Contrails *do* influence the weather, here is proof by NASA

a reply to: MagicWand67

The Aurora report describes sulfuric acid injection in the exhaust stream of a jet.

The Aurora report describes many things that aren't happening.

The "Desired rate" of 30 grams per meter flown would hardly be sufficient to create the trails we see. Keep it straight.

The modification of cirrus clouds paper describes the chemicals being injected into the exhaust stream.

Proposed or occurring? In what amounts? Sufficient to account for the volume of the trails?

My point isn't to prove that it's being done. My point is that it could be and neither you or I would know.

And my point is even if they were, you're not seeing a cloud of chemicals. There's too much there in the trail to be 'chemical sprays'. A contrail can be like 10,000 times the amount of water produced by the fuel combustion which is about 1.24 times the amount of the fuel itself.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
If normal jet exhaust will make a contrail. Then it is safe to assume that extra chemicals vaporized in the exhaust will also make a contrail.

A contrail is mostly ice crystals, and the water for those ice crystals cam mostly from the ambient air that the plane is flying through. Therefore, I'm not sure now a chemical additive could also become visible like ice crystals.

What I mean is, would the chemicals additives be just as visible as the ice crystals, hang around like the ice crystals, and grow like a persistent contrail made of ice crystals can?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The chemicals are vaporized and become aerosols which provide additional ccn for the growth of ice crystals.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Same answer as above. The amount of chemicals does not need to account for the water we see in a contrail.

I am not saying the entire cloud is made of chemicals. That's not what's described.

On days when contrails are not present geoengineering tests could be taking place as well.

originally posted by: MagicWand67

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Rob48


I was wondering, where would a person go to find the most up-to-date reports based on transparency in SRM research?

Do you know what organization or entity is responsible for disseminating information about SRM research to the public?

I'm still waiting for a response to this question. Does anyone know the answer?

All the skeptics keep saying that they are positive nothing is being done right now and that Geoengineering research will be transparent.

So where can the public find the documents and reports? What agency, group or company provides this info to the public?

Do you even read the stuff we write? Are you being purposefully obtuse, or is this some sort of condition?

Nobody denies that it could happen. You keep bringing papers and studies about how it could happen. What you have not brought is anything that states clearly that it IS happening. And some of us do tend to look around elsewhere. If any of us saw that it IS happening RIGHT NOW, then we would be in panic-regroup mode to get as much information as we could about it.

Once it starts to happen, (and there is a better chance that it will then it won't) then we all hope there is disclosure and oversight. So all of us remain vigilant to the wording used.

You seem to want this to be true really bad. I sure hope folks come to their senses before they try to do something that could potentially ruin our skies.

Again, it's great that you people are staying on top of this. Just be sure you don't do the chicken little thing to early.
Educate, before you masticate.

a reply to: network dude

The problem is they aren't going to tell us. I will outline it again for you.

Source: SRMGI

4. Transparency in SRM Research and Governance ......................................... 13

.......

There are, however, certain compelling reasons that can over-ride this general presumption for transparency and justify limiting availability of information in specific instances.

These can include:

- Protecting confidential information belonging to individuals or of competitive significance between enterprises or researchers.

-The cost and administrative burden of providing information (This may be particularly significant for small or standardized projects);

- Safety, security, and management of international conflict

These issues suggest the following key questions to be addressed regarding information transparency in SRM research governance:

1) Is information about ownership, control, financial backing, and intellectual property
deemed relevant to project assessment and approval – and consequently, should there be
requirements to disclose this in proposals

They are going to protect the interests of those involved (scientists, investors, corporations, business', airlines, other people) before telling the public

If it jeopardizes trade secrets to competing fields of study or business they won't tell the public.

If it costs too much for a small test they won't tell the public.

Because of National security reasons they won't tell the public.

a reply to: MagicWand67

Same answer as above. The amount of chemicals does not need to account for the water we see in a contrail.

That's the problem. The reply is not an answer to the question.

I am not saying the entire cloud is made of chemicals. That's not what's described.

That's fine if that's understood but my statement was

They can't be a 'cloud of chemicals'.

You come back with

Here you go again. Yes they can.

I already showed you 2 examples of how it can be done. So using words like "can't" is incorrect.

That looks like disagreement to me. It's not that I disagree that there *might be some* chemicals added, it's that you've shown no evidence there is.

So do you get what I'm saying here?

And my point is even if they were, you're not seeing a cloud of chemicals. There's too much there in the trail to be 'chemical sprays'. A contrail can be like 10,000 times the amount of water produced by the fuel combustion which is about 1.24 times the amount of the fuel itself.

