provided, it clearly states it is concerning Weather Control.


"prohibiting military use of environmental modificationtechniques"

Reading from that page, its clear that there are several legal ways to operate.


US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regulates weather control projects, under authority of Public Law 205 of the 92nd Congress.

US Legislation

The Space Preservation Act was proposed "to preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons."[21]

2005 U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995 U.S. Senate Bill 517[22] and U.S. House Bill 2995[23] were two bills proposed in 2005 that would have expanded experimental weather modification, to establish a Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and implemented a national weather modification policy. Neither were made into law. Former Texas State Senator John N. Leedom was the key lobbyist on behalf of the weather modification bills.

2007 U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445 Senate Bill 1807 and House Bill 3445, identical bills introduced July 17, 2007, proposed to establish a Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board to fund weather modification research [24][25]


So there is clearly a program that exists ...they wanted to expand it in 2005, and then did
expand it in 2007.


edit on 11-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Also.....I can't help that have a level of life experience which tells me that the many, many claims of "chemtrail" this and "chemtrail" that are bunk.

If anyone could show real, verifiable evidence, then it would be something that I could grasp ("grok"...if you know that reference), and understand.

So far, the majority of the claims are in the form of mis-identified contrail photos and videos....and all of the many proposals and concepts that are being discussed, published, cogitated over about "geoengineering".....and in every one of those cases, it is always in the future tense.

Never the present tense. Nor, the past tense.

Yet the mere existence of the mention of someone possibly thinking about sometime in the future maybe might be a need for something to be done.....each time, it is seen as an "emergency" option, if even considered as something reasonable to proceed with at all.


It is clear from reading those future "think-tank" type of ideas that any such endeavor would be International in scope, and certainly would be open and above-board. It is incredibly controversial (obviously) and would encounter such resistance that it would take a "clear and present danger" that was quite obvious before the public would agree it is necessary.

We are a long, long way from that dire situation, as yet.


edit on Sun 11 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


As and aside - yes phage, you are very close to where I am, I find it a little creepy you ask... but if you look in the OP on the stellarium screenshot I give my general but not specific location.


Thank you.
You pointed out your location on the Flightaware chart. The location you marked is near Mousie. Since the map overlay you used doesn't give much location information I was simply trying to verify that you had accurately located yourself on it. The reason I asked is because if you had misplaced your location on the map by 10 miles it would make a difference in what aircraft you observed. Ten miles on the map scale you used is not much. If your location was actually near Emmalena the flights seen on Flightaware would correspond to the ones you took pictures of.

So, in your pictures we see one flight which does not fit the flights seen on Flightaware, the one with the NW-SE contrail.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Are you certain?:


So, in your pictures we see one flight which does not fit the flights seen on Flightaware, the one with the NW-SE contrail.


In the screen shot from Flight Aware, I see a few airplanes to the southeast of the OP's position, on a northwest course.

Given the time lag, other airplanes (or those) could well have been physically overhead the OP's location to be observable at that moment in time (and lay down a contrail), but still be apparently out of the OP's filed of view, because it is represented "in the past", so to speak, on Flight Aware.

Does that make sense?

edit on Sun 11 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 




Even at the link you provided, it clearly states it is concerning Weather Control.


What source are you reading?

The word weather is not mentioned once in the newscientist article...the one I pasted the external text from...the one I am talking about here...the one discussing geoengineering.


Please keep up.



edit on 11/3/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

It is clear from reading those future "think-tank" type of ideas that any such endeavor would be International in scope, and certainly would be open and above-board. It is incredibly controversial (obviously) and would encounter such resistance that it would take a "clear and present danger" that was quite obvious before the public would agree it is necessary.

We are a long, long way from that dire situation, as yet.


The language you use is specifically designed to be vauge, plays down the risks, plays up the
focus on public acceptance.

However, in a nutshell it's misleading.

The forces behind Geoengineering are not obscure think tanks that have no power and
authority, and lack of scientific findings and facilitys in which to manufacture previously
discussed particulates.

The ones working on perfecting these SRM methods are none other than

US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NASA - under the Space Preservation Act

The White House - The POTUS

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" of 2007, in which "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government" (powers of legislative and judiciary branches aside) during any sort of catastrophic emergency in the USA.
en.wikipedia.org...

Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board

Lawrence Livermore Labs
e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...

Just to name a few! Then there is the new Climate Change Governance


downloads.globalchange.gov...



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 

I understand how a data lag can confuse the issue but the only flights to the southeast of the marked location (3 of them) are on NE, ENE, and SW headings.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I used your links.
From Wikipedia, and the links at the bottom of the page of Wiki.


"prohibiting military use of environmental modificationtechniques"

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" of 2007, in which "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government" (powers of legislative and judiciary branches aside) during any sort of catastrophic emergency in the USA.
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 11-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



The forces behind Geoengineering are not obscure think tanks that have no power....


Some are. Obscure, I mean. Others aren't.



..... and authority, and lack of scientific findings and facilitys in which to manufacture previously
discussed particulates.


And no evidence of any kind that this is happening. Sorry.



The ones working on perfecting these SRM methods are none other than ....


