I think I know What Chemtrails are... and it's worse than you can imagine!

Korg Trinity


r

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 30-9-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

Are you KIDDING ME? Talk about disinfo.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Does the truth matter to you, or just the proliferation of the chemtrail theory?

Just curious.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Why do you think they are called CHEMtrails??

You can call them what you want it still doesn't prove they exist.

As for why they are called chemtrails...

And conspiracy theorists have nicknamed contrails "chemtrails" under the suspicion that the government is taking advantage of this scientific phenomenon to secretly release other substances into the atmosphere.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Korg Trinity

AndyMayhew

Korg Trinity

Chemtrails look like Chemtrails under ALL conditions...

But they don't!

They only appear visible when contrails would also be expected to be visible and only persist when contrails would also be expected to persist.

If that was true... then the video I posted there should not have been any chemtrail at all...

Korg.

Why?

What was the altutude of the aircraft and what did the atmospheric soundings indicate?

Now, I say that if chemtrails were being sprayed we wouldn't see them - especially if they were done for clandestine reasons. After all, why make it patently obvious? There are an awful of weather geeks (like me) around the world watching the skies every day who would soon notice if contrails occurred when they shouldn't.

So, IMO, contrails are most definitely not evidence of chemtrail spraying. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't occuring.

If you were putting poison into the water supply would you dye it red so everyone could see? Or make sure it was invisible?

Notwithstanding which I'm unaware of any evidence that anyone is spraying anything deliberately for a specific purpose other than what is well known and within the public domain (like crop spraying, cloud seeding etc)

reply to post by Korg Trinity

I am indeed very happy and I'm happy to be happy thank you for asking.

Well I am glad to see that I was right you are very blissful.

As for your picture... here is one for you...



and another...



Heck I can post pics like this all day, that still doesn't prove chemtrails exist.

BTW those are contrails just as they are in your pic.

mrthumpy

Here's some science and logic for you then. See if you can get your head around it

Conditions for persistent contrails

www.geo.uzh.ch...

from your source above...

Ice Supersaturated Regions

It is hard to describe an ice supersaturated region (ISSR) with a strictly
sharp definition. We could call it a ”cloud free ice-supersaturated region”,
which means that the relative humidity with respect to ice has to be > 100%.
The inaccuracy in this definition is, that it is very hard to detect, if a layer
with an embedded supersaturation is really cloudfree. Perhaps there is only
one single ice crystal per squaremeter, which blasts our whole definition. In
this case, every measurement technique would be overstrained. Therefore,
we have to use a more practical definition, which includes the measurement
accuracy: ”a supersaturated region, where a certain measurement device has
no evidence of the existence of ice”. It follows that the boarder between an
ISSR and a thin cirrus cloud is very smooth, especially for subvisible cirrus
(a cirrus cloud with a optical depth in the visible spectrum τvis < 0.03). In
fact we don’t have to worry about this quit fuzzy definition, because before
a subvisible cirrus (SVC) has been formed, an ISSR must have preexisted.
ISSRs are mostly located in the upper troposphere near the tropopause
at altitudes of about 8 to 12 km. Their thickness and maximum amount
of water vapor can vary allot. It has to be considered, that most cirrus
clouds have been built out of an ISSR. That means that cloud formation is
a possible evolution of an ISSR. Statistics about their shape and properties
are shown in the next chapters. There are a lot of reasons, why ISSRs, their
distribution (climatology) and their properties are so interesting:

Simply put from 26'000 to 40000 feet there maybe regions that have humidity in the form of tiny ice crystals... Accepted..

The boarders of these regions with normal vaporous humidity is smooth on varying degrees of gradients.

it then goes on to say...

Persistent contrails (contrails with a lifetime of more than 10 minutes)
are only built inside ISSRs. Because the air traffics influence on climate
change is dominated by contrails, it would be a goal to avoid their
evolution. To achieve that, numeric weather forecast models should
take ISSRs into account

So it is the norm to attempt to avoid the creation of persistent contrails.... That doesn't seem to be the case now does it.......

No signs of anything being sprayed into our atmosphere

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

the source said nothing about anything to do with spraying chemicals... it was a tipography of sunlight over Hawaii....

ATMOSPHERIC TRANSMISSION OF DIRECT SOLAR RADIATION AT MAUNA LOA, HAWAII

And

frankly shows exactly what I is suspected... temperatures kept at an even keel, that the chemtrails are there to keep the temperature lower due to global dimming... only later to have it stripped away...

cee.engr.ucdavis.edu...

