Chemtrails, the dismal EPIC failure.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Why cherry pick rather than put it all out there?

From the link in your source

We have learned that clouds can act to either warm or cool the Earth. High clouds are often thin and not very reflective. They let lots of the sun's warmth in. They also sit high in the sky, where the air temperature is quite cold; so they do not emit a lot of heat. On balance, high clouds tend to warm the Earth.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

ETA: And FFS, the last sentence of the short article you linked:

The results could help atmospheric scientists determine the atmospheric conditions when persistent contrails form and thus help them predict where they will form and possibly assist air traffic managers in planning different flight-paths or altitudes to avoid contrail formation.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

So, according to the article, chemtrails are causing global warming?

Is that what you are disproving me with?

a reply to: GodEmperor

Contrails are counterproductive to efforts to combat 'whatever it's called at the moment'.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

More like the catalyst.

a reply to: GodEmperor

They probably are to some extent. The exact extent is unknown to me.

What do you think "chemtrails" are?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Mostly water vapor, there may be some instances of other chemicals used to aid in radar. Those instances would be generated from aerosol sprayers, independent on jet fuel exhaust. I'm more interested in the affect these trails have on climate.

The empirical evidence I've gathered, shows a general warming of the atmosphere while reducing surface temperatures and solar radiation in the short term.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Have you seen this? www.co2offsetresearch.org...

The idea of "Contrails for cooling" makes no sense to me.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Not sure what the argument is. If it's ice crystals coming from the engines of planes forming lines in the sky, it's a contrail. It's affects on the climate are understood and even noted as you have seen. So why cling to the chemtrail meme?

a reply to: network dude

It has a nice ring to it, and sounds more ominous. Granted, that terminology is widely used to discredit any actual concerns.

Should really look at the wording the NASA article uses, they are implying the affects are not fully understood.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The article you posted 'acknowledges a net warming affect'. However, there is also a short-term cooling affect, on the surface. It warms the atmosphere, at the same time masking the warming for the 'Earth-dwellers'.

If contrails are seen as having an impact on climate, rather than being some crazy conspiracy thing, people would be demanding a reduction in flights rather than a carbon tax.

a reply to: GodEmperor

www.pbs.org...

www.co2offsetresearch.org...

www.theozonehole.com... (this one even has a nice bit on chemtrails at the end)

mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov...

earthdata.nasa.gov...


From here, it sure does look like the science is quite well understood.

a reply to: network dude

Again, pay more attention to the wording these articles use. Mind you, these are quotes from the articles you posted.

"Contrails likely have a small effect now"

"Whether contrails cause a net cooling or a net warming, even whether their effect is something to worry about within the greater general concern about climate change, remains unclear"

"Thinner contrails and contrails that have developed into natural-looking cirrus clouds also affect climate, but their impact cannot yet be predicted"

a reply to: GodEmperor

See, now I am very confused. you posted this earlier:

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: network dude

It's not too difficult a concept to understand. Artificial cloud cover reduces solar radiation and surface temperatures during the day. These trails impact radiative forcing, it's pretty simple. No need to be stand-offish, the flaw in the 'chemtrail' theory is the fact any mainstream 'theory' is usually propaganda. These 'chemtrails' could just be water vapor, but the fact remains is these trails were created by the hand of man.

So if it's not too difficult to understand, and I agree with you, what is the argument? Other than chemtrails are a fantasy.

ETA: but I am still waiting for your sources about the global temp models predicting 20 degree rise.

a reply to: network dude

This thread you created was pointing out how chemtrails supposedly were combating global warming, but were not because the temperatures were not cooling. I simply pointed out the flaw in your argument, that maybe the temperatures were not rising as fast on the surface due to chemtrails. There will be no models showing what temperatures would be without chemtrails, because these are not included as a variable. That is faulty science, but the focus is on co2 emissions and how we need a carbon tax.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: network dude

This thread you created was pointing out how chemtrails supposedly were combating global warming, but were not because the temperatures were not cooling. I simply pointed out the flaw in your argument, that maybe the temperatures were not rising as fast on the surface due to chemtrails. There will be no models showing what temperatures would be without chemtrails, because these are not included as a variable.

When the people who claim chemtrails are being sprayed on them daily were asked what the chemtrails were for, many answers were given. Global de-population. Which is easily refuted by showing population statistics over the 15 year period of the "chemtrail meme". Then, the answer changed to "it's geo-engineering". Which fits nicely since one of the proposed ways to do geo-engineering is to spray something into the atmosphere. (never mind that the altitudes proposed are much higher than planes fly) So now, with the claim that chemtrails are sprayed to combat global warming (the intent of geo-engineering) a new approach is necessary. Either they are spraying and it's working, or they are spraying, and it's failing, or....they aren't spraying anything and things are doing exactly what scientists predicted.

My purpose for this thread was to introduce a relevant news article based on the fact that global temperatures are reportedly still rising, 2014 being the hottest year on record according to the news source. So, based on that article, IF "they" were spraying, and the purpose was to make the planet cooler, it failed. For a multitude of reasons, but failure none the less. So rather than keep propping up the cardboard illusion of chemtrails, perhaps it's time to look at the scientific side of contrails which has existed since powered flight. (the hidden agenda in all my posts in this forum)

Now, if some sinister agenda exists where secretive scientists were hiding the actual numbers of global warming from the public, and chemtrails (while you and I and most everyone else who looked into it agree contrails have a net warming affect) are indeed a way to take 19+ degrees off of the global climate, thus saving us all from spontaneous combustion, I have no counter argument for that. You win effectively.

That is faulty science, but the focus is on co2 emissions and how we need a carbon tax.

Perhaps that is the catalyst to the entire conspiracy. It's all about the carbon.

a reply to: network dude

Why would it be meant to 'cool' the planet, rather than slow the warming trend as to not cause panic? It's also a big if to assume it's intentional, maybe known and covered up, like most things the cleanup would cost more.

Anything rational doesn't usually appeal to the lowest common denominators. I'd just stick with chemtrails are the devil.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: network dude

It's also a big if to assume it's intentional

That's the difference between talking about contrails and talking about chemtrails. Chemtrail theory is all about an intentional spraying operation mounted in great secrecy that only keyboard warrior genii know about. It's nothing to do with the potential unseen, or known and hidden as you propose, effects of contrails.

Chemtrails require one to be utterly ignorant of the true science that explains what contrails are and is in direct conflict with the discussion you seem to be trying to have.

Also guys, just one small thing from me. It's "the effect these trails have on climate" not affect.

a reply to: GodEmperor

If contrails are seen as having an impact on climate, rather than being some crazy conspiracy thing, people would be demanding a reduction in flights rather than a carbon tax.

NASA didn't get your memo.

One of many examples:

NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.

www.nasa.gov...

7 days of no posts from the chemmies. Something is up...do you think they are busy getting their act together and are about to show us the often mentioned evidence? Something is going on....it's too quiet.

That, or we succesfully argued them all away? Which would be a bit of a shame.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

7 days of no posts from the chemmies.

Nothing new, as they come in cycles, or when new chemmies start hearing about chemtrails.