Geoengineering - caught in the act?

page: 23
121
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


A "Con trail" does not disprove geoengineering.
Again, more disinformation from the denier crowd.




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 





You and your ilk used to be able to get folks to fall hook, line and sinker for all the incredibly poor "research" that you present, which is nothing more than your opinion masquerading as "facts".....when in reality nothing but lies and disinformation.


Your not serious are you?

First off there has not been any proof that geoengineering is actually happening, and as far incredibly poor research where is the proof of any geoengineering actually happening, except for studying it in case it may needed in the future.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h

Your not serious are you?

.


Your not serious are you?



A "Con trail" does not disprove geoengineering.
edit on 17-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 





A "Con trail" does not disprove geoengineering. Again, more disinformation from the denier crowd.


Funny, contrails may not disprove geoengineering but this sure doesn't help the geoengineering conspiracy at all...


Perhaps not surprisingly, the talk about geoengineering has fed into conspiracy theories about how governments are already manipulating the climate, or worse. (Try googling chemtrails.) Keith has received hate mail, and Gates’ involvement has fueled suspicions that a cabal of the powerful is hatching secret plots.


www.marcgunther.com...

and here is a little more...


What’s needed, Victor tells me, is government-backed research carried out by academic scientists. “The science needs to be done in a way that is open and transparent and involves serious review and scrutiny,” he says. At the same time, governments need to begin talking about how to manage and regulate geoengineering.


www.marcgunther.com...

Doesn't seem to backup the geoengineering being done now does it?

Let me add a little more for you...


The latest to do so is David G. Victor, a professor of law at Stanford who directs a program on energy and sustainable development at the university. With four academic colleagues–Victor M. Granger, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner and Katherine Ricke–Victor has written an essay in Foreign Affairs called “The Geoengineering Option” that calls for more scientific research and policy debate about geoengineering.


www.marcgunther.com...

edit on 17-3-2012 by tsurfer2000h because: added text



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
The problem with those who keep the denial game going (dont know if your a
gang member or not ) is they have nothing to back up the ideas they present.

Absolutely nothing. No proof, no research, nothing.


How does one prove something doesn't exist?

It is not up to the skeptic to prove anything, it is up to the OP to provide a convincing argument with evidence. In the case with the OP, his pictures go from showing 2 contrails in a clear sky to a huge cloud already fully formed. I say there is a lot in-between that he can only interpolate for us since he has no further pictures showing it all transform.

I look at the evidence, and make my decision, and in the case of the OP he didn't convince me, but maybe he did you. Does this label me a sheeple and those who take his word at face value all knowing?

I think not in either case...



To the contrary, Geoengineering is real, and Bill Gates, and others are spending
a fortune on it, poised to make a fortune when the veil is lifted.


And once again this is where I ask stuff like... Where are the fleets of aircraft with speical tanks and nozzles to do this? Where are the chemical factories producing the chemicals? Where is the vast transportation system to get this all over the place so it can be put on the planes. Where are the 1000s of people deeply involved to pull this all off.... I can go on but you get the point

Also one needs to ask why? Why, as in dumping chemicals at 30,000 feet is stupid when you have so many other much better and controllable dispersing systems.

I also need to ask What too, as in what is it they are dumping? How come no one has samples of this stuff so we can say at least what it is they are spreading. Would it not also in our system if it is effecting us, but we don't even have toxicology reports to at least say there is something there.

But then so many just need a contrail to convience them, in the case of a few of you here at least you do not think EVERY contrail is a chemtrail...so there is hope for you too.





Until then, live in your little world of denial, its getting smaller and smaller every day,
and the end is near for a certain set of deniers.
edit on 17-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)


I'm only a skeptic because the evidence is just not there. PLEASE make my world smaller with further evidence/proof/smoking gun and I would gladly come to your side.

Being a skeptic I also look at the condition of the situation that things happen in. As example when I see a UFO picture I'm more interested in the reason that the person taking the picture was there in the right place at the right time.

In the case of the OP who is very absorb/obsess with the whole chemtrail/geoengeering conspiracy that he just happens to also get lucky to see a full blown geoengeering project play out right before his eyes near his house no less.... The situation lack credibility in my view, just as would be the case that some guy just happens to have a camera setup in a perfect spot as a UFO happens by, while the guy also happens to be obsess with the whole UFO phenomena.

Some things are just too convenient...


edit on 17-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 



I would recommend reading about weather formation from many sources, as a random person on a chemtrail site often knows just as much or less about meteorology as you do.

I hope you're speaking of yourself when you say random people know less about meteorology than I do.

Good for you. Hope is something no one can take away from you. Unfortunately, hoping something doesn't make it true. For example, I was hoping we could intelligently discuss the topic, but that hasn't happened either.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Your post is about cirrus and natural cloud systems. My post was about fake clouds caused by chemicals from jets in conditions where natural clouds don't form. Where's the relevance?

