Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

reply to post by ZombieJesus

i was being sarcastic - the photo itself proves nothing. i really would like to see where this conversation takes us to - but the geo-engineering information seems to me to be the current best working theory. In the posts where i am talking science, i am relying on my 50+ year old brain and not running to document everything i say. I am beginning to question physics - which is supposed to be the hardest science on the hard/soft scale. Namaste

reply to post by C-JEAN

Could you AT LEAST respect your own rules ?!?!?!

What rules?

From your post:

posted on 2011/3/4 @ 05:39 Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Post

Please refer to the name above my avatar, last I checked it said ZombieJesus

reply to post by lemmehowdt

i was being sarcastic

No worries, tone is pretty difficult to convey via text anyways

I look forward to seeing where this discussion goes as well.

All the best

reply to post by Essan

It describes what meteorogists and atmosphereic scientists have known and have been studying for decades and what chemtrailers say only started in the 1990s.

It's an ambiguous description of the trails in question. I could easily narrow down that time window to 3 minutes, if I chose a strict interpretation of their words.

It decribes exactly what I've been seeing for decades and what you see today.

You don't really know what I've seen. I'll thank you to keep your baseless assumptions to yourself, concerning what I have PERSONALLY experienced.

Prove otherwise, or accept you may be wrong.

You didn't provide proof that trails persist in the manner that Chemtrails describe. You provided a vaguely worded description that could easily be interpreted a thousand different ways. A description that only applies to Colorado skies.

Edit: I cannot provide a 10 hour youtube footage of spreading contrails from the 1960s. No more than I can provide a youtube video proving the Giza pyramids existed in the 1800s.

You must come from a dimension where the 70's and 80's never happened. You are desperately exaggerating what I said, in order to "up" your proof requirements. I never asked for 10 hours, or that it must be from the 60's just a series of photos or a video that show persistent trails spreading from pre-1990.

(quite generous on my part to accept that, as it doesn't really prove your case.)

But can you provide a 10 hour youtube footage of spreading contrails from the 2000s? One which can be proven to have been taken on a date and location when according to accepted atmopsheric science such spreading contrails cannot occur? The onus is on you.

Anyways, like I said you are exaggerating what I asked for. So, no...you aren't getting your desperate, escalating, 10 hours hyperbole requirement or your confirm this or that.

Chemtrails, cloudless, and it even has a date.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Essan

 

TeEven if you correctly showed "proof" of unusually extensive Contrails prior to 1990, you still would not have disproved all reported Chemtrail behavior. Among others, persistent trails in skies that contain little to no moisture. (cloudless)

xt


Good grief! Does no one remember their high school chemistry. The aircraft carry part of the moisture up with them, in the form of dudocane, the primary petroleum fraction in jet fuel. It contains hydrogen as part of its 12 carbon hydrocarbon chain. 15% of jet fuel, by weight, is hrdrogen.The other component of the moisture is always there - the 20% of the atmosphere that is comprised of oxygen. Burn jet fuel in an oxygen atmosphere and you get an oxidation-reduction reaction with 2 parts liquid dudocane (C12H12) combining with 37 parts of diatomic oxygen gas (O2) to form 24 parts carbon dioxide gas (CO2) and 26 parts water (H2O) in the form of water vapor. You also can get an endothermic oxygen-nitrogen reaction forming some oxides of nitrogen (NOx). To the extent that fossil fuels usually have some natural sulfur contamination, you can also get some oxides of sulfur, usually sulfur dioxide (SO2).

edit on 5-3-2011 by 4nsicphd because: fix quote tag

edit on 5-3-2011 by 4nsicphd because: still fixing quote

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
And here we go again.

It amazes me the amount of attention this topic draws from the "debunkers".

The same tactics are used time and time again to disprove chemtrails, even though you cannot prove something doesn't exist.

You can prove that contrails exist; You can prove that contrails spread out and form clouds; You can prove that industry pollutes barium into the ground, water, and air.

In the end, none of it proves that chemtrails (whichever definition you choose to apply) do not exist...

I've used this analogy before, but it's fitting here again...

I have trees in my back yard. They look like trees and act like trees. They do all of the things trees are supposed to do.

I suppose it is "possible" (or at least in the realm of being "possible") that the trees in my back yard were all replaced by aliens who look and act just like trees, but aren't really trees at all -- but aliens. If you tell me that these alleged aliens look and act exactly like trees, I guess I can't dispute the "possibility" (however remote it may be) that my trees are actually aliens.

However, just because I can't prove that the things in my back yard that look and act EXACTLY as a tree should are not actually aliens DOES NOT MEAN that I should believe they ARE actually aliens...

