I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER

Originally posted by MagicWand67
Barium is one of the materials that has been proposed for use in geoengineering.

Well yes, and I can take out a patent proposing jelly babies for use in geoengineering. It doesn't mean it works

On the other hand, in the real world, we look to scientific research and modelling. Does any of that propose the use of barium for geoengineering purposes? I would expect there to be dozens of papers over the past few years? If such papers/proposals exist, it'd be useful to see them. It's the best way to prove sceptics wrong

reply to post by Phage


You were wrong for implying that barium can not be ionized in the lower atmosphere.

All it takes is a little water. Quit trying to derail the thread with your inability to comprehend.

Now get back on topic.


Here we see, on page 33 of this document, a clear outline for proposed testing SWCE (short wave climate engineering). SWCE is another term that is used to refer to SRM techniques.

Link

One particular class of “field experiment” would also qualify as Phase I since they do not involve an intervention of any scale into the climate system. Experiments that test lofting technologies without aerosol deployment fall into this category. The dispersion of environmentally-inert tracer particles with negligible radiative impacts to probe stratospheric transport are at the boundary between Phase I and Phase II tests, but would still qualify as Phase I if negligible environmental impact could be demonstrated a priori.

This spectrum of Phase I research could dramatically reduce current uncertainty, but fully addressing each the relevant questions will minimally require low-level field experiments that have some potential for detectable impact on the climate system (i.e. Phase II research.) In particular, in situ validation of scaled laboratory experiments and simulations for Questions 1 and 2 will be necessary, together with demonstration of scalability to deployment capacity for lofting methods in Question 3. Such field experiments are considered further in Section 3.2.

And here we clearly see a diagram from a modeling experiment that shows geoengineering being applied in an aircraft plume.

Link

Modeling of H2 SO4 in aircraft plume

(Two Moment Aerosol Sectional) microphysics w/
43 size bins: nucleation, condensation, coagulation
• Plume dilution rate

Integration continued until coagulation with
background exceeds self background exceeds self-coagulation in plume coagulation in plume,
about 2 days

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Yes, David Keith has proposed the use of aluminum and barium particles.

Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering

As a specific example, consider a thin disk with radius ∼5 μm and thickness 50 nm composed of three layers: 5 nm aluminum oxide, 30 nm of metallic aluminum, and finally 15 nm of barium titanate (Fig. 1C). The thickness of the Al layer is chosen so that it has high solar-band reflectivity and is nearly transparent to outgoing thermal infrared so as to produce a large mass-specific negative radiative forcing (cooling) (9). The Al2O3 layer serves to protect the Al layer from oxidization.

The thickness of the BaTiO3 is chosen so that the electrostatic torque from the atmospheric electric field is sufficient to orient the disk horizontally against torques arising from reasonable asymmetries in thickness or α across the disk (24). Assuming a relatively small, and therefore conservative, 15% difference in α between the two materials (23), the photophoretic force on the disk would exceed 2 times its weight under diurnally averaged illumination at altitudes in the middle stratosphere or mesosphere assuming it absorbed only 10% of the solar flux

Here is more evidence to refute the claim that to accomplish geoengineering it would take thousands of aircraft and people. This report estimates only 150 planes flying 2 sorties per day would be sufficient to accomplish FULL SCALE Geoengineering. Obviously, the amount of planes required to run smaller scale tests would be significantly less.

Link

Page 46

Assuming a nominal ~109 kg/yr injection rate97 and a 10,000 kg lofting capacity for a specially designed aircraft, it would require ~100,000 sorties to be flown each year (or ~300 sorties per day.) With each craft assumed capable of two sorties per day, this would require a fleet of 150 aircraft

reply to post by MagicWand67


Sorry, but it looks like you are cherry-picking. Perhaps I missed this being posted in earlier pages. If so I will delete this post.

Why are you so stuck on airplanes being used for this? Surely your own source shows several reasons why they won't be used. Your source, source page 46.

Aircraft Lofting megaton quantities into the stratosphere requires heavy lift aircraft that can fly at these altitudes. As noted in Box 3.1.1.1, lofting to 20 km might be sufficient for deployment of stratospheric aerosols in the equatorial region—however, only detailed scientific investigations of atmospheric aerosol transport will be able to address this question. Presently there are no aircraft designed specifically for this purpose. Close analogs for considering aircraft lofting potential could be the subsonic WB-57 or supersonic XB-70 (~23km ceiling, 250 ton max takeoff weight), or the more recent Theseus or White Knight Two (WK2.) WK2 is designed for rapid sorties above ~15 km with a payload estimated at around 10,000 kg. With some reengineering, a scaled and unmanned version of the WK2 craft might provide the capability to repetitively loft significant mass to ~20 km. Assuming a nominal ~109 kg/yr injection rate97 and a 10,000 kg lofting capacity for a specially designed aircraft, it would require ~100,000 sorties to be flown each year (or ~300 sorties per day.) With each craft assumed capable of two sorties per day, this would require a fleet of 150 aircraft. Conservatively estimating costs for a specially designed aircraft of up to $200M per aircraft, along with reasonable annual capital and O&M cost estimates (15%/yr capital and 5% per year O&M), the required aircraft fleet costs are roughly estimated to be ~$6B/yr. Further ~10,000 kg-fuel/sortie and $2/kg fuel-cost, yields fuel costs of another $2B/yr, bringing the total costs for the nominal ~109 kg/yr injection rate to ~$8B/yr. This corresponds to a cost of $8/kg, roughly an order of magnitude higher than current commercial airfreight rates. These costs do not include aerosols or dispersal equipment, and depend on the assumption that aerosols can be delivered just above the tropical tropopause—if substantially higher delivery is required, aircraft costs would go up dramatically.

