1980 NBC News Clip on "Contrails" That Can Change the Weather.global warming?

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Found this video with the old documents in pdf format found it intesting so thought i would share it with you guys.




www.isws.illinois.edu...

Amazing isn't it that after 32 years of knowing this they still do not include airline emissions in the Kyoto Protocol yet they knew back then that even ordinary contrails can change the weather?

The analysis, by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, also shows that in the Arctic, aircraft vapour trails produced 15–20% of warming.
www.nature.com...




Missing in all recent discussions of climate change and global warming are the impacts of aviation induced water vapor (a highly potent greenhouse gas), into the atmosphere through jet engine combustion. New NASA and university studies, some of which are presented below, show that aviation has a huge warming impact on all parts of the Earth most prominently having a negative impact in the Alaska and Arctic areas by artificially warming these areas.

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...
edit on 6-9-2012 by haven123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by haven123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by haven123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by haven123 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I dont know it this belongs in this section or fagile earth?
Also thanks for the Applause!
edit on 6-9-2012 by haven123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by haven123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Very interesting.

Could this be an example of disinformation to train the population to think nothing sinister is involved with contrails ...seems plausible.

I do not subscribe to the chem trail theory personally, but as i have pointed out, contrails or releasing an agent (gas or liquid) higher up in our atmosphere is an efficient way to cover large areas.

I wonder if this was an early attempt to combat public suspicion about this effect, as the government potentially develops a technology around it.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Previous thread about this video:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
It's untrue to say contrails have been left out of the climate change discussion, the IPCC report in 2001 had an entire chapter on them.

www.grida.no.../climate/ipcc/aviation/064.htm


Aircraft emissions in conjunction with other anthropogenic sources are expected to modify atmospheric composition (gases and aerosols), hence radiative forcing and climate. Atmospheric changes from aircraft result from three types of processes: direct emission of radiatively active substances (e.g., CO2 or water vapor); emission of chemical species that produce or destroy radiatively active substances (e.g., NOx, which modifies O3 concentration); and emission of substances that trigger the generation of aerosol particles or lead to changes in natural clouds (e.g., contrails).


And researchers have been looking at their effects for decades.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
It's untrue to say contrails have been left out of the climate change discussion, the IPCC report in 2001 had an entire chapter on them.

www.grida.no.../climate/ipcc/aviation/064.htm


Aircraft emissions in conjunction with other anthropogenic sources are expected to modify atmospheric composition (gases and aerosols), hence radiative forcing and climate. Atmospheric changes from aircraft result from three types of processes: direct emission of radiatively active substances (e.g., CO2 or water vapor); emission of chemical species that produce or destroy radiatively active substances (e.g., NOx, which modifies O3 concentration); and emission of substances that trigger the generation of aerosol particles or lead to changes in natural clouds (e.g., contrails).


And researchers have been looking at their effects for decades.


What that quote is saying in effect, and is what I have been saying for yonks in the threads about chemtrails, is that an ordinary contrail is a chemtrail. It's a long story.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Well since most people who believe in chemtrails specifically define them as "not contrails", then you are just redefining words. That's just going to confuse people.

Sounds like what you really mean is that ordinary contrails are bad, and chemtrails don't exist.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 





What that quote is saying in effect, and is what I have been saying for yonks in the threads about chemtrails, is that an ordinary contrail is a chemtrail. It's a long story.


No what that is saying is they have been researching contrails.

If a chemtrail is just an ordinary contrail, then how can you tell it is a chemtrail and not an ordinary contrail?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by smurfy
 





What that quote is saying in effect, and is what I have been saying for yonks in the threads about chemtrails, is that an ordinary contrail is a chemtrail. It's a long story.


No what that is saying is they have been researching contrails.

If a chemtrail is just an ordinary contrail, then how can you tell it is a chemtrail and not an ordinary contrail?


