Geoengineering - caught in the act?

page: 29
121
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Science education can be a biartch for conspiracies fershure....



Oh contrair... science is necisary to fight the lies.

Seems it's those who are trying to show what is happening, like me, are the ones researching, studying, and quoting hard science papers... its those who would deny, that rely on things like shame, ridicule and appeal to authorities who know better...

Let's see... I've already been called a liar, a murder suspect, crazy targeted individual... and i can't remember what all else in this thread alone. That's hard scince


While I have relied on empirical observation, photographs, noaa data, quotes from patents, peer reviewed papers on geoengineering and such for my argument.

And maybe we should all study science so we can keep at least a groundwork where we can distinguish the sun from the moon... I mean if your going to call me a liar, at least get that science right!


edit on 20-3-2012 by pianopraze because: typo




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Gaul,

We have covered the Military and air space well enough, off topic as it is.

Back to the subject at hand, clearance for air space is at this point
considered by many of these governing OG's not necessary,
and they clearly state approval for some test runs to be "optional".

In fact, The International Risk Governance Council ( on Geoengineering) considers
some areas should be available for these type of "allowed zones".



So long as modest low-level field studies designed to answer these questions
are done in an open and transparent manner, we believe they should not be subject to
any formal international process of vetting and approval. Countries and firms routinely
fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space.
These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases.

A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are
directed at learning about SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because
judging intent is often impossible.
Such a regulation would, at best, make conducting modest
low-level SRM
www.irgc.org...


Perhaps you would be suited to join up with these other Dr. Stranglove types...


Scenario approaches are well-established in military, government and business
circles, and they have been applied in the environmental context by groups such as the
Tellus Institute.

Scenarios are more than simple numeric projections; they are attempts to collaboratively
imagine a range of plausible futures while paying due respect to the ways in which multiple
complex systems might work— or fail—together.

The relevance to geoengineering seems obvious.

To achieve the necessary breadth, we are extending invitations not only to climate
scientists, ethicists, and international lawyers, but to defense experts,
environmental psychologists, mitigation and adaptation experts, sociologists,

historians, political scientists, agricultural biologists and others.

We are building a group which can think through the complex interplay of forces affecting
the future and outline plausible and detailed possibilities for worlds in which geoengineering
has been attempted or avoided. from a wide variety of fields.

climate.yale.edu...

You know, those who forge ahead without public approval...
ethicists, international lawyers...do you fit in?
edit on 20-3-2012 by burntheships because: Mark C is that you?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I don't expect to be able to sway your believe either,
that Contrails are harmless.


What is up with the lack of comprehension in this thread? Yet again, someone is completely misunderstanding what I have said. Let me quote what I have already told you.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
I am in no way saying that contrails or associated clouds benefit us. There are many studies trying to figure out the climate forcing of contrails, as with increasing air travel and new aircraft comes increasing contrails and increased climate forcings. Not to mention that they can obscure your sun.


Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
I'm not defending aircraft pollution. I know it pollutes, and it is not great for the environment.

Perhaps you should try reading peoples posts before making stuff up about them. Or was that not clear enough for you?


Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Your group is spreading misinformation on what is in contrails, and how they affect the atmosphere.

I have posted ample information on how contrails affect the atmosphere, mostly from meteorological societies scientific papers. If you can quote just one piece of misinformation that I have spread then quote it. I'm getting tired of responding to people making claims with nothing to back it up.


Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I do like the kerosene lamp as being the best response you can come up with to global dimming by aerosols,
I take that as you are admitting global dimming of the planet with contrails,
so here's a lamp.

I have already said that contrails affect the weather and climate. The only information you came up with was the by-products of the combustion of kerosene. That is what happens in a kerosene lamp. But the premise of chemtrails and geo-engineering is that there are other chemicals that are introduced to the atmosphere besides the usual engine exhaust. Why didn't you address this? You are merely introducing a strawman argument. You're ticking off a few of those points on that disinformation list.


Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I just got you to admit there is by-products in contrails,
and you do not understand the effects,

Congratulations, you must be proud of yourself. Unfortunately, I had already "admitted" this if you understood my previous posts. Show me where I have not understood the effects of contrails instead of making baseless claims. To do this, you're going to have to try to actually understand the effects yourself. Good luck with that.


Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
The Contrail Coloring Book

could you point me in the right direction,
as all educators hand out coloring books,
so I am sure the contrailers do,
with their just trying to educate us response's.

I'm not aware of such a book. But judging by your childish response, you should probably stick to coloring books and leave the discussion to the people who bother to show evidence and an understanding of their claims. If you want to start producing evidence for your claims of what I have done, then please do.
edit on 20/3/12 by Curious and Concerned because: didn't end up editing anything



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe
Don't be so hard on them. They all get indoctrinated at a young age.

Make sure you check the right box on pg. 30

Kiwi Kids Cloud Guide


Perhaps you should have been "indoctrinated" if you want to avoid saying something ignorant like...

Originally posted by SteelToe
By the data provided in the OP, contrails should not be present.

As it's been shown numerous times, the conditions clearly were present. I think the OP author has even come to accept this.

Understanding some of the basics of meteorology could have gone a long way towards dispelling your misunderstanding on the topic. I had not seen that link before, probably a bit after my time. But it's great that they are educating kids on clouds these days, since there are people who don't have a clue on how they form (as evidenced in this thread).

It was actually my great grandfather, a WWII pilot, who "indoctrinated" me on what a contrail was when I was a child. Maybe he was in on the chemtrail too, well before it became a popular internet conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Gaul,

We have covered the Military and air space well enough, off topic as it is.

Back to the subject at hand, clearance for air space is at this point
considered by many of these governing OG's not necessary,


Evidence?


and they clearly state approval for some test runs to be "optional".

In fact, The International Risk Governance Council ( on Geoengineering) considers
some areas should be available for these type of "allowed zones".



So long as modest low-level field studies designed to answer these questions
are done in an open and transparent manner, we believe they should not be subject to
any formal international process of vetting and approval. Countries and firms routinely
fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space.
These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases.

A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are
directed at learning about SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because
judging intent is often impossible.
Such a regulation would, at best, make conducting modest
low-level SRM
www.irgc.org...


I'm wondering if you think there's something in there that supports your case.

We all know that aircraft and rockets release gasses and particles.

And there's nothing in there at all about approval being "optional"


Perhaps you would be suited to join up with these other Dr. Stranglove types...


Perhaps if you looked ath et content with a more critical eye and less emotive nonsense you wouldn't reach such strange conclusions.





Scenario approaches are well-established in military, government and business
circles, and they have been applied in the environmental context by groups such as the
Tellus Institute.

Scenarios are more than simple numeric projections; they are attempts to collaboratively
imagine a range of plausible futures while paying due respect to the ways in which multiple
complex systems might work— or fail—together.

The relevance to geoengineering seems obvious.


Yep - you can do thought exercises to IMAGINE some plausible future possibilities.



To achieve the necessary breadth, we are extending invitations not only to climate
scientists, ethicists, and international lawyers, but to defense experts,
environmental psychologists, mitigation and adaptation experts, sociologists,

historians, political scientists, agricultural biologists and others.

We are building a group which can think through the complex interplay of forces affecting
the future and outline plausible and detailed possibilities for worlds in which geoengineering
has been attempted or avoided. from a wide variety of fields.

climate.yale.edu...

You know, those who forge ahead without public approval...
ethicists, international lawyers...do you fit in?


What is in there that says anything about foging ahead without public approval?

Your own source material shows that they essentially want to get a think tank together to IMAGINE what POSSIBILITIES might exist.

And you think this is evidence of an existing programme or something similar? Really??




edit on 20-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Science education can be a biartch for conspiracies fershure....



Oh contrair... science is necisary to fight the lies.

Seems it's those who are trying to show what is happening, like me, are the ones researching, studying, and quoting hard science papers...


And reaching completely false conclusions.

It is clearly one thing to quote something, and another to understand it - so I think your lack of accuracy has shown that science education would be a great advantage for you.


its those who would deny, that rely on things like shame, ridicule and appeal to authorities who know better...

Let's see... I've already been called a liar, a murder suspect, crazy targeted individual... and i can't remember what all else in this thread alone. That's hard scince


If you say so.

You've also been shown to be wrong in your conclusions - I prefer to consider that as science.


