A few more questions for those that believe in the chemtrail conspiracy

I hate to post this because someone will think im crazy, but it was just a stupid idea i had, which is probably wrong.Actually most likely wrong. And i hate posting somethign without knowing more about it but, this site is about sharing ideas right, even crazy ones? haha

Okay so we have all heard of the Planes dropping the chems right, but i was thinking, what if they are cloud-seeding? because of global warming, they dont want anyone freaking so the keep us full of rain by cloud-seeding even though the environment is changing. normalize the environment and no one will question the environment? Probly crazy talk haha just a thought.

reply to post by Point of No Return


There's no point in replying to your posts anymore, you're off topic and it appears your trying to bait me. I cant be bothered wasting anymore time arguing with you....if you seriously think this is a troll thread, then use the alert button...let the mods decide

reply to post by KingAtlas


Contrails and cloud seeding are two seperate things

Cloud seeding takes place at lower altitudes, where rain bearing clouds are located. Also, cloud seeding actually needs clouds to be present for it to work, and the chemicals are released inside the cloud, which you wouldnt actually be able to see happening. Its also quite a hit and miss operation, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt. As a whole, its quite and unreliable process

Contrails occur at a much higher altitude

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Ok, very well, just want to note that you do not intend to back up the lies you just posted about me, therefore I assume you admit you were indeed spreading lies and falsehoods, about me.


Btw, we are both off topic, I responded to the OP, about the OP, you chose to take it completely off topic.


[edit on 27-7-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return


No, I just choose not to respond to your obvious attempts at trolling and baiting. Its a worthless argument. I dont need to explain myself to you or anyone for that matter. Ive been here long enough and as far as Im concerned your opinion of me is redundant.

And yes, this is my last post to you on this thread

reply to post by KingAtlas


It's not that crazy an idea.

Whatever they're doing, ir at least seems that there is the intent of making as much cloud cover as possible.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


OzWeatherman.....

I made that decision quite some time ago.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

REMINDER:

The topic of this thread is: A few more questions for those that believe in the chemtrail conspiracy NOT each other!

Debate and discuss the topic not members!

reply to post by OzWeatherman

I dont need to explain myself to you or anyone for that matter.

You do if you start saying things about me that aren't true, or even lies.

I responded to your OP because I had a problem with it. My right.

In return you attack me directly, my character, my post history on ATS, say things I didn't say, say things I didn't do.

It's ok, just goes to show that you can't handle criticism and have a big ego.

Ive been here long enough and as far as Im concerned your opinion of me is redundant.

It doesn't matter how long you've been here, does it make you special?

My opinion of your OP prompted you to attack my character with lies, so whatever.


@MMN, you made that decision a long time ago?

You made several replies to me in the last two days,for gods's sake, who are you fooling?

reply to post by Point of No Return


You are so far off-base, it has stopped being amusing.

But, feel free to keep embarrassing yourself....

...as to your comment about "they want to make as much cloud cover as possible"?

Here's a pretty picture....why not compare IT to photos taken back when the very first satellites were available to take nice pictures of Earth from a distance...not to mention those from Apollo, as well...



I don't now when that was taken....but I expect it's fairly recent? It was just one that came up from a "google images" search, and I picked it because it highlights Africa, rather than North/South America...just to be different.

Keeping in mind....when you look at the history of ALL the photos of the Earth, taken from a distance (since the advent of such technology, starting in the 1960s), and COMPARE the cloud coverages....go ahead, make our day! Find "evidences" of the incredible amount of "increased" cloud coverage, from then to now.

Do your own studies, and research....and IF you can find some sort of PROOF of your claims of substantially increased cloud cover in recent years, like the last 10-15 (as you so vehemently claim) then by all means, SHOW EVERYONE!!!