No, I said in effect, a contrail is a chemtrail. I know that the research has been done within defined parameters, those parameters do not include other unknowns contained in the fuel itself, and there are unknowns, antistatic formula, and fuel de icers for instance are secret, engine additives, novel chemistry in the combustion chamber of a jet engine not known because of the prementioned, and novel chemistry at the exhaust, also not known for the same reasons. Never mind any chemical interaction from all the sacrificial and heavy metals contained in an aircraft engine that will also be exhausted into the atmosphere at altitude. Ultimately, you answered your own question, there is no known way of knowing the difference as yet, and jets are doing the job just fine to combat global warming as a chemically produced albedo [sic] but conversely a super clean jet exhaust, producing mainly water vapour..ahem, would be a greenhouse gas in it's own right
edit on 6-9-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 





and there are unknowns, antistatic formula, and fuel de icers for instance are secret, engine additives, novel chemistry in the combustion chamber of a jet engine not known because of the prementioned, and novel chemistry at the exhaust, also not known for the same reasons.


Something like these...


Additives

The DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including:

Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, e.g., AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;

Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as the active ingredient, is an example

Corrosion inhibitors, e.g., DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;

Fuel system icing inhibitor (FSII) agents, e.g., Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense

Biocides are to remediate microbial (i.e., bacterial and fungal) growth present in aircraft fuel systems. Currently, two biocides are approved for use by most aircraft and turbine engine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs); Kathon FP1.5 Microbiocide and Biobor JF.[10]

Metal deactivator can be added to remediate the deleterious effects of trace metals on the thermal stability of the fuel. The one allowable additive is N,N’-disalicylidene 1,2-propanediamine.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by smurfy
 





What that quote is saying in effect, and is what I have been saying for yonks in the threads about chemtrails, is that an ordinary contrail is a chemtrail. It's a long story.


No what that is saying is they have been researching contrails.

If a chemtrail is just an ordinary contrail, then how can you tell it is a chemtrail and not an ordinary contrail?


No, I said in effect, a contrail is a chemtrail.


So a contrail is a chemtrail, but a chemtrail is not a contrail, hence contrails are not chemtrails?

I think you confuse things more than you need to. We all know what contrails are. Let's reserve "chemtrail" for some trail where additional chemicals have been added beyond normal jet exhaust?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by smurfy
 


Well since most people who believe in chemtrails specifically define them as "not contrails", then you are just redefining words. That's just going to confuse people.

Sounds like what you really mean is that ordinary contrails are bad, and chemtrails don't exist.

I wish it were that simple.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by smurfy
 


Well since most people who believe in chemtrails specifically define them as "not contrails", then you are just redefining words. That's just going to confuse people.

Sounds like what you really mean is that ordinary contrails are bad, and chemtrails don't exist.

I wish it were that simple.


It is.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by smurfy
 


Well since most people who believe in chemtrails specifically define them as "not contrails", then you are just redefining words. That's just going to confuse people.

Sounds like what you really mean is that ordinary contrails are bad, and chemtrails don't exist.

I wish it were that simple.


It is.


No it is not. 'contrails' are so often popularised as simply water vapour and carbon dioxide and more or less harmless as a comparison to 'chemtrails' which are not. This is done by both sides of the debate, and for those who would dispute the idea of 'chemtrails' the trick is make people think that a 'chemtrail' is just a harmless 'contrail' and nothing else, and that anyone seeing what they think is a 'chemtrail' are mistaken, and that,..."There is no such thing as chemtrails"
The reality is that there has been chemical and biological aerial spraying that was harmful in the recent past, and there is no reason to suppose that there would not be any harmful aerial spraying in the present, while another reality is that there is no way of knowing from the ground, what is, or is not, deliberate aerial spraying at altitude, by jet exhaust. However, all jets creating trails have harmful exhaust, whether you like it or not.
Now, let's take the most recent trick in the book, the latest research is the jet exhaust does have albedo effect, but that effect is less than the outgoing longwave radiation that they actually trap from the Earth. So you could argue that there is no need then, for any deliberate spraying if you are not a 'chemtrail' believer? well not really, the numbers were crunched from all sorts of meteorological data relating to temperatures. Any covert spraying operation that may have been happening would be included in those calculations, and even those reseachers admit to a lot of unknowns with their calculations, and don't even deal with what is in a jet's exhaust.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 





The reality is that there has been chemical and biological aerial spraying that was harmful in the recent past, and there is no reason to suppose that there would not be any harmful aerial spraying in the present, while another reality is that there is no way of knowing from the ground, what is, or is not, deliberate aerial spraying at altitude, by jet exhaust. However, all jets creating trails have harmful exhaust, whether you like it or not.


