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

reply to post by __rich__


THAT IS a cool time lapse video!!!

Despite the YouTuber who posted it labeling it incorrectly....it proves quite evidently what I have been saying, in many so-called "chemtrail" threads.

"chemtrails" are bunk! I suppose you posted that video to help make that point?

I might very well have posted that very video already, at least once, in other "chemtrail" threads...along with other examples of high altitude cloud time-lapse. In order to illustrate a very important principle....NONE of those clouds, nor the CONtrails, "drop down" out of the sky, to somehow "infect, infest or anything else" to anything on the surface!!!


Watch, again, very, very carefully....contrails, made behind airplanes (because that's what they are!), and coincidentally, some high-level cirrus clouds moving in.

The cirrus is moving, with the winds....it's obvious, and it is something that happens every day, somewhere on the planet, all the time...it's called "weather".

Only this fear-mongering nonsense, that was started by ONE man (apparently) back in 1999 or so, has led the gullible to jump on to the incredibly insane, and ignorant, notion that regular passenger jets, making contrails (as MANY different airplanes have been since the advent of high-altitude flight) are somehow "spraying" some magical pixie dust, or something (the "stories" of the "chemtrailers" keep chanigng, constantly...hard to keep up lately...).

reply to post by __rich__


Aahhh...almost missed this:

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

"1%"?

Did you mean "close to one degree"? I thought so.

I stand by my original post.

When you look at the TOTAL amount of material spewed by Mt. Pinatubo, in kilograms (estimated, of course), and then ascertain the net effect was LESS than one degree temperature change, average....

...then you try to envision a program involving airplanes lofting that SAME amount of material?? It is practically and logistically impossible to achieve.

I've run some 'back-of-the-envelope' numbers...I invite anyone else to, also. (Had to make some stabs at amount of "coverage", per sq meter/sq kilometer...I tired to be very generous/conservative, in favor of the "chemtrailers'" assertions...the numbers don't work).

It would help if people who attempt that also have a bit of knowledge and understanding of airplanes, and aviation, and the inherent limitations pertained within. Like, maximum gross takeoff weight, (which automatically limits the "payload" capacity...remember, the fuel required for the flights has weight, too!), time to climb to altitude, (and fuel burned off, cutting in to endurance time AT altitude), speeds and amount of area possible to "cover", distribution rates and amounts of any "payload" to "spray", then descent to landing, and re-supply. Not to mention manpower issues --- flight crews, ground support personnel, etc....

Something like that could NOT be kept 'secret'! Not on the scales required, in order to effect any significant amounts of "spraying" activity.

The "chemtrail" hoax is a pipe dream/fear mongering fantasy devoid of any logical assessment, nor reason....and those myopically devoted to this hoax seem to be unable to be reasoned with....







[edit on 27 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Many organizations say we are in an emergency.

Even if anthropological global warming is incorrect, Geoengineering of this type must still be experimented with because climate is always in flux, and by most accounts we are overdue for a rapid climate change brought on by any number of reasons, notwithstanding CO2.

As for slightly decreased average temperatures meaning less rain, wouldn't this effect be mitigated by "chemtrail" particulates acting as artificial cloud condensation nuclei?

Explanation: Hmmm?

Water [wiki]

Water is a chemical substance with the chemical formula H2O. Its molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms connected by covalent bonds. Water is a liquid at ambient conditions, but it often co-exists on Earth with its solid state, ice, and gaseous state, water vapor or steam.

The Chemistry of Water (by Professor Jill Granger) [witcombe.sbc.edu]

Water plays an important role as a chemical substance. Its many important functions include being a good solvent for dissolving many solids, serving as an excellent coolant both mechanically and biologically, and acting as a reactant in many chemical reactions. Blood, sweat and tears... all solutions of water.

Water Science for Schools: Water Properties (Page Contact Information: Howard Perlman) [ga.water.usgs.gov]

You probably know water's chemical description is H2O.

Is water a chemical? (asked by baggy828 and answered by oranze.s...) [answers.yahoo.com]

It would depend on your definition of a chemical.

A chemical is: "a substance produced by or used in a chemical process."

And, water is a chemical because it is be used in chemical reactions such as neutralization, redox, etc.

I believe what you're asking though is if water is a chemical substance: "a material with a definite chemical composition."

Water is also a chemical composition because of its electron configuration in its valence shell which defines its chemical properties.
Source(s):
Definition of Chemical: dictionary.reference.com...…

Definition of Chemical Substance: en.wikipedia.org...

