EXCLUSIVE "What in The World Are They Spraying" Chemist talks to ATS about Geoengineering.

reply to post by Phage

My question was could the findings BTS provided account for the difference in the contrails. Please address my question, not twist what I am saying.

For clarity, I have already stated in BTS thread.

Originally posted by pianopraze
I agree contrails persist and spread, let's ignore that. I agree.

My question is could BTS finding above account for some of the difference being observed.

reply to post by pianopraze


Out of that rather long post (of your previous posts, just repeated) I focus your attention to that YouTube video.

I have spent many posts, in past, addressing that one before....as it has been posted up by many. Maybe I even caught it, and responded, the first time you posted it? Hard to remember.....

Bogus. You haven't, yet, begun to realize what's happening, in this "chem"-trail hoax 'field of dreams'??

The people with the vested interests in plugging, promoting, continuing to this myth and, thus, HOAX, are not ethically or morally pure of heart....they will stoop to any low, in order to keep this garbage pumping on the Internet.

One only has to look at the subject video of this thread, as a prime example. And, the copious photos of "chemtrail" airplanes....ALL of which have been shown to be either misidentified (possibly be the gullible / ill-informed) or maybe intentionally trumpeted as such, as part of the campaign I referred to above.

Additionally, RE: that YT video, one only has to see the name "Griffin" (and, not the hilarious "Dad" from the TV show "Family Guy") [[edit]---or, in that video.....I get them confused, their names, because they are BOTH in this "field"...."Griffith"....] to know that DIS-info, deceit and outright falsehoods are afoot, and on tap.....[I note, ALSO, the slides used in that YT video, to accompany the radio interview soundtrack.....those are EXACTLY the deceptive photos I talked about!!! The one of the interior? You can see a crew member with a yellow vest, and part of the AIRLINE name t here..."Qantas'. THAT was a picture from onboard an Airbus A-380 undergoing flight testing. The barrels? Filled with a "deadly chemical", allright.....H2O. They pump that horrible chemical around, internally between tanks, to alter the center of gravity in-flight, as part of the testing procedure!! Customers (airlines, and their personnel, that have orders for the airplane) participate in the flight testing!!

....."Chem"-trail believers should pay heed to the old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice......."..... Well, you know the rest......

reply to post by weedwhacker

Very good paper. Thank you.

From your source:

As a consequence, aircraft with modern engines, with higher overall efficiency, cause contrails over a larger range of cruise altitudes.

The question is not do they form contrails, It is what is causing the persistent contrails.

Could BTS information be the cause of the difference?

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by kroms33
Meteorology = the Study of the atmosphere, Aviation can be anyone who is a pilot or a plane mechanic. Dr Thyme has a doctorate in inorganic chemistry from Oregon State University, what's the problem?

There is no problem if he wants to discuss the chemicals he found on the ground somewhere. There is a problem when he wants to start accusing people of “spraying” them for airliners or military aircraft.

Originally posted by kroms33
I thought ATS was about denying ignorance but yet now we see opposition to a scientist actually coming here to speak who made a documentary about chem-trails? Coming from a mod? :shk:

I was a professional in that field, and I know for an absolute fact that chemtrails are a hoax, so who is the one denying ignorance, and who are the ones speculating on things for which they have zero proof and no expertise?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 3/4/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

I was a professional who worked with autistic children for quite a while.

Does that make me the preeminent authority on the subject? No. Working in a field does not mean you know all there is to know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

To assert otherwise is deceptive, and boarders on flat out lying.

You can do better than that.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Again, thank you for your source, please keep providing them and I will read them all.

Please do not lump all geoengineering believers into one category. Also can we agree to address geoengineering not chemtrials? By using chemtrail it shifts the debate from the place people can find valid data and references to results. You find vastly different sources googling chemtrail vs geoengineering. Shifting to chemtrails is a way of avoiding the real plans already on the table for this travesty which will bring sickness and disease as shown by the chaff post above even if aluminum or sulfer toxicity does not result... and even the experts proposing this think there is some chance that they will.

Shame on me for being fooled?

Yes, I've been fooled by my government over and over. Why did we goto vietnam? The gulf of Tonkin incident was a LIE fabricated by our government which they have since admitted. How many lost their lives, and how many traumatized souls and bodies are walking around our country from that? Why did we go into Iraq? WMD??? they have admitted to bad intelligence and the weapons inspector has repeatedly cried foul. They were ADMITTIEDLY looking for a reason for invasion before 911 and ADMITTEDLY Iraq had nothing to do with 911. How many walking wounded are currently abounding from that? The number grows daily.

