Reduction in chemtrails, are they done?

reply to post by DONTBEIGNORANT


[snip] So there's absolutely no such thing as plans spraying aerosols filled with barium and aluminum into the stratosphere? Hmm.

www.osti.gov...

Any attempt to reconcile observed surface temperature changes within the last 150 years to changes simulated by climate models that include various atmospheric forcings is sensitive to the changes attributed to aerosols and aerosol-cloud-climate interactions, which are the main contributors that may well balance the positive forcings associated with greenhouse gases, absorbing aerosols, ozone related changes, etc. These aerosol effects on climate, from various modeling studies discussed in Menon (2004), range from +0.8 to -2.4 W m[sup -2], with an implied value of -1.0 W m[sup -2] (range from -0.5 to -4.5 W m[sup -2]) for the aerosol indirect effects. Quantifying the contribution of aerosols and aerosol-cloud interactions remain complicated for several reasons some of which are related to aerosol distributions and some to the processes used to represent their effects on clouds. Aerosol effects on low lying marine stratocumulus clouds that cover much of the Earth's surface (about 70%) have been the focus of most of prior aerosol-cloud interaction effect simulations. Since cumulus clouds (shallow and deep convective) are short lived and cover about 15 to 20% of the Earth's surface, they are not usually considered as radiatively important. However, the large amount of latent heat released from convective towers, and corresponding changes in precipitation, especially in biomass regions due to convective heating effects (Graf et al. 2004), suggest that these cloud systems and aerosol effects on them, must be examined more closely.

reply to post by kahunausa


Thank you kahuna. I have noticed a small reduction lately. However, I have had the opportunity to drive over many parts of this country and I always ask myself the same question. "Why are CHEMTRAILS always above most cities?" I'm not talking about cities with large airports which would make contrail sense. But I'm talking about any city with or without an airport. As I'm about 50 or 60 miles away, I see a giant "saucer" like cloud formation only above the city area! I have seen planes flying toward a city then like a switch was flipped, CHEMTRAIL right on cue. This is in the western US near LA, in the area around Roswell, NM, Colorado around Alamosa, and where I am today in Greenville, SC. Why always "just" above the cities? It would be easier to not be suspicious if the contrails that remained were other places too. Really makes me think that maybe they are CHEMTRAILS.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Here, take a look at pictures dating back 30-70 years of contrails acting and looking exactly like they do today:

How about all of those pictures from 70 years ago showing how those trails spread out and cover the sky with a blanket of clouds for the next 5-7 hours? You keep digging for those. Those would be the pictures I want to see. You keep looking and post them when you find them. I'll be waiting...

Oh yeah, a subsequent post reminded me, if you could make those pictures of those spreading out and staying contrails from the desert that would be great. Arizona, the Mojave in California, Nevada, New Mexico-I'm not picky, as long as they are from a hot, dry climate and from 40-70 years ago. That would be great. Thanks.

reply to post by Tygart


This morning I looked at the sky and saw that it was clear, with no planes flying overhead dispersing those contrails that spread and persist. This was unusual, as there are normally many planes per day that make cloud-like emissions over Vancouver Island. I then wondered if anyone else noticed this too; so thank you for creating this thread!

By the way, my daughter just called me "Papadada". And after reading some of the posts on here, I became perplexed. I mean, if chemtrails can't exist because there is no dictionary reference to them, does this mean that I can't possibly exist because "Papadada" doesn't show up in the dictionary either? Maybe I am just a figment of my daughter's imagination!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Without knowing the exact date, to the day, and the exact locations, most of your pictures prove nothing.

I submit that each picture was taken on a particularly cold and wet day. Persistent CONtrails would be the expected result.

Also, the pictures from the Pacific Northwest and along the coastlines are hardly impressive. Almost the whole of Oregon and Western Washington are wet year round, eastern WA is dry as a bone. Wet environments make for persistent contrails.

Some that are labeled persistent spreading trails, are really just contrails that we don't know if they are persistent or not. After all pictures don't tell the story over time, unless you performed timed photography which is not evident here.

The rest, I'll just take a page out of the debunker book and call Cirrus Clouds. Or pictures taken right before the contrail was dissipating.

The old military photo's are not impressive either. Prop planes are dirty pigs compared to modern jet craft. Plenty of exhaust particles for moisture to cling to, but it still doesn't show any progress over time.