Long-Term Satellite Record Reveals Likely Recent Aerosol Trend

A study on how we were creating global dimming by normal everyday means.... Yep that was kicked into touch when we started to clean up our pollution making dirt of industry.

Chemtrails are what is now purposefully causing global dimming... hence the recent drop in climate warming predictions... it's working as they knew it would.

Impossibility of an aircraft being capable of lifting sufficient chemicals to create trails

Really?

just how many ppm of particulate do you think it would take to start forming a cloud?

Korg.

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I am indeed very happy and I'm happy to be happy thank you for asking.

Well I am glad to see that I was right you are very blissful.

As for your picture... here is one for you...

and another...

Heck I can post pics like this all day, that still doesn't prove chemtrails exist.

BTW those are contrails just as they are in your pic.

edit on 30-9-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)

Nice Chemtrail pics... good job!

Korg.

reply to post by applesthateatpeople

Well it does have a serious effect on the planet, as does all pollution. It is far less damaging then other pollutants, however; especially from cars, factories, and fossil fuel based electric generators. What are you going to do stop all vehicular traffic, all electricity, all manufacture of goods, and all air travel? You cannot hold one industry alone responsible for punitive damages when there are others doing far worse. If you want to hold one industry responsible, you must hold them all responsible for their contribution to the problem. That puts you into the “man-made” climate change and "carbon credit" debate.

AndyMayhew

Korg Trinity

AndyMayhew

Korg Trinity

Chemtrails look like Chemtrails under ALL conditions...

But they don't!

They only appear visible when contrails would also be expected to be visible and only persist when contrails would also be expected to persist.

If that was true... then the video I posted there should not have been any chemtrail at all...

Korg.

Why?

What was the altutude of the aircraft and what did the atmospheric soundings indicate?

Now, I say that if chemtrails were being sprayed we wouldn't see them - especially if they were done for clandestine reasons. After all, why make it patently obvious? There are an awful of weather geeks (like me) around the world watching the skies every day who would soon notice if contrails occurred when they shouldn't.

Aha I see what you are saying..

The reason they are visible is that their purpose is to create a global dimming effect, this can easily be achieved through the formation of cloud cover... the idea that the chemicals themselves are what the chemtrails are all about, is like saying the ink is the critical issue not the words formed by it.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Nice Chemtrail pics... good job!

Thanks, but they are contrails..

A little article that you should read...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Nice Chemtrail pics... good job!

Thanks, but they are contrails..

A little article that you should read...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

No they are not... they are chemtrails!

Have you read the Sunday Times?

store.thesundaytimes.co.uk...

Korg.

Korg Trinity
[
So it is the norm to attempt to avoid the creation of persistent contrails.... That doesn't seem to be the case now does it.......

It says it would be a goal. Doesn't say it's the norm now does it?

the source said nothing about anything to do with spraying chemicals... it was a tipography of sunlight over Hawaii....

Which is a measurement of how much sunlight is being blocked. ie none.

frankly shows exactly what I is suspected... temperatures kept at an even keel, that the chemtrails are there to keep the temperature lower due to global dimming... only later to have it stripped away...


A study on how we were creating global dimming by normal everyday means.... Yep that was kicked into touch when we started to clean up our pollution making dirt of industry.

Chemtrails are what is now purposefully causing global dimming... hence the recent drop in climate warming predictions... it's working as they knew it would.

Global dimming ended in the 90's as I pointed out to you.

Really?

just how many ppm of particulate do you think it would take to start forming a cloud?

Korg.

edit on 30-9-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

More than any aircraft in could lift to altitude. Do the maths.

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity
[
So it is the norm to attempt to avoid the creation of persistent contrails.... That doesn't seem to be the case now does it.......

It says it would be a goal. Doesn't say it's the norm now does it?

the source said nothing about anything to do with spraying chemicals... it was a tipography of sunlight over Hawaii....

Which is a measurement of how much sunlight is being blocked. ie none.

Actually it doesn't show none... it shows degrees of change in this one it shows level even keel for levels of sunlight over that period.... to establish what the values actually are you would have to have a baseline... which we do not.

Global dimming ended in the 90's as I pointed out to you.

Unintentional global dimming did indeed end in the 90's you are right... chemtrails are the purposeful creation of a global dimming effect.

More than any aircraft in could lift to altitude. Do the maths.

Do the Math?? With what values... give me your data and I will happily crunch it for you.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Have you read the Sunday Times?

And what exactly are you trying to prove with your link?

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Have you read the Sunday Times?

And what exactly are you trying to prove with your link?

What were you trying to prove with yours?

Korg Trinity

AndyMayhew

Korg Trinity

AndyMayhew

Korg Trinity

Chemtrails look like Chemtrails under ALL conditions...

