Flannery proposes 'global dimming' to save planet

reply to post by weedwhacker


The funny thing about you, is you go on the defence to the extreme, yet when anyone gives their honest truth, or even show damning pictorial evidence, you deny or dismiss it.

I think you are disinfo, along with the other "debunkers" Ozweatherman and Essan, Pilot and Del that frequent these types of threads.

So I guess you interperate that as an attack, but to me it is my truthful observation of all you disinfo people. I still love you all though.

watchZEITGEISTnow

reply to post by D.Wolf


Wolf, amazing find....World record, eh? And, to reduce weight, no starter or batteries.....so how much chemicals could it carry and spray as it auto-rotated at maybe, 2000 FPM?

A one-off, once in a lifetime achievement....not an every day occurence, of course....but thanks for finding that. Was in in Jane's, or Guinness??

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Thanks for the love, ZEIT....but I can absolutely guarantee that I am no 'agent'....I wish I cluld charge by the hour for this but, alas, it is all volunteer. I hate to see nonsense get 'legs'....because laypeople jump to incorrect conclusions.

As to Oz and Essan....they are plainly, and verifiably, meteorologists. They have presented credentials.

Del and Pilot....I haven't met, but one pilot can tell, by how and what we say...I smell 'fake' very easily if someone purports to be a knowledgable person, and what they say doesn't 'jibe'

It's like doctors, they have a shorthand...and they can tell when one is BSing.

For the record, on this thread, it was interesting....needs more study, but the article said as much...that it should be considered, not that it had already started. And, has been pointed out, the normal by-product of engine exhaust may include sulfides...which have a deleterious effect on the Ozone layer. The article above mentions the Concorde specifically, but that is because when it was flying it would cruise as high as 50000 to 55000 feet...when supersonic. Of course, it was prohibited from going over Mach1 while over land....but, anyway, they aren't flying anymore...too expensive.

One final fact....normal Jet-A fuel does not contain any 'intentionally introduced' compounds as part of a 'chemtrail' plan. All commercial jets burn Jet-A. There are Military grades of fuel (Jet-B, and others) that have a higher volatility, and are not used in commercial jets, because they burn hotter. SO.....if the Military is doing something to THEIR fuel, then we would have no way of knowing, since anyone who talked would be court-martialed....

But a civilian would have no reason NOT to spill the beans, and make loads of money, if any of it were true on the civilian side....

So weedwacker, can I then infer the following from your last comment:

1. if the spreading of chemtrails is a military, defense, national security or military industrial related operation then you agree that chemtrails are entirely possible but unable to be confirmed due to military style non-disclosure.

2. if chemtrails are also (but not limited to) a wider operation potentially involving commercial planes, then pilots may not have enough knowledge or experience to discern the contents of the jet fuel of every flight they take so would not be in a position to make comments either confirming or denying that at some point/some time/some flight chemical trails were being emitted from the planes they flew.


Again for balance, I would just like to note that I immediately posted after the interior photo of that plane was shown, and that I had credible information and a link that said that photo was almost without a doubt the interior of a plane set up for flight testing, NOT for creating chemtrails. I don't believe in chemtrails, I just have lots of evidence and experience that points to their existence whether you utilize a broad or narrow definition of them or not. Don't get me wrong though, I love a good debate and nothing is more satisfying than when a worthy and intelligent adversary sees something from a different perspective. Likewise I take my hat off to anyone that can educate, mentor and/or illustrate a different perspective to me!

So, can you confirm the comments I made in points 1 and 2 please.

reply to post by primamateria


prima, I will try, without pulling a full quote and wasting space...

Number 1: Military applications, as I pointed out before, I have no knowledge.

Number 2: Commercial aviation, I know something about. The fuel used is designated as Jet-A....it is a mostly kerosene blend, it weighs slightly more than gasoline...it's more like diesel fuel, if you wish to compare. Average weight per gallon of Jet-A is 6.7 pounds. Gasoline is about 6.0 pounds (same with AvGas, for piston-powered airplanes).

Just for comparison....water weighs about 7.2 pounds per gallon...that's why oil floats on water....even unrefined oil is lighter than water.

The fuel quantity system on an airplane uses multiple sensors to measure the density, at various places in the tanks, and thus arrive at a 'quantity'....in pounds (some other operators, non-USA based, use kilograms...same principle, just different math)

These sensors are built-in, from the factory....and to change them out would require an extensive procedure....emptying the tanks, sending people in Haz-Mat suits, because of the fumes....etc...

