You can't tell me Geoengineering isn't real...

Originally posted by stars15k
Sorry, but you are wrong about one thing right off the bat. Every single cloud you see in the sky are aerosols.

Semantics, my friend. I think it was quite clear what I meant by aerosols.

reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater


Since you point out the third picture, please look at this one:



This picture was taken in 1905, before planes and film. Looks just like it doesn't it? It's because there are no "new clouds", you just haven't looked at a cloud guide. Clouds tell you amazing things about the atmosphere if you know what you are looking at. That formation is a cirrocumulus, or high puffy clouds. The "pattern" is due to wind, effecting that level from two directions. It's called "destructive interference". If it was in water on a lake, it would be called "choppy water". Energy moves through the atmosphere by the principles of fluid dynamics, in other words, in waves. You can see waves in the wind by looking at a field. Same thing happens at 35K+ feet.

The coloring is just iridescence. The cause of iridescence is the same as any "rainbow" anywhere, light refraction though ice crystals or water droplets. Here's a study that explains it all:
On the cause of Iridescence in Clouds
It was published in the magazine Scientific American in 1887. That is years before planes flew.
The other feature you show are called "distrails". It stands for "dissipation trail". It happens when a plane flies through clouds and sets off a change reaction (by the Bergeron process) making the cloud droplets condense and freeze.
Added to the other pictures in your post, I'm guessing you are fairly close to an airport. Why? The first picture shows "racetrack contrails". This is one of three things that keeps the planes fairly close to airports, either a holding pattern, a training flight, or a plane this is searching for something, either sightseeing or observational. The other clue is that distrails form usually in altocumulus clouds, which are lower than flight altitude. A plane climbing or landing through this cloud can leave a distrail. For a plane to be climbing or landing, they are near an airport.
Want to see what different cloud features are called and why? Use the Cloud Appreciation Society cloud guide:
The Cloud Collector's Reference

reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater


If you mean the aerosol visible behind an airplane only, then you need to learn about dilution.
One gallon of jet fuel will produce about 1 gallon of water after combustion. This, and the solid particles like soot, then produce nucleating particles which cause atmopsheric water vapor to condense to a density that is visible. The amount of atmospheric water contribution is very large, as high as fourth order of magnitude. This is then diluted further by all the air in the atmosphere, mixed by wind.
This will remain suspended in the atmosphere for hours or days and will drift for hundreds or thousands of miles before settling out to ground level. That is because an aersol within a trail is very small, between 10 and 20 micrometers in diameter. Something that small reaches terminal velocity at only about 0.03 to 1.20 cm per second. Calculated out, in an isolated column of air, an aerosol particle of anything will not settle for at least 24 hours. An isolated column of air does not exist, so the same particle will be blown by the wind or pushed back higher by updrafts, so the 24 hours is the absolute minimum. Many particles probably don't reach the ground for years. For something to reach the ground from that altitude directly, it would have to be the size of large hail.
So what you are talking about is extremely small and extremely dilute.
Unless you think that someone can control gravity and the wind, "chemtrails" as a plan is the most visible, high-maintenance, costly, scatter-shot, illogical, ill-conceived way of doing anything.

reply to post by stars15k


To be honest that picture doesn't look like what is in the others. Also, it's kind of a small picture and is questionable of where it came from. Did you get it from the city archives in a paper or something like that? Or did you get if off contrailscience....... the most blatant piece of propaganda there is for chemtrails. You act as if you know how the trails appear and when they appear..... did you watch all of them appear in real time and see the planes leaving them? If you have done that then you would know they aren't commercial planes ....but you don't .... so you actually can't know.

Also, why do you continue to ignore patents that explain exactly what we see. Don't give me the whole... just cause it's a patent doesn't mean it's in use crap.... that's ridiculous. I mean really, it's a few pages... take the time to read it thoroughly and cure yourself of the ignorance concerning this.

In the patent# 3899144 it states...

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual aquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose.

That was in 1975..... if you can't comprehend the kind of research and development that has gone on since then .... there is probably no hope for you.
And that is just one patent out of the many many patents concerning this topic.

reply to post by dplum517


How many times are you told something before you check for yourself?
There are now 1,580,000 hits on a Google of "stupid patents."
Patents are not proof that something works the way they describe or even if it exists anywhere except the paper it's drawn on. It's a way to claim ownership of the idea or product, should it be used at any time. That's all a patent is for.
Yet "chemtrailers" continue to produce the same patents, and will continue to receive the same answer. To prove something exists and works, a patent is not going to work.