...and similarly, just because I can't prove that the trails in the sky that look and act EXACTLY like a normal contrail should are not actually CHEMtrails DOES NOT MEAN that I should believe they ARE actually chemtrails.

Using your logic, I should think all things that look and act exactly like contrails have a good possibility of actually being chemtrails, and the things that look and act exactly like trees have a good possibility of actually being aliens.

Just because something is possible does not make it real, or even probable.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Yes but it is also a good idea to use discernment A valuable tool for any ATSer.

reply to post by lemmehowdt

how much dust is in a snow sample that has just fallen? I'm confused - not critical - can you take the time to explain to me where your thinking here is.

You say the snow sample had just fallen? Is that something you know or is it a statement like "from the top of Mt. Shasta" was. Who was it who said "words mean something"? Do you know the origin of the samples at all, the chain of custody?

The thing is the snow melt testing was for aluminum and barium only. Based on that, there is no way of knowing how much dust was in the sample. Were those the only contaminants present in the snow melt? There is no way to know that, is there? Without knowing the relative amounts of other "safe" materials, how can it be claimed that the metal levels were high? Unless of course, you assume that there were no other contaminants but making an assumption like that wouldn't be considered very scientific would it?

Let's apply a tiny bit of critical thought. The soil tests for the area do not show high levels of aluminum or barium. How can that be possible if "very high levels" of aluminum and barium are falling from the sky? Is there some sort of soil chemistry that makes them disappear when they encounter soil?

To answer your question about where else the contaminants in the water and snow may have come from if not falling from the sky? How about this?
2007
How low will it go?: Lake Shasta water could reach lowest level in 15 years
www.redding.com...

2008
UPDATED: Relics exposed in Lake Shasta
Hwy. 99 bridges, train trestles, town ruins emerge as water level drops
www.redding.com...

2009
Shasta Lake merchants question water priorities
www.pe.com...

At the time the samples were taken the region was enduring dry conditions. So dry that parts of the lake bed were exposed. What happens during dry periods? It gets dusty. Dust blows around and falls on snow. Dust which is in the air when it does start to rain gets caught by the rain drops and is carried to the ground.

There is a single soil test for barium, the one near Sisson Elementary School. Here aluminum tested at 1.05% and barium tested at 0.01%. As we know, that aluminum level is actually quite low. Barium makes up about 0.03% of the Earth's crust so the level shown in the test does not seem to be unusual either and in fact, it is found at higher levels naturally. But the important thing is the ratio between the aluminum level and the the barium level. The barium level is 0.78% of the aluminum level.

Now, looking at the samples which were tested for both barium and aluminum, and comparing aluminum to barium in the samples we find that the ratios have a standard deviation of only 0.03. In lieu of a full test of the water samples (which would have shown other contaminants). It seems very likely that the source of the metals in the snow and water samples was local dust. Local dust which is not particularly high in either substance.

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Seagle
Anyone who doubts that the Government is sponsoring a range of atmospheric experiments just needs to look at all the various University research projects that have been fully funded by the Government. Each is just a piece in an overall puzzle.

Here is a pretty staggering statistic - The link below is to a website that is like a national register for aircraft owners, manufacturers, suppliers etc. You can search via company, Government dept, etc etc. I used the Government database and typed in University and was shocked because if I am seeing it right then US Universities own and operate a combined total of around 700 aircraft.

US National Register Airplane Owner/Supplier

/facepalm

And why did you not tell people what kind of aircraft those were? Oh yeah, that would debunk yourself. You had some alarmist statement but withheld the actual data.

I looked, and saw lots of Cessna 172s, Cessna 152s, Beechcraft, etc. I think the vast majority of that list is going to be training aircraft for university flight programs.

So, the question begs, why did you not tell people that part of it all, that the list is made up mostly of single engine prop planes.

Here we go again, what planet are you on FP? Everyone knows your little game because you play the same card all the time. Read the title of this thread and note the term 'Geo-Engineering'. Then, read the OP and tell me where anyone is claiming that 'commercial airliners' or any specific plane for that matter are solely responsible for 'Chemtrails'?

Everyone knows your little game because its always the same and its very boring. The commercial airline part of the Chemtrail debate is the only place you can hide because noone can provide the undeniable proof without taking a great risk and even then people like yourself will deny it. The Geo-engineering, chemical cloud seeding astmospheric research etc etc is proven fact. Your naive comeback is that these projects are not widespread and cannot create visible contrails. Wrong and wrong and I'm not going to bother explaining again, those that seek the truth already have the evidence on these subjects.