Modern times, to cut the story short....we have the ACARS...it knows the arrival fuel, in pounds. We know our Dispatch fuel, in pounds....the fuelers hook up the hose, to the fueling panel, usually the right wing....and the 'truck' pumps from the underground supply, the fueler knows what the 'uplift' should be, there are fuel gauges out there on the wing for him to see....all the while, the 'truck' is metering the fuel, in gallons.....

When done, we get a 'fuel slip'....it is a copy, usually in quadruplicate, we get the top copy, and it shows his meter readings, before and after, along with the fuel load he has been given for each tank on the airplane.

With ACARS, it takes the last known fuel on arrival....we input the gallons uploaded from the fuel slip, and the computer calculates the FOB (fuel on board). It must match, within reason (meaning, a few hundred pounds) what we are dispatched to have, and compared to the fuel guages in the cockpit, which is already been uplinked into the ACARS. Per the Company Flight Plan, already filed with ATC, and uplinked to the ACARS, along with any changes imposed by ATC...AND, the Captain can request additional fuel, to modify the Dispatch release accordingly, in consultation with the Dispatcher....

If there is any doubt (AND ALWAYS on OverWater flights....extended OverWater...) the back of the fuel slip has boxes to be filled out....the gallons uplifted, times 6.7, plus the original FOB....should equal the Dispatch FOB. What's more, for OverWater, a mechanic will 'stick' the tanks....there are various spots, under the wing and center tanks, where the actual fuel levels can be determined....they used to be called 'drip sticks'...the mechanic would pull it down, this hollow tube, just until it began to 'drip' down his arm, and note the reading.....now, they use magnetic floats.....

All of this is just, I hope, helpful information to convey to reassure you that the density of the fuel we use would be severely altered, if any odd 'chemical' were introduced.....and all of the procedures we have in place to determine we have the correct fuel quantity before departure would surely turn up adulterated fuel.

BTW, one of the worst things to affect an airplane is unwanted water in the fuel system. That is why, if you fly small airplanes, you'll know why there is a 'sump' point....to check the fuel....it is the lowest point in the tank, and even a beginning Private Pilot is taught how to check for water contamination....

In modern commercial jets, it's a little more sophisticated....there are periodic checks done by maintenance intervals, but for an airplane that is kept in usual service, it's not a problem....not much chance for too much condensation to form in the tanks. Of course, at altitudes that jets fly, any water will likely freeze....but just in case, fuel is routed through a fuel/oil heat exchanger, before being delivered to the engine fuel pumps....this warms the Jet-A, and helps cool the engine oil at the same time....

We also have to be cognizant of extended hours at very low ambient temperatures....and there are procedures for 'fuel heaters'....which basically direct more of the engine's fuel through the heat exchangers....but these are written into the Airplane's Limitations Section of the Operating Handbook.....

I realize that everything I've written may seem to have gone off the topic....but I felt I was invited, by the OP, to provide some of my knowledge and experience regarding commercial flights, and how they might pertain to possible 'chemtrail' spraying.....

Some wish to pigeon-hole me as a 'dis-info agent'.....whatever THAT is!

I can only say I am a retired airline pilot who does this, not for pay!! (obviously) but out of a concern to make sure people (I'll say it! 'laypersons') know a little more about aviation, and perhaps, are influenced enough to go out and learn more!

When you learn aviation, you will also learn meteorology (well, enough at least to pass the tests!!) I bow to others' expertise in meteorology, because without them, we pilots wouldn't have the prog charts, both low and upper-level, to help us....and the Dispatchers, who do the hard work...using the aforementioned charts and other data...forecasts....METARS...all of it!

Hoping I've done a little bona fide......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by D.Wolf

 

Wolf, amazing find....World record, eh? And, to reduce weight, no starter or batteries.....so how much chemicals could it carry and spray as it auto-rotated at maybe, 2000 FPM?

A one-off, once in a lifetime achievement....not an every day occurence, of course....but thanks for finding that. Was in in Jane's, or Guinness??

Relax dude, it was a joke. You asked for juuuuuuuust one heli that could do the trick and I delivered exactly that. Now stop whining and hand over the goodies!

all the sience is directed by the aliens and they need sulfur to breathe , so it is all tailored to their needs before coming takeover

Originally posted by kelbtalfenek
reply to post by primamateria

 

Um...doesn't anybody remember the late 1970's and early 1980's?? Sulfur was in the atmosphere a-plenty. We had a little thing called "Acid Rain" back then. You see the sulfur combines with evaporated water and forms a little compound called "Sulfuric Acid" (H2SO4) which then falls to the ground as precipitation.

