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

reply to post by Korg Trinity

You may find the answer to your question there.

I didn't.

Phage
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

You may find the answer to your question there.

I didn't.

edit on 10/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well then you need to read more..

maybe this will help you understand...

Global Dimming

Solar measurements have been studies for decades. There has been a significant drop in sunlight since studies began in the 1950’s. Records show that there has been a drop in sunlight as low as 22% in Israeli, almost 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union and 10% over the USA. It seems that particulates have been blocking out the sunlight caused by Global Dimming and slowly causing damage to our earth.

It goes on to say..

Having the earth a bit cooler after all the warnings of climate change is a good thing, right? No, actually it is not. Climatologists have studied this phenomenon and believe that the reflection of heat have made waters in the northern hemisphere cooler, therefore resulting in less rain in crucial areas such as Northern Africa. This phenomenon has also been documented in the 1970 and 1980’s as low rainfall caused massive famines. The Asian monsoons bring rainfall to half the world’s population. If this air pollution and global dimming has a damaging impact on the Asian monsoons, billions of people could be affected.

There have also been studies on contrails and the cause of heat reflection. For three days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., all commercial flights were grounded. This gave climate scientists the time to study the effect on the climate when there were no contrails and no heat reflection. The research concluded that temperature rose by about 1 degree centigrade in that three-day period

What would be the effect of a low mass high surface area particulate have if put into the atmosphere???

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

The research concluded that temperature rose by about 1 degree centigrade in that three-day period

This statement is incorrect. The research made no such conclusion.

The statement about dimming is also incorrect.Dimming is declining. That article is not a reliable source of information.

reply to post by MamaJ


Yes, but that isn't how research works. You don't just stop at the point where you tell a search engine that can be manipulated what to do, you utilize search engines that search actual academic resources and use proxy keywords in order to get a balanced view of your idea. Not a biased idea of a conspiracy.

By the way, you also need to be conscious of the background your author is coming from:

Scott Barrett is the first Lenfest-Earth Institute Professor of Natural Resource Economics. Prior to joining Columbia in the fall of 2009, Professor Barrett served on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.

His research focuses on institutional remedies to transnational challenges, including global climate change and the control of infectious diseases.

He has been an advisor to many organizations, including the European Commission, the International Task Force on Global Public Goods, the OECD, the World Bank, and the United Nations. He was a lead author of the second assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and was previously a member of the Academic Panel of Environmental Economists to the UK's Department of Environment.

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...


Also I'd like to point out that Barrett does not explicitly indicate that there is factual evidence to connect the two. There is no association that has been made between geoengineering and cloud seeding in the form of chemtrails, at all. Sorry.

Phage
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

The research concluded that temperature rose by about 1 degree centigrade in that three-day period

This statement is incorrect. The research made no such conclusion.

The statement about dimming is also incorrect.Dimming is declining. That article is not a reliable source of information.

You are incorrect and your statements are also incorrect.

Patterns of surface solar radiation dimming and brightening at the turn of 21st century

In the present study, we investigate the evolution of GDB for the period 2000-2007 using a spectral radiative transfer model with input data from global satellite (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, ISCCP; Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, MODIS) and Reanalysis projects (National Center for Environmental Prediction/National Centers for Atmospheric Research, NCEP/NCAR), with the aim to provide local, regional and hemispherical aspects of the phenomenon and to identify possible causes.

An overall global dimming (based on coastal, land and ocean pixels) is found to have taken place on the Earth under all-sky conditions, from 2001 to 2006, arising from a stronger solar dimming in the SH (
SSR = -3.84 W m-2 or -0.64 W m-2/yr) and a slight dimming in NH (
SSR = -0.65 W m-2 or -0.11 W m-2/yr), thus exhibiting a strong inter-hemispherical difference. Dimming is observed over land and ocean in the SH, and over oceans in the NH, whereas a slight brightening occurred over NH land, with the SSR tendencies being larger in the SH than
in the NH land and ocean areas

and this on the days preceding 911

Artificial Weather Revealed by Post 9-11 Flight Groundings

The study found "...an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11-14 September 2001."

They go on to explain: "Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails over this period."

