Geoengineering - caught in the act?

page: 25
121
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Understood but Your integrity is being fatigued by this because it leans toward a hidden agenda when you poo-poo every conspiracy you come across on a conspiracy site. Either you are very passionate towards dispelling chemtrails or its a paid job.Subtlety is the key.
Personally i only see one or two Contrails a day,but i understand peoples concerns when their sky is being criss-crossed constantly by them.




posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


I posted YouTube videos (just as you did, dear).

I showed YT videos of normal airborne encounters of passing air traffic, to directly show that the video of the claimed "FedEx near mid-air" is bogus.

I invite anyone with proper computer skills to use that false video, and analyze still frames to ascertain IF IN FACT the so-called "KC-135s" are actually what is claimed.

I will bet they aren't.....just normal passenger airliners, with four engines. Such as a B747, or Airbus A340.


Furthermore, from the audio.....I can hear a distinct accent in the Air Traffic Controller's voice....this indicates to me that the clip, being filmed from the cockpit of the FedEx jet, is NOT in the USA!!

My ears are attuned very well, after many years of experience. And that was a perfectly normal flight, no "near mid-air" at all, and those other jets WERE known by ATC.

Again, this is so obvious to any of us with a level of knowledge, but it is peculiarly odd that people (lay persons) fall for it so easily. That is known as "confirmation bias" thinking....



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12voltz
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Understood but Your integrity is being fatigued by this because it leans toward a hidden agenda when you poo-poo every conspiracy you come across on a conspiracy site. Either you are very passionate towards dispelling chemtrails or its a paid job.Subtlety is the key.
Personally i only see one or two Contrails a day,but i understand peoples concerns when their sky is being criss-crossed constantly by them.


Hi 12voltz,

PB, Unicus and others post on these "khemtrail" threads to instruct people as to how contrails are formed, persist and generally about aeronautics and meteorology.
Their integrity is founded in science, not in Urban Myth.

They also show that these "khemtrails" are unfalsifiable therefore do not exist unless the "Khemtrail" proponents produce verifiable, empirical and peer reviewed reports and evidence that state the opposite.

IN OTHER WORDS, PROVE IT!!

I do not know how they continually and consistently post the FACTS regarding this subject to people that blindly follow the unsupported claims of "khemtrails"
They have the patience of saints to put up with the personal insults that people like you rain down on them.

I do not see ANY contrails here in Abu Dhabi.
Maybe "THEY" don't spray here lest they contaminate the OIL?

Stay with the science and the evidence or go BUY the "WITWATS" CD.
It's your gredit card and your money they are taking.

Keep up the good work Proud Bird, Unicus (and Fire Pilot, where ever you may be)

Thank you and 73's,
Tom



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 12voltz
 


There are some real conspiracies out there.

Just not this time (the thread OP).

Separating out the true conspiracies, from the mistaken identities, is what I consider "denying ignorance".

The examples of the sort of utter lies, such as that "FedEx near mid-air" crap....just another continuing example of the way that a "conspiracy" is completely made-up, with misinformation spread far and wide, via the Internet.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



Originally posted by luxordelphi
The current crowd that insists on perpetuating the myth of runaway persistent contrails never makes it clear that the high atmosphere is very dry. All they do is cite relative humidity as though that means something contrasted with sea level specific humidity.

That's because it does mean something. Sea level humidity has no bearing on contrail formation whatsoever. It is relative humidity at the part of the atmosphere that an airliner is flying in which determines whether a contrail will persist. The many, many scientific papers on persistent contrail formation explain this. Claiming it is a myth is like saying clouds are a myth. Denying that relative humidity can increase higher in the atmosphere is tantamount to denying that clouds exist. Just because you don't understand how they form does not make it a myth.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
These are interesting statements but I am mystified as to why you chop the quote so that it can be misinterpreted to mean that they are talking about contrail formation which they are not.

No, that was to explain what a supersaturated region was. But I had already shown you this that explains that a region supersaturated with respect to ice is all that is needed for a contrail to persist. And as I have shown, these regions occur in cloud-free skies.

Contrails form and persist dependent on the surrounding moisture, temperature and pressure fields and on fuel and aircraft specific variables. After formation, contrail persistence requires only supersaturation relative to ice.
Contrail cirrus supporting areas in model and observations



So they're saying that ice clouds, like natural cirrus clouds, need supersaturation - relative humidities greater than 100% - in order to form.

