Finally, a swedish Politician speaks on chemtrails in our skies!

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by KhufuKeplerTriangle
 


Can you post a link to where the US government admits on its own website that chemtrails are real please?


Why sure, I would be happy to -- it's been about two years, but let me bring up Google and do the work -- generally takes me seconds to find something as long as Goog isn't censoring it to the last page.





SAO/NASA ADS
Physics Abstract
Page Title: Acid Deposition From Stratospheric Geoengineering With Sulfate Aerosols Authors: Kravitz, B.; Robock, A.; Oman, L.; Stenchikov, G. Affiliation: AA(Department of Environmental Science, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, United States benkravitz@envsci.rutgers.edu), AB(Department of Environmental Science, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, United States robock@envsci.rutgers.edu), AC(Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States oman@jhu.edu), AD(Department of Environmental Science, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, United States gera@envsci.rutgers.edu) Publication: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #U43A-0041 Publication Date: 12/2008 Origin: AGU Keywords: 0345 Pollution: urban and regional (0305, 0478, 4251), 1626 Global climate models (3337, 4928), 1699 General or miscellaneous Bibliographic Code: 2008AGUFM.U43A0041K

Abstract

We used a general circulation model of the Earth's climate to conduct geoengineering experiments involving stratospheric injection of sulfur dioxide [Robock et al., 2008] and analyzed the resulting deposition of sulfate. When sulfur is injected into the tropical or Arctic stratosphere, the main additional surface deposition occurs in midlatitude bands, because of strong cross-tropopause flux in the jet stream regions, and there are some larger local increases, specifically in Northern Canada and the Western Pacific Ocean. We used critical load studies to determine the effects of this increase in acid deposition on terrestrial ecosystems. For annual injection of 5 Tg of SO2 into the tropical stratosphere or 3 Tg of SO2 into the Arctic stratosphere, the additional surface sulfate deposition is not enough to negatively impact most ecosystems. Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy Stenchikov (2008), Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16101, doi:10.1029/2008JD010050.


Let me spell it out for you fellows:




"When sulfur is injected into the tropical or Arctic stratosphere, the main additional surface deposition occurs in midlatitude bands, because of strong cross-tropopause flux in the jet stream regions..."

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.U43A0041K




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

www.springerlink.com...

ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR
INJECTIONS: A CONTRIBUTION TO RESOLVE A POLICY
DILEMMA?
An Editorial Essay

READ THIS CAREFULLY:


...Therefore, although by far not the best solution, the usefulness of artificially enhancing earth’s albedo and thereby cooling climate by adding sunlight reflecting aerosol in the stratosphere (Budyko, 1977; NAS, 1992) might again be explored and debated as a way to defuse the Catch-22 situation just presented and additionally counteract the climate forcing of growing CO2 emissions. This can be achieved by burning S2 or H2S, carried into the stratosphere on balloons and by artillery guns to produce SO2.

Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry PAUL J. CRUTZEN
Department of Atmospheric Chemistry
P.O. Box 3060, 55020 Mainz, Germany
E-mail: crutzen@mpch-mainz.mpg.de
and
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive MC 0239-0221
La Jolla, CA 92093-0239, USA
E-mail: crutzen@fiji.ucsd.edu




www.pnas.org/content/105/22/7664.long


Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle
G. Bala *, P. B. Duffy, and K. E. Taylor
+ Author Affiliations

Atmosphere, Earth, and Energy Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550
Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, and approved March 12, 2008 (received for review December 12, 2007)

Because the model used here lacks a dynamic ocean and sea ice model, the transient effects of climate change and its impact on global hydrology are not assessed in this study. It is possible, however, to apply our analysis to a hypothetical transient simulation in which temperature changes that would result from gradual increases in greenhouse gases were successfully mitigated (in terms of global mean temperature) by gradual increases in sulfate aerosol concentrations, for example. Under these conditions the climate might not remain in true equilibrium because some regions might warm whereas others might cool (although the global mean would not change). There could also be exchanges of heat with the oceans. To the extent Eq. 3 holds, as applied to the atmosphere, we would expect to find a gradual decrease in the global mean precipitation rate, consistent with our equilibrium theory.


