It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Most crucially, if stratospheric temperatures continue to decrease (while tropospheric temperatures increase), the stratospheric temperatures in the Arctic could get cold enough to form more of the polar stratospheric clouds that serve as breeding grounds for the chemical reactions leading to ozone depletion.
luxordelphi
...And that's what we had recently with the polar vortex here in the U.S.: a sudden stratospheric warming event which should translate to less ozone loss as the sun returns to the Arctic...
Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi
The only large UAV in use anywhere is the RQ-4 Global Hawk. They are limited in numbers, and can't fly over US airspace without an escort. Very few UAVs fly near commercial aircraft height.
They won't advertise military aircraft? Really? An E-3B in an active combat zone near Libya was tracked on FlightRadar24. E-6Bs, RC-135s, KC-135, and many more military aircraft show up on it.
luxordelphi
reply to post by Rezlooper
And that's what we had recently with the polar vortex here in the U.S.: a sudden stratospheric warming event which should translate to less ozone loss as the sun returns to the Arctic.
You can see the contortions of the jet stream during January in this image from the Met Office report. The arrows show the direction of the winds in the upper troposphere, and the colors show their speeds in meters per second.
The red streak in the western Pacific is part of the Asian-Pacific jet stream. Follow it across the ocean and you’ll note a sharp upward buckling toward Alaska. This is a significant departure from the normal pattern. It contributed to exceptional warmth in Alaska in January.
Meanwhile, the downward buckling over the U.S. midsection allowed bitter cold to spill south.
Now, keep following the jet. It turns to the northeast, tracking up the U.S. East Coast, and then heads out over the North Atlantic. Here, it is known as the North Atlantic jet.
As it turns out, cold air from arctic outbreaks in the United States was able to enter this part of the jet stream — with dramatic effects. The temperature differential this introduced caused the jet to strengthen by as much as 30 percent, according to the Met Office report. And this, in turn, enhanced the formation of cyclonic storms, the very ones that have been pummeling the U.K.
raedar
reply to post by abeverage
I don't require physical evidence in order to form an opinion/belief. I realize many people do. That's fine with me. I can look in the sky daily and see them spraying tic tac toes in the sky, watch them spread to form clouds and block out the sun. That doesn't have to be enough evidence for you, but for me I am convinced based upon what I have seen and what I have read about this that there is something they are not telling us. I'm not trying to convince you of that, I'm simply stating my view and engaging in the conversation.
Rezlooper
reply to post by luxordelphi
The warming is also causing hydrogen sulfide gases to release and this is rapidly escalating right along with the methane. Hydrogen sulfide is heavier-than-air so it usually settles in low-lying areas but when it is released it can blow high into the atmosphere in plumes. When this happens it will react away ozone which of course, causes UV to increase to eventual lethal levels causing serious health problems for humans and animals. Hydrogen sulfide also reacts away the hydroxyl radicals that mitigate methane gases. The less the radicals eat away the methane, it allows the gas to increase in the atmosphere creating a blanket over the planet trapping the sun's heat. Hydrogen sulfide is a bad deal and as temperatures continue to increase, it's not only the methane releasing in plumes but hydrogen sulfide as well.
One way to attempt to suppress the destruction of the ozone layer would be by replenishing the lost ozone through producing vast amounts of ozone and transporting them to the stratosphere, a suggestion made repeatedly according to the president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, who explicity opposes the idea. 80 Without a further scheme to limit the destructive chemical reactions, this scheme would require continual replenishment of the ozone, requiring continual funding as well.
Although adding a gas to the atmosphere to replenish losses of that gas, from the atmosphere seems substantially less objectionable than adding aerosols, the scheme to add ozone to the stratosphere would still be expensive and would still have the potential for unintended consequences, especially in view of all the chemical reactions that occur in the stratosphere, powered by the Sun's radiation.
Rather than injecting ozone itself into the stratosphere to replenish the Earth's protective ozone layer, in 1991 Ralph Cicerone of the University of California, Irvine, Scott Elliott of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), considered injecting ethane or propane to trigger a sequence of chemical reactions that would prevent the damaging ozone-destroying reactions.
Box of Rain
luxordelphi
...And that's what we had recently with the polar vortex here in the U.S.: a sudden stratospheric warming event which should translate to less ozone loss as the sun returns to the Arctic...
The Polar Votex was a short term weather event, not a climate event. Weather is not the same as climate.
There is no way to look at a snapshot of weather and deduce anything about the climate from it.
network dude
reply to post by Rezlooper
One thing I cannot understand is that everyone claims chemtrails are common in all NATO countries. Yet it's NATO that outlawed geo-engineering. Why would they do that, if .....they were doing that?
Plus you have to get around explaining the difference between regular contrails and what constitutes a chemtrail.
But that discussion will end in an infinite loop of stupidity, so don't bother.
DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Rezlooper
That's some thread title you got there. What is in this video that shows "chemtrails" are real?
Also, looking at the coverage area displayed on the FlightRadar24 screen how in the world could anyone expect the flight she's looking at to show up?
dlbott
They say that but I have friends who are in different parts of the world and they tell me they have not seen it.
Tucket
abeverage
reply to post by raedar
Also contrails are worldwide so if there was spraying of chemicals the effects would impact (and do) on a global scale. They Elites would not escape to some remote corner of the earth to wait for the rest of us to die (of old age LOL).
And yet they've irradiated the planet for decades by detonating thousands of nuclear bombs. They dont appear to be too concerned about the health of the planet or any of the people on it.
abeverage
The planet is far from irradiated otherwise we would not be having this conversation.
I am convinced if there are chemtrails it is weather modification or shielding as there is more evidence and more sense.
You'll notice that i didn't use only the title of the video. I added "According to this video" so that one can make one's own assumption after viewing the video for oneself.
Aaah, so you're saying that she is zoomed in on too little of an area for the flight to show up and that it may be just off her radar screen.
How far would you say the flight is from where she is filming then since you can deduce that it is out of range from what you've viewed?