Cirrus needs humidity greater than 100% relative to ice (relative humidity is generally relative to water unless otherwise stated). But clouds are often not present in these supersaturated regions, since they lack the process of nucleation. An aircraft's engine provides the process of nucleation in these regions, and can form persistent contrails.


Persistent contrail formation requires air that is ice-supersaturated (Brewer, 1946). Ice-supersaturated air is often free of visible clouds (Sassen, 1997) because the supersaturation is too small for ice particle nucleation to occur (Heymsfield et al., 1998b). Supersaturated regions are expected to be quite common in the upper troposphere (Ludlam, 1980). The presence of persistent contrails demonstrates that the upper troposphere contains air that is ice-supersaturated but will not form clouds unless initiated by aircraft exhaust (Jensen et al., 1998a)
Contrail Occurrence and Persistence and Impact of Aircraft Exhaust on Cirrus


Originally posted by luxordelphi
Right - that is because they are fake clouds and form under conditions where natural clouds do not form. The very rare persistent contrail of yesteryear formed in the same conditions where natural clouds form and that was why they sometimes heralded weather just like natural cirrus sometimes does that.

Contrails are man-made (fake) clouds, and they do not need the presence of clouds to form. The contrails in the past formed in the same conditions as the contrails today. Contrails in the past formed in clear skies, well before this "chemtrail conspiracy" caught on. Obviously there is a lot more air traffic now, so it occurs far more frequently.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
There is a clear difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. You have still not addressed this except to try and confuse me by saying that chemtrails are contrails.

I have addressed that a contrail is a contrail. I've shown that the reasons you are claiming that chemtrails are there is because you have been woefully misguided on how a contrail can form and persist (that's what most chemtrail sites do). I can understand that this is very confusing for you. But if you take the time to understand how a contrail forms it will be far less confusing.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
This is clearly not the case because chemtrails spawn the creation of fake clouds in areas where natural clouds would not form.

Contrails can spawn persistent and spreading clouds where natural clouds had not formed. I have given you the information explaining this. It is only persistent ignorance on the topic which leads one to think that a "chemtrail" is the only way that this can occur.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned


Contrails form and persist dependent on the surrounding moisture, temperature and pressure fields and on fuel and aircraft specific variables. After formation, contrail persistence requires only supersaturation relative to ice.
Contrail cirrus supporting areas in model and observations



So they're saying that ice clouds, like natural cirrus clouds, need supersaturation - relative humidities greater than 100% - in order to form.

Cirrus needs humidity greater than 100% relative to ice (relative humidity is generally relative to water unless otherwise stated). But clouds are often not present in these supersaturated regions, since they lack the process of nucleation. An aircraft's engine provides the process of nucleation in these regions, and can form persistent contrails.


Actually cirrus generally requires humidity greater than 100% with respect to water (RHW) in order to form, it needs >100% RHI in order to persist and grow

Water does not easily nucleate into ice. It first condenses as nano-scale drops of water, which freeze, and then accrete additional ice.

A contrail provides extra water vapor, so it temporarily raises the humidity above 100% RHW, it then drops below 100% RHW, but it's still above 100% RHI.

So while the additional nuclei make a difference, it's not the main difference between contrails and natural cirrus. An exhaust of pure water vapor would also produce contrails.

Natural cirrus form when RHW is around 100%. Air movements cause adiabatic cooling, increasing RHW above 100% and subsequent condensation then freezing, so cirrus clouds form at a particular altitude. Contrails can form and persist with RHW down at 60%.

This difference is not commonly understood. But it explains a lot about persistent contrails.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 

A very brief history of chemtrails as I see it: Once upon a time there were very high thin clouds. These could be be used as a signal for coming weather because sometimes a system moved in after they had formed. When human beings began to fly, they noticed that sometimes a trail, seemingly left by the aircraft, would last a bit longer than normal. This was usually on the order of minutes. Then the trail was gone and the sky was clear. On days when there were clouds in the sky and airplanes flew near and through and around them, they would leave trails lasting for some minutes.

In the late 1990's a decision to create trails in the sky that would last considerably longer than minutes was put into action. These were not the ordinary short duration trails we had seen but lasted sometimes for hours. And sometimes, even early on, could spread to cover the entire sky.

There were questions. Many people commented and wrote letters. Early replies were flak and training missions. As these events became globally commonplace, they were noticed everywhere - in still shots, in advertising shots, in movies and in the skies of the populace.