Or was that just a dream?

Must have just been a dream.

Just like I dreamed I had learned about the atmosphere of Venus years ago, covered with clouds of sulfuric acid.

Who knows, maybe thousands of years ago it was earthlike, and some schmuck said, "Hey, lets toss lots of sulfur in the air - that'll fix everything!"

[edit on 5/22/2008 by Nightflyer28]

Originally posted by k3456789
all the sience is directed by the aliens and they need sulfur to breathe , so it is all tailored to their needs before coming takeover

You saw that Outer Limits episode too, huh?

reply to post by primamateria


This idea was mentioned in 2005 by the head of the Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Yuri Israel:

Renowned Russian scientist Yuri Israel, the head of the Global Climate and Ecology Institute, has written in a letter to President Putin that global warming requires immediate action and suggests burning thousands of tons of sulfur in the stratosphere as a remedy. The Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily published an interview with Israel on Wednesday in which he described his plan to counter global warming and called upon Russian authorities to consider it. The scientist says his plan is based on the idea of putting aerosols into the atmosphere at an altitude of 12-20 kilometers to create a reflective layer that would lower the heating effect of solar radiation. Israel claims that the plan could start having an effect within three years. “In order to lower the temperature of the Earth by 1-2 degrees we need to pump about 600,000 tons of aerosol particles. To do that, we need to burn from 100-200,000 tons of sulfur. And we do not have to burn the sulfur there, we can simply use sulfur-rich aircraft fuel.” The Russian scientist said. Israel said that his method was ecologically safe because it would result in relatively little pollution — only 0.2 milligrams of sulfur per square meter per year would return to the Earth’s surface and the amount of sulfur registered in natural precipitation is currently about 1000 times higher. “If humanity understands that catastrophic global warming is starting, we can implement our project in just two or three years. The most important thing is that we really will be able to control the climate,” the scientist said.

www.mosnews.com...

[edit on 23-5-2008 by tamerlane]

reply to post by kelbtalfenek


The amount of sulfur dioxide that would need to be added to control global warming would be very small compared to the amount we are already injecting.

By the calculations of Yuri Israel, 600,000 tons of aerosol particulate would be necessary to lower worldwide temperature by 1-2 degrees. Yes, that sounds like a lot, but not when considering that China alone (the world's largest sulfur dioxide polluter) had an estimated output in 2005 of 25.49 million tons. Helping China revamp its coal power plants would more than make up for the increased sulfur dioxide in our atmosphere.

The reason the SO2 we produce now isn't sufficient to reverse global warming, is because it is produced mainly at low altitudes where it precipitates out quickly as sulfuric acid. At high altitudes it can remain and do us some good before returning to earth.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Regarding the added CO2 from the planes that are spreading SO2, if a relatively small amount of SO2 is needed to counteract the effect of all the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then the CO2 from the planes is probably negligible.

Besides, there are other ways to get SO2 into the atmosphere. Balloons could be used carrying sulfur which could be burnt after reaching the stratosphere.

reply to post by satire111


An article was cited which said that the sulfur released from high altitude aircraft was actually harming the atmosphere by causing ozone deterioration.

It's not because SO2 is bad, but because the sulfur in the fuel of planes like the Concorde is actually coming out largely in the form of SO3 which is bad for ozone.

Therefore, it would be necessary to control the reaction carefully to ensure that the sulfur fully combusts to form SO2. Maybe then aircraft engines can't do it properly, but that doesn't mean that balloons couldn't or some other method.

reply to post by Keyhole


The possibility of reducing the photosynthetic activity of plants by dimming the atmosphere and therefore increasing the levels of CO2 is one that certainly deserves consideration. It would be important to try to determine how much sunlight really needs to be blocked to keep global temperatures stable and see if that would really be enough to have a significant effect on photosynthesis rates.

However, if we do nothing, we run into the same problem. Global temperatures will increase because we will not be able to move away from fossil fuel based technology for at least many decades to come and clear cut burning will continue because it is an inexpensive method to feed the world's growing population. With higher temperatures comes more water evaporation and more water vapor (another greenhouse gas) being held in the atmosphere. With more water vapor in the air, you can also expect more cloud cover which will block some sunlight and reduce the conversion of CO2 in O2. All of this leads to even more warming. A cycle with positive feedback.

I guess either way you will get a blockage of sunlight and the possible increase of CO2 levels, but with SO2 (or something similar) you get a negative feedback to the system. Without it, you have water vapor adding to the warming effect.