Before you embarass yourself again by claiming that it would take a plane the size of an A380 to be able to carry enough chemicals to create such large trails, the answer is NO it doesn't and that is a ridiculous argument. Burning various iodide flares, dispersing dry ice and various chemically modified salt particles to cloud up the sky and modify weather patterns does not require a large plane.

US universities have massive budgets for various atmospheric 'research projects'. Many are involved in the large scale weather modification programs going in Nth and Sth America and they now own around 700 planes. Most of them are single engine Cessnas, Hmmmm I wonder why they need so many planes.

Give it up.

reply to post by Byteman


If scientists describing and studying in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s the phenomena people today call chemtrails is not good enough for you then frankly I cannot see you being satisfied by any evidence. It's your life. You're welcome to be paranoid and live in fear of deadly dihydrogen monoxide crystals if you like. Me? I'm more concerned by the way our increased obsession with air travel has messed up the skies and may be contributing to climate change.

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail - R. G. Knollenberg 1972

(note in particular the first paragraph of the introduction!)

Midwestern Cloud, Sunshine and Temperature Trends since 1901: Possible Evidence of Jet Contrail Effects - Stanley A. Changnon 1981

Jet Contrail Identification Using the AVI-IRR Infrared Split Window - Thomas F. Lee 1989

Numerical Simulations of Persistent Contrails - Klaus M. Gierens 1996

Contrail-Cirrus and Their Potential for Regional Climate Change - Kenneth Sassen 1997

On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds - F. Schröder etal 2000

A Satellite-Based Climatic Description of Jet Aircraft Contrails and Associations with Atmospheric Conditions, 1977–79 - James Q. DeGrand etal 2000

and to bring us up to date:

Global Modeling of the Contrail and Contrail Cirrus Climate Impact - Ulrike Burkhardt etal 2010


(just a small selection of papers - all of which refer to copious numbers of other studies, some dating back to the 50s)

Originally posted by Seagle
The Geo-engineering, chemical cloud seeding astmospheric research etc etc is proven fact. Your naive comeback is that these projects are not widespread and cannot create visible contrails. Wrong and wrong and I'm not going to bother explaining again, those that seek the truth already have the evidence on these subjects.

But such operations cannot and do not produce contrails (other than in the same way and under the same conditions other aircraft produce contrails)

But if you're arguing the case for spraying of particles into the atmosphere for geo-engineering (or other) purposes (as opposed to what people generally refer to as chemtrails) then I have already made clear the test that will prove or falsify the hypothesis: is there a detectable increase in such substances being found on the ground (or better, in rain or snow fall) in similar quantities in all parts of the world?

Originally posted by Seagle


Before you embarass yourself again by claiming that it would take a plane the size of an A380 to be able to carry enough chemicals to create such large trails, the answer is NO it doesn't and that is a ridiculous argument. Burning various iodide flares, dispersing dry ice and various chemically modified salt particles to cloud up the sky and modify weather patterns does not require a large plane.

US universities have massive budgets for various atmospheric 'research projects'. Many are involved in the large scale weather modification programs going in Nth and Sth America and they now own around 700 planes. Most of them are single engine Cessnas, Hmmmm I wonder why they need so many planes.

Give it up.

edit on 5-3-2011 by Seagle because: (no reason given)

You are actually going to allege that these single engine Cessnas are actually chemtrail planes? This is a new high for ridiculous chemtrail insanity. Do you realize a Cessna 152 is not going to get anywhere near as high as any of those planes can get, nor can it carry much of anything at all?

Do you think university flight school programs are actually just secret chemtrail programs? I mean this is just so comical as to be beyond belief, no wonder everyone things you chemtrails are just nutjobs. Apparently we can now add Cessna 152s and Cessna 172 to the super sekrit Chemtrail fleet, even though they can not carry much, can not get remotely high enough, and there is just not any place to put anything on them for this secret chemtrail project.

I mean those planes weigh less than the average car, and to think they can get up to the contrailing heights and somehow release enough material to put a trail across the sky.....well....

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Seagle
The Geo-engineering, chemical cloud seeding astmospheric research etc etc is proven fact. Your naive comeback is that these projects are not widespread and cannot create visible contrails. Wrong and wrong and I'm not going to bother explaining again, those that seek the truth already have the evidence on these subjects.

But such operations cannot and do not produce contrails (other than in the same way and under the same conditions other aircraft produce contrails)

But if you're arguing the case for spraying of particles into the atmosphere for geo-engineering (or other) purposes (as opposed to what people generally refer to as chemtrails) then I have already made clear the test that will prove or falsify the hypothesis: is there a detectable increase in such substances being found on the ground (or better, in rain or snow fall) in similar quantities in all parts of the world?