But, since your claims are full of hot air, I doubt any of us will be seeing any such "evidence" any time soon....

~~~~~

Here, found another one....with a label. Just to be helpful... Was taken in 1992, by the GOES-7 satellite. The description is in the image:



[edit on 27 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

I dont know why anyone would do this, but I believe it is possible. I dont see it as a method of population reduction. Its clear that any methods to reduce the population on Earth are not working. So that is clearly ruled out.

Other speculation such as weather modification seems unlikely too given the continued unpredictability of our planet and weather patterns. So I have no idea why they would be undertaking such a time consuming and expensive project.

reply to post by weedwhacker

But, feel free to keep embarrassing yourself....

In order for me to be embarassed, I would first have to care about what verybody thinks of me personally, I don't, at least, that is if the dislike is not based on lies and misrepresentations.

...as to your comment about "they want to make as much cloud cover as possible"?

Nice cut and past.

I said "it at least seems that they...."

And when I look at the sky on some days, it just seems that someone wants the sky full of onnatural clouds.

Do your own studies, and research....and IF you can find some sort of PROOF of your claims of substantially increased cloud cover in recent years, like the last 10-15 (as you so vehemently claim) then by all means, SHOW EVERYONE!!!

Off topic, didn't even claim that in this thread

But, you said yourself that air traffic has increased in that period, so contrails have increased, and so cloud cover from contrails has also increased.

Seems pretty straightforward. I think Essan also posted some links in one of the other threads regarding that, will look.

Another thing is that you can't deny that more people are complaining about the sky being hazed up.

But, since your claims are full of hot air, I doubt any of us will be seeing any such "evidence" any time soon....

Right, what can I do with one old pic of Earth, or even a few, how am I going to get valid averages for comparison by looking at pics that only capture one small moment in time?

More hot air from your direction, it seems, or even stupidity.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by Point of No Return]

STOP !

Consider this your Second Official request.

No quarter after this.


Address the TOPIC and stop the personal sniping.

Please.

[edit on Tue Jul 27 2010 by Jbird]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by __rich__

 

Random quotes from Wiki with no context are supposed to prove a point?

Well, since you didn't, I'll comment on it. The trouble is, such injections have not been found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable. Because very little research has been done on the economic, environmental, or technological aspects.

Here's a direct quote from the CFR article aluded to on wiki (I find it useful to go to the source rather than picking out a few choice phrases).

Despite years of speculation and vague talk, peer-reviewed research on geoengineering is remarkably scarce. Nearly the entire community of geoengineering scientists could fit comfortably in a single university seminar room, and the entire scientific literature on the subject could be read during the course of a transatlantic flight. Geoengineering continues to be considered a fringe topic.

Here's the article.
iis-db.stanford.edu...

Please make sure that the quote above is in context with the thrust of the article; that any geoengineering scheme would have to involve extreme caution, openness, and cooperation. And by all means, please look for anything that indicates that any geoengineering activities are already being undertaken.

[edit on 7/26/2010 by Phage]

Which logically leads to the point I already made: maybe they are in the middle of in vivo real-world experimentation to test the viability and feasibility.

Because the other option is too terrible to even consider : mandatory emissions reductions.

As for Pinatubo, WW, it was shown to decrease temps by close to 1% world-wide.

"The cloud over the earth reduced global temperatures. In 1992 and 1993, the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced 0.5 to 0.6°C and the entire planet was cooled 0.4 to 0.5°C. The maximum reduction in global temperature occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C"

"Overall, the cooling effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption were greater than those of the El Niño that was taking place at the time or of the greenhouse gas warming of the planet. Remarkable sunrises and sunsets were visible around the globe in the years following the Mount Pinatubo eruption."

geography.about.com...

Now, of course when talking about Geoengineering it would be more practical to affect certain regions rather than the entire globe. For example: blocking a fraction of UV radiation over the corn belt , instead of worrying about lowering temps over Antarctica.





[edit on 27-7-2010 by __rich__]

Cool time lapse videos:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by OzWeatherman

Explanation: S&F!

1] Wind direction, pressure, speed and temperature.

2] Wind direction, pressure, speed and temperature.

3] Similar density + Wind direction, pressure, speed and temperature.

4] Because contrails are explicity made by chemicals [H2O + others] and this fact is OBSCURED by silly semantic games and a pure focus on the H2O i.e. the Con!, and not on the EPA [or equivilent authority] approved contaminants.

Personal Disclosure: No#4. is my main concern and amazingly it gets confirmed by this statement here...

The burning of hydrocarbons from aircraft and vehicles, emits both dust and water vapour.

BUT then as always, the focus then IMMEDIATELY defaults to the H2O arguments.... AND IGNORES THE DUST!!!

The basis behind contrail development is that the water product from aircraft fuels, undergoes a prcoess called sublimation, where water vapour skips the transition to its liquid phase, and is immediately turned into ice. This occurs due to the super cold environment up there.

