Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

In the first five pages of this thread the count of people who think that chemtrails are bogus VS the people who think they are real or that there is good enough evidence to suggest they are real is 17 contrail to 35 chemtrail

You are out numbered by twice the amount of people just in that small sample so far

powerpointparadise.com...

Pilots film Chemtrails from above. Definite video proof! MUST WATCH!
July 22, 2010
By Power Point Paradise -- 779 views
Jet pilots trail a chemtrail dispensing K10 airplane from behind, and state that it is spraying from its wings, and that they will put it on you tube. Turns out that the original video text has now changed stating that “they were just joking.”

The important conclusion is the following: the military élites have made another enormous mistake in compelling the pilot to recant. This is the very proof that these pilots showed real chemtrails to pollute the environment and poison people.



If you want to hide something, you don’t scream: “I wasn’t for real!!! I wasn’t!!!” It’s better to shut up than talking. But the system prefers to block and censure more than allowing that the truth comes out. The pressure on the pilot is more effective in spreading the truth than the videos showing chemtrails..

SOURCE: www.chemtrailcentral.com...

Trail Research Report

This report is the result of research into the science of contrail formation and an analysis by observation and measurement of contrail persistence. This research was inspired by the claims of an unnatural type of trail known as Chemtrails as an attempt to detect such trails.

Chemtrails

For several years the existence of an unusual type of aerial activity has been reported, generally termed Chemtrails. Chemtrails are purported to differ from typical contrails in their high degree of persistence and subsequent spreading, as if a substance had been released. The purpose, effects and existence of these so-called Chemtrails are widely debated, however essentially there is a claim made by many that they are witnessing something out of the ordinary, beyond an ordinary contrail. Chemtrails are also said to sometimes differ in their configuration from contrails, as they are supposedly not about getting from point A to point B, but, rather, dispersing some type of substance.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Good grief. How gullible to you want to appear? The video was a prank by a USAF KC-10 crew member and his colleagues on the Chemical Trail conspiracy people. The person named Tim posted the video on his You Tube Channel USAFFEKC10 in July 2010. The channel is now disabled although the chemtrail believers have set a channel up with this name. The chemtrail people fell for it hook line and sinker and it was reposted as evidence that USAF Pilots were spraying chemtrails.

Originally posted on the KC-10 crewman's You Tube Channel.

"The truth is, the video is real and unedited but the title was created to poke fun at the chemtrail people. All this video shows is a couple of KC-10's flying in formation. When I saw the contrails coming from the lead KC-10 I pulled out my video camera knowing I was going to pull this prank and the pilots played along. So there you have it. It's just a prank on all the chemtrailers.sorry,

-Tim"

Because they were duped they went to great lengths in order to turn it into 'smoking gun evidence'. It really is laughable, but I see you are gullible and naive enough to fall for it?

tankerenemy.blogspot.com...

Thanks for the laugh

TJ

IF YOU NEED SOME HELP READING HERE IT IS AGAIN

SOURCE: www.chemtrailcentral.com...

The unidentifiable flights that are of special interest in this study have been observed to produce two distinct categories of trails. On multiple occasions these two categories of trails have been observed to occur emanating from the same aircraft. The following photos give a visual representation of these two categories:


12/8/00 1:00pm, Houston, TX: Unidentifiable Jet Leaves Highly Persistent Trail Strip and Contrail.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


You are really just a newbie at this, aren't you??? :shk:

The report you just posted (improperly formatted, and impolite Board "netiquette", I might add) was conducted in the year 2000, as I recall.....(I have seen that piece of flawed garbage "study" a long, long time ago). They were in the Houston, Texas area. That is a long-ago discredited "study".

The major and most glaring error was using a pathetic excuse for a "flight tracker". They apparently weren't aware that "Flight Explorer" is terribly flawed, and biased....at the time it was part of a subsidiary of American Airlines, a computer spin-off company called "Sabre" (Sabre has since gone off in its own, and is now a rival of American, in the area of marketing!! Funny, how business works....). Although it is independent of that airline, and is better now, back then it did not show all airline flights....especially those that American considered to be competitive rivals, especially in the Dallas/Ft. Worth (and, thus....the state of Texas, as well) markets.

But, to re-iterate----that entire "report" is riddled with errors, and false assumptions and results.

THE REQUEST FOR PROOF IS WHY I POSTED THESE LARGE POSTS

I KNOW ALL YOU DEBUNKERS WILL NOW START COMPLAINING ABOUT LARGE SIZE OF THESE POSTS

LEARN TO READ SINCE YOU DON't LIKE youtube VIDEOS

SOURCE: www.chemtrailcentral.com...

What are Contrails?

Streaks of condensed water vapor created in the air by jet airplanes at high altitudes. (Merriam-Websters)

Streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

A visible cloud streak, usually brilliantly white in color, which trails behind a missile or other vehicle in flight under certain conditions. (DOD Dictionary of Military Terms)

Contrails can exist in two forms: water droplet and ice crystal.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You better provide some proof that the study is flawed and has been debunked. SHOW ME WHERE IT IS DEBUNKED and not just your same old lines you always use for everything before you even look at it.

chemtruth.ning.com...

