It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does Aerosol Forcing = Chemtrails?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:39 AM
When researching Chemtrails, I keep coming up with the term "aerosol forcing".

For example;

Indirect Aerosol Forcing
Crowley (1) used estimates of radiative forcing, together with an energy balance model, to estimate the temperature response to variations in volcanic emissions, solar irradiance, increases in greenhouse gases, and aerosol forcing. He did not account for the indirect effects of aerosols, because evaluations by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) indicated that confidence in estimates of this forcing was very low [p. 272 of (1)]. We believe, however, that such an omission could lead to large systematic errors

Aerosol Forcing means to introduce an aerosol into the atmosphere, that is not there naturally.

An aerosol can be defined as a dispersion of solid and liquid particles suspended in gas
When sulfate (SO4-2) and nitrate (NO3-) containing aerosols are incorporated into cloud droplets, they lead to acidic deposition, often hundreds of miles away from the source of the aerosols or precursor gases. Although aerosols are produced by myriad natural processes, human activities are responsible for generating much of the aerosol load in today's atmosphere.
Insoluble aerosols include metal oxides, silicates, and clay minerals (all 3 derived from soil dust or volcanoes).

Sulfates and Nitrates could be largely attributed to aircraft. And the metal oxides could be attributed to weather modification/cloud seeding.

One scientific report states;

Radiative forcing from contrails from the proposed HSCT fleet may therefore be neglected in future scenarios of radiative forcing

What is an HSCT fleet. High Speed Civilian Transport.

Back in 1996, McDonnell Douglas Corporation created two supersonic commercial air traffic networks consisting of origin-destination city pair routes and associated traffic levels. Source

This opened up flight paths for the HSCT that mimic regular commercial flight plaths.

In fact, it required some commercial flight paths to be re-routed to make way for the HSCT. They call it Airspace Charging.

Evidence suggests that differences in airspace charging rates are significantly influencing airline routes and flight plans through European airspace. The resulting changes in routings can extend flight distances by up to 20% compared to shortest routes.

So, they are directly affecting the albedo of earth and causing all sorts of health effects and man and animal and plants.

Since the atmosphere settles into the water, the water is being poisoned.

They needed to understand just how much they are affecting things, so on 9/11/2001, they created a false terrorist attack from the air to shut down all commercial traffic to study the difference.

It's a tricky business making people sick but not causing suspicion, so the Chemtrail concoction took decades to perfect.

So, debunkers. I'm respect your right to think nothing is happening, but you will not change my mind, so don't try. This thread is to explore this aerosol forcing issue.

If you have a link showing these are/aren't coming from contrails, it would be good to review. I will tell you, there is a ton of evidence supporting the link between "aerosol forcing" and "contrail emissions"

The effects of aerosol particles from aircraft emissions on clouds are more complicated because nucleation and subsequent growth of ice crystals that make up cirrus clouds are more complex and less studied than for water clouds.


[edit on 19-9-2009 by kingswillquiver]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:19 AM


So, let's examine these chemicals in they are finding in "contrails"

Nitrates blaze a trail
On a clear day, the condensation trails that aircrafts leave in their wake fuel many a holiday dream. To an international team of climate researchers, however, they may well bring to mind its discovery of a new class of ice particles which contain HNO3 and which could dramatically alter climate models.

They suggest that HNO3 combines with surface water molecules to form nitric acid trihydrate, which interferes with the uptake of molecules on the ice surface, preventing the ice-vapour system from reaching equilibrium.

Jet engines inject water vapor, soot, sulfates, and nitrates into the upper troposphere
and lower stratosphere.

Lockeed Martin

What are nitrates, specifically HNO3?

The dictionary defines nitrate (noun) as a radical or ion with the chemical formula NO3- or a compound containing the nitrate ion as in salts or nitric acid (HNO3).

Acid-Rain and Atmospheric Dry Deposition of NITROGEN: While most of the sources of nitrogen pollution result in contamination of surface and ground waters, air-borne nitrogen pollution leads to acid rain in the mid-west and east coast regions of US where rain falls on a regular basis.

When Nitrate is taken in by eating food and drinking water, Nitrate is converted in the gut to nitrite, which then combines with hemoglobin to form methemoglobin, thus decreasing the ability of the blood to carry oxygen. Infants are more susceptible to nitrate toxicity than older children or adults. Fatalities are rare, but sub-acute methemoglobinemia can be asymptotic while affecting development, making the condition particularly insidious. Chronic consumption of high levels of nitrate may also cause other health problems, for example some cancers and teratogenic effects; data are inconclusive, but cause for concern

So, as you can see, Nitrates are harmful to human health.