Forgive me if I fail to trust my government is not lieing to me over this.

Rumsfeld et all are becoming some of the richest men on the planet from war profiteering. How much do you think they stand to make from this? Billions, the studies have already shown this and the links to these papers are throughout these threads.

reply to post by pianopraze

You agree that contrails persist and spread but you say this:

The more I look at some of the pictures and videos the more I shake my head. There are videos of long contrail after long contrail then one that doesn't which is flying in the same airspace which presumably would not change THAT fast. I guess it could, but again there are videos where one plane flies by with persistent, one doesn't, then one does...

It is well known (by those who care to learn something about it) that the conditions which are conducive to contrails (persistent and otherwise) vary with altitude. A difference of less that 1,000 feet can easily make the difference. That means that two aircraft in the same horizontal "airspace" can be in different atmospheric regimes. Your question assumes that the two aircraft are flying at the same level.

Can high sulfur content in the fuel account for it? It doesn't have to and it doesn't seem that it can. H2S is an invisible gas. SO2 is an invisible gas.

Most studies of geoengineering focus on the release of SO2
or H2S gas into the stratosphere where over time (~1 month), they are converted to
condensable H2SO4.

Are they spraying H2SO4 directly into the atmosphere? I thought the doctor was here to talk about aluminum oxide and barium.

reply to post by zatara


I would hope that rather than this reasoning, the goal would be to strengthen the magnetic field and eliminate the giant hole they found.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

You agree that contrails persist and spread but you say this:

The more I look at some of the pictures and videos the more I shake my head. There are videos of long contrail after long contrail then one that doesn't which is flying in the same airspace which presumably would not change THAT fast. I guess it could, but again there are videos where one plane flies by with persistent, one doesn't, then one does...

It is well known (by those who care to learn something about it) that the conditions which are conducive to contrails (persistent and otherwise) vary with altitude. A difference of less that 1,000 feet can easily make the difference. That means that two aircraft in the same horizontal "airspace" can be in different atmospheric regimes. Your question assumes that the two aircraft are flying at the same level.

Phage you continue to ignore my question and shift to a topic we agree on.

Also you cherry pick post. My question is does the BTS post cause different contrails. You sidetrack the thread with a million little posts that add nothing to the discussion. These have all been addressed previously in my posts to you. Such tactics make it seem I disagree with you, shed me as some sort of denier to the obvious. I again question your reason for doing this. It seems more to try to seem to score points than actually advance the discussion.

I agree there are persistent contrails, I agree they change with altitude, time of day, and weather conditions. My question (which you have ignored 3? 4? times) with these manipulative argument techniques is does can the evidence BTS provided provide for the difference in observed phenomenon.

This is the last time repeat this question, I will not respond again.

Also, please stop these techniques which I pointing out.
Thank you

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by burntheships

 

Very interesting. Could this be why some contrails have persistence?

reply to post by pianopraze

I edited my post.
Please see the added content.

I'm trying to keep the discussion on the topic of the test result. I seem to be ignored.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

I edited my post.
Please see the added content.

I'm trying to keep the discussion on the topic of the test result. I seem to be ignored.

edit on 3/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

*clap* *clap* *clap*

Your the one keeping the discussion on topic.

Your the one being ignored.

I really do not like your discussion techniques. I'm tired of pointing them out.

I know your the poor picked upon misunderstood hero here.

I have enjoyed my time at ats. I have never met anyone who consistently uses these techniques before.
I see what your doing, I hope everyone does.

reply to post by Qcuailon

Has Phage answered any of the questions you asked in this post?

I've never encountered anyone with so much apparent knowledge in so many disciplines -- most of which I also question.

Why are so many who spend their lives on ATS questioning the credentials of others so reluctant to offer their own?

Maybe I missed Phage's explanation of his "expertise" and motivations for the bait and switch tactics...

reply to post by pianopraze

The question is not do they form contrails, It is what is causing the persistent contrails.

"Persistence" is really just another buzz word that has been given undue significance by the "chem"-trail pushers. It brings to mind, in the layperson, some imagined "intent"....when, in fact, "persistence" is merely whatany cloud, once formed, will do....WHEN conditions are suitable for it to "hang around"....