They arrived at their measurements by analyzing maximum and minimum temperature data from approximately 4,000 weather stations through the conterminous United States (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) for the period 1971-2000, and compared them to the three-day post-9/11 grounding period.

They found an increase in the diurnal temperature range (DTR) of approximately 1.1 degree Celsius over normal 1971-2000 values, and an increase of 1.8 degrees during the grounding period in contrast to the adjacent three-day periods analyzed when DTR values were near or below the mean.

I suggest you research further.

Korg.

Also I'd like to point out that Barrett does not explicitly indicate that there is factual evidence to connect the two. There is no association that has been made between geoengineering and cloud seeding in the form of chemtrails, at all. Sorry.

reply to post by Shugo


I never said "in the form of chemtrails". The rest of the sentence you quoted above, I did say.

You seem stuck on how YOU prefer "research" be done. Do it how you may.

I think we have exhausted this conversation.

reply to post by Phage


The thread got derailed... it has nothing to do with chemtrails. Have you read the thread? lol

I was defending cloud seeding is a method of geoengineering.

Feel free to argue that point and derail it even more.

I have said I am on the fence about chemtrails in case you decide not to read the thread and understand what is being said and why.

reply to post by MamaJ


Then why are we having this discussion in this thread? It's about "Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails" not Cloud Seeding? The way I do research is the way that professors and doctors do their research, I assure you it's also the way Dr. Barrett who you latched on to in my links did his research.

The point is, there is no evidence of the connection between the two, unless you have something to add which actually makes the claim connected and relevant, there's nothing else to be said.

Shugo
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Then why are we having this discussion in this thread? It's about "Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails" not Cloud Seeding? The way I do research is the way that professors and doctors do their research, I assure you it's also the way Dr. Barrett who you latched on to in my links did his research.

The point is, there is no evidence of the connection between the two, unless you have something to add which actually makes the claim connected and relevant, there's nothing else to be said.

Because you jumped in without reading the thread I guess.. maybe research the thread. lol

I knew the point before you did. Glad ya get it.

Chemtrails is not something I agree is happening...yet, I am still looking for more proof, but what I have said is I agree there are experts who think they are savvy who can manipulate weather and spew chemicals into the air without a care in the world as to it harms. Data can be manipulated and we know good and well money talks. Look at the US government.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Overall. Due to increased cloud cover in the southern hemisphere.


Do you know what diurnal means?

reply to post by Korg Trinity

They found an increase in the diurnal temperature range (DTR) of approximately 1.1 degree Celsius over normal 1971-2000 values, and an increase of 1.8 degrees during the grounding period in contrast to the adjacent three-day periods analyzed when DTR values were near or below the mean.

I suggest you research further.

I suggest you get a dictionary and look up what diurnal range is, and how it differs from average temperature, because they are not the same.

And in case you don't have a dictionary handy (which seems possible due to your consistent lack of understanding), the diurnal range is the difference in temperature between the coldest part of the night and the hottest part of the day.

So the study found that the DIFFERENCE in these measures was greater - it made no conclusion at all about the average temperature.

Further, if YOU had researched the topic thoroughly as you recommend others have done, you would have found that there is some question whether the increase was solely the result of the lack of contrails.

mrthumpy
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Overall. Due to increased cloud cover in the southern hemisphere.


Do you know what diurnal means?

Again I urge you to review my orriginal post... take the time to watch the material posted....

Then when you have understood where I am comming from come back and ask me serious question.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Thanks for the link. The chart I posted was actually not about dimming, it was about aerosol levels. My mistake.

The model used in your link shows a dimming in the southern hemisphere as well as a much lower level of dimming in the northern hemisphere, both due primarily clouds. It also points out that the amount of dimming varies substantially on a regional basis.

The regional patterns, however, have a patchy spatial structure, with opposite SSR tendencies in neighbouring areas, even on a continental scale.

One area may be showing dimming, while right next to it another is showing brightening. So, if a particular region shows a great deal of dimming, it will skew the average in that direction.

In the period of the 1950s to 1980s, all regions of the northern hemisphere were showing a clear dimming trend. Between the 1980's and 2000 most regions were showing a brightening trend. Then, after 2000 we see a mixture.

