Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

The last image in this video is posted specially for you

And you wonder why the Mods seem unsympathetic.

reply to post by backinblack


Yes we did.

And yes the aerosols from aerosol cans that contained CFC's are what help to create the ozone layer.

May have jumped the gun there, a lot of people mistake the term aerosols.

downloads.globalchange.gov...

Aerosols - Tiny particles suspended in the air

Anthropogenic - Human-induced.

Adaptation - Adjustment in natural or human
systems to a new or changing environment that
exploits beneficial opportunities or moderates
negative effects.

Climate Forcing - A process that directly changes
the average energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere
system by affecting the balance between
incoming solar radiation and outgoing or “back”
radiation. A positive forcing tends to warm the
surface of the Earth and a negative forcing tends
to cool the surface.

Mitigation - An intervention to reduce the human-induced factors that contribute to climate change. This could include approaches devised to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere; to enhance their removal from the atmosphere through storage in geological formations, soils, biomass, or the ocean; or to alter incoming solar radiation through several “geo-engineering” options.
Observations - Standardized measurements

Sink - In general, any process, activity, or mechanism that removes a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere; in this report, a sink is any regime or pool in which the amount of carbon is increasing (i.e., is being accumulated or stored).

Source - In general, any process, activity, or mechanism that releases a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol into the atmosphere; in this report, a source is any regime or pool in which the amount of carbon is decreasing (i.e., is being released or emitted).

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


What is your point? Why the barrage of cut and paste? You still haven't explained what you're trying to prove.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Well I'm with DJW on that..
Stop posting long copy.paste jobs..
Just a couple of lines and a link is enough..

You're not helping your cause because even I will not bother reading long winded quotes..

downloads.globalchange.gov...
Climate and Earth System Modeling (DOE-BER). This activity focuses on the development, evaluation, and use of large-scale climate change models to determine the impacts and possible mitigation of climate change. These efforts include the following:
• Regional and Global Climate Modeling focuses on the development, evaluation, and use of regional and global climate models to project future climate with quantified uncertainty. The models span temporal scales of decades to centuries and spatial scales from regional to global. Regional and Global Climate Modeling supports the basic research needed to support national and international climate modeling research and assessments.

• Earth System Modeling focuses on the development and integration of various components of climatic processes into Earth System Models (ESMs) with high computational throughput to provide simulations of climate variability and change over decadal to centennial time scales. Research includes the incorporation of improved physical representations (e.g., atmospheric, biogeochemical, terrestrial, land-surface-ice, aerosols, and clouds) in the specific modules of the coupled model; development of algorithms and computational methods for coupling of ESM components; coupling and testing of ESM components; abrupt climate change; and visualization and analysis.

Biological Carbon Sequestration Assessment (USGS-GCP). USGS is leading a DOI process to develop a methodology for a National Assessment of Biological Carbon Sequestration Resources. This activity, authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, was initiated in 2009. The assessment methodology was completed in 2010.42

Biological carbon sequestration refers to both natural and deliberate processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored in vegetation, soils, and sediments. Biological carbon storage is susceptible to disturbances like fire, disease, and changes in climate and land use. Deliberate biological sequestration can be accomplished through forest and soil conservation practices that enhance the storage of carbon (such as restoring or establishing forests, wetlands, and grasslands) or reduce CO2 emissions (such as reducing agricultural tillage and managing wildfires strategically)

Assessment of biological carbon sequestration resources requires quantifying the factors that control potential capacities of sequestration, and providing information for use in complex resource management decisions and policies. USGS historical data sets provide information to test and update time-dependent models used to estimate potential future carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas fluxes. DOI’s land and resource management responsibilities provide a practical context for applying information about potential rates and capacities of carbon storage in ecosystems.

reply to post by DJW001


my point is in the quote ...do i have to teach you how to read ?

Let me spell it out for you. The document explains the use of and reason why Chemtrails are being used.

OK are we clear on my point now ?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

my point is in the quote ...do i have to teach you how to read ?

As I pointed out, the lengthy document you are quoting in violation of T&C is an executive summary of US research into climate change. Are you saying that the US is guilty of funding research? Incidentally, for someone who believes in the triumph of hope and love over hatred and fear, you certainly have a negative attitude.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Let me spell it out for you. The document explains the use of and reason why Chemtrails are being used.

OK are we clear on my point now ?

Thank you. that's much better. Now, since I seem to be reading challenged, please point out where it mentions "chemtrails." I noticed the bit about studies on the feasibility of mitigating the negative effects of climate change. Is mitigating something bad a bad thing?

All I keep hearing is "where's the evidence".

Well the evidence is over 1000 pages of documents.

And excuse me for not re-typing it all into simple lay-mans terms so that you can understand it.