You had previously stated this:

Contrail cirrus, in the days before chemtrails, when they were rare, may have heralded weather systems - I don't know. Today, they do not because they are forming where there is no humidity on the ground and so there certainly isn't going to be any in the drier levels higher up. And they are not an indication of weather systems.

You claimed that today's contrails do not herald weather systems, which if you understood my post, showed that this claim was false. I explained why contrails often do form ahead of fronts, so they can be an indication of weather systems, but aren't always. Obviously this is relevant to your posts.

I then explained (with evidence) why humidity at ground level does not in any way preclude contrail formation, as relative humidity can vary as you go higher in the atmosphere. You still fail to understand that it is not humidity, but relative humidity that determines whether contrails form or not. This explains why contrails can form when there are no natural cloud formation, as moisture supplied by the engine exhaust can persist when the relative humidity is high (which can occur when humidity is low at ground level).

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Your post showed pictures of rainbows. Mine was about optical effects caused by chemicals in the atmosphere.

Since you didn't post any actual information, I had to assume you were talking about the optical effects that many chemtrail advocates portray as "chembows" or "spraybows" whcih show... rainbows (or sun dogs, as they are commonly known. The refraction of light through the chemical H2O). If you would like to show evidence of these optical effects which aren't due to refraction of light through H20, please do.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
I apologize for being blunt.

No need to apologise for that. It was already clear by your posts that you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed. But if you're hoping to know more on meteorology than I do (it's not too late), you're going to have to sharpen up and understand the evidence posted in this thread instead of simply denying it is relevant when it obviously is.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 



I would recommend reading about weather formation from many sources, as a random person on a chemtrail site often knows just as much or less about meteorology as you do.

I hope you're speaking of yourself when you say random people know less about meteorology than I do.

Good for you. Hope is something no one can take away from you. Unfortunately, hoping something doesn't make it true. For example, I was hoping we could intelligently discuss the topic, but that hasn't happened either.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Your post is about cirrus and natural cloud systems. My post was about fake clouds caused by chemicals from jets in conditions where natural clouds don't form. Where's the relevance?

You had previously stated this:

Contrail cirrus, in the days before chemtrails, when they were rare, may have heralded weather systems - I don't know. Today, they do not because they are forming where there is no humidity on the ground and so there certainly isn't going to be any in the drier levels higher up. And they are not an indication of weather systems.

You claimed that today's contrails do not herald weather systems, which if you understood my post, showed that this claim was false. I explained why contrails often do form ahead of fronts, so they can be an indication of weather systems, but aren't always. Obviously this is relevant to your posts.

I then explained (with evidence) why humidity at ground level does not in any way preclude contrail formation, as relative humidity can vary as you go higher in the atmosphere. You still fail to understand that it is not humidity, but relative humidity that determines whether contrails form or not. This explains why contrails can form when there are no natural cloud formation, as moisture supplied by the engine exhaust can persist when the relative humidity is high (which can occur when humidity is low at ground level).

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Your post showed pictures of rainbows. Mine was about optical effects caused by chemicals in the atmosphere.

Since you didn't post any actual information, I had to assume you were talking about the optical effects that many chemtrail advocates portray as "chembows" or "spraybows" whcih show... rainbows (or sun dogs, as they are commonly known. The refraction of light through the chemical H2O). If you would like to show evidence of these optical effects which aren't due to refraction of light through H20, please do.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
I apologize for being blunt.

No need to apologise for that. It was already clear by your posts that you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed. But if you're hoping to know more on meteorology than I do (it's not too late), you're going to have to sharpen up and understand the evidence posted in this thread instead of simply denying it is relevant when it obviously is.


Not the sharpest tool in the shed,
Interesting cut down.

I am an old dull tool waiting for the facts.
Have you proved that contrails,
over the current environment that cover populated areas
have no effect on the weather.
Man made clouds during a weather front, you have already admitted.
So how can man made clouds ahead of weather fronts not be weather manipulation?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
And if men are not changing the sky's
Why would we need contrail forecasts?
Forecasting man made clouds,
but it has nothing to do with weather manipulation they claim.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 

Contrails form because of the weather conditions. They form when conditions at the altitudes aircraft fly permit it. The conditions are very similar to the conditions which cause cirrus clouds to form. The difference is that because of the extra water vapor provided by aircraft exhaust, contrails can form under conditions which won't quite support the formation of cirrus. This is not the same thing as the intentional injection of materials to enhance positive radiative forcing (SRM geoengineering).

Once formed contrails do have an effect on climate. The extent of those effects is a topic of some concern and a good deal of research.
edit on 3/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Have you proved that contrails,
over the current environment that cover populated areas
have no effect on the weather.

No, I haven't as I have never claimed that it does not affect the weather. I've already stated that there are many studies which are investigating the climate forcing of contrails and it's associated cirrus formation.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Man made clouds during a weather front, you have already admitted.
So how can man made clouds ahead of weather fronts not be weather manipulation?