If we can agree on that too then we have no disagreement worth arguing about right now, IMO.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The chemicals are vaporized and become aerosols which provide additional ccn for the growth of ice crystals.

Which regular jet exhaust does spectacularly well all by itself day in, day out. Even by your description, the visible trail is water ice. Therefore, even assuming that you are correct and this is occurring, visible trails are not a sign of such activity, which is why the chemtrail conspiracy theorists who keep posting pictures of such things to illustrate that they are being sprayed, are wrong.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Same answer as above. The amount of chemicals does not need to account for the water we see in a contrail.

I am not saying the entire cloud is made of chemicals. That's not what's described.

On days when contrails are not present geoengineering tests could be taking place as well.

as per my previous reply, i agree with this completely.

thats why my argument is against those who say they can 'see' chemtrails, which is a ludicrous claim.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

And my point is even if they were, you're not seeing a cloud of chemicals. There's too much there in the trail to be 'chemical sprays'. A contrail can be like 10,000 times the amount of water produced by the fuel combustion which is about 1.24 times the amount of the fuel itself.

Yes we can agree on this.

a reply to: MagicWand67

My point isn't to prove that it's being done. My point is that it could be and neither you or I would know.

And from the UNEP...

Scientists need to consider the environmental risks of geoengineering, however, and the public and decision makers need to participate in discussions about the ethical, social, and geopolitical constraints of these new technologies (Williamson 2011).

na.unep.net...

This is what most if not all scientists studying this topic say. It needs to governed and the end results need to be known before anybody tries it as we don't know what may happen by doing it.

a reply to: MagicWand67

So what's the plan? get all worked up and paranoid, then start the protest?

I'm serious, what to you propose?

a reply to: network dude

Geoengineering research is being used to understand climate change, ozone depletion, volcanic interactions and atmospheric chemistry.

It seems unlikely it will be put into full scale implementation anytime soon.

However, this doesn't stop climate engineers from still using these techniques for their atmospheric studies.

The plan is to stay informed as much is possible.

Climate scientists and governments are tinkering with our atmosphere like it's a toy chemistry set.

Geoengineering can be potentially be used for nefarious or clandestine purposes.

Source


Sulfuric acid injection into the wake of aircraft seems to be the most successful method proposed.

Geoengineering and climate science has crossed over becoming nearly indistinguishable from one another.

No need to panic but there is definitely cause for concern.

a reply to: MagicWand67

Climate scientists and governments are tinkering with our atmosphere like it's a toy chemistry set.

Is it the atmosphere or models? The Introduction in your source begins with

Geoengineering by injection of sulfur into the stratosphere is among the most promising methods of solar radiation management techniques under consideration [Royal Society, 2009].

And ends with

Even assuming that the surface area density of Al2O3 is smaller by factors of 5-10 than that generated by sulfate geoengineering, we find that ozone depletion is unacceptably large.

I looked at this and I didn't see real world testing. If that's in there I'd like to see it.

ETA: Example

Figure 4. Calculated annual average ozone column changes in percent for several geoengineering cases. Ozone changes calculated by the SOCOL chemistry-climate model

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I thought we already established that these are proposals and studies.

I am fully aware this study is based off computer models.

The items in the conclusion point towards the direction this field is heading.

Sulfuric acid injection into the wake of aircraft was found to be the best method of those studied.

The Conclusion explains why SRM is a bad idea. But it's also a valuable tool for climate/atmospheric research.

a reply to: MagicWand67

I thought we already established that these are proposals and studies.

I am fully aware this study is based off computer models.

OK. My question was specifically about this statement

Climate scientists and governments are tinkering with our atmosphere like it's a toy chemistry set.

But we can add this one

However, this doesn't stop climate engineers from still using these techniques for their atmospheric studies.

Say what you will. Imply what you will. I'm done trying to interpret.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

If you want direct examples that's fine.


Scientists tinkering with our atmosphere

The Charged Aerosol Release Experiment

Let's look at an actual real life chemtrail.






But seriously, some techniques of SRM geoengineering are basically just a different form of cloud seeding.

Cloud seeding is already classed as a form of weather modification.

There are already different forms of cloud seeding with different purposes.

Cloud seeding is a form of small scale geoengineering

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Lots of using the word could lol. Its still theory. Computer models cant accurately define cloud patterns by noaa own accounts so global warming and chemtrails cannot be blamed for anything.

a reply to: MagicWand67

This is all fine and dandy, but the fact still remains that science can describe, define, and understand contrails -- and those puffy white lines formed behind high-altitude planes look like contrails, act like contrails, form the where contrails should form, form how contrails should form, and react the way contrails should react...

...so until you have some hard evidence that tells me they aren't contrails, then I'm gong to continue thinking that they are.