There are the same environmental, meteorological and atmospheric effects in play, once a contrail is formed, as there are when cirrus clouds form. Not all cirrus-type clouds persist. BUT, some do....in fact, they tend to "build" upon one another, triggering more and more formation, and more sky coverage....contrails behave exactly the same way.

By Googling properly, you can "de-Sheen" the results (I should trademark that! LOL...).

Type in your contrail search words....e.g., [persistence of contrails], as I did....but, space over and then add the ( - ) sign [minus] in front of the word "chemtrail"...to bias out the crap.

Sample results page


This link is to an article abstract, and there is access to the full article. Excerpt:

Visible contrails observed during SUCCESS persisted longer than a few minutes only when substantial ambient supersaturations with respect to ice existed over large regions. On some occasions, contrails formed at relatively high temperatures (≥ −50°C) due to very high ambient supersaturations with respect to ice (of the order of 150%). These warm contrails usually formed in the presence of diffuse cirrus. Water vapor from sublimated ice crystals that entered the engine was probably necessary for contrail formation in some of these cases. At temperatures above about −50°C, contrails can only form if the ambient air is supersaturated with respect to ice, so these contrails should persist and grow.

Note that last bit, highlighted......underlined.....

Seems to me that the majority of scientists and experts in the field of contrail study have NO DOUBTS about persistence, even if they are continuing studies on the "exact" mechanisms and factors at play. I dare say, NONE of these esteemed individuals would ever be so silly as to claim that what they are studying are anything else other than artificially formed clouds of ice particles......

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Can high sulfur content in the fuel account for it? It doesn't have to and it doesn't seem that it can. H2S is an invisible gas. SO2 is an invisible gas.

Most studies of geoengineering focus on the release of SO2
or H2S gas into the stratosphere where over time (~1 month), they are converted to condensable H2SO4.

Are they spraying H2SO4 directly into the atmosphere? I thought the doctor was here to talk about aluminum oxide and barium.

If you would read the sources your are quoting you are cherry picking you would have your answer:

The effectiveness of geoengineering is strongly dependent on the type or particle and the particle size deployed. Most studies of geoengineering focus on the release of SO2 or H2S gas into the stratosphere where over time (~1 month), they are converted to condensable H2SO4. Recent work by Pierce et al has shown that directly emitting H2SO4 allows better control of particle size6 and therefore more effective reflection of incoming flux. For the purposes of this study, we have assumed the geoengineering payload is a liquid with a density of 1000 kg/m3 (In gas pipe analysis, a density of 1.22 kg/m^3 is assumed), emitted as a vapor. The larger geoengineering particles, the faster they settle out of the atmosphere. If they are too small, they do not effectively scatter incoming solar flux. The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns

paper.

It's the very next sentence.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Off the subject of chemtrails, lets talk about contrails..

The fact that we see all these persistent contrails that form clouds and it has been studied and shown they may add to global warming..That all OK so far??

Now we also know that a mere few thousand feet difference may mean the trails do not persist or possibly even show any noticeable contrail at all..

So why don't planes alter their altitudes to conform with areas that are NOT conducive to contrails.??

I know of the fuel issue but is it really that much difference?
Is it worth blocking out our clear blue skies?

reply to post by backinblack

If commercial aircraft actually did what the "persistent contrail" crowd claims -- turn a clear blue sky overcast in a couple of hours -- planes would be BANNED!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Great information. But I am not arguing against persistence.

I found this cherry in the link search results from your post above:

Meerkoetter et al. (1999) pointed out the effect of contrails to reduce daily amplitudes of temperatures in the lower atmosphere by reducing the net radiation to the surface during the day and reducing the infrared losses from the surface during the night.

I.E. all these contrails are leading to global cooling. Interestingly enough most times I hear politicians speak, increased jet flights is used as an example for global warming....

also they have done tests to find which days contrails are more likely to form. That would make it easier, if they are spraying, to choose days that would make any spraying less obvious. Is this why there are so many pictures where some are so different from the other contrails?

NWA-derived statistics are analyzed to determine under which atmospheric conditions persistent contrail formation is favored

source.

Lots of good papers there... i read or skimmed almost all of them.


ETA... here is source for first quote: link.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by backinblack

 

If commercial aircraft actually did what the "persistent contrail" crowd claims -- turn a clear blue sky overcast in a couple of hours -- planes would be BANNED!

And yet with have hundreds, if not thousands of Satellite pics showing just that...

