(Assuming they are Real) What Are Chemtrails For?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

I don't think you'll find any of the scientists or politicians who are working on or talking about aerosol SRM are actually in favor of using it and neither am I. However, I do think it is worthwhile to explore it (and it's ramifications) as a measure which might be used at some point in the future. I think that further research will actually show that it is as bad an idea as it seems to be.
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Good to know and I agree with you completely.
(Wow! I think this is the first time we've actually agreed on anything. Refreshing, isn't it?)

Edit to Add: According to this, it has been discussed before though and they really weren't even smart enough to consider its after effects. You should be there on the panel to insist upon the negatives that it will cause.
www.colorado.edu...

Discussing a 1965 proposal to increase the Earth’s albedo with bright particles spread across the
tropical oceans (among the first serious global warming geo-engineering schemes), Fleming
claims that “No one thought to consider the side effects of particles washing up on tropical
beaches or choking marine life, or the negative consequences of redirecting hurricanes, much
less other effects beyond our imagination. And no one thought to ask if the local inhabitants
would be in favor of such schemes.” (p. 58).
edit on 1-3-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Not so fast.
At a meeting of the experts on geo-engineering, the conclusion of the abstract "Tropospheric sulfate burdens as a consequence of stratospheric sulfate geo-engineering" is this:

These results highlight numerous limitations and consequences of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering. In addition to limited efficacy, ozone destruction, and surface acid deposition that have been published previously, we find a significantly enhanced upper tropospheric sulfate burden which may alter tropospheric clouds, chemistry, and radiative forcing. We recommend geoengineering ideas to be studied in more detail before they are seriously considered as climate intervention options.

Link at middle of the page is a .pdf of the meeting report

They are discussing the "why we should be cautious" aspects of such a plan after all. The entire report is fascinating, and showcases why the term "chemtrails" and geo-engineering are not interchangeable. Geo-engineering is much more broad; the use of something like a "chemtrail" is just a very small part.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Thanks for bringing my attention to that. I see that scientists are much more astute and cautious than they were in the 1960s. Good to know.
Now, would you care to be on topic and state your reasons for IF chemical/metallic trails exist what they would be used for?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 





"Tropospheric sulfate burdens as a consequence of stratospheric sulfate geo-engineering"


That's why they are considering using other materials now. Like alumina instead of sulfates.

Problems with sulfate geoengineering like ocean acidification are reduced and using specially designed alumina particulates has a better effect of increasing the albedo.

They've even developed nano particles that are designed to stay aloft longer on their own.






posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Do they exist? No. There would be no sense in such a plan. The logistics alone would be so monumental, it would not be possible to remain a secret/covert/covered-up.
So for the "what", nothing.
Perhaps at some point we will be forced to have high-flying planes spraying a sulfur-based chemical, but it will be as the last resort and will be something done openly. The number of flights to maintain the necessary layer in the stratosphere has been estimated at 1 million flights per year. That could not be hidden.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 





The number of flights to maintain the necessary layer in the stratosphere has been estimated at 1 million flights per year. That could not be hidden.


Where do you get that bogus information?

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Link


5.3.1 Large Cargo Type

Large passenger and cargo transport airplanes are well suited to geoengineering due to their size and affordability but provide limited usefulness due to a lack of high-altitude capability. Regional operations allow the Boeing 747 to operate from 1 or more bases and carry a large payload of 128,000 kg (less than max capacity to allow for better performance at max altitude) per sortie, requiring 47 sorties per day from the fleet. At a release rate of 0.03 kg/m flown, mission lengths are short enough to allow a fleet of 14 747s to execute the 47 sorties a day.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 

But those figures are based on this:

For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost.

idk5536.files.wordpress.com...

So according to that cost analysis it would be wasteful to apply SRM at locations north of the Mexican border. Probably requiring much more material.

Strange. I live south of 30º that and I very rarely see "chemtrails" so if they are doing it, it isn't obvious to the naked eye.
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Are you sure you do?


Yes

I have not seen any estimates that would require 1 million flights per year.

BOGUS
edit on 1-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)


Since you decided to respond to my post about stars15k's comment.

Can you provide a source for the estimated number of flights a year it would take?
edit on 1-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 

Let me stop you right here:

Do they exist? No.

Now, go back and read the title of the Op and the thread. Then, go try writing with your recessive hand for awhile. Doing this should help you get the creative side of you brain working so you can actually participate in this thread and remaining in the spirit of what it was intended. Even if you believe it to be fiction.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Can you provide a source for the estimated number of flights a year it would take?


You mean for applying SRM at higher latitudes? Nope, I haven't seen those figures.
But using the report from Aurora doesn't exactly help to support the claim that "chemtrails" are evidence of SRM in action.

Nor does claiming that:

They've even developed nano particles that are designed to stay aloft longer on their own.