While I have relied on empirical observation, photographs, noaa data, quotes from patents, peer reviewed papers on geoengineering and such for my argument.


And you have misquoted, misrepresented, wrongly interpreted and generally done really bad in your attempts to glean accurate information from them.


And maybe we should all study science so we can keep at least a groundwork where we can distinguish the sun from the moon... I mean if your going to call me a liar, at least get that science right!


When did I call you a liar?

If you are going to quote science then perhaps you should get it right too.

Part of "science" is realising when the evidence shows that you are wrong. You need to work on that bit.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


You can spout all the arrogant nonsense you want. Your ignorance is obvious to me.

You and your Kiwi alter-ego have no idea what is happening.

If it comforts you to pretend you have superior knowledge and actually just depend on what you have been told all your life that's fine.

I however am not so gullible as you. I will march to the beat of my own drum and listen to what the wind tells me.

NZ is a land of sheep



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 



If it comforts you to pretend you have superior knowledge and actually just depend on what you have been told all your life that's fine.

I however am not so gullible as you. I will march to the beat of my own drum and listen to what the wind tells me.



lol - well if you're listening to the wind then I think C&C can certainly take comfort in superior knowledge.

This is a great illustration of how chemtrail believers demonstrate disregard for factual evidence.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 

Your ignorance is obvious to me.

Yet you can't show where.



Originally posted by SteelToe
You and your Kiwi alter-ego have no idea what is happening.

I've never said I know everything that is happening. I simply know a contrail is a contrail and how they form. I'm sorry if this offends you.

Originally posted by SteelToe
If it comforts you to pretend you have superior knowledge and actually just depend on what you have been told all your life that's fine.

I've done a lot of research from many different sources, and being taught basic thermodynamic principles certainly helps. I do not simply look at a single source of information and agree with it despite the evidence.


Originally posted by SteelToe
I however am not so gullible as you. I will march to the beat of my own drum and listen to what the wind tells me.

Then why don't you point out where I've been gullible instead of just being a troll. I've pointed out where you and the OP were wrong, so why don't you address that if you claim not to be gullible. Ad hominem attacks are getting really lame in this thread.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 





I've pointed out where you and the OP were wrong,


You have not pointed out where I was wrong because I was not wrong.

You stated your opinion and I don't agree with your findings.

I don't know which is worse in your case. Your ignorance or your arrogance.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 



I've pointed out where you and the OP were wrong,


You have not pointed out where I was wrong because I was not wrong.

You said:

Originally posted by SteelToe
By the data provided in the OP, contrails should not be present.

Did you look at the evidence? Or were you gullible and simply accepted something without looking into it yourself.

Originally posted by SteelToe
You stated your opinion and I don't agree with your findings.

I like many others, posted the actual evidence that the OP author did not use, as he used the wrong times. You are denying evidence. Here it is again.





The evidence shows conditions were right for contrail formation. You were wrong. You can disagree with opinions but you can't disagree with the evidence.



I don't know which is worse in your case. Your ignorance or your arrogance.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I don't mind if you think posting evidence is arrogant, but show me where I've been ignorant instead of continuing to troll.
edit on 20/3/12 by Curious and Concerned because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


You provided no source link to your so called evidence. It's invalid

Any one can use photoshop these days. Even ignorant folk from the Southern hemishpere

Your claims still remain just that "claims" and opinions. Opinions which I disagree with.

I have no need to continue with your trife.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


You provided no source link to your so called evidence. It's invalid

Any one can use photoshop these days. Even ignorant folk from the Southern hemishpere

That's your excuse for denying the evidence?

The link to the last two images was in the OP! Go and try it yourself. It will be easy to show if I have photoshopped them as it is freely available information on the internet. You could look at it yourself and prove that I have lied. Of course, you won't because you are just trolling.

I shall feed the trolls no more. Should you have any intelligent conversation to provide to the thread, I may respond. But carry on trolling if you must.

ETA: Is there no longer an ignore feature on ATS? If there still is it will be the first time I've used it on here. Regardless, an ignore feature isn't necessary to ignore obvious trolls.
edit on 20/3/12 by Curious and Concerned because: As above



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


More BS from the CS crew.

I've been watching and reading.

You are clearly the troll here not me..



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Compliments on your observations Piano, I don't think I've said that yet in this thread.

