Why do "they" continue to block the sun in Washington state? You should get the irony in the title

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Wow all the usual suspects, If I were wearing a tinfoil hat and just a little bit more paranoid I would say all the paid shills are showing up on this thread and doing exactly what they are paid to do. However I know better than that, you are all not paid shills, that is nonsense. I do wish you would actually read my post however, because I have stated that I do not think these are "chemtrails" nor am I unaware of the reality and cause of sundogs, etc. I only posted this because it was shocking to see the sky completely covered within a few hours by just a handful of trails that I watched spread out and do it. I guess you had to be here. I watched the jets lay them out, watched them spread in an, to me, unusual way, and slowly but surely blot out the sun. Persistent contrails due to atmospheric conditions? Sure, why not, honestly the result was the same for me whether or not this was on purpose, which I still think could have been the case due to the increase in airtraffic that was not 747's full of passengers but small planes doing loops around the area which is NOT usual.




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nitro67
I watched the jets lay them out, watched them spread in an, to me, unusual way, and slowly but surely blot out the sun.

Contrails cannot block out the sun anymore than you holding your hand over your eyes means that others cannot see you. Its a matter of perspective. Just because some trails make it overcast over your area doesn't mean that they are “blocking the sun” 5 or 10 miles down the road from you. Its a silly concept, and the idea that its being done for “global cooling” is also false.

If you block the suns heat from getting to the surface, you are also blocking the surface heat from escaping into space. Since these clouds don't just disappear after dark, and because the length of day/night fluctuates by time of year, if they did this through the shorter days of the year they would actually be increasing the overall planet temperature, not decreasing it. Since more contrails seem to appear in the winter, you must then either believe that their purpose is to heat the planet up, or that they are in fact a unintentional result of the temperatures at that time of the year.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

More contrails seem to appear in the winter? Not where I live.Ive noticed the most activity in spring through summer. I have to believe this bbc documentary about global dimming has been posted here, but it is very relevant to this discussion:

Dimming is what I watched, not blocking out the sun.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
According to Phage they increase between October and February.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


LAME! Based on the number of threads started on ATS? STUPID and completely worthless......


P.S. Please watch the BBC documentary about global dimming!
edit on 6-6-2013 by nitro67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nitro67
 
Not as lame as you might think...
When you are trying to track trends on something for which there is zero scientific verifiable evidence, whether it be UFO's, big foot, or chemtrails, you have to use public encounters. His graph shows that people most notice these during the winter months, with a sharp drop over the holidays when they are too busy with family events to be skywatching.

Now if you want to discuss contrails, well... We don't even need to track sightings there, we can predict in advance when the weather is favorable to generate them.
Contrail Formation Forecast



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by nitro67
 


Please explain the reversal in the global dimming trend



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I do want to complain about a level of contrail pollution that is somewhat annoying in the north west. We hardly get a good clear day since contrails tend to stick around forever and can fill the sky. Try and view stars at night when it should be a clear night but contrails litter the sky.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by nitro67
 





Dimming is what I watched, not blocking out the sun.


And yet what is the title of this thread?



Why do "they" continue to block the sun in Washington state? You should get the irony in the title


Yes, ironic isn't it?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


Reversal? Says who? That documentary is very recent and very legit. Please give some sources. Oh and I love how no one comments on anything I actually say here...that is great, if I did not know better I would say you bunch really are a bunch of paid shills....actually, tsurfer2000h, aloysius the gaul, xtrozero, etc... all showed up on the last thread about this over a year ago by me....maybe you are all a bunch of bots floating around in the quantum foam of the intelligence agencies quantum internet....but then again aren't we all?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nitro67
 





They start out as "normal" contrails. They soon fan out. Like this:


You really don't know anything at all about basic meteorology do you?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


Not much, but I do know that contrails are man-made cirrus clouds. I posted this because I was so shocked to see the sky with man made clouds...nope no poison here...at least not deliberate poisoning, I do not know what else those jet engines release, but if they are any way like cars there probably is a bunch of # in it as well....like I said this day there was abnormal air traffic and as a "consequence" abnormal cloud cover...that is all...