I'm just saying could the airlines not at least attempt to fly without creating contrails where possible?
It would make a HUGE difference..

reply to post by pianopraze

I read it. That's why I pointed out that talking about spraying H2SO4 was not really relevant to what Dr. Thyme was asked here to discuss.

Your answer is in the text you quoted. It makes it clear that any visual effects of what they are talking about would not resemble what people claim is the result of "spraying".

The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns (Mie theory).

What do sub-micron sized particle do to light? The ice crystals found in cirrus clouds range from 10 microns to millimeter size, greater than the wavelengths of visible light (red light is about 0.65 microns, violet around 0.40).
www.ssec.wisc.edu...
That is why they appear white, they scatter all colors. When particles are smaller than those wavelengths a different effect is seen. The particles are too fine. The "cloud" would not be visible as a white cloud for long, if at all.

What could we expect to see if those very small particles were being injected into the atmosphere? Do you remember the Pinatubo eruption in 1991? That is the effect which some geoengineering proposal suggest be emulated. The particles produced were very small, about 0.2 microns at first.
Source

There was no visible cloud of particles during the day but the sunrises and sunsets were pretty amazing. The whole sky lit up. The "Pinatubo sunsets" were beautiful. I haven't seen one in a long, long time. If those particles were being injected that's what we would see, not the gray cirrus overcast that people complain about.
www.dewbow.co.uk...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

I read it. That's why I pointed out that talking about spraying H2SO4 was not really relevant to what Dr. Thyme was asked here to discuss.

Your answer is in the text you quoted. It makes it clear that any visual effects of what they are talking about would not resemble what people claim is the result of "spraying".

The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns (Mie theory).

What do sub-micron sized particle do to light? The ice crystals found in cirrus clouds range from 10 microns to millimeter size, greater than the wavelengths of visible light (red light is about 0.65 microns, violet around 0.40).
www.ssec.wisc.edu...
That is why they appear white, they scatter all colors. When particles are smaller than those wavelengths a different effect is seen. The particles are too fine. The "cloud" would not be visible as a white cloud for long, if at all.

What could we expect to see if those very small particles were being injected into the atmosphere? Do you remember the Pinatubo eruption in 1991? That is the effect which some geoengineering proposal suggest be emulated. The particles produced were very small, about 0.2 microns at first.
Source

There was no visible cloud of particles during the day but the sunrises and sunsets were pretty amazing. The whole sky lit up. The "Pinatubo sunsets" were beautiful. I haven't seen one in a long, long time. If those particles were being injected that's what we would see, not the gray cirrus overcast that people complain about.
www.dewbow.co.uk...

edit on 3/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So many mind twists with that first paragraph. Wow. You are a true master phage. No sarcasm intended. I'll ignore that and hope everyone else can figure that out as I grow tired of explaining.

Moving on, your getting to some interesting arguments like we had in the first thread, good. The hydrochloric acid is useful for geoengineering and was studied and found effective in that test. Interesting point you have there. If I assume you are correct that means they could spray these geoengineering chemicals like hydrochloric acid and we wouldn't even know it.. other than the adverse health aspects which would not be attributed to their spraying and maybe an increase in wear on items outside from more acid exposure (and I have noticed that this has increased since I was a child) but as there has been an increase in acid rain it would be hard to show what is from factories and what is from any assumed spraying. This would lower the pH of the soil around Mt. Shasta so they are probably not using it there or if they are other contributing factors raising the pH.

But that does not mean they are not spraying Aluminum, Barium, or Strontium. The high levels found in the snow sample came from somewhere. The only plausible explanations I've found are Gobi sand, or spraying. I'm open to others if you can document. I would like and have searched fruitlessly for a study of samples of Gobi particulates carried across the pacific.

All this also does not address size, color, or chemical composition or aluminum, barium, and strontium solutions or mixtures would be or look like. So if the assumed spraying is of these elements they would look different depending on those variables.

I've seen some wonderful sunsets, and some gorgeous ones in hawaii.... maybe more because of the continual eruptions there... So I would have no way of measuring if they have engaged in spraying because i don't know what, if anything, they have been spraying - or for how long.

reply to post by pianopraze


I am highly interested in the whole chemtrail business,what I would like to know is; has anyone flown through the chemtrails with some sort of spectographic analytical equipment so that it could be analyzed right where it is being dispersed? Might answer a lot of questions or raise a bunch of new ones...