Could you please elaborate more on these aerial spraying that has happened in the recent past?

Did you really say this...



while another reality is that there is no way of knowing from the ground, what is, or is not, deliberate aerial spraying at altitude, by jet exhaust.


So what your saying is that there is no way that someone on the ground cannot tell the difference between a contrail and chemtrail,correct?

That sure sounds familiar, but if this is true then how can all these chemtrail believers say they know the difference by looking at them?

As for the harmful exhaust no one has ever said that jet engine exhaust wasn't harmful, but they did say that the only thing coming from the jet engine exhaust was this...



Your car exhaust will kill you faster than the exhaust of a jet at 35000 ft.

Unless you are strapped to the jet engine itself..



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by smurfy
 





The reality is that there has been chemical and biological aerial spraying that was harmful in the recent past, and there is no reason to suppose that there would not be any harmful aerial spraying in the present, while another reality is that there is no way of knowing from the ground, what is, or is not, deliberate aerial spraying at altitude, by jet exhaust. However, all jets creating trails have harmful exhaust, whether you like it or not.


Could you please elaborate more on these aerial spraying that has happened in the recent past?

Did you really say this...



while another reality is that there is no way of knowing from the ground, what is, or is not, deliberate aerial spraying at altitude, by jet exhaust.


So what your saying is that there is no way that someone on the ground cannot tell the difference between a contrail and chemtrail,correct?

That sure sounds familiar, but if this is true then how can all these chemtrail believers say they know the difference by looking at them?

As for the harmful exhaust no one has ever said that jet engine exhaust wasn't harmful, but they did say that the only thing coming from the jet engine exhaust was this...



Your car exhaust will kill you faster than the exhaust of a jet at 35000 ft.

Unless you are strapped to the jet engine itself..


That's a nice iddy biddy picture, thanks. It is a bit lacking however, where are all the heavy metals portrayed? where is the nucleation processes portrayed? where is the agglomeration of nucleated and therefore larger and different particles portrayed, and why nobody is yet sure why agglomeration takes place, just a surmise for the reason? Is that a picture taken from ground tests? that's not the same as in the air, or different stages of engine speeds in the air. How much stuff goes into making a jet engine? how much stuff is used in making that engine run? it's all nasty when particles of it are floating downward, and never mind the unknowns included in the mix, but like you are showing us that is a picture of what comes out of a jet exhaust, I don't think. Enjoy your list of additives, many of them are proprietary, AKA secret, so what's in 'em?. Never mind even the contrail/chemtrail debate, what happens when the same deadly stuff gets into aircraft cabins in its vapourous forms, no one has definitive ideas about that, only a good hunch, but they know what the affects are, including known medical conditions like the Motor Neurone Disease group. But thanks for the picture anyway!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 





Enjoy your list of additives, many of them are proprietary, AKA secret, so what's in 'em?


So you still say they are secret....

www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil...



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Well thanks again,

extract from that link,

Stadis 450 cotaining:
· 50-65% Toluene
·



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Well thanks again,

extract from that link,

Stadis 450 cotaining:
· 50-65% Toluene
·



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 





So you could argue that there is no need then, for any deliberate spraying if you are not a 'chemtrail' believer? well not really, the numbers were crunched from all sorts of meteorological data relating to temperatures. Any covert spraying operation that may have been happening would be included in those calculations, and even those reseachers admit to a lot of unknowns with their calculations, and don't even deal with what is in a jet's exhaust.


Could you possibly provide a link to this meteorological data?

And while your at it a link to these researchers admitting to these unknowns?





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join