Man made clouds also occur in clear skies, I'm not denying that. We manipulate the weather in many ways, such as urban heat island effects, deforestation, altering landscape formations etc. But the premise of geo-engineering is that there is an intentional plot to manipulate the atmosphere by means that go beyond normal contrail formation. I have shown that the evidence in this thread show's what we could expect in front of a frontal system by normal contrail formation.

I haven't said that there is no such thing as weather manipulation, as I know this occurs. I have just pointed out that the evidence in this thread does not prove that intentional geo-engineering was taking place. This has led to name calling and insults directed at me (cut down's), with no one actually pointing out where I've been ignorant or a denier. I had been pretty polite and courteous the entire time, so I apologise if I have since become frustrated, but it's hard not to when I've taken the time to find sources and information in my posts only to be insulted by those who refuse to accept it.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I am sick and tired of weathermen
mocking chemtrails
but never explain how
man made clouds benefits men.
You can call me ignorant, idiot, dull tool in the shed.
Claim everyone is out to harm you, while blocking sunlight,
and distort the truth of your weather manipulation.

I could not find one news story of chemtrail believers,
threaten airline industry, and authority's were called in.

Any more lies, guilt trips, you want to lay on me, or the rest of us.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Nothing there as what I asked for
Man made clouds, weather manipulation. and the benefits to me with less sunlight.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Same
Nothing there as what I asked for
Man made clouds, weather manipulation. and the benefits to me with less sunlight.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
And I am still waiting for proof
that authority's respond to
chemtrail believers threaten airline employees.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I have never been shown proof
that flight paths are not determined as a form of
weather manipulation.
As I stated I have been watching contrail response for over 2 years now.
I have already heard all the answers that con-trailers have.
Now it is time to get down to question's that have been asked, and at that point,
they respond with we the airlines are being threaten and avoid.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


There is no apparent benefit in contrails. There are benefits to air transport though, maybe not to you personally (though you are likely to take advantage of them in ways you may not be aware).

Contrails could be prevented. By diverting aircraft around areas in which contrail formation is likely or by flying at lower altitudes. The former would result in longer flight times and the consumption of more fuel. The latter would result in the consumption of more fuel. While longer flight times may not be more than an inconvenience the consumption of more fuel would result in higher costs, more pollution, and more production of greenhouse gases.
edit on 3/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok I expected that, heard it many times before.
Now just need the links to chemtrailers threaten airlines, authorities respond.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 



You claimed that today's contrails do not herald weather systems, which if you understood my post, showed that this claim was false.

Your post showed that cirrus sometimes come ahead of weather systems and that areas where clouds have formed may give a glimpse of the rare effect called a persistent contrail. This is not new. Even wiki knows this.

Contrail


Contrails tend to last longer if there is higher moisture in the atmosphere and associated higher level clouds such as cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus already present before the plane flies through.


My post was about the many billowing chemical trails in a cloudless sky that spread out into fake clouds. You have not addressed this.


You still fail to understand that it is not humidity, but relative humidity that determines whether contrails form or not.

Perhaps you could show a textbook reference or something that says there's more humidity the higher you go. Rogue, ambient humidity hot spots are an interesting theory but a rather convenient one for you, don't you think?


you're going to have to sharpen up and understand the evidence posted in this thread instead of simply denying it is relevant when it obviously is

I saw the OP evidence and it was clear to me - is that what you mean? If there is something about observational evidence via photographs that you don't understand, let me help you out: folks don't take kindly to being told they're not seeing what they're seeing. And BTB, we've got a glut of meteorologists and pilots in these chemtrail threads so something a little bit more original would be refreshing.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok I expected that, heard it many times before.
Now just need the links to chemtrailers threaten airlines, authorities respond.


I don't know about "threatening airlines", but a YouTube user did organize a small group of people to confront a Quantas pilot, and they were met by the airport police:

metabunk.org...

Some comments from YouTube (now removed)



Rally was a fizzer but it was a start. A big thanks to the Fed Police for not being hash. In fact they were very nice.
EndTheResistance on Dec 13, 2011

Yes, we went to the airport yesterday. The cops were waiting, watching the international B exit. Then, two cops went in, presumably to lead the crew out some other way. Then they approached Rob. They knew exactly who he was and why we were there. We were doing nothing wrong and had no criminal intent, so they had to let Rob go. We only wanted to talk to the QF64 captain, to ask if he was aware his engines intermittently spewed chemicals. I now think they don't even know! It's done by remote!
roberthoogenboom 2 days ago



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


HUH?????


I have never been shown proof
that flight paths are not determined as a form of
weather manipulation.


City (A) is *here* on the map.

City (B) is *there* on the map.

Draw a line from city (A) to city (B)......

FIGURE IT OUT!!!!

I mean....duh!





top topics
 
121
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join