It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Sunshade" to fight climate change costed at $5 bln a year

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So is the sun getting bigger and hotter and thus we need to spray chemicals in the atmosphere for protection OR are rogue governments trying to deliberately poison us

Neither. But we are pumping out more and more COs, methane ('greenhouse gases'), soot and other particulates into the atmosphere, as well as changing Earth's albedo by rapid deforestation, urbanisation and other land use change. Which causes the planet as a whole to get warmer (though not everywhere, equally, year on year).

Sulphur particles, as emitted by volcanoes (and industry) may cause cooling as well as serious acid rain. If we started adding more to the stratosphere, then apart from being visible as a very thin haze in the skies every single day, we'd see more acid rain. That neither is apparent (acid rain is declining in the west) is a very good indication that this proposal - which even the report's authors do not support - is not being exercised.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:27 PM
They have been trying to kill us off for years, they aren't going to succeed that easily. We will just adjust our diets a little and eat something to neutralize the effect. When are they going to realize that they can't succeed by slowly poisoning us and release a deadly untreatable bacteria into our food. They have their cover story in place already, they could do it any day.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:37 PM
I know this is a natural cycle and it gets warmer before the ice age, which is probably many thousands of years away.

And it changes world economies, equalizes, regions. Most live by the ocean, and could pipe water in if they did away with money and scarsity, and were more win/win cooperative but still free. So they have poisoned off the oceans, like toddlers having temper tantrums to try and force their monopolies.

I've seen our west coast region in Canada, becoming more like Hawaii, over time, in visions, with year round fruit trees.

I like global warming, its the pollution and poison we need to deal with, all their BP oil spills and radiation, and their scarsity. We also need to somehow tap the methane in the north that is going to be a danger to the world if we don't tap it and replace oil with it.

Water needs to be recylcled not wasted, and not contaminated or owned by the 1%, that has to stop ASAP. People have to claim equal co-ownership of the world and resources and work for ethical win/win's.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

You can almost say kids studied them.

You mentioned this when talking about kids observing contrails.

With all due respect, kids also believe in the Easter bunny and Santa. Does it mean they are true?

And when I was a kid contrails did NOT last anywhere near as long as thicker ones last today.

When I was a kid, it would take forever for spring break to come, and it would last ages.

Today, my vacation is shorter - literally - but it seems to go past even faster. When you are a child, your time perception is not the same as when you are an adult.

I'm not pocking your testimony or opinion, I just think that for science stuff we should have scientific attitudes.

I see tic tac toes in the sky sometimes, there were never any tic tac toes in the sky when I was a kid

explain that!

First of all, those aren't "tic tac toes", they are contrails, and those make a visual clue of the flight route of an airplane.

The "sometimes" you refer about today, are provably due to the amount of traffic in a specific day. In some days you have more airplanes in the sky, and in others you have fewer.

Everything plays a part in their route. Things like weather forecasts, microbursts warnings, fuel economy (which is a very important thing in today's economy), traffic ahead, traffic on the runway, etc.

To those constantly changing factors, you also have to add the airspace charts that pilots use.

An aeronautical chart is a map designed to assist in navigation of aircraft, much as nautical charts do for watercraft, or a roadmap for drivers. Using these charts and other tools, pilots are able to determine their position, safe altitude, best route to a destination, navigation aids along the way, alternative landing areas in case of an in-flight emergency, and other useful information such as radio frequencies and airspace boundaries.

There are charts for all land masses on Earth, and long-distance charts for trans-oceanic travel.

Specific charts are used for each phase of a flight and may vary from a map of a particular airport facility to an overview of the instrument routes covering an entire continent (e.g., global navigation charts), and many types in between.


For your consideration, those charts are the main reason for the patterns you see in the sky. They tell the pilots - especially jet-powered airliners - which paths to follow to the airport, and which approach route they should take. Then they weight the changing factors like the weather, and plot a route to their destination.

When I'm talking about this subject with any person who has the opinion chemtrails exist, I usually tell them to think of this:

Instead of thinking about the air, airplanes and contrails, try to think of highways, cars and trucks.

If you take a road map - without the landscape - flip it and look at the sky through it, won't you visualize a clear pattern of cars flowing, causing several types of pollution in the same place, over and over again?