Conclusion:
Good try, but showing me persistent trails near water is like showing me a tree on fire near an active volcano.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Relative humidity is low at the surface! In the desert (except in "monsoon season"....I lived in PHX for years).

Yes, we're all talking about the skies but you go ahead and pretend otherwise when it suits your debunking.

Also, hot land causes moisture and particulates (pollution, dust, etc.) to rise and encourages clouds. If it's hot at ground level and there are no clouds, there will be no persistent CONtrails either. The skies are stripped of moisture in such locations. If trails persist in such situations, then they are induced to persist through unnatural means.

Do you know what the Appleman Chart is? It's not perfect, but a rough guide to predicting contrails.

Yes, it isn't perfect.

At pressure altitudes of ~300 hPa, that is about 31,000 feet. (You can see they have the altitude in meters, there -- 9,430).

Now you're just being condescending. But do please keep acting like you're the only guy here who can tell if you're looking at Metric (it even says m right on it) or Standard/Imperial, it lends you so much credibility.

FL310, a typical cruise altitude. Let's see....RH is 18%....bit low, but look at the other levels, above and below. Still,though.it is the TEMPERATURE that matters.....and, you DID KNOW that the water in contrails is provided not only by the existing atmosphere, but by the fuel itself....correct?? There are unburned HYDROGEN atoms that are in the exhaust....and can combine with the OXYGEN in air....and that makes....H2O!

Oh gee, thanks for revealing that Hydrogen and Oxygen can make water. Now I can rest easy knowing that something I, and virtually 100% of other posters here, learned in elementary school has been confirmed.

Going into the Appleman Chart, for 300 hPa.....temperature is -40.5°C. So, it is in the "Maybe contrails" portion of the chart.

What a totally certain answer with which to base conclusions on...maybe. Maybe not.

CONtrails, no "chem"......and, that is your clue, there!! The contrails DO encourage more clouds to form, in some cases....just, it varies all the time, due to variations in local conditions.

Well, if you want to play semantic games...
All reactions of matter are chemical, all plane trails contain matter that undergoes changes.
All plane trails are chemical trails.

Oh, and again your conclusion are in some cases...just, it varies all the time, so certain...maybe.

Why can't you and your decades of experience pin down definitive conditions for persistent contrail formation?

I find it contradictory that you claim so much understanding of contrail formation, that you can debunk us...but all you can bring to the table are maybes and if-whens.

You need, now, to research into the HIGH-BYPASS TURBOFAN engine designs, and the differences from when you were "a kid"....when the majority of jet engines were LOW-bypass, or some even straight turboJETS!....hence, different contrails, in look and persistence potential. (Plus....well, selective memory, too......)

LMAO, well I certainly wasn't born prior to the mid-60's when High-bypasses came about...I wasn't even born prior to most of the 70's. So that excuse certainly doesn't work for me, another person who saw nothing but long, skinny, quickly dissipating trails as a child.

(Plus....well, selective memory, too......)

The only person you can vouch for certain on that account is yourself. Unless you're actually presumptuous enough to think you know details of other peoples memories and childhoods.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Aren't you those people?

Not really, I, myself never use the term chemtrails to describe what I´m seeing in the sky.

That is a BS, flat-out lie. Either on purpose, or from lack of research. Go to this link and look at CONtrails dating back 30-60 years ago that linger and haze-out: contrailscience.com... Now, after looking at those, wanna change your statement?

No, I don´t. I said we, meaning family and friends overhere, never saw these trails eventually hazing up the whole sky, and preventing direct sunlight coming through, 10 years ago, on a regular basis. That´s no bs or a lie.

Those pics prove nothing, they only show a fraction of time, so there is no way to tell how long the trails persist, and if they eventually haze up the whole sky.

Just going by what the poorly-researched video called "What in the world are they spraying" said.

And did I mention or refer to that video?

I have said that before and I am in total agreement with that.

So is it that hard to imagine that they are actually actively pursuing this climate effect by making deliberate trails in the sky?

I'm not trying to stop debate. I'm just trying to educate people on facts, because there is very little factual evidence coming from those that peddle the "chemtrail" "theory".

No, just the regular sightings of millions of people that are seeing abnormal events.