Go away!! It really annoys me when people start stating things as fact when they quite clearly do not know what they are talking about. When was the last time you were involved in or knowingly witnessed a weather modification operation using the latest techniques? Exactly, you haven't.

As for your test, surely you have got to be joking? Does your test involve a few hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and 20 odd years at University obtaining the various PhD's across multiple disciplines of the sciences? How have you resolved the issue of the multitudes of highly volatile particles in your chemical kinetic modelling. With such high concentrations of reactive atoms and radicals recombining in the both the isothermal core region and during rapid turbulent mixing there is a lot that occurs before we even look at ionisation and oxidisation. What is your test actually going to be testing for, that is a question without an exact answer. Then there is the slight problem in that relying on data from soil and water testing is one of the main reasons we now find ourselves in a rapidly changing global climate crisis and why the UN has been forced to pretend they have banned all geo-engineering projects.

Take a simple one like Silver Iodide for example which we first started testing it in the atmosphere at the CSIRO in 1947. We now have a worldwide industry using it to profit from modifying global weather patterns yet to this day, after over 60 yrs of scientific studies, we still don't have a definite answer as to what happens after the rain. There has never been thorough study on the after effects (not a public one anyway). The industry was allowed to grow and they cite old tests on water and soil samples to show it is a safe process. Unfortunately, the evidence now suggests that most of the silver iodide is quickly drawn back into the atmosphere and we are now suffering from the cumulative effects of it. However, they also found that crops trap some Agl in sap which then makes them prone to freezing and dying off.

What most people don't realise is that when the CSIRO first started testing silver iodide in the atmosphere they were not looking to increase precipitation and it was not even the atmospheric science division carrying out the experiments. The CSIRO's department of radiography was testing it for a completely different purpose - Hint hint!!

Originally posted by Seagle
Go away!! It really annoys me when people start stating things as fact when they quite clearly do not know what they are talking about. When was the last time you were involved in or knowingly witnessed a weather modification operation using the latest techniques? Exactly, you haven't.

No, because there is no weather modification (other than fog dispersal at airports) conducted in Britain.

But I take it that you're so certain I'm wrong because you are involved in such activities and that, unbeknownst to the world's meteorologists and atmospheric scientists these activities you're involved in result in the production of manmade cirrus aka chemtrails?

Edit: and don't forget all the research being undertaken into the radiative properties of manmade cirrus aka chemtrails, as well as how and why they spread and intereact with natural cirrus. Which begs the question why no-one has noticed they're not ice crystals ......

Originally posted by Seagle

Go away!! It really annoys me when people start stating things as fact when they quite clearly do not know what they are talking about. When was the last time you were involved in or knowingly witnessed a weather modification operation using the latest techniques? Exactly, you haven't.

Oh, the irony.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by Seagle

As a matter of fact there have been quite a few environmental studies. Do you really think that people would allow it to be done without environmental impact studies?
content.lib.washington.edu...
adsabs.harvard.edu...
www.inchem.org...
There are plenty more.

CSIRO used dry ice in early tests but if they weren't expermimenting on rain enhancement, what were they doing?

In Australia, CSIRO conducted major trials between 1947 and the early 1960s:

* 1947–1952: CSIRO scientists dropped dry ice into the tops of cumulus clouds. The method worked reliably with clouds that were very cold, producing rain that would not have otherwise fallen.

* 1953–1956: CSIRO carried out similar trials in South Australia, Queensland, and other states. Experiments used both ground-based and airborne silver iodide generators.

* Late 1950s and early 1960s: Cloud seeding in the Snowy Mountains, on the Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, in the New England district of New South Wales, and in the Warragamba catchment area west of Sydney.

Only the trial conducted in the Snowy Mountains produced statistically significant rainfall increases over the entire experiment.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Just exactly how is silver iodide "drawn back into the atmosphere"?

But cloud seeding is not geoengineering.

wrong forum sorry

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I suppose it is "possible" (or at least in the realm of being "possible") that the trees in my back yard were all replaced by aliens who look and act just like trees, but aren't really trees at all -- but aliens. If you tell me that these alleged aliens look and act exactly like trees, I guess I can't dispute the "possibility" (however remote it may be) that my trees are actually aliens.

....etc...

nice.

Here's a reverse take on things.......chemtrails have been replaced by persistant contrails that look and behave exactly like chemtrails.