More on Sulfate:



www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=could-geoengineering-stop-heat-wave-12-07-16

Could Geoengineering Stop Heat Waves?
Scientists explore whether artificial volcanoes might beat the heat. David Biello reports

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, the injection of sulfur particles into the atmosphere cooled the planet. Taking inspiration from nature, some scientists have begun studying whether a man-made injection of such sulfate aerosols might stave off the worst of global warming. But could the technology also be used more locally to beat the heat? That's the question explored by three U.C.L.A. scientists in a manuscript submitted to the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Back in 2006, California endured a heat wave that lasted more than two weeks. The scientists ran a computer model to determine whether putting particles 12-kilometers up could cool the Golden State under such conditions. The answer appears to be yes. Afternoon temperatures declined significantly in conjunction with the amount of particles boosted to the stratosphere. For example, emitting aerosols at rates of 30 micrograms per meter-squared yielded temperature decreases of roughly 7 degrees Celsius during the hottest part of the day. It's unclear how exactly the sulfate aerosols would get to the stratosphere absent a volcanic eruption. There would be effects downwind in the desert Southwest, including potentially even less rain. And the sulfates might eat away at the protective ozone layer.




guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering

Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climate

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial...


:/



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by KhufuKeplerTriangle
 


What I see there is "might be explored", and if volcanoes can cool the earth then perhaps we should consider their mechanism should we ever have to do it ourselves.

not anything about anyone admitting that it is happening.

Sorry.

And back to the OP - metabunk was onto it a few days ago
edit on 25-9-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I went to the site you mentioned www.whatintheworldaretheyspraying.info...

Whenever i get into the site which main target is to sell something to you.. thats conspiracy against your wallet !

About Chemtrails, i have not seen them i live near military airbase in Finland. What i see is pretty normal trails which comes from hornets and its been pretty much same as long as i have lived here. They don´t even fly everyday.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by KhufuKeplerTriangle
 


Thanks for the links.

I'm sure you're aware that this thread is about chemtrails.

You stated in your original post that the US government admits GE?

The material you have provided does not show that to be true, in fact if anything it shows that the chemtrail theorists are wrong, that spraying would be conducted over the arctic and antarctic regions if the proposals you've posted were followed, am I right in saying this? The material you provided, IMO, shows that GE is/was being discussed, can you please explain to me why do you think it is in effect, and how this relates to chemtrails?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dollukka
 


I hope you didn't misunderstand what I was doing? I posted that because of the video mentioned has been thoroughly discussed and debunked here....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Was just curious


Chemtrails or trails could they be linked to the athmosphere changes what are happening, If you peek the thread in here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Trails just don´t vanish away like they used to.. hmmm



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dollukka
 


when did they ever "just.... vanish away"???


edit on 25-9-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Strange how on a conspiracy website, any thread that even mentions chemtrails brings out the naysayers, in force, and immediately. Seems everyone on this well known conspiracy site thinks chemtrails are nonsense.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Not saying I believe this stuff one way or another, since here in Mexico I have never seen the type of skies I see pictures of all the time. I was thinking of it yesterday as I watched two jets. I was lolling on the beach, enjoying the 98 percent humidity, which supposedly is what causes the long lasting contrails. Two jets left pronounced contrails. They dissipated after about ten minutes, just like normal.


Then on the other hand, we saw two jets, side by side trails, (we very seldom have seen contrails at all here in the 15 years I have been here, only since a year ago we had a grid pattern over all the next town). Well two days ago the two jets followed the coast line above the first hills and left trails which remain the entire day.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


There are more contrails to be seen because of the new engines in use. High bypass turbofans tend to leave more contrails because of the way they work, as opposed to the older engines. They also tend to linger longer than they used to because of that.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


There are more contrails to be seen because of the new engines in use. High bypass turbofans tend to leave more contrails because of the way they work, as opposed to the older engines. They also tend to linger longer than they used to because of that.

That does not explain flying a complete grid covering miles and miles in an area with no normal air traffic. I was not a believer until it happened here.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


What area has no normal ir traffic?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Hey. Sorry for the PMS earlier lol.

Why am I interested in Geo-engineering and 'chem-trails"?