A dis-information campaign was begun to counter the many groups springing up wanting to know what was going on. People were told they were contrails. Then they were told they were persistent contrails. Then they were told that the spreading persistent contrails were cirrus clouds.

None of this was true because these jet trails were happening where no jet trails had happened before. They were different from contrails and different from clouds because they formed where contrails did not form before and where clouds did not form.

Late in the day, sunscreen and cooling were brought out as effects so that people might start to think that there was a good reason and that they were helpful so why worry. During these same times independent studies (independent of the dis-information machine) began to show that they were not harmless. The end for now.

All of the things that you have mentioned are important in calling a spade a spade. Cloud science is hard to understand. It's not hard because it is complex; it's hard because it's not very well understood and because the latest studies coming out about it are in a language that we are not accustomed to - a technical, scientific language. Observation is foundational and what someone sees and records in stills or footage is important as a witness account.

The little wiki quote I gave you is where I rest. Contrails form where clouds form. Chemtrails can and do form where clouds can't.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


There are NO such things as "chemtrails"


Period

End of "story"

Deal with this fact, please....dear.

We are telling you facts. Deal with them.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The little wiki quote I gave you is where I rest. Contrails form where clouds form. Chemtrails can and do form where clouds can't.

That's a rather defeatist approach. I've already shown contrails form where no clouds form (also thanks to Uncinus for the clarifications). The term "tend to" does not imply that persistent contrails cannot form in areas of no cloud, just that they often form in cloud. Using one quote from wikipedia that says contrails "tend to" persist in areas of cloud to ignore all the other evidence that shows that contrails do form and persist in cloud free skies is a cop out. It's certainly a lot easier than trying to understand the evidence, but if you choose to simply cherry pick evidence when it suits you and your beliefs, so be it. Believe what you want.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Nasa just announced they would be performing contrails last week did they not? on the eastern seaboard. Contrails DO exist. There is NO arguement to that. ARE they using them tho? thats a different question all together.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Nice videos! Like I stated before, the body of evidence from the past, is just to great to ignore! If they did it back then, then they are doing it now, even more! Nice post!



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


What airline was that? Air America?
Obligatory second line.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

No - whar is fake is saying or implying that this is proof that geoengineering is being done. I is well known that there is a lot of research into geoengineering - and hte paper, totled



HUH ?????

Ridiculous assertions, I cant even understand them.


how do you know they are ridiculous if you can't understand them??




However, I'll just throw this in for good measure.

Here are the links...
ams.confex.com...

92nd American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting (January 22-26, 2012): Aerosol,
Precipitation, and Cloud Properties—

E-PEACE (Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol-Cloud Experiment 2011 ).

... a technique for dispensing GCCN (milled salt particles) in marine stratocumulus clouds and then measuring the response of the cloud to the seeding was developed and tested. ....


etc



I believe that "for good measure" is indeed why you threw them in - because I'm pretty sure you have no actual idea what it is they are about.

Would you like someone to enlighten you?

This would be a good place for you to start......
edit on 18-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
reply to post by ProudBird
 


What airline was that? Air America?


If it was Air America then what do you think the purpose of ATS really is??




posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

No - whar is fake is saying or implying that this is proof that geoengineering is being done. I is well known that there is a lot of research into geoengineering - and hte paper, totled



HUH ?????

Ridiculous assertions, I cant even understand them.


how do you know they are ridiculous if you can't understand them??




However, I'll just throw this in for good measure.

Here are the links...
ams.confex.com...

92nd American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting (January 22-26, 2012): Aerosol,
Precipitation, and Cloud Properties—

E-PEACE (Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol-Cloud Experiment 2011 ).

... a technique for dispensing GCCN (milled salt particles) in marine stratocumulus clouds and then measuring the response of the cloud to the seeding was developed and tested. ....


etc



I believe that "for good measure" is indeed why you threw them in - because I'm pretty sure you have no actual idea what it is they are about.

Would you like someone to enlighten you?

This would be a good place for you to start......
edit on 18-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


That is a great link shows weather manipulation by man with fossils fuels,
Now all the contrailers have to prove is, that airplanes do not use fossil fuels,
and have zero pollutants,
and contrails would be off the hook.

