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.
Lastly, I really want to know why you think NASA actually has the budget to do any of Chemtrailing etc. They don't. NASA has been way underfunded in recent years (for what they do) and generally underfunded since the 1970's.
originally posted by: MissVocalcord
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
I've looked and honestly I do not see how they record these gases aerosol and Co2 it seems like to get some of there imagery and data they would have to use a tracer.
You mentioned the POLDER earlier; they still have a website online:
The ocean is almost "black" in the near infrared and its contribution is quite constant at 565 nm wavelength (away from the glitter). The aerosol over ocean inversion scheme is based on the spectral dependence in the 565-865 nm range and on the directional information of the radiance and polarized radiance. The outputs are the Aerosols Optical Thickness and the bimodal aerosol size distribution. The coarse mode of aerosols is a mixture of spherical and non spherical particles.
polder-mission.cnes.fr...
So stated very simply for the oceans; they know the background infrared, the aerosols are just above this background noise, together with the direction and polarization of the 'light'.
originally posted by: apex
a reply to: Bunkrbuster
How is their posting pictures of interpreted CO2 movement any different conceptually to NASA posting images of visual light, exactly? Because that's how you are coming across as asking.
Also:
. The data will be used to study interactions between aerosols and clouds that may change the amount of sunlight they reflect and absorb, or enhance or suppress precipitation: subjects of current scientific debate.
Quoting NASA on that one. So by collecting its data they can simulate a in detail data map of the weather patterns of the aerosols?
They collect the data and depict it in a nice visual model for you to look at, yes. And if you want to insinuate from the first paragraph you posted that NASA are putting the aerosols up there in the first place to look at with their satellites, it doesn't imply that.
Lastly, I really want to know why you think NASA actually has the budget to do any of Chemtrailing etc. They don't. NASA has been way underfunded in recent years (for what they do) and generally underfunded since the 1970's.
originally posted by: MissVocalcord
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
I've looked and honestly I do not see how they record these gases aerosol and Co2 it seems like to get some of there imagery and data they would have to use a tracer.
You mentioned the POLDER earlier; they still have a website online:
The ocean is almost "black" in the near infrared and its contribution is quite constant at 565 nm wavelength (away from the glitter). The aerosol over ocean inversion scheme is based on the spectral dependence in the 565-865 nm range and on the directional information of the radiance and polarized radiance. The outputs are the Aerosols Optical Thickness and the bimodal aerosol size distribution. The coarse mode of aerosols is a mixture of spherical and non spherical particles.
polder-mission.cnes.fr...
So stated very simply for the oceans; they know the background infrared, the aerosols are just above this background noise, together with the direction and polarization of the 'light'.
atrain.nasa.gov...
PARASOL Ceases Operation
Launched in December 2004, the French Polarization & Anisotropy of Reflectances for Atmospheric Sciences coupled with Observations from a Lidar (PARASOL) spacecraft ceased operation on December 18, 2013.
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
originally posted by: MissVocalcord
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
I've looked and honestly I do not see how they record these gases aerosol and Co2 it seems like to get some of there imagery and data they would have to use a tracer.
You mentioned the POLDER earlier; they still have a website online:
The ocean is almost "black" in the near infrared and its contribution is quite constant at 565 nm wavelength (away from the glitter). The aerosol over ocean inversion scheme is based on the spectral dependence in the 565-865 nm range and on the directional information of the radiance and polarized radiance. The outputs are the Aerosols Optical Thickness and the bimodal aerosol size distribution. The coarse mode of aerosols is a mixture of spherical and non spherical particles.
polder-mission.cnes.fr...
So stated very simply for the oceans; they know the background infrared, the aerosols are just above this background noise, together with the direction and polarization of the 'light'.
Still no explanation of why PARASOL was pulled in 2013.
originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
originally posted by: MissVocalcord
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
I've looked and honestly I do not see how they record these gases aerosol and Co2 it seems like to get some of there imagery and data they would have to use a tracer.
You mentioned the POLDER earlier; they still have a website online:
The ocean is almost "black" in the near infrared and its contribution is quite constant at 565 nm wavelength (away from the glitter). The aerosol over ocean inversion scheme is based on the spectral dependence in the 565-865 nm range and on the directional information of the radiance and polarized radiance. The outputs are the Aerosols Optical Thickness and the bimodal aerosol size distribution. The coarse mode of aerosols is a mixture of spherical and non spherical particles.
polder-mission.cnes.fr...
So stated very simply for the oceans; they know the background infrared, the aerosols are just above this background noise, together with the direction and polarization of the 'light'.
Still no explanation of why PARASOL was pulled in 2013.
parasol.cnes.fr...
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
Still no explanation of why PARASOL was pulled in 2013.
As the mission has gone on well beyond its expected duration,
due to insufficient ergols
In September 2009, PARASOL was already preparing to lower its orbit because of depleted propellant resources. The plan was to execute an orbit lowering maneuver on December 2, 2009. Because of minimal availability of propellant, the collision avoidance maneuver had to be kept as small as possible.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
Still no explanation of why PARASOL was pulled in 2013.
Yes, the reason has been given.... here it is again!
directory.eoportal.org...
As the mission has gone on well beyond its expected duration,
due to insufficient ergols
In September 2009, PARASOL was already preparing to lower its orbit because of depleted propellant resources. The plan was to execute an orbit lowering maneuver on December 2, 2009. Because of minimal availability of propellant, the collision avoidance maneuver had to be kept as small as possible.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
Still no explanation of why PARASOL was pulled in 2013.
Yes, the reason has been given.... here it is again!
directory.eoportal.org...
As the mission has gone on well beyond its expected duration,
due to insufficient ergols
In September 2009, PARASOL was already preparing to lower its orbit because of depleted propellant resources. The plan was to execute an orbit lowering maneuver on December 2, 2009. Because of minimal availability of propellant, the collision avoidance maneuver had to be kept as small as possible.
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
directory.eoportal.org...
the mission design life is one year with two years as goal.
due to insufficient ergols, the current planning calls for the satellite to be deorbited during the autumn of 2013
(fuel shortage for constellation maintenance
due to a fuel shortage to execute required maneuvers.
due to insufficient fuel supplies
depleted propellant resources.
Because of minimal availability of propellant
I've clearly stated in 2013 there was a filing to stop parasol from flying.
Keep 2009 have no facts here.
originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Bunkrbuster
I've clearly stated in 2013 there was a filing to stop parasol from flying.
What is this filing you're talking about?
Keep 2009 have no facts here.
WTF?
originally posted by: Bunkrbuster
originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Bunkrbuster
I've clearly stated in 2013 there was a filing to stop parasol from flying.
What is this filing you're talking about?
Keep 2009 have no facts here.
WTF?
Damn you want to criticize without looking at what I've posted.