Yes, yes, yes.....key words "working on". This is still in the theoretical stages, and in light of concerns about the environment, even with the controversy as to the actual effects (if any) of AGW, it is still prudent to move forward with this research.

Seems a rare case when the U.S. government is actually planning ahead, instead of scrambling to catch up.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If I could point them out, I would...but I see at least three potential candidates in the vicinity on northwesterly courses.

Considering the scale of the Flight Aware screen shot, they are reasonable possible contrail makers. Two have already passed by, and are off to the northwest (one more distant) and at least one other is on a northwest course, and is seen to the northeast of the OP's location.
edit on Sun 11 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird




..... and authority, and lack of scientific findings and facilitys in which to manufacture previously
discussed particulates.


And no evidence of any kind that this is happening. Sorry.


Sorry. You are going to need a deeper sand pit in which to bury your head.

PILOT WORKSHOP ON GOVERNING
GEOENGINEERING IN THE 21ST CENTURY




This pilot workshop examines the threats and opportunities of geoengineering as a new set of emerging technologies to address climate change and the pressing demands of a low carbon economy.



www.rsis.edu.sg...
www.rsis.edu.sg...


edit on 11-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
OP, don't listen to these yahoo's who refuse to believe their own eyes. The truth scares them; thus the hyperbole.

I live in S.Central TX and it's the same here...night after night.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xterrain
 


And why wouldn't you expect contrails at night??


Skystef's unusual photos & contrails



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by ProudBird




..... and authority, and lack of scientific findings and facilitys in which to manufacture previously
discussed particulates.


And no evidence of any kind that this is happening. Sorry.


Sorry. You are going to need a deeper sand pit in which to bury your head.

PILOT WORKSHOP ON GOVERNING
GEOENGINEERING IN THE 21ST CENTURY




This pilot workshop examines the threats and opportunities of geoengineering as a new set of emerging technologies to address climate change and the pressing demands of a low carbon economy.


And you prove his point - studies and discussions of what might be done - a "pilot workshop", the "examine" "a new set of emerging technologies".....

Of course it is clearly laid out in the very 1st para of that document, which you didn't want to spot for some reason - why is that??



Geoengineering, defined by the UK‟s Royal Society as “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al 2009: 1), is receiving growing attention from scientists, policy makers and the public concerned with the slow progress of international negotiations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. However the emergence of geoengineering technologies as a new potential response for ameliorating the human and ecological risks of climate change appears to raise at least as many challenges as it might answer.


Yet again you misread, cherry-pick quotes, and misrepresent.....so perhaps that is why you didn't' quote the introductory paragraph - it clearly gives lie to your wish for geoengineering to be in full swing!

Sigh....


edit on 11-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


And, more from the very opening part of your source. Labelled "Relevance":


The second category consists of techniques to reflect solar radiation, such as the
injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large
volcanic eruptions. Advocates of geoengineering have argued that it “could provide a useful
defense for the planet – an emergency shield that could be deployed if surprisingly nasty
climatic shifts put vital ecosystems and billions of people at risk” (Victor et al., 2009: 67).
However, it could also be argued that introducing geoengineering as the new Plan B to tackle
climate emissions may create even greater problems, since the full effects of various
geoengineering techniques are not well understood. As with many new technologies there is
no general consensus that geoengineering is safe, appropriate or effective. Geoengineering
could also be perceived as a moral hazard, as there is the possibility that it could decrease the
political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions.



Allow me to highlight what should be obvious to everyone who is not already under a confirmation bias smokescreen:



.....“could provide a useful defense for the planet – an emergency shield that could be deployed if surprisingly nasty climatic shifts put vital ecosystems and billions of people at risk” ...


Emphasis, above, on "could" and especially "if". Quite clear, actually.

And then there is:


..."it could also be argued"....


Equally clear.


And,


"....full effects of various geoengineering techniques are not well understood."


And,


"....there is no general consensus...."



What could be more specific? It is NOT yet "happening".



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FJKchristain
Also you took those pics Friday night right? On Friday day all day they sprayed where i live. ALL day. way too many planes right by each other and all coming from the same direction(west for the most part).


More frequent occurrence of this phenomenon coincidences with higher solar activity. At least I had seen worse than this one in last few solar storms. I smell a connection. Some chemtrail-watch graph or chart would be fine to compare.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


You must realize that the concept of Moral Hazard is supreme when it comes
to public knowledge concerning Geoenigeering.

I am sure....even Congress has admitted that public knowledge of such is a Moral Hazard.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Superb job on this thread to the OP and S&F without a doubt one of the best threads regarding Geo engineering I have ever read.

I am firmly planted in the yes they are doing this camp and nothing will change my mind here..
I am hesitant to post to these threads because of the gangs that show up toots sweet and hack everyone to bits for just saying what they saw/ photographed/ think/

I have not always seen eye to eye with Proud Whacker but checking his past history shows him as banned!
I wonder why I ask and also how did he manage to get back on here to keep slinging insults left and right.
Your Photos say it all , nobody is blind here on this board.

I also noticed that about page 4 and for page 5 they did their best to high jack this thread but you stuck to your guns and once more a great big yeah to you there pianopraze.

Regards, Iwinder


edit on 11-3-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join