But they don't!

They only appear visible when contrails would also be expected to be visible and only persist when contrails would also be expected to persist.

If that was true... then the video I posted there should not have been any chemtrail at all...

Korg.

Why?

What was the altutude of the aircraft and what did the atmospheric soundings indicate?

Now, I say that if chemtrails were being sprayed we wouldn't see them - especially if they were done for clandestine reasons. After all, why make it patently obvious? There are an awful of weather geeks (like me) around the world watching the skies every day who would soon notice if contrails occurred when they shouldn't.

Aha I see what you are saying..

The reason they are visible is that their purpose is to create a global dimming effect, this can easily be achieved through the formation of cloud cover... the idea that the chemicals themselves are what the chemtrails are all about, is like saying the ink is the critical issue not the words formed by it.

Korg.

But high altitude clouds - cirrus, whether natural or manmade - cause warming.

www.wired.com...

Now, if they were producing cumulus or stratocumulus, that'd be a different matter.

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity
[
So it is the norm to attempt to avoid the creation of persistent contrails.... That doesn't seem to be the case now does it.......

It says it would be a goal. Doesn't say it's the norm now does it?

the source said nothing about anything to do with spraying chemicals... it was a tipography of sunlight over Hawaii....

Which is a measurement of how much sunlight is being blocked. ie none.

Actually it doesn't show none... it shows degrees of change in this one it shows level even keel for levels of sunlight over that period.... to establish what the values actually are you would have to have a baseline... which we do not.

Global dimming ended in the 90's as I pointed out to you.

Unintentional global dimming did indeed end in the 90's you are right... chemtrails are the purposeful creation of a global dimming effect.

Not only did it end, the trend changed to one of global brightening.

More than any aircraft in could lift to altitude. Do the maths.

Do the Math?? With what values... give me your data and I will happily crunch it for you.

Korg.

What would you estimate a chemtrail weighs per mile?

reply to post by Korg Trinity

What were you trying to prove with yours?

Well if you would have read it you would know now wouldn't you?

Unlike your link my had something pertinent to the subject whereas yours was just advertising. So I ask again what was the purpose of your link?

AndyMayhew

But high altitude clouds - cirrus, whether natural or manmade - cause warming.

www.wired.com...

Now, if they were producing cumulus or stratocumulus, that'd be a different matter.

o.k. how about we stop using popular magazines that are a part of the MSM and look at some serious sources shall we...

what about this one from the The Royal Society also credited is the Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org) and the TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing
world...

Solar radiation management: the governance of research

In September 2009, the Royal Society published a report that reviewed ideas
for deliberately intervening in the climate to counteract global warming -
techniques collectively described as ‘geoengineering’ (Royal Society 2009). The
report recommended that the scientific and governance challenges posed by
geoengineering should be explored in more detail, and that future work should
take into account the significant differences between the two classes of methods:
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM)

It goes on to say...

Box 1.2 What is SRM?
Geoengineering, defined by the Royal Society (2009) as ‘the deliberate largescale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global
warming’, is divided into two primary techniques: carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
and solar radiation management (SRM).
SRM methods aim to cool the planet by blocking or reflecting a small
percentage of light and heat from the Sun (solar radiation) back out into space.
Commonly discussed examples of SRM include brightening marine clouds,
introducing reflective aerosols into the stratosphere, making parts of the Earth’s
surface more reflective by painting roofs white or planting lighter coloured
crops and positioning ‘sun shades’ in space. Of these, marine cloud brightening
and stratospheric aerosols are generally considered to be among the most
potentially feasible options. (See Royal Society (2009) for specific references
supporting the material in this box.)

And then...

At present there are few international governance mechanisms to ensure that
SRM research would be transparent, safe and internationally acceptable5
. This is
especially important for large-scale field research, which could have significant
intended and unintended consequences that would not be restricted by national
borders.
Large-scale field research could also be controversial not only because it may
cause environmental damage, but also through the suggested commitment
to develop and deploy SRM technologies that doing the research might imply.
Attitudes towards these complex issues are explored in the next section on goals
and concerns about SRM development.

Hmmmm..... the need to govern... to regulate.... Regulation recognizes the dangers and how do you recognize dangers... through conduction.

Korg.

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

What were you trying to prove with yours?

Well if you would have read it you would know now wouldn't you?

Unlike your link my had something pertinent to the subject whereas yours was just advertising. So I ask again what was the purpose of your link?

What was the purpose of yours? as I have asked and you haven't given me an answer... I guess you must not know what your point was..

Perhaps you should try a less mentally challenging thread.

Korg.