I supplied the`links to the documents. In this thread

Go read them all for yourself then before you make any more claims that Chemtrails do not exist.

It's not my job to pick out the best parts for all you lazy ignorant Chemtrail debunkers

reply to post by DJW001


The post you are looking at that has the word mitigation. Is just from the glossary. So that you actually do understand what it is you are reading in the other posts from these documents

DO NOT PUT OTHER PEOPLES WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. I AM POSTING THE EVIDENCE THAT "CHEMTRAILS" DO EXIST. IT IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS BAD OR GOOD

When confronted with as much ignorance and self righteous pimping and pandering as I have here.

It is hard not to have a negative attitude

READ THESE DOCUMENTS IF YOU WANT MORE EVIDENCE

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Here is the link to the site page that has the other reports like this from 2004 until now. The report I was using was from 2009. There are 8 reports like this one in total available at this link available in pdf or html

www.globalchange.gov...

2004-2005 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2006 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2007 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2008 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2009 report www.usgcrp.gov...

2010 report pdf only downloads.globalchange.gov...

2011 report pdf only downloads.globalchange.gov...

Notice the legal disclaimer attached to these documents....

This document describes the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) for FY 2009. It provides a summary of the achievements of the program, an analysis of the progress made, and budgetary information. It thereby responds to the annual reporting requirements of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Section 102, P. L. 101-606). It does not express any regulatory policies of the United States or any of its agencies, or make any findings of fact that could serve as predicates for regulatory action. Agencies must comply with required statutory and regulatory processes before they could rely on any statements in this document or by the CCSP as a basis for regulatory action.

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Let me spell it out for you. The document explains the use of and reason why Chemtrails are being used.

OK are we clear on my point now ?

Thank you. that's much better. Now, since I seem to be reading challenged, please point out where it mentions "chemtrails." I noticed the bit about studies on the feasibility of mitigating the negative effects of climate change. Is mitigating something bad a bad thing?

"Chemtrails" is another word that describes "persistent contrails" lets not keep arguing for the sake of arguement now OK. I mean really ......please get a clue. Go read the documents and if you have any questions about what you read like where does it say "chemtrail" . Save it, because you know as well as I do that it won't say chemtrail

It will say things like ....Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the
Environment. NASA, along with NOAA and NSF,
provides Federal support to the Global Learning and
Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE)

Or it will say things like....

.Recommendation 4: Improve understanding of thresholds likely to lead to abrupt changes in climate or ecosystems. Non-linear changes, especially those related to positive feedbacks, could have significant impacts on future climate, and lead to irreversible changes such as species extinction.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

"Chemtrails" is another word that describes "persistent contrails"

That explains everything. You think that persistent contrails are "chemtrails." What qualities do you suppose these contrails have other than duration that makes them so different from other contrails to justify calling them "chemtrails?"

Here's another very carefully worded section that refers to the study of "chemtrails" and other geo-engineering processes......

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) comprise the Department of
Commerce contribution to the USGCRP.
NOAA’s climate mission is to “understand climate
variability and change to enhance society’s ability to
plan and respond.” This is an end-to-end endeavor
whose overall objective is to provide decisionmakers with a predictive understanding of the climate
and to communicate climate information so that the
public can incorporate it into their decisions. These
outcomes are achieved through implementation
of a global observing system, focused research to
understand key climate processes, improved modeling capabilities, and the development and delivery of
climate information services. NOAA aims to achieve
its climate mission and outcomes through the following objectives:
• Describe and understand the state of the climate
system through integrated observations, monitoring, and data management
• Understand and predict climate variability and
change from weeks to decades to a century
• Improve the ability of society to plan for and
respond to climate variability and change.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

"Chemtrails" is another word that describes "persistent contrails"

That explains everything. You think that persistent contrails are "chemtrails." What qualities do you suppose these contrails have other than duration that makes them so different from other contrails to justify calling them "chemtrails?"

Read the documents and read some of my previous posts in this thread.
But, here is the simple answer since you obviously won't read the documents
They have higher "aerosol" or particle content.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I'm sorry, but all of the references to "chemtrails" seem to be entirely in your head. Good-bye and good luck.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

I'm sorry, but all of the references to "chemtrails" seem to be entirely in your head. Good-bye and good luck.

You sure are sorry.....get lost .....all your theories have no more legs to stand on.......Next

What do you think anthropogenic aerosol means buddy ?

Let me spell it out for you one more time.....It means human induced particles....OK are we clear on that now ?

USE THIS WEBSITE TO STUDY CLOUD FORMATIONS AND SEE THE CHEMTRAILS FOR YOURSELF

www.sat24.com...

UK

ON and OFF ....ON and OFF