Got a source for that? Or are you just referring to this proposal and claiming that it means the technology exists?
www.pnas.org...
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



During the Vietnam War, Operation Popeye, a clandestine field trial of cloud seeding was conducted along the Ho Chi Minh Trail to stonewall traffic..


books.google.com... &hl=en&sa=X&ei=mZAxUaOQNMHs0QHojICADA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=clandestine%20cloud%20seeding

^A declassified (Operation Popeye) instance of clandestine cloudseeding.

Evidence for chemtrails by even further clarified definition.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by KamaSutra
 

No.
Cloud seeding is not chemtrails and not exactly clandestine. As much as the "chemtrail" crowd wants to move the goal posts, no.
Here. Read about it. Then tell me how it resembles "chemtrails".

www.yellowbook.com...
www.weathermodification.com...
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 






You mean for applying SRM at higher latitudes? Nope, I haven't seen those figures. But using the report from Aurora doesn't exactly help to support the claim that "chemtrails" are evidence of SRM in action.


You responded to a post I made where I was responding to stars15k's claim that it would take 1 million flights per year to accomplish SRM.

I supplied to Aurora report to show that those figures were grossly over estimated by stars15k.

Now you're trying to change the entire context of why I posted that report.

You claimed that the report I supplied was not correct, yet you have nothing to support your opinion.

Again, you are the one making claims without supporting it.



Got a source for that? Or are you just referring to this proposal and claiming that it means the technology exists?


I already posted a video where David Keith describes the technology GO WATCH IT

It's the second video from 7:30 - 9:30
edit on 2-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
No.
Cloud seeding is not chemtrails and not exactly clandestine. As much as the "chemtrail" crowd wants to move the goal posts, no.
Here. Read about it. Then tell me how it resembles "chemtrails".
www.yellowbook.com...
www.weathermodification.com...
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I get the impression nothing is "exactly" anything..(ie even a declassified military operation involving chemical cloudseeding)

UNLESS PHAGE says so?

You're clearly evading the mechanism of dispersal of "chemicals" would be in the pattern of a "trail" behind the aircraft clandestinely lest it was dropped on one single cloud.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by KamaSutra
 


You're clearly evading the mechanism of dispersal of "chemicals" would be in the pattern of a "trail" behind the aircraft clandestinely lest it was dropped on one single cloud.
No. I don't deny that things are sprayed or otherwise dispersed from aircraft.

I am pointing out that the internet meme of "chemtrails" has nothing to do with cloud seeding, or crop dusting, or insect control, or fire fighting, or defoliation, or any other like activities or cold war era experiments. The internet meme is specific to high altitude persistent trails left by aircraft, often resulting in "grids", often displaying an intermittent nature. The internet meme of "chemtrails" which misidentifies perstitant (and sometimes spreading) contrails.

Unlike the known dispersal methods and purposes for them, the internet meme of "chemtrails" does not seem to have any particular purpose (which, I think, is the point of this thread) or means of production.

The internet meme of "chemtrails" seems to have started in the late 1990s. Possible originated by William Thomas.
web.archive.org...
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 




I supplied to Aurora report to show that those figures were grossly over estimated by stars15k.
I understand that. I also understand that the Aurora report assumes application at only low latitudes.


You claimed that the report I supplied was not correct

No I didn't. I pointed out that using the report as evidence that SRM is being undertaken is problematic.


I already posted a video where David Keith describes the technology GO WATCH IT

I know. He wrote the article I linked.
The technology does not exist. It is proposed. You said it exists. Unless, of course, you can show otherwise.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


How about we loose the word CHEMTRAIL fom here on and stick to Aerial geo Engineering or AGE, the issue.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 

The topic is "What are Chemtrails For?"



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Who is spraying them?


No clue, but can you imagine the infrastructure needed? 10,000 of people, 1000s of aircraft, massive factories, fleets of trucks....



What do they comprise of?
What do they look like (specifically) and why are they visible?


If one thought about it... only water vapor would expand. If you see a contrail and it starts thin and expands then it must be water vapor...what else is there to expand it? Chemicals would be finite amount and not expand, but dissipate as it spreads out.



What is their purpose?


No clue...why would anyone drop chemicals so high that it dissipated into parts per trillions...What chemicals would be effective after that?



How can we prove these assertions true?


Only way is to get samples...only way, but we have none, so I'm not sure what else...maybe get some of those 10,000s of people involved to talk, or get samples from the 1000s of trucks that must be transporting the chemicals, or get up close to the 1000s of aircraft that drop the stuff....

I'm just not sure because all we have is pictures of chemtrails in the air, and nothing of the massive infrastructure that would be needed to support it...

I'm saying all this to focus you guys in the direction you need to go....


edit on 2-3-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join