No chem trails??? My flatus PROVES the existence of chem trails... That and this fact also...





Personal Disclosure: No Chem-Trails???... OMG! More like a Con-Fail!!!

reply to post by __rich__

The "emergency" is that if global warming is to be abated by means of controlling CO2 emissions it has to begin now.

Geoengineering is to dangerous to be "experimented with". There is much research which needs to be done before it would be attempted.

"Overdue" for rapid climate change? I didn't know there was a schedule.

Rain does not come from contrails, cirrus clouds, or "chemtrails" all of which reside in the stratosphere. It comes from cumulus clouds which form at lower altitudes. Creating a permanent high pressure area by treating a specific region would prevent those clouds from forming.

BTW, you did not provide the correct link for the quote from Teller regarding UV radiation. This is the correct link:
www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Interesting statement from Ed in the article:

The more spectacular sunrises and sunsets and the bluer skies will be non-economic “collateral benefits.”

The light scattering effect from his geoengineering plan does not make hazy skies, the particles are too small. It makes nice blue skies. That doesn't seem to be what the chemtrailers are complaining about, does it?

reply to post by Phage


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.


So its been "in the closet" ???

ie: hidden????

reply to post by virgom129

Nice. A perfect example of an out of context sentence being used to distort the point of an article. The typical ploy of the chemtrailer in distributing ignorance and fear. Try reading the whole article. That's why the link is there.
Here's a clue.

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.

Many scientists have been reluctant to raise the issue for fear that it might create a moral hazard: encouraging governments to deploy geoengineering rather than invest in cutting emissions. Indeed, geoengineering ventures will be viewed with particular suspicion if the nations funding geoengineering research are not also investing in dramatically reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Many scientists also rightly fear that grants for geoengineering research would be subtracted from the existing funds for urgently needed climate-science research and carbon-abatement technologies. But there is a pressing need for a better understanding of geoengineering, rooted in theoretical studies and empirical field measurements. The subject also requires the talents of engineers, few of whom have joined the small group of scientists studying these techniques.

iis-db.stanford.edu...

reply to post by Phage


Geoengineering has been rampant for years...

Its not a small thing Phage...

Look at the Olympics in China, they openly admitted to it...

Not to mention, we only hear part of what they do..

Gimmie a break!!!

And BTW, in what context should I take "in the closet"???
To me thats always meant hidden..Whats your definition??

[edit on 28-7-2010 by virgom129]

reply to post by virgom129

Yes. China engages in cloud seeding. So do a lot of countries, including the US.
Cloud seeding is a localized effort to induce precipitation. It is not geoengineering and it has nothing to do with "chemtrails".

The modern concept of geoengineering (or climate engineering) is usually taken to mean proposals to deliberately manipulate the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Phage


You really should read more of my posts...

I'm not a pro chemtrail poster...

I just like to ask and learn...

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Phage

 

Geoengineering has been rampant for years...

Its not a small thing Phage...

Look at the Olympics in China, they openly admitted to it...

Not to mention, we only hear part of what they do..

Gimmie a break!!!

And BTW, in what context should I take "in the closet"???
To me thats always meant hidden..Whats your definition??

As Phage said it is called cloud seeding.

Here's a pretty good video about it:

reply to post by Chadwickus


Soooooooo, you felt the need to just say it again???

reply to post by Phage


So here is an article that says cloud seeding IS geoengineering...

What now??? Note Gove site....

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

reply to post by virgom129


Uhhhhhhhh no, I provided a video too, to help further understand this thing called cloud seeding.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Thanks but its still geoengineering which was my point..

reply to post by virgom129


No, it isn't.

Geo, the prefix, means literally "earth"

So, geo-engineering is earth-engineering.

Cloud seeding effects areas on a small, local scale, not a global (earth) scale.

[edit on 28/7/10 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


My link is a Gov site, yours???

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

If they say it is I should believe them, right???

Just like I believe ALL Gov sites like NASA etc

reply to post by virgom129


Granted they say 'seeded' but it isn't cloud seeding.

They're proposing adding sea-salt particles to clouds in an effort to reflect sunlight.

reply to post by Chadwickus


and by ‘seeding’ these clouds to reflect more sunlight away from the Earth, global warming could be slowed

Sorry, sounds like seeding to me...

Like I said Chad, I'm not into the Chemtrails thing as a way to wipe out 90% of the worlds population but lets atleast agree we are being sprayed with things we dont know about...

reply to post by virgom129


Can't say I can agree with that.

Most of these geo-engineering schemes are mere proposals.