Atmospheric Aerosols and climate impacts

redirectingat.com... 2F%2Fchemtruth.ning.com%2F

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

[redirectingat.com... %2Fblogs%2Fsolar-radiation-management

SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT - SRM

SRM is a geoengineering technique being discussed by the U.S. government as a global solution to global warming. It reflects Sunlight away from the Earth by hazing the Sky with aerosols such as sulfur dioxide or aluminum oxide.
THIS CHEMICAL HAZE DIMS THE SUN
Solar Radiation Management is a very bad idea because it:
* reduces direct sunlight which is vital to fundamental life processes such as photosynthesis
* lessens the public will to address climate change with low-tech common sense solutions
* compromises physical and mental health (vitamin D deficiency, depression, asthma)
* causes continued ocean acidification from CO2
* further depletes ozone
* increases dangerous ultraviolet radiation
* increases diffuse radiation, making the sky less blue
* increases diffuse radiation, decreasing solar power production
* risks potential for military use
* affects local and global weather systems
* risks much more rapid global warming, if discontinued
* puts permanent pollution above astronomers’ telescopes
* assures there will be human error with sophisticated technical systems
* assures there will be unexpected consequences

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.

reply to post by tommyjo


Good grief, you're so full of Sheeeiiiit

The last image in this video is for you too
www.abovetopsecret.com...

U.S. Climate Change Science Program
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 250 • Washington, D.C. 20006 USA
1-202-223-6262 (voice) • 1-202-223-3065 (fax)

www.globalchange.gov...
www.climatescience.gov...

Atmospheric Testing & Space Programs

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org.../atmospheric-testing-space-programs

26A 2003 ARM Aerosol Intensive Observational Period IOP ASP - ACP May 2003.pdf
www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

26 2010 NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies Aerosols April 16, 2010 Particles - Health Sources
www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org... ealth_Sources_http_www.giss.nasa.pdf

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Here is Tanker Enemy's analysis.



Yet again the complete ignorance of Tanker Enemy in relation to anything aviation is exposed. Why do you think that he doesn't provide a close-up and clear image of the 'nozzles' of a KC-10?

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

The real reason why he doesn't provide a close up image, freely available, on the web.

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

Close up of the 'nozzles'. No they are not nozzles, so what do you think their purpose is?

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

MD-11

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

Has the penny dropped yet? They are the fairings containing the flap extension and retraction mechanism.

It a classic example of how he likes to misinform and simply make it up as he goes along.

TJ

Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts

U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3
January 2009

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE TEAM
Director, Climate Change Science Program: ................................William J. Brennan
Director, Climate Change Science Program Office: ..................... Peter A. Schultz
Lead Agency Principal Representative to CCSP,
Associate Director for Research, Earth Science Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: .........................Jack Kaye
Lead Agency Point of Contact, Earth Science Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: ...........................Hal Maring
Product Lead, Laboratory for Atmospheres,
Earth Science Division, Goddard Space Flight Center,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: ..........................Mian Chin
Chair, Synthesis and Assessment Product Advisory Group
Associate Director, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: ....................Michael W. Slimak
Synthesis and Assessment Product Coordinator,
Climate Change Science Program Office: ...................................... Fabien J.G. Laurier
EDITORIAL AND PRODUCTION TEAM
Editors: ..........................................................................................Mian Chin, NASA
.......................................................................................... Ralph A. Kahn, NASA
.......................................................................................... Stephen E. Schwartz, DOE
Graphic Design: ............................................................................Sally Bensusen, NASA
............................................................................Debbi McLean, NASA

This document, part of the Synthesis and Assessment Products described in the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP) Strategic Plan, was prepared in accordance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and the information quality act
guidelines issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration pursuant to Section 515. The CCSP
Interagency Committee relies on National Aeronautics and Space Administration certifications regarding
compliance with Section 515 and Agency guidelines as the basis for determining that this product conforms with
Section 515. For purposes of compliance with Section 515, this CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product is an
“interpreted product” as that term is used in National Aeronautics and Space Administration guidelines and is
classified as “highly influential”. This document does not express any regulatory policies of the United States or
any of its agencies, or provides recommendations for regulatory action.
Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3
Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research
COORDINATING LEAD AUTHOR:
Mian Chin, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
LEAD AND CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS:
Ralph A. Kahn, Lorraine A. Remer, Hongbin Yu, NASA GSFC;
David Rind, NASA GISS;
Graham Feingold, NOAA ESRL; Patricia K. Quinn, NOAA PMEL;
Stephen E. Schwartz, DOE BNL; David G. Streets, DOE ANL;
Philip DeCola, Rangasayi Halthore, NASA HQ
January 2009,
Members of Congress:
On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) is pleased to transmit to the President and the Congress this Synthesis and Assessment
Product (SAP) Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts. This is part of a series of 21
SAPs produced by the CCSP aimed at providing current assessments of climate change science to
inform public debate, policy, and operational decisions. These reports are also intended to help the
CCSP develop future program research priorities.
The CCSP’s guiding vision is to provide the Nation and the global community with the science-based
knowledge needed to manage the risks and capture the opportunities associated with climate and
related environmental changes. The SAPs are important steps toward achieving that vision and help
to translate the CCSP’s extensive observational and research database into informational tools that
directly address key questions being asked of the research community.
This SAP reviews current knowledge about global distributions and properties of atmospheric aerosols,
as they relate to aerosol impacts on climate. It was developed in accordance with the Guidelines
for Producing CCSP SAPs, the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554)), and the guidelines issued
by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration pursuant to Section 515.
We commend the report’s authors for both the thorough nature of their work and their adherence to