You agree these trails have an effect on climate, you must agree that the science and technology to deliberately do this is in existance, you must agree that governments are able to pull of secret programs, like 911, you must agree that lots of people are witnessing these events.

Still, it is just BS and fearmongering without evidence, and because it is unproven, people shouldn´t be allowed to talk about it I guess.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

I'm not trying to stop debate.

I think you're wanting #1 on that list: CONTRAIL. There's no such thing as chemtrails and they've been debunked ad nausium here on ATS and have been proven to be disinformation.

Your opinion posted as fact on page one seems an obvious attempt to stop debate.

reply to post by DONTBEIGNORANT


DBI, its great that you post many scientific links for anyone else who happens to view these pages, but you DO realize the bunkster trolls, will always cling to their same old mantra that sure scientists, the military, politicians, acedemics, are writing tons of papers on it, discussing it, theorizing about it..... but nobody is actually 'doing it'..... got 'proof'?..... over and over and over as tons of evidence is submittted.

Clearly I think at the LEAST we are seeing advanced cloud seeding and creation techniques being employed on a massive scale, some may term this 'geoengineering' though I am very sceptical it has much to do with 'global warming' and much more to do with manipulalting the weather and climate for financial and political and military objectives.

That was what I was wondering about. The sky's seems to be clear blue, almost most of the time. Only yesterday in the woods above me I saw one.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Byteman


Demonstrably false.

If it's hot at ground level and there are no clouds, there will be no persistent CONtrails either. The skies are stripped of moisture in such locations...

Try again.

reply to post by DONTBEIGNORANT


????

Paid dis-info shills really annoy me.

People who constantly post suff they don't understand,a nd call it what it isn't?? Annoy me....

So there's absolutely no such thing as plans spraying aerosols filled with barium and aluminum into the stratosphere? Hmm.

www.osti.gov...

No. You copy/pasted the entire abstract description for the "osti" paper.....(against proper etiquette, here, BTW).

The text is in your post. Why not READ it again??? See if you can spot your mistakes.

(Hint: The term "aerosol" doesn't mean what you seem to think. Again, science.....not "belief").

Read the full context

reply to post by Byteman

LMAO, well I certainly wasn't born prior to the mid-60's when High-bypasses came about...I wasn't even born prior to most of the 70's. So that excuse certainly doesn't work for me, another person who saw nothing but long, skinny, quickly dissipating trails as a child.

The high-bypass turbo fan engine was NOT a dominant engine choice, in the "mid-60s". In fact, the P&W JT-8 series, a low-bypass turbo fan, was one of the most prevalent engines in use.....the Boeing 727, and 737 ("classics".....the -100s and -200s). AND, also, the DC-9. In the "mid-60s" were still many Boeing 707s in operation....turboJETS. (Long, skinny contrails from them).

For the development of the first "wide-body", more thrust was required, and the P&W JT-9 was designed, for the B-747. GE got into the game, as well as Rolls Royce....as more widebody designs came about (DC-10, L-1011). Still, FAR, FAR more of the older, smaller jets, on average. AND....the numbers of flights were far, far lesser back then.

(I will say that YOUR "memories" from childhood suffer from a selective recall, too....in order for your current "beliefs" to be sustained).

In fact.....it wasn't until the mid-80s, and the introduction of the re-designed B-737 (starting with the -300 series) that introduced the Snecma/GE CFM56 high bypass turbofan engines. Took ANOTHER decade, or a bit more, for the continuing newer models to be introduced into service, and older jets retired. Combined with the introduction, too, of the Airbus-built airplanes, and yet MORE high-bypass fans.

Must I link tons of sources? OR, would everyone prefer to go research for themselves?? The preceding was not an all-inclusive list, just from my own memory.....I experienced this history.

reply to post by Tecumte


Sometimes I think the trolls are computer generated responses.

Chemtrails are for extra-terrestrial threats- solar, alien, comet obscuring, nibiru

I'm thinking that since barrium and aluminum are majority composition of chemtrails, that it could interact with haarp.

Anyone ever backwards engineer an Ionic Breeze air filter from Sharper Image?
Same tech.

The answer are generated by bio computers, like yours. But the Logic detection patterns are not the same, because every human organic computer has other basis information to form conclusions. Since our bio computer likes it to know something special, and the state of anger and to be proud, it's very hard to learn something new while our brain don't wan't to loose the "I Know it better" state.