As for the picture, yes, they are small. Sorry I forgot to list the source. You can download your own copy. It's original publication date is 1905, and all the pictures in the subsequent editions used the same photographs. There are also hard copies of this book available to buy. You just need to look. Here's a source to get it in many different formats.
Cloud Studies

If you are really paranoid, you probably think that every copy of this on the web has been somehow given the "1984" treatment. I've been told just that and there is a video about it on YouTube. I've seen this book myself (wishing now I had bought it) and all the pictures match. If you think that for yourself, prove it. Find a copy yourself and show the differences.

reply to post by dplum517


And your way of deternining the type of airplanes used for the contrails is....???
You know as much about the type of plane as I do.
And I didn't say they were commercial or not, did I?.
Have I seen commercial planes leave contrails? Absolutely. And was able to match them real-time to those listed at FlightAware. I've also seen military jets leave contrails; there is an active Air National Guard in my town. And I've even seen private jets leave them.....or at least videos of it, but that's enough proof for a "chemtrail" believer, so there you go.
And I've seen all kinds of planes not leaving any trail at all. Those are invisible contrails, because the jet is producing the same amount of exhaust as one leaving a huge contrail. The only difference is the amount of atmospheric contribution, which is based on the saturation level of the atmosphere at that particular place and time.

reply to post by stars15k

How many times are you told something before you check for yourself? There are now 1,580,000 hits on a Google of "stupid patents."

Not really sure what that means or if it even makes sense. You are saying it's a "stupid patent"? Okayyy... guess that's your opinion. If you really are going to go with that attitude of all patents are worthless until it works.... that's kind of silly. Yes, there are plenty of stupid patents.... but you want to lump all geo-engineering patents into the "stupid" category?
Also, I'm not sure what your point is with the clouds and pic of cirrus clouds. I am well aware that they exist and what they look like. If you would even bother to read about geo-engineering you would know it is precisely those type of clouds that they want to modify or "make" per say.
Really though.... your logic concerning the patents is extremely flawed.

Since you are such a scientist and know all about atmospheric conditions then you should be able to tell me when and at what time of year I should see normal "contrails" that go from horizon to horizon.
So please enlighten me. If I live in a four seasons climate with cold winters and hot summers then there should be specific times of year when the atmosphere is just right at certain altitudes for your super long contrails to form. So tell me, when will that be?

Also, I do know a decent amount about planes and have grown up around them my whole life. I actually look at them everyday with high powered binoculars. Do you? cause if you did.... you would have seen that planes leaving nasty trails on not commercial.

reply to post by stars15k


Don't forget, no chemtrail believer has ever looked at a weather book And they're probably too scared to visit their local library lest they find out some inconvenient facts......

As I said earlier, the pictures posted by the OP are normal clouds - anyone who knows the slightest about the subject, even if they can't specify which exact species they are, knows that.

That OP has not noticed such clouds before is neither here nor there. I've never seen a wombat before. Does it mean they don't exist? That if I see one it's the result of a secret govt experiment?

Learn what is real, learn what we know, And then you will know if what you see is something different, without making a fool of yourself.

Meanwhile, I'm sorting out some photos of genuine stratospheric clouds so you'll know what to look for for evidence of geoengineering - but you'll probably have to wait till Sunday.

Originally posted by dplum517
Since you are such a scientist and know all about atmospheric conditions then you should be able to tell me when and at what time of year I should see normal "contrails" that go from horizon to horizon.

Any time between 00z and 24z, from 1st Jan to 31st Dec, depending on ambient atmospheric conditions.

If you'd ever looked at a book about clouds you'd know that.

reply to post by dplum517


Super long contrails can exist any season, as the difference between the conditions at flight altitude and ground level are not anywhere as severe. Surely you know this. A contrail from horizion to horizon is going to be about 300 miles long. If there is the right condtions at that altitude, there will be contrails that long. If there are pockets of atmosphere with different conditions along the way, the trail will not form or persist. And yes, I've used a scope to see the planes, and they are commercial planes leaving the contrails over my house. Do you have pictures of these planes that aren't commercial? I've seen pictures where people make that claim, forgetting that marking will not show or be incredibly hard to see from the distance. Videos claiming unmarked are so magnified that each pixel will cover several feet of an airplane's surface, and any markings will not show up. Just using eyesight is hard as well due to Rayleigh scattering and the fact that most commercial planes have either a white or silver bottom. They blend right in to the sky, visible only because they are making a contrail to point it out.
Here's something for you to figure: How much material is needed to produce a contrail ('chemtrail" to you) that is over 300 miles long. Look at the pictures of the planes compared to the trail it is producing...they can be quite large. A single cumulus cloud contains a lot of water, some have figured 2.2 billion pounds, others around 550 tons. source. How can all of that substance be carried and sprayed by an airplane?

reply to post by Essan


Hmm.. talking about yourself again?

Seems like many of us geoengineering believers have been hitting the books pretty darn hard to come up with evidence while people like you just jeer and bring no reference material to the table.

Here's some hard science on geoengineering for those interested, please come add any papers you find on geoengineering: Worlds first Geoengineering thread in the new ATS geoengineering forum!

Please add hard science papers here. TY!

Heh..... yes I realize these things, I just want to hear your answers because a lot of the times they differ.
I'm not here to talk about clouds. Really, all I am here for is to call BS every time one of you posts something as fact when it is not.
Also, I live in one of the driest climates around... where in theory "contrails" will dissipate quickly due to the low level of humidity. But they don't, all year round they are the same. I'm sure you will have your bullet proof answers of ....it's can happen anytime! ...lol ok ...you keep thinking that.