Notice this man made cloud wording in there
"how pollutants contribute to forming clouds because the atmosphere over the land is too tumultuous"


Scientists who study how human-produced aerosols affect cloud formation observe ship tracks because in most urban areas, they are unable to discern exactly how pollutants contribute to forming clouds because the atmosphere over the land is too tumultuous. In contrast, ships release their exhaust into the relatively clean and still marine air, where the scientists have an easier time of measuring the effects of fossil fuel emissions on cloud formation.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
[
Would you like someone to enlighten you?

This would be a good place for you to start......
edit on 18-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


That is a great link shows weather manipulation by man with fossils fuels,


Wow - what a revelation!!




Now all the contrailers have to prove is, that airplanes do not use fossil fuels,
and have zero pollutants,


Why? clearly they are pollutants - what sort of stupidity are you trying to introduce now?



and contrails would be off the hook.


off the hook for what??





Notice this man made cloud wording in there
"how pollutants contribute to forming clouds because the atmosphere over the land is too tumultuous"


Scientists who study how human-produced aerosols affect cloud formation observe ship tracks because in most urban areas, they are unable to discern exactly how pollutants contribute to forming clouds because the atmosphere over the land is too tumultuous. In contrast, ships release their exhaust into the relatively clean and still marine air, where the scientists have an easier time of measuring the effects of fossil fuel emissions on cloud formation.

en.wikipedia.org...


and they aren't even contrails......

lol - this should be good - we've got some chemmies complaining how contrails destroy clouds, now this one complaining how ship trail make clouds......
edit on 18-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Would you like someone to enlighten you?

This would be a good place for you to start......


Enlighten? You must have meant re-direct. Complete DISINFORMATION
on your part. Whether intentional, or just your ignorance, either way, its a perfect
example of the utter rubbish usually posted by your crowd.

Here is the real information on the E PEACE experiment.



A set of experiments where giant (salt) nuclei where intentionally dispersed in solid stratocumulus clouds off the coast was executed. The giant nuclei released during these experiments were milled salt particles (about 3 μm) that were coated to prevent sticking. They were dispersed using a mechanism that auger fed particles into fluidized bed of grit before emitting them to the outside in a pressurized flow. After the particles were dispersed flights were made in the cloud at lower levels where the radar and the in situ probes sampled the air mass that was seeded with the salt particles to see how the cloud and precipitation characteristics of the cloud were modified.

www.onr.navy.mil...

edit on 18-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
[
Would you like someone to enlighten you?

This would be a good place for you to start......
edit on 18-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


That is a great link shows weather manipulation by man with fossils fuels,


Wow - what a revelation!!




Now all the contrailers have to prove is, that airplanes do not use fossil fuels,
and have zero pollutants,


Why? clearly they are pollutants - what sort of stupidity are you trying to introduce now?



and contrails would be off the hook.


off the hook for what??





Notice this man made cloud wording in there
"how pollutants contribute to forming clouds because the atmosphere over the land is too tumultuous"


Scientists who study how human-produced aerosols affect cloud formation observe ship tracks because in most urban areas, they are unable to discern exactly how pollutants contribute to forming clouds because the atmosphere over the land is too tumultuous. In contrast, ships release their exhaust into the relatively clean and still marine air, where the scientists have an easier time of measuring the effects of fossil fuel emissions on cloud formation.

en.wikipedia.org...


and they aren't even contrails......

lol - this should be good - we've got some chemmies complaining how contrails destroy clouds, now this one complaining how ship trail make clouds......
edit on 18-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


I know I will never be able to sway you into the facts
that contrails have not been proven to be of any benefit to man,
and is pollution and all pollution harms man in some way.
I quoted it for the readers so they can see how bad
man made clouds are for them.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
reply to post by ProudBird
 


What airline was that? Air America?


If it was Air America then what do you think the purpose of ATS really is??



Is that you PROUD BIRD? Are you and Aloysious The Gual the same person?
If not, why then do YOU answer for him?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Then the link took me to global dimming which backs up my statement.
Contrailers just need to prove they do not use fossil fuels and have zero polution
to back up their claims, of contrails are just harmless water vapor cloud.
That is why I think it was a great link.


It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.[2] Aerosols and other particulates absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. Water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles.[3] Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the Earth's surface. In models, these smaller droplets also decrease rainfall.[4] Clouds intercept both heat from the sun and heat radiated from the Earth. Their effects are complex and vary in time, location, and altitude. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect; however, at night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth's heat loss.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 18-3-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
121
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join