ANYONE WATCH THE BBC DOCUMENTARY ABOUT GLOBAL DIMMING? Opinions?
edit on 7-6-2013 by nitro67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nitro67
 

It's hard to remark on what you say when both the title and posts written by you on this, your thread, say "block" and "blot" but you really meant "dim." Then your allusions that because someone apparently disagrees with your (rather fluid) conclusion means they are shills doesn't get you brownie points either.

Your conclusions that the contrails you saw spreading as being out of the ordinary are wrong. The persistence and spread are the major reason contrails are studied. It is a known factor, but the overall effect on the climate is still not firmly understood. The only real opportunity to study it in real time and in real space was during the post 9/11/2001 air traffic shutdown. There are several studies done about the phenomenon. Here are a list of some with links:

Air Traffic Shutdown Study

But what you have been told so far by the people here is still correct. There is no proof or evidence that shows contrails are ever laid out deliberately. They are a product of air travel alone. New planes, new fuels, different routes at different altitudes...all might someday reduce the amount of contrails, but until they are developed, we are stuck with them. Due to your climate, you see more than I do. I'm interior, in NE Indiana. But I still see them, I saw them when I was a little girl (I'm 52), I have successfully tracked all the planes over my head on more than one occasion, I have watched contrails do all kinds of things, but I have never seen a contrail behave differently than what they are studied and known to do.

Sorry, but in this digital age, claims different than the known behavior really requires more than someone's word about their observations. You say:



which I still think could have been the case due to the increase in airtraffic that was not 747's full of passengers but small planes doing loops around the area which is NOT usual.


But you do not supply your pictures of this. What you supply are pictures of cirrus clouds and contrails, doing what they both do. And sun dogs.

How are we supposed to answer?
edit on 7-6-2013 by stars15k because: clarity



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You mention the larger aircraft and I was curious if this same thing be causes by smaller aircraft as well, say a 20 or 40 seater. These smaller planes are the only size small enough to land at our local airport and they do fly at a much lower altitude.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pennylemon
 

By “same thing” do you mean creating contrails? Are you talking about commuter turboprop's?
If that is what you are referring too, the answer is still yes.
When you start talking about bypass ratio's of turboprop aircraft the subject becomes more complex as the blades are not internal to the engine.

If you want to read up on it, you can start here:
adg.stanford.edu...

When the bypass ratio is increased to 10-20 for very efficient low speed performance, the weight and wetted area of the fan shroud (inlet) become large, and at some point it makes sense to eliminate it altogether. The fan then becomes a propeller and the engine is called a turboprop. Turboprop engines provide efficient power from low speeds up to as high as M=0.8 with bypass ratios of 50-100.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Thank you defcon, that is exactly what I was wondering on and thank you for the reading material.

Penny



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by nitro67
 


www.nature.com...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Horizon is a good program and I enjoy watching it (looking forward to The Secret Life of Cats this week
) but I wouldn't cite it as scientific evidence.

Out if interest, where have you been going for your cloud and meteorology studies?
edit on 8-6-2013 by mrthumpy because: Add another link and comment



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pennylemon
 


One thing further to defcon's reply to you. You mentioned these smaller planes are the only ones that can land at the airport near you. This would mean that although these types can and do create contrails, the planes landing and taking off from your local airport will not be the ones that have created any contrails you see over your head.

Contrails only form at cruising altitudes, typically over 27,000ft, so anything landing or taking off within 70 or so miles of you will be far too low.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by nitro 67
 





Oh and I love how no one comments on anything I actually say here...that is great, if I did not know better I would say you bunch really are a bunch of paid shills....actually, tsurfer2000h, aloysius the gaul, xtrozero, etc... all showed up on the last thread about this over a year ago by me


Well if you said something that was worth commenting on it would be no problem.

As far as being a paid shill, maybe it is comments such as these as to why nobody pays much attention to what you say.

And as for your prior thread you were wrong there also.

There I commented on what you said are you happy now?

Are they still blocking the sun in Washington State?
edit on 8-6-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by pennylemon
 


I meant to edit my post above but got sidetracked and now its too late. I should have also added that the trails you see above you will be from traffic that is passing over on the upper air routes and so has no bearing on your local air traffic, for instance I live in Yorkshire, about 70 miles from Manchester Airport, and traffic passing overhead from Europe to the USA, for instance, always leaves a trail that I can spot them by while anything landing or taking off at Manchester does not.

See my second post in this thread where I illustrated the point with some photos.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join