And stars..... I would love to record a HD video of chemtrails if I could just afford that $10,000 camera. You can get some high powered binoculars too and look for yourself.
And you should know I am a sky watcher from past posts..... I see A LOT of planes all the time with no trails...... meaning ... I still notice planes....just because they don't have trails does not mean I don't notice them.

Anyway, here are the pictures:

From my observations, it started out like this at about lunch time:


1 - 2 hours later:


Showing the oil-like sheen:


Again:


Panoramic view showing a clear line through the clouds:


Again, about 10 minutes later:


Panoramic view showing a white line through the same clouds:


The sky ended up like this:


And this:


I hope that after reading this nobody will have any doubt that aerosol spraying of the atmosphere/stratosphere exists for the purposes of geoengineering.

The capacity/scope of the programs is open for debate, however.

.




Those, my friend, are CONTRAILS, and contrail clouds. I look out the window all day long as part of my job. I watch the planes fly, leaving the contrails. I watch the contrails spread out into cloud cover over a couple hours. A warm day with completely blue skies with no clouds to be seen anywhere, is turned into a chilly day with not a patch of blue sky anywhere, all within a couple hours.

I was not aware of such a thing as contrails until about 3 1/2 months ago, after stumbling across photos and reports on the internet, that I started paying attention. I thought it was absolutely nuts... but I am now a believer. I don't what they are for, what the reason for them is yet, but I know it is not natural and something is not right.

reply to post by pianopraze


But have you bothered to look up what normal, natural clouds look like? Ah ...... If you had, then you might be in a better position to argue that what you see is not normal.

And anyway, when it comes to geoengineering, aren't we talking stratospheric? Or do you have evidence of tropospheric geoengineering that aims to replicate normal clouds?

reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater


geo-engineering is indeed real. Are chemtrails part of this? Maybe, it has been proposed. Are all the images you posted chemtrails? Nope, i see normal contrails and distrails. Now, the oily sheen image, that is similar to what I've seen myself, and have seen photos and videos of. That would be one to check in on, the rest, nothing to worry about.

but yes, geo-engineering is real, we regularly cloud seed. And normal contrails, depending on the altitude, do impact weather conditions, low clouds or trails bounce sun light back out into space, high altitude ones act like an insulator and keep the heat on us, so even if there are no "chemtrails" the sheer volume of flights has impacted the global temperatures and this was examined in detail in a documentary called, i think "global dimming" which took place during the air lock down after 911 showing the absence of contrails actually let the temperature rise.

reply to post by Essan


It's both and, not either or:
Congressional hearing on geoengineering:
Paper presented at hearings:
Geoengineering IIe: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges

I will often replace the term “Solar Radiation Management” with the word “geoengineering”. And I will often loosely refer to the “changes in the amount of energy entering or leaving some part of the planet because of some climate factor” as a “forcing”. So there is a forcing associated with increasing greenhouse gases, and there is another forcing associated with Solar Radiation Management. The idea is to try to match the forcings so that they kind of cancel.

You might also be interested to know that scientists have occasionally considered using other kinds of particles to do geoengineering. But you asked me to focus on sulfate aerosols so I will not discuss other particles further.

clouds as a whole tend to cool the planet more than they warm it.

If one introduces extra aerosol into a region where a cloud is going to form, then when the cloud forms, there will be more cloud drops in it than there would otherwise have been.

Also recently admitted, those contrails have geoengineering aerosols So2 and black carbon:

Aviation CO2, H2O and soot emissions contribute directly to climate change with positive radiative forcing (net warming). Whereas, emissions of NOx, SOx, H2O and black carbon aerosols contribute indirectly to climate change.

Notice how he says Co2 increases temperature and No So and H2O "contribute indirectly"... i.e. they actually COOL, yet they do not say this. Nor do they admit anywhere in this paper that aviation leads to a NET COOLING... very interesting.

He goes on and obfuscates further, notice he does not mention the So2 or carbon... which are mentioned throughout the geoengineering research as aerosols they want to use to cool the atmosphere:

In general, there is a better understanding of impacts of GHG emissions that have a direct impact on the climate than emissions that have indirect impacts. For example, while the scientific understanding and modelling of NOx effects have substantially improved over the last few years, there is still uncertainty regarding the exact extent to which NOx emissions from air travel affect climate change through their impact on ozone formation and methane destruction. Similarly, H2O vapor emissions can trigger formation of contrails in sufficiently cold air masses which may persist for hours and can potentially increase cirrus cloudiness. Direct emissions of black carbon and in situ formed aerosols can also serve as cloud condensation nuclei which, along with background aerosols, facilitate the forma- tion of contrails and cirrus clouds. Contrails and induced cirrus clouds reflect solar short-wave radiation and trap outgoing long-wave radiation resulting in the net positive contribution to climate change.

The Alaskan study and the 9/11 study both invalidate his assumption that these contrails lead to warming. He is either not aware or directly misleading. I think the later because he totally leaves out black carbon and So2 data from his