Chemtrails make no sense because they would also intoxicate the inventors. And all the Pictures posted are contrails, sorry it's so.

reply to post by weedwhacker


[snip] READ UP. Its not like the government to allow a good tragedy to go to waste. Thank god for eco-facists.

These articles are from the federal government's DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. These papers are paid research by the GOVT. WAKE UP.

Liniecki, J,
Kinetics of Calcium, Strontium, Barium, and Radium in Rats
Health Physics, 21, No. 3, Septeiriber 1971

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering -David W. Keith

"Aerosols could be injected into the upper atmosphere to engineer the climate by scattering incident sunlight so as to produce a cooling tendency that may mitigate the risks posed by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Analysis of climate engineering has focused on sulfate aerosols. Here I examine the possibility that engineered nanoparticles could exploit photophoretic forces, enabling more control over particle distribution and lifetime than is possible with sulfates, perhaps allowing climate engineering to be accomplished with fewer side effects. The use of electrostatic or magnetic materials enables a class of photophoretic forces not found in nature. Photophoretic levitation could loft particles above the stratosphere, reducing their capacity to interfere with ozone chemistry; and, by increasing particle lifetimes, it would reduce the need for continual replenishment of the aerosol. Moreover, particles might be engineered to drift poleward enabling albedo modification to be tailored to counter polar warming while minimizing the impact on equatorial climates.Keywords: atmospheric physics, solar radiation management, climate change Other Sections▼
AbstractLimitations of Sulfate AerosolsPhotophoretic Forces on AerosolsModel and ResultsDiscussionSupplementary MaterialReferences "

e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...

A Comprehensive Study of Surface Chemistry for Application to Engine NOx
Aftertreatment By Salvador Aceves

Mission Relevance
"This research will further LLNL’s (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) mission in national security by addressing the serious problem of proliferation of WMD, producing a new integrated capability to determine the fate,
dispersion, and ground effects of chemical and biological agents released by either a properly
functioning warhead or successfully intercepted missile.
FY03 Results
In FY03 we (1) conducted fluid-dynamics and thermal calculations using the codes ALE3D
and MuSiC to investigate initial elastic response of particulate and coupled aerodynamic
heating; (2) added mixed-element surface-tension capability to ALE3D; (3) extended existing
three-dimensional (3-D) atmospheric particle-transport and -dispersion models to account
for initial momentum; (5) began creating a set of weather classes for areas of interest to better
understand the sensitivity of low- or high-altitude releases of agents; and (6) began extending
existing 3-D atmospheric particle-transport and -dispersion models to simulate the equation of
motions of macroparticles in a rarefied flow."


"Diesel engines have been identified as high emitters of nitrogen oxides (NOx). New
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations mandate a reduction in engine NOx
emissions by a factor of 10, down to 0.20 g/hp/hr by 2007. This value is well below 1 g/hp/hr,
which we have identified as the minimum to which NOx emissions can be reduced in a diesel
engine with currently available technology. In this project, we are using our advanced modeling
capabilities for chemical kinetics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer to comprehensively
study NOx traps, which represent the best available technical option. Scientific issues include
developing chemical kinetic mechanisms for surface chemistry, analyzing sulfur poisoning of
the catalyst surfaces, and countering the thermal aging of catalysts.
We are focusing on the fundamentals of NO2 adsorption on barium oxide (BaO) surfaces
and are using molecular-dynamics calculations to determine energy levels under different
operating assumptions. We are also developing a computer code to link gas-phase temperatures
and concentrations to surface temperatures and availability of adsorption sites."

Publications
Delire, C., J. A. Foley, and S. L. Thompson. (2003). “Evaluating the carbon cycle of a coupled
atmosphere–biosphere model.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(1). UCRL-JC-149715.
Govindasamy, B. et al. (2003). “Impact of geoengineering schemes on the terrestrial
biosphere.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 29(22). UCRL-JC-149732.

I can inform the whole world if I really wanted to. I could start a revolution if I really wanted to.
Spraying this junk better be worth it for the human species.

(Hint: The term "aerosol" doesn't mean what you seem to think. Again, science.....not "belief"). Read the full context

reply to post by weedwhacker


What does the term aerosol mean in that context then?

Why not be clear, since you have all the answers, tell us, what does aerosol mean in that context?