The latest updates on developments beyond the year 2000 show mixed tendencies (Fig. 2, right column). Overall, observed brightening is less distinct after 2000 compared to the 1990s at many sites. Brightening continues beyond 2000 at sites in Europe and the United States but levels off at Japanese sites, and there are some indications for a renewed dimming in China after a phase of stabilization during the 1990s, while dimming persists throughout in India (Wild et al. 2009).

journals.ametsoc.org...

So there doesn't really seem to be a clear cut answer to the question of the amount of dimming in the the second part of the last decade. Did the apparent declining trend reverse after 2005? Were previous models wrong?

To summarize, there is increasing surface and satellite-based evidence for substantial large-scale decadal variations in SSR, but further research is required for a better quantification. Radiation sites are often located in urbanized areas, which may induce stronger SSR variations due to high local air pollution levels (Alpert et al. 2005). This possible urbanization effect in the SSR records has not yet been well quantified and is currently debated.

They found an increase in the diurnal temperature range (DTR) of approximately 1.1 degree Celsius over normal 1971-2000 values,

Yes. That does not mean it got 1.1º warmer. It means that the difference between daytime and night time temperatures increased when the were no contrails.
DTR

It was a little warmer during the day and cooler at night when there were no contrails, the net result apparently a bit of a cooling effect. That's not surprising. An easily observable phenomenon is that clear nights are generally cooler than cloudy nights. It is generally accepted that contrails have a net warming effect, what is surprising is that contrails may have been responsible for such a great variation in DTR, but that study is not generally accepted as being accurate. Too many other unaccounted for variables.

reply to post by MamaJ

The thread got derailed... it has nothing to do with chemtrails. Have you read the thread? lol

Yes. I've been reading the thread. And I agree that talking about cloud seeding is off topic in a thread about "chemtrails".

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Overall. Due to increased cloud cover in the southern hemisphere.


Do you know what diurnal means?

Again I urge you to review my orriginal post... take the time to watch the material posted....

Then when you have understood where I am comming from come back and ask me serious question.

Korg.

I've asked you serious questions repeatedly but as yet you've been completely unable to answer them

mrthumpy

Korg Trinity

mrthumpy
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Overall. Due to increased cloud cover in the southern hemisphere.


Do you know what diurnal means?

Again I urge you to review my orriginal post... take the time to watch the material posted....

Then when you have understood where I am comming from come back and ask me serious question.

Korg.

I've asked you serious questions repeatedly but as yet you've been completely unable to answer them

Come on asking me about what diurnal means is like asking a chef what is the term used for the measurement of water...

Give me a break.

And you clearly have not watched the source material in the first post or you would have an answer to your question.

Korg.

Phage
reply to post by MamaJ

 

The thread got derailed... it has nothing to do with chemtrails. Have you read the thread? lol

Yes. I've been reading the thread. And I agree that talking about cloud seeding is off topic in a thread about "chemtrails".

edit on 10/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

are you really saying you can't see the link?

Seeding for precipitation Vs. Seeding for cloud cover???

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Bromium and Strontium are substances that have increased significantly in the atmosphere over the years, particularly in America, and it's widely believed that these substances have been 'planted' there with an esoteric purpose. Chemtrails are a source of this perpetration and although global dimming is a possibility, it must also be noted that both of these substances are used in the creation of holograms. They can also be linked to other more serious affects upon the human body through the soil and water systems.

pandersway
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Bromium and Strontium are substances that have increased significantly in the atmosphere over the years, particularly in America, and it's widely believed that these substances have been 'planted' there with an esoteric purpose. Chemtrails are a source of this perpetration and although global dimming is a possibility, it must also be noted that both of these substances are used in the creation of holograms. They can also be linked to other more serious affects upon the human body through the soil and water systems.

I don't think that the purpose of chemtrails is to creates a kind of holographic screen in the sky.

There is no correlation, intent or thought direction I could take that would make any sense out of that.

Korg.

pandersway
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Bromium and Strontium are substances that have increased significantly in the atmosphere over the years, particularly in America, and it's widely believed that these substances have been 'planted' there with an esoteric purpose. Chemtrails are a source of this perpetration and although global dimming is a possibility, it must also be noted that both of these substances are used in the creation of holograms.