That's what happens with airplanes. They follow the same paths, and leave contrails behind. The fact that they are not limited to physical paths makes the routes somewhat unusual to someone unfamiliar with air-traffic protocols.
edit on 6-9-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: corrected text

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

I said a contrail left by ONE PLANE did not last nearly as long as one contrail left by today's planes.
I am talking about one contrail trail left by ONE plane.

For that to be true, aligned with the chemtrail theory, you would have to assume as being true the fact that jet engines don't evolve over time.

Aviation is in a constant evolution, and to consider that planes behave today like they behaved 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago, is dismissing 90% of what aviation is really about.

Research videos of jet airplanes from the 50's, and then research a video of a modern aircraft like the new Boeing's or Airbuses. Modern engines are very clean when compared to older models, and a lot has changed. From the air they suck into the engine, to the power they produce, to the amount of pollutants they release.

Those factors change the amount, shape and volume of the contrail left behind.

And as another piece of information, aircraft's today are flying higher than before. Technological advancements mean that they can fly higher and have a lower fuel consumption. If you consider that contrails only appear above a certain altitude level due to temperature, then it's not hard to figure out why there are more contrails today than before.

Airplanes today fly higher than before, and more often.

Also, you have to consider air jet streams.

Jet streams are caused by a combination of a planet's rotation on its axis and atmospheric heating (by solar radiation and, on some planets other than Earth, internal heat). Jet streams form near boundaries of adjacent air masses with significant differences in temperature, such as the polar region and the warmer air towards the equator.

Meteorologists use the location of some of the jet streams as an aid in weather forecasting. The main commercial relevance of the jet streams is in air travel, as flight time can be dramatically affected by either flying with the flow or against the flow of a jet stream. Clear-air turbulence, a potential hazard to aircraft passenger safety, often is found in a jet stream's vicinity. One future benefit of jet streams could be to power airborne wind turbines.


Jet streams can push contrails away from your ground location, if they are happening above you - which you can't tell because they don't influence ground-level wind - and they can also not disturb a contrail if they aren't.

So, you have a lot of natural, logical and reasonable explanations as to why you witness such odd events related to contrails.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:16 PM
I expressed my views in the thread I posted here about the same study days ago:

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:20 PM
btw aren't chemtrails taking this thread off subject, given that's it's about dispersal of acid rain causing sulphur in the stratosphere? And so-called chemtrails (if they exist) do not cause acid rain (else why would acid rain in the US and Europe be reducing?) and occur in the troposphere?

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
btw aren't chemtrails taking this thread off subject, given that's it's about dispersal of acid rain causing sulphur in the stratosphere? And so-called chemtrails (if they exist) do not cause acid rain (else why would acid rain in the US and Europe be reducing?) and occur in the troposphere?

Some members have raised the question of this being a chemtrail operation in disguise, or that the MSM is starting to portray the chemtrails as a positive thing or as a possible solution for global warming problems.

In my opinion, it is necessary to dismiss the connection because this has nothing to do with the chemtrail theory.

If we paint all subjects with specific - but also vague - theories, or if we try to fit all events and news into the same theory specter, then we will lose the grip for truth.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by Unity_99

No, no, no and no. First off, how much do you know about the water cycle? Used or polluted water doesn't just disappear, you know. There's a finite quantity of it on earth, and unless some future catastrophic event throws that supply into space, it will be there until the planet is consumed by the sun. You can't "conserve" water, just like you can't "conserve" iron or oxygen. It's still there, just in a different form.

Second, regarding your plan for methane hydrates, it would be practically impossible to mine them enough to supply the world with fuel, let alone re-engineer the current liquid-based infrastructure to use it. Methane hydrate doesn't form in concentrations like other fossil fuels, and natural gas is difficult at best to store and use. It also puts out significant quantities of carbon dioxide (less than other fossil fuels, but more than alternative sources).

My plan is quite simple, and goes entirely against yours: ramp up nuclear, both fission and fusion. Fission works well enough for now, and if irrational paranoia didn't stop it from becoming a major power source, could easily hold us over until fusion is available. Nuclear fusion, of course, is the best possible energy source in the universe as we understand it. Fusion essentially creates a miniature star confined in a reactor, and produces only helium (harmless) and tritium (12-year half life, does not bio-accumulate, harmless enough to be used in watch dials). A prototype reactor outputting ten times the energy put in is planned to come online in 2019. The first self-sustaining fusion reaction will likely take place later this year, at the National Ignition Facility.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in