If the temperature is cold enough, contrails can persist, regardless of humidity. The same can be said for natural cirrus clouds. Its rare for us to get high levels of humidity up there, even if they are present
The basis behind contrail development is that the water product from aircraft fuels, undergoes a prcoess called sublimation, where water vapour skips the transition to its liquid phase, and is immediately turned into ice. This occurs due to the super cold environment up there.

If the temperature is cold enough, contrails can persist, regardless of humidity. The same can be said for natural cirrus clouds. Its rare for us to get high levels of humidity up there, even if they are present
The basis behind contrail development is that the water product from aircraft fuels, undergoes a prcoess called sublimation, where water vapour skips the transition to its liquid phase, and is immediately turned into ice. This occurs due to the super cold environment up there.

Can we PLEASE focus on the Chemical Dust you mentioned as it is the REAL concern!!!

Edited to fix buggy quote.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by OmegaLogos]

reply to post by __rich__

Good idea. Let's keep the corn belt cooler than everywhere else.

What happens when you do that I wonder. Well cooler air is more dense than warmer air so you get a high pressure area. What happens in a high pressure area? Low level clouds don't form so more sunlight hits the ground so it gets hotter during the day and cool at night. Low level clouds don't form so it doesn't rain. It sounds like you want to turn the corn belt into a desert. Why do you want to do that?

The problem with geoengineering is it's an all or nothing thing, rife with unexpected and unknown consequences.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by __rich__

 

Good idea. Let's keep the corn belt cooler than everywhere else.

What happens when you do that I wonder. Well cooler air is more dense than warmer air so you get a high pressure area. What happens in a high pressure area? Low level clouds don't form so more sunlight hits the ground so it gets hotter during the day and cool at night. Low level clouds don't form so it doesn't rain. It sounds like you want to turn the corn belt into a desert. Why do you want to do that?

The problem with geoengineering is it's an all or nothing thing, rife with unexpected and unknown consequences.

You forget that during a hot, dry period it would help the crops to induce an artificial sunscreen to keep them from burning up. You assume that they would continue creating artificial cloud cover when normal rain clouds eventually move in.

This has all been gone through by Teller, and he forecasted major agricultural benefits to his sunscreen approach.

U.S.
crops currently have a market value slightly less than $100 B/year, and direct and indirect (due to UV-B and –C and
to ozone, respectively) photodamage may be very conservatively estimated to be several percent (corresponding to
a mean ground-level ozone concentration of 50-70 ppb), for a U.S.-only cost of several times $1B/year; world-wide
costs are likely to be at least 12 times larger,or several times $12 B/year, as the U.S. accounts for less than 8% of
global production of primary crops. Skin and crop photodamage thus likely amounts a substantial multiple of $20 B
annually, most of which could be avoided by scattering back into space from the stratosphere the majority of the
incoming solar UV-B and -C irradiation, as well as the ‘hard’ or blue ‘tail’ of the UV-A spectrum

www.osti.gov/accomplishments/documents/fullText/ACC0229.pdf


Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

(edited link to show pdf)

[edit on Tue Jul 27 2010 by Jbird]

this is interesting:

"Apparently, solar radiation destroys 20 to 40 percent of fruit and vegetable crops annually. As a result, a Bay Area company called Purfresh has developed a spray-on sunscreen for fruits and vegetables.

Sunscreen for fruits and vegetables? Interesting! Climate change is bringing higher temperatures and water shortages, so crops are being affected negatively and solutions need to be provided in order to protect our food supply.

The spray-on sunscreen, which is called Purshade, is made of multi-crystalline calcium carbonate crystals and has a SPF of 45. After some testing, it is now available for sale. Farmers who tested Purshade reported better crop yields and higher-quality produce. The company is now working on developing an organic spray-on sunscreen."

www.thekitchn.com...


So...chemicals on the crops, or chems in the skies. Or both for sun protection.

I'm starting to think the atmosphere has been damaged. Maybe from the high altitude nuclear tests?

reply to post by __rich__

Ultraviolet radiation is a completely separate issue. It has nothing to do with weather. We were talking about weather.

If you cool a specific region (the corn belt) you create a high pressure area. You prevent rain clouds from forming. You disrupt the natural weather patterns. You could create a desert. And you can't just turn it off and on. The effects of the Pinatubo eruption (the actual value is uncertain and seems to vary from 1/4º to 1º) peaked one to two years after the eruption and continued for at least another year after that.
www.giss.nasa.gov...

From the CFR article you are so fond of quoting out of context.

In a few decades, the option of geoengineering could look less ugly for some countries than unchecked changes in the climate. Nor is it impossible that later in the century the planet will experience a climatic disaster that puts ecosystems and human prosperity at risk. It is time to take geoengineering out of the closet -- to better control the risk of unilateral action and also to know the costs and consequences of its use so that the nations of the world can collectively decide whether to raise the shield if they think the planet needs it.

iis-db.stanford.edu...

Geoengineering is an emergency measure. We are not in an emergency.

[edit on 7/27/2010 by Phage]