(emphasis mine)

Seems like they are thinking logistically. And using airplanes is only one of five options. I've actually seen that the number of planes and flights needed figured as much higher than this one.
Keeping on topic and going back to the thread title of "chemtrails", there is no way this is going on now, and all the testing are a very small scale, nothing approaching a concerning amount. And it is better to have tests, than not. Especially something happening on a global scale. Don't you agree?

I am psychic. I was making this post while you were posting only part. Cue theme to "Twilight Zone"....

reply to post by MagicWand67


True, but note:

As noted in Box 3.1.1.1 , lofting to 20 km might be sufficient for deployment of stratospheric aerosols in the equatorial region

and

Presently there are no aircraft designed specifically for this purpose.

and

hese costs do not include aerosols or dispersal equipment, and depend on the assumption that aerosols can be delivered just above the tropical tropopause

So, if such a proposal were undertaken today there would be zero chance of anyone in the USA or Europe seeing it

And at 70,000ft asl I can';t se ehow anyone in the tropics would see anything either.

So, if such geoengineering were taking place today, based on this paper, we can be absolutely certain than it has as much to do with so-called chemtrails as a bowl of snails in a French restaurant has to do with the destruction of Pompei.

reply to post by stars15k

I've actually seen that the number of planes and flights needed figured as much higher than this one.

You've made this statement many times and each time you never provide a source.

Please provide the source.

Keeping on topic and going back to the thread title of "chemtrails", there is no way this is going on now, and all the testing are a very small scale, nothing approaching a concerning amount.

If this is your opinion, fine. If you are stating this as fact then prove it. Either way I challenge the validity of it.

reply to post by AndyMayhew

Presently there are no aircraft designed specifically for this purpose.

The word "specifically" would be key here. Something that is easily overcome with simple modifications.

So, if such geoengineering were taking place today, based on this paper, we can be absolutely certain than it has as much to do with so-called chemtrails as a bowl of snails in a French restaurant has to do with the destruction of Pompei.

That's one of many proposals. There are numerous study groups. Each having their own methods of testing.

reply to post by MagicWand67

You were wrong for implying that barium can not be ionized in the lower atmosphere.

No, I wasn't. You were wrong for implying that barium could be ionized by solar radiation in the lower atmosphere. Take a look at the quote you used when you queried me on the matter.

All it takes is a little water. Quit trying to derail the thread with your inability to comprehend.

Now get back on topic.

Ok. Let's. Here is what you said:

They can use barium in the lower atmosphere and monitor it by satellite to track different weather systems such as the jet stream, wind currents, etc..

I'll ask again for any indication that this can be or is done.

reply to post by MagicWand67

Each having their own methods of testing.

Which one is doing any field testing?

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

Presently there are no aircraft designed specifically for this purpose.

The word "specifically" would be key here. Something that is easily overcome with simple modifications.

Easily? Presumably new engines would be needed for a start, to cope with flying at such high altitudes?

So, if such geoengineering were taking place today, based on this paper, we can be absolutely certain than it has as much to do with so-called chemtrails as a bowl of snails in a French restaurant has to do with the destruction of Pompei.

That's one of many proposals. There are numerous study groups. Each having their own methods of testing.

And how many of them involve spraying barium at lower altitude in mid latitudes? Let alone on a daily basis for the past 3 decades? I think my point stands

Originally posted by MagicWand67


The word "specifically" would be key here. Something that is easily overcome with simple modifications.

Fascinating, can you detail or source how a large transport can be easily modified to fly at 70,000ft? Or is it just a guess?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
That info can then be used to find out what aircraft were in the sky at that time.

Well you're not getting that info.

Now you can put your thin metallic cranial shield (tin foil hat) back on.

Nothing but overplayed drivel. It's not about me anyway, it's about the topic.

The paranoia displayed on here never fails to amaze me.

Nobody is paranoid, it's a dicussion. If you would like to discuss the subject of the thread like the Mod warned us about to do from this point on, I am all ears. ~$heopleNation

MagicWands source seems to prove that the thick persisting trails everyone is seeing above them are not the GE/Chemtrails that everyone is so concerned about.

It talks of altitudes of 20km being possibly sufficient and names the WB-57, XB-70 and WK-2 as close analogues to aircraft that may be able to carry this out. It also says the latter of the three would need to be scaled up to provide the required capacity, in any case this is a grand total of three planes (not types, but actual planes, 2x WB-57, 0x XB-70 and 1x WK-2) of which the latter type is too small.

However it then says that 30km might be necessary, which leave no current aircraft that are capable.

So that's that then, surely?

reply to post by SheopleNation


Whats the problem don't want to get shown that you are wrong

Flightradar24 when you see your so called chemtrailer and see what the aircraft actually is

the planes leaving a thick contrail cirrus over your head in an intelligent grid patterns is all normal, go back to work, nothing to see here

Originally posted by bluestorm
the planes leaving a thick contrail cirrus over your head in an intelligent grid patterns is all normal, go back to work, nothing to see here

I am glad you finally grasp normal air traffic.

It's a true breath of fresh air.

reply to post by network dude


opps i forgot to insert sarcasm

reply to post by bluestorm


Yep, because the planes that fly in the sky only fly in one direction. The NEVER cross paths.

Enjoy the ride on the good ship paranoia.

Originally posted by bluestorm
the planes leaving a thick contrail cirrus over your head in an intelligent grid patterns is all normal, go back to work, nothing to see here

Correct. Or at least, it's what we'd expect to see given global air traffic. Not seeing it would be odd though.