The chemtrailers cannot deny the possibility.......

reply to post by firepilot


Instead of saying, in effect, a Cessna 152 is too small, let's quantify. How much too small?
Let's get down to the job of designing an aircraft to fit the mission profile that fits witness statements.
WEIGHT CARRYING CAPACITY. Photos show trails that are about the same size as one half of one horizontal stabilizer on a Boeing 757. Full span of the horizontal stab on a 757 is 49'. So we have a trail 12.5' in diameter. So the cross section area is 6.25^2 * pi, or 123 square feet, or 11.4 square meters. Witnesses describe trails that go from horizon to horizon. Line of sight from 40,000' is 265 miles each way, or 530 miles, or 853,000 meters. So the volume of the trail is 9,724,000 cubic meters. To get enough opacity to be clearly visable from 40,000' away, you would need on the order of 20% by volume of the sprayed substance. Since most claim it's aluminum (Al), let's use that. So you need 1,944,800 cubic meters of aerosolized Al. For ease of doing this stuff in my head, let's round to 2 million m^3. Since density is given in grams/cubic centimeter, we multiply 2.8 g/cm^3 times the volume of the Al and get 5,600,000 grams or 56,000 kg. Now pictures of "chemtrails" often show four trails being left, so to leave 4 visable trails of Al from horizon to horizon, you would need to haul 224,000 kg. Since cost is always an object in aircraft design, we would like to use something already flying as a starting point. Oh-Oh - big problem. Nothing flying today can haul that payload. A 757 maxes out at 114,000 kg. The C-5, although much bigger, is limited to 118,000 kg. The king of the heavy lifters, the Russian Antanov An-124, can go a hefty 136,000 kg. Houston, we have a problem.
SIZE. We need to carry 8 million cubic meters of the stuff. That is, if the particles are compressed to a solid, a block measuring 200 meters on each side. Drat! Another problem. the 757 interior is only 36 meters long and 3.5 meters wide. And we need an aircraft cabin 200 meters long and 200 meters wide. Maybe we should talk to the Russians. Nope, no help there. The Antanov cabin is only 36 meters long.
WING LOADING. To be able to fly and not have the wings fall off, we need to keep wing loading, that is the total weight of the beast divided by the wing area, at about the 700 kg/m^2 level. The 757 is 661 kg/m^2. If the empty aircraft is really light, let's say it can carry its own weight, and the only thing I've ever flown that could do that was the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, gross weight would be about 450,000 kg, so we need about 650 square meters of wing area. In order to operate at altitude we will need an aspect ratio (span/chord) length of 8 or so. So we use the formula 8x*x=650, and see that we need a wing span of 200 meters and a chord of 25 meters. Holy embiggenate Batman! That's 600 feet plus change. That's four 757s wingtip to wingtip. Or maybe I should say winglet to winglet if we're talking the 757-200WL or 757-300 aircraft.
Has anybody noticed a 600 foot long, 1200 foot wide(including cabin) and 600 foot tall behemoth cruising the friendly skies?
Now, how many Cessna 152s would it take to make 1 trail from horizon to horizon, as described above? The standard useful load of a 152, including the weight of the pilot and any fuel carried on board, is about 230 kg. Assume a puny 60 kg pilot. A 152 can't carry enough fuel to go 530 miles, so that makes the mission an impossibility. But let's go as far as we can spewing aerosolized aluminum, so assume full fuel of 24.5 gallons at 6 pounds per gallon. That's another 67 kg of our useful load gone. So we can carry 103 kg of chemtrail stuff. Oops, I forgot about the weight of the chemtrail delivery system. Wouldn't that be under "C" in the yellow pages? Hmmm, not there. I can't find any for sale on the internet, so we have to imagine such a system of aerosolizers, tanks, tubes, nozzles, manifolds, etc. It would have to weigh 80 kg. So now we're needing 12,000 152s for our secret squirrel 152 chemtrail fleet.
So, we'll run out and buy 12,000 Cessna 152s. Oh-oh, Cessna only made 7,584 152s and doesn't make them any more. en.wikipedia.org...
There's another little problem. The service ceiling of a 152 is 14,700 feet. I think people would notice a fleet of twelve thousand little spam can airplanes flying around that low.

Living an empirically based reality is such a buzz kill.

Yes, but some people would rather live life in a fantasy world where all these single engine training planes owned by Universities for aviation programs, are actually part of a super sekrit chemtrail fleet. Hmm wonder how they keep all those college students quiet and not talking about the secret chemtrail gear on those Cessna 152s. Maybe they changed those engines with jets since a Cessna 152/172 is going to struggle to get above 10,000 ft.