There is just one issue here and that's the fact that you (and your side) aren't the only victims here and you shouldn't act as if this is the case.

You need to realise that both sides have partaken in the name calling and ad hominem attacks (see steeltoe's efforts above for example).

Anyway, this question may have been asked already and I apologize if it has, I've drifted in and out of the thread and got bored of the bickering so I haven't read every page...

My question is have you seen what you saw in your OP again since posting?

If yes, have you documented those sightings as well?

If no, How do you suppose a geoengineering project's effectiveness will be with a single "application"?

Particularly if it is meant to be used as a solar radiation screen...or whatever it's meant to be?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
If it was used for solar radiation prevention....
....then, about a week ago....there was a solar event....high EMR was pounded upon us.
If contrails were put there to reduce solar radiation....why were there blue skies here ?
(Los Angeles) during the event ??
...not one contrail at all ?
edit on 20-3-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

I was told. I quote "You're broke, your going to be like this for the rest of your life, learn to deal with it." After that I stopped going. I could only get into see a therapist 20 minutes every 90+days even when i went.



This is rather funny because I'm the other way around. I have a good job, but I was looking at training that would help me advance more and so I went to the DV and they told me they wouldn't help me because I had a job....


Go figure...

But my healthcare is excellent, and that could just be because I have a good doc.


edit on 20-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Thank you,

... and no, I've not seen it again... that was the first time I had ever seen anything like that.

I will try to continue to document if I ever see such again... and to document a normal night of the same time period with both radar and photographs next full moon for a comparison.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I am still following this thread here and enjoying the ride for sure.
The reason for this post is to apologize for my off topic post a few pages ago.
I did not mean to distract from the topic and I will try to contain myself here in the future.

Nobody told me to apologize and this is my own doing.
Again sorry to everyone.
Now back to the fight.....
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I think a quick review of the IPCC report on aviation will help support the theories expressed in the latter part my post.

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere: A Special
Report of IPCC Working Groups I and III


2. How Do Aircraft Affect Climate and Ozone?

Aircraft emit gases and particles directly into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere where they have an impact on atmospheric composition. These gases and particles alter the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (COz), ozone (03 ) , and methane (CH4 ) ; trigger formation of condensation trails (contrails); and may increase cirrus cloudiness -all of which contribute to climate change.

The principal emissions of aircraft include the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and water vapor (HzO). Other major emissions are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NOz ) (which together are termed NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and soot. The total amount of aviation fuel burned, as well as the total emissions of carbon dioxide, NOx, and water vapor by aircraft, are well known relative to other parameters important to this assessment

The climate impacts of the gases and particles emitted and formed as a result of aviation are more difficult to quantify than the emissions; however, they can be compared to each other and to climate effects from other sectors by using the concept of radiative forcing.

Because carbon dioxide has a long atmospheric residence time ('"100 years) and so becomes well mixed throughout the atmosphere, the effects of its emissions from aircraft are indistinguishable from the same quantity of carbon dioxide emitted by any other source.

The other gases (e.g., NOx, SOx, water vapor) and particles have shorter atmospheric residence times and remain concentrated near flight routes, mainly in the northern mid-latitudes. These emissions can lead to radiative forcing that is regionally located near the flight routes for some components (e.g., ozone and contrails) in contrast to emissions that are globally mixed (e.g., carbon dioxide and methane).


Below are some possible techniques that can be used for current Geoengineering tests and implementation.
By using theses proposed techniques we can see that the chemical components of jet emissions can remain the same but the levels are changed to specifically accomplish the purpose of Geoengineering.

Aerosol Discussion


Option 1: Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet

Option 2: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft

Option 3: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using High Altitude Jet Aircraft

Option 4: Direct Injection of Ammonium Sulfate Aerosol Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft

Option 5: Running Commercial Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 6: Running Dedicated Fleet of Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 7: Running High Altitude Aircraft Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Here we can see that fuel and/or additives in them, as well as fuel settings (air/fuel ratios) can have a big impact on contrail formation and should be considered as Geoengineering techniques. The amount of soot, sulfur and other aerosols in jet exhaust is directly proportional to the amount of CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) a contrail has. Which effects the possible life span and characteristics of that contrail.





new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join