December 27, 2007--Bill would give state more authority over cloud seeding efforts (Denver Post)

Draft legislation would give Wyoming more oversight of efforts to modify the weather to produce more rain and snowfall. Such efforts include cloud seeding, which involves pumping silver nitrate into clouds to get them to produce precipitation.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by kingswillquiver



Perhaps you should read your own sourced material more carefully.

AS TO silver nitrate, used in cloud seeding to induce precipitation, do you think maybe they use this, and not the toxic chemical that is a waste by-product of industrial processes???


Despite being used in low concentrations to prevent gonorrhea, silver nitrate is toxic and corrosive, as with all silver salts. Brief exposure to the chemical will not produce immediate or even any side effects other than the purple, brown or black skin stains, but with more exposure, side effects will become more noticeable, including burns. Long-term exposure may cause eye damage. Short contact can lead to deposition of black silver stains on the skin. Besides being very destructive of mucous membranes, it is skin and eye irritant.

Although silver nitrate is currently not regulated in water sources by the Environmental Protection Agency, when between 1-5 g of silver have accumulated in the body, a condition called argyria can develop. Argyria is a permanent cosmetic condition in which the skin and internal organs turn a blue-gray color. The United States Environmental Protection Agency had a maximum contaminant limit for silver in water until 1990, but upon determination that argyria did not impact the function of organs affected, removed the regulation. Argyria is more often associated with the consumption of colloidal silver solutions than with silver nitrate, especially at the extremely low concentrations present for the disinfection of water. However, it is still important to consider before ingesting any sort of silver-ion solution.

SO, if you see people turning blue-gray, then you can rest assured they have been "chemtrailed", for real and sure as rain falls......

Otherwise, the "research" into "chemtrails" is nonsense.....

AND, as for the 'HSCT'----NO SUCH AIRCRAFT currently exist. The only commercially viable (and 'viable' isn't the correct word in an economic sense) super-sonic passenger jet was the Concorde, now retired.

The Tupelov company also tried to produce a super-sonic passenger jet, but the project never took off (pun).

Again, reading the sourced material will show the fallacy of this thread's OP.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by kingswillquiver

Again, reading the sourced material will show the fallacy of this thread's OP.

Have I offended you? What is the purpose of your vehement response?

This is a conspiracy THEORY forum, isn't it?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

The key is not whether the HSCT aircraft exists or not, it's the FACT that the corridors were opened up, causing commercial airlines to re-reroute. There's a huge debate going on right now because the airlines are incurring extra cost from the alternate routes. I do believe the govt is subsidizing this.

Do a little research, you will find this is true.

Edit to add:

As far as nitrate goes, ammonium nitrates are probable the major source.

What are the most commonly used seeding materials?

The second major category is focused on cloud systems where the warm (coalescence) process predominates. In those environments, hygroscopic (water attracting) materials such as salt, urea and ammonium nitrate can be utilized. Of the hygroscopic materials, the most commonly used are salts.

Yes, the use pee (urea) too. It's symbolic.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by kingswillquiver]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by kingswillquiver

"vehement"? I'm not being vehement.

Just providing a fair and balanced response to incorrect assumptions, based on the OP's own sourced data!

As to 'nitrogen oxides', aviation accounts for about 3% (in the U.S.), the majority is from motor vehicles:

(and even gas-powered lawnmowers)

Nitrogen oxides form when fuel burns at high temperatures, such as in motor vehicle engines. Mobile sources are responsible for more than half of all nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States. Both on-road and nonroad mobile sources are major nitrogen oxide polluters.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

When is the last time you saw a car leave a persistant contrail, forming into clouds covering the entire sky?

I would suggest aircraft emission is a huge issue. You seem to want to downplay it.

You must have some reason for protecting these aviation interests.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by kingswillquiver's the FACT that the corridors were opened up, causing commercial airlines to re-reroute.

See, this is the problem when laypeople try to read stuff that they aren't familiar enough with to properly understand it.

You couldn't be MORE incorrect. Are you in the aviation field? Airline business?

Your findings there are referring specifically to the EUROPEAN airspace, and the fact that there are dozens of Nations with complex and differing cost structures and fees for using their airspace:

Route Charging Policy For A Functional Block Of Airspace (CEATS)

To suggest, and to read the material and conclude, that the yet-to-be-built HSCT airplanes (proposed in 2015) already have airspace reserved for them, thus incurring expense and fuel wastage by airlines today is simply not true.