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Is that the level of your retort? So tell me when is this going to be exposed? When is the bubble going to burst? What happens within your lifetime when none of this 'chemtrail' conspiracy is proved? Has God informed you yet? 2012, 2018? Come on you claim to have the inside knowledge? Remember to get back to all of us when it is all revealed!

TJ

reply to post by tommyjo


downloads.climatescience.gov...
Debunk this
Figure 3.2. Aerosol direct radiative forcing in various climate and aerosol models.
Observed values are shown in the top section. From IPCC (2007).

Basic conclusions from forward modeling of
aerosol direct RF are:
• The most recent estimate of all-sky shortwave
aerosol direct RF at TOA from anthropogenic
sulfate, BC, and POM (mostly from
fossil fuel/biofuel combustion and biomass
burning) is -0.22 ± 0.18 W m-2 averaged
globally, exerting a net cooling effect.

Figure 3.3. Aerosol optical thickness and anthropogenic
shortwave all-sky radiative forcing from the AeroCom
study (Schulz et al., 2006). Shown in the figure: total AOD
(a) and anthropogenic AOD (b) at 550 nm, and radiative
forcing at TOA (c), atmospheric column (d), and surface
(e). Figures from the AeroCom image catalog (http://
nansen.ipsl.jussieu.fr/AEROCOM/data.html).

reply to post by tommyjo

downloads.climatescience.gov...



Shown in Figure 3.4 are results from published model studies indicating the different RF values from the cloud albedo effect. The cloud albedo effect ranges from -0.22 to -1.85 W m-2; the lowest estimates are from simulations that constrained representation of aerosol effects on clouds with satellite measurements of drop size vs. aerosol index. In view of the difficulty of quantifying this effect remotely (discussed later), it is not clear whether this constraint provides an improved estimate. The estimate in the IPCC AR4 ranges from +0.4 to -1.1 W m-2, with a “best-guess” estimate of 0.7 W m-2. The representation of cloud effects in GCMs is considered below. However, it is becoming increasingly clear from studies based on high resolution simulations of aerosol-cloud interactions that there is a great deal of complexity that is unresolved in climate models. This point is examined again in section 3.4.4. Most models did not incorporate the “cloud lifetime effect”. Hansen et al. (2005) compared this latter influence (in the form of time-averaged cloud area or cloud cover increase) with the cloud albedo effect. In contrast to the discussion in IPCC (2007), they argue that the cloud cover effect is more likely to be the dominant one, as suggested both by cloud-resolving model studies (Ackerman et al., 2004) and satellite observations (Kaufman et al., 2005c). The cloud albedo effect may be partly offset by reduced cloud thickness accompanying aerosol pollutants, producing a meteorological (cloud)

I will be starting a new thread soon posting this entire document which contains all the results of the AEROSOL SPRAYING downloads.climatescience.gov...

DEBUNK THIS

I hope to see you all there. What do you fellas think I should title the thread?

Maybe since you all don't like the word chemtrail so much and you love you word contrail.

How about we call them aerosol trail ? How's that then while there is absolutely no denying the existence of aerosol trails. You all can still go ahead and keep denying chemtrails.

downloads.climatescience.gov...

GAME OVER

downloads.climatescience.gov...

January 2009,
Members of Congress:
On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) is pleased to transmit to the President and the Congress this Synthesis and Assessment
Product (SAP) Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts. This is part of a series of 21
SAPs produced by the CCSP aimed at providing current assessments of climate change science to
inform public debate, policy, and operational decisions. These reports are also intended to help the
CCSP develop future program research priorities.
The CCSP’s guiding vision is to provide the Nation and the global community with the science-based
knowledge needed to manage the risks and capture the opportunities associated with climate and
related environmental changes. The SAPs are important steps toward achieving that vision and help
to translate the CCSP’s extensive observational and research database into informational tools that
directly address key questions being asked of the research community.
This SAP reviews current knowledge about global distributions and properties of atmospheric aerosols,
as they relate to aerosol impacts on climate. It was developed in accordance with the Guidelines
for Producing CCSP SAPs, the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554)), and the guidelines issued
by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration pursuant to Section 515.
We commend the report’s authors for both the thorough nature of their work and their adherence to
an inclusive review process.
Sincerely,
Carlos M. Gutierrez
Secretary of Commerce
Chair, Committee on Climate Change
Science and Technology Integration
Samuel W. Bodman
Secretary of Energy
Vice Chair, Committee on Climate
Change Science and Technology
Integration
John H. Marburger III
Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy
Executive Director, Committee
on Climate Change Science and
Technology Integration
TABLE