Adding SO2 seems like a an inexpensive solution that could be implemented fairly quickly, but I'm open to carbon sequestration techniques as viable alternatives. Maybe SO2 in the near term while other methods for controlling CO2 are being developed.

It seems to me that one advantage to the SO2 approach is that the sulfur dioxide gradually precipitates out and needs to be replenished, so if we begin to experience negative effects on the surface, we can return to the natural state within a year or two by ceasing to add more SO2. We can also gradually phase it out as we shift away from fossil fuel burning.

Another advantage I see to using the SO2 approach is that we are keeping a reserve of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that may be needed to help counteract the effects of a future catastrophe.

For example, can you remember that about 10 years ago, or so, it seemed like there was all this talk about the possibilities of an asteroid impact that would destroy the world? (Like back around the time the movie Armeggedon came out.) Well, even though we don't discuss it as much now, the threat hasn't lessened any. Geological history shows that large asteroid impacts are devastating to life on earth.

The impact itself would destroy life in a localized area, but the real threat to the world as a whole would be the cloud of dust that could take a decade or more to settle. It would be a bad time to be alive during the famine that would follow. Few ,if any, humans would survive.

Likewise, in the event of a nuclear holocaust, the continuing threat to the initial survivors would be the nuclear winter that would follow.

I think it would be a good idea to have a reserve of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that could help mitigate the effects of these types of catastrophes. By allowing the SO2 to precipitate out without being replenished, more light would reach the earth and it could warm back up much more quickly than it naturally would. I'm sure there would still be some lean and difficult times, but I imagine far more people would survive and greatly improve the chances for the continuation of the human race.

Vast cracks appear in Arctic ice

Dramatic evidence of the break-up of the Arctic ice-cap has emerged from research during an expedition by the Canadian military.

Scientists travelling with the troops found major new fractures during an assessment of the state of giant ice shelves in Canada's far north.

The team found a network of cracks that stretched for more than 10 miles (16km) on Ward Hunt, the area's largest shelf.

The fate of the vast ice blocks is seen as a key indicator of climate change.

news.bbc.co.uk...

weedwacker,

referencing your reply above. As it is most likely any sort of chemical injection into the atmosphere would be undertaken initially by governments and/or government or military sponsered research before being migrated to commercial planes, your admission that you have no experience with military operations means that your comments are restricted only to commercial planes and hence have no bearing on chemtrails emitted from anything other than commercial planes.

Is this a correct understanding from what you have stated?

Furthermore, the photos I have taken of planes emitting chemical trails did not appear to be flying in commercial routes or at times when commercial flights were scheduled. I checked fairly extensively and also could not pick up any radio calls or signals with my scanner between these planes and nearby commercial airports or other commercial flights. In fact no reference could be heard about them apart from vague or odd comments between other commerical flights and air traffic control.

The BBC story 'Vast cracks in arctic ice' is being discussed in the following thread..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

weedwacker, that isn't to say I didn't find your comments regarding commercial flights and planes interesting, I did, however in relation to chemtrails they may not apply if they are government military related.

Question: whats the weirdest thing you ever saw while flying commercial planes?

reply to post by primamateria


prima....you are correct, as I've stated, regarding commercial airplanes not having anything to do with any 'chemtrails'.

Looks like you live in Australia? AND, you have a scanner to listen to ATC frequencies?

Do you understand that just listening to your local airport control tower isn't going to let you hear any comm between airplanes at altitude and the traffic controllers they are talking to.

You said you sometimes hear things that seem to make no sense....likely you're hearing only one side of the communications. VHF radio is limited by what is called 'line-of-sight'....at 35,000 feet, this is typically about 200NM (200NM = 230SM = 368KM)

Lower altitudes have a reduced line-of-sight range.

Since I don't know where in Down Under Land you live (and I'm not terribly familiar anyway with your country....been to SYD and MEL only) then I can't help much, as to 'normal' traffic routes.....but, if it's anything like the USA, you can't count on routes printed on a chart, since, traffic permitting, lots of 'short-cuts' will be offered, so it seems willy-nilly to an observer on the ground.

Finally....from the ground, looking up all you will see is the belly of the jet...it looks plain white, usually, because the livery is painted on the sides.

Remember, 35,000 feet is 6.6 SM, or nearly 11 KM. Perhaps some very high-power binoculars would help....

reply to post by primamateria


prima, your other question about the weirdest thing I ever saw...really, I'm disappointed to say, as much as I hoped to be a witness to something unusual, I never had the pleasure.

Well....if pressed for an answer....might be a crew meal one day they told us was a piece of beef....and it had a rainbow look to it