I cannot understand how anyone reading the papers can come to that opinion!

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by kingswillquiver

If a car was traveling at 30,000 feet, you would see the contrail...provided the conditions are right.

Also have a think at how many cars there are in the world, then add generators, lawnmowers, weedwhackers (how are ya WW lol), ATV's etc etc

All of which emit these gases.

It's a lot!

As the EPA statistics that Weedwhacker linked to shows.

[edit on 19/9/09 by Chadwickus]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by kingswillquiver

When is the last time you saw a car leave a persistant contrail, forming into clouds covering the entire sky?

Oh, seems we've met before?? Either that, or I'm having a severe case of deja vu'.....

Sheesh! Someone has been spending too much time on the "chemtrail" junk websites, methinks.

IF, I suppose, you had a car with an engine producing the amount of exhaust gases a jet engine produces, operating in -46C conditions, and the relative humidity was sufficient, THEN you might see a nice ice fog form behind the automobile.

Oh, the other bit? Like, I'm paid or somehow employed to counter all of this "chemtrail" nonsense, to cover for those "nefarious gubment people"???

"chemtrailers" take themselves WAY too seriously!

PS....did you go pick up the book I recommended to you, before? Remember?

I forget the screenname then....anyway, it's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Weather.

Page 27 --- Chapter 2, in a section called "Forecasting by Clouds".

Under 'cloud type' in a table, they write "jet contrails" and suggest that contrails may be indicative of "Fair weather, but watch for increasing cirrus or cirrostratus."

(ISBN: 0-02-864341-0)

Author: Mel Goldstein, Ph.D

Take your complaints up with him, or with the Pearson Education Company, and/or Alpha Books. THEY own the copyright.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by kingswillquiver

Aerosol Forcing means to introduce an aerosol into the atmosphere, that is not there naturally.

Thank you for finding something that increases my knowledge, and vocabulary.

HOWEVER, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding the term "forcing" in this context. It does NOT imply a Human intervention in an intentional manner, as in "forcing" something to be where it normally wouldn't be, or behave in a way it wouldn't naturally.

Here is its meaning, in context:

Aerosols forcing
The "pause" in warming from the 1940s to 1960's is generally attributed to aerosol forcing, which acts to cool the climate. More recently, this forcing has (relatively) declined, which may have enhanced warming, though the effect is regionally varying. See global dimming. Another example of this is in Ruckstuhl's paper who found a 60% reduction in aerosol concentrations over Europe causing solar brightening.

“ [...] the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five times larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect aerosol and other cloud effects. The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is ~+1 W m−2 dec−1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe."

From the above quote, I wondered what the phrase "direct aerosol effect" meant, as opposed to an "indirect" effect. So, I did some happy 'googling'.

I recommend reading up on some studies undertaken, again these are done to analyze the EFFECTS of Human pollution (and also natural pollution, such as large fires and volcanic eruptions), they are NOT blueprints for "How to 'Chemtrail' the Sheepish Masses and Get Away Wit It."!!!

For instance:
The Encyclopedia of Earth

Or, just google, and find many more.....


[edit on 19 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link the rocket that just went up...
Experiment this the aerosol to which you refer?
These aerosols are minute particles suspended in the atmosphere. They can reduce visibility causing haze and may also cause red sunrises and red sunsets.

Aerosols also interact with the earths radiation and climate. They can scatter sunlight directly back into space as well as cause changes in how clouds reflect and absorb sunlight.

Aerosols can also act as sites for chemical reactions. These reactions lead to formation of large amounts of reactive chlorine and ultimately to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere.

(Similar stratospheric ozone changes occur after major volcanic erruptions when tons of aerosols are blown into the atmosphere.

Supposedly this CARE mission is an attempt to produce artifical noctilucent clouds.

The satellite AIM photographed "the first" noctilucent (night shining) clouds in 2007. (Personally I think there is a lot more info here that we are not being told.) The NASA website builds this up to be very "mysterious" and to be an enigma. The slant appears, imo, to be geared toward promoting that these clouds are a warning of a change in the earth's environment.

Am I reasonable to ask why would they want to re-create this phenomonem if such substance in the atmosphere is a threat or "warning"?

Am I reasonable to ask if these "signs in the sky" are actually being contrived to fit a religious agenda to promote this as some prophecy being fulfilled?

top topics


log in