For one thing, I live on the West side of the Rocky Mtn Watershed. That means unless the stuff gets in the jet stream and goes toward New England, everything chemical that happens to Seattle pretty much runs back down the mountain pass between 2 and I-90 and re-contaminates the water table here. You would not believe the number of paranoids, kooks, "sensitives", depressed and "bi-polar" people here -- lots of homeless vets too; i.e. the "human detritus" (persons who need help) much talked about when people mention places like L.A.

Anyway, back to chemtrails.

Couple years ago, I noticed something very strange. Certain aircraft, almost always coming from the same place of origin (same flight path), were leaving trails that were NOT persistent. The strange thing was this: when the exhaust and condensation dispersed, instead of leaving normal, clean blue sky as normal jets usually do, the sky became a silver grey for the remainder of the day, the sun was heavily and noticeably ringed by about 12x its diameter on either side, easily, and it was impossible to see through the haze. These bands of silver haze would literally blanket the sky and turn it into a dull, metallic color. People all over Seattle were complaining heavily that year. It hasn't been as bad lately, and in fact people's gardens look healthier this time around in spite of the bad weather.

About the government vs. privately sponsored programs: they are very difficult to distinguish when you reach a certain level of technicality. On top of that, any aware person should understand that corporations today have more power than the governments they sabotage, as long as they have enough money to pay people off. By people I mean key persons in places of power.

Scientists do not agree on global warming, and they do not agree on the safety of sulfate aerosols.
Anyone who claims otherwise is simply trying to take your money.
I don't visit that chemtrail site much, or even barium blues, but I would rather spend my money there than buying Al Gore's poison mercury light bulbs. Capiche?

So. Long story short. Still totally undecided on chemtrails and whether or not to worry. This year, I am much more worried about the quakes we've been having. However, that said, I believe the PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED if and when ANYONE DOES ANYTHING that AFFECTS PUBLIC HEALTH.

That is why I oppose forced medication, forced vaccination, and any GMO or chemical mass public exposure project -- be it mosquitoes or jet trails, I am there, reading about it.

I hope the Nay Sayers here are doing their reading even if the topic is BORRRRRRINGGGGG




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bodhi911
 


Just posted the interview with her in a new thread to have another discussion about her and what she said...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Air routes change through the year. There was almost definitely air travel over you, you just didn't realize it was there since it wasn't leaving contrails. What general region are you in, and I'll tell you about how much traffic is in the area.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by KhufuKeplerTriangle
 


I've been watching contrails for years, and have yet to see anything that makes me think that they're anything but normal contrails. I've seen them become clouds, and I've seen them just disappear in a few minutes. But no matter how much I look, or how many I see, I have yet to see anything that screams "chemtrail" to me. And that's without going into how hard it would be to pull this off without someone credible coming forward with a credible story about how they're doing it.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Just want to say I have a video or 2 of my own showing jets emitting 2 types of contrails. One evaporates into the air in a few minutes after the jet, and the other lingers and grows wider. I don't see the issue denying chemtrails or aerosal spraying. Its being done, I have seen it, I've recorded it, if people are talking about it, making documentaries on it, making websites and blogs against it, how is not happening? Denial if you ask me.

Here's 2 of my own footage near Edmonton Canada



Starts at 9:50





posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 


You're right that they're two types of contrails, but both just normal contrails. A contrail can dissipate in a matter of seconds, or it can linger and turn into cloud cover, it just depends on the atmospheric conditions, and the altitude of the aircraft in question.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 


You're right that they're two types of contrails, but both just normal contrails. A contrail can dissipate in a matter of seconds, or it can linger and turn into cloud cover, it just depends on the atmospheric conditions, and the altitude of the aircraft in question.
I used to video some of the Seattle stuff when able, only for a couple months. I also took some pictures. Found one of my old photobuckets. Its name is SEATTLECHEMTRAILWATCH, lol -- barf.

But look (Gah, external image -- link goes to Imageshack.us):




That is a cropped version of a two year old, maybe three year old pic of what we saw in Seattle.
Make your own call. If this happened every day to you, you would hate it too lol.

Here is a slightly more impressive collage of thumbnails showing the same stuff. Sorry there aren't more.


edit on 25-9-2012 by KhufuKeplerTriangle because: added second image



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


What area has no normal ir traffic?

On the CA/OR border at the coast in the boonies. we have a few coast gaurd and a few small planes that's it.
Can you explain a grid produced over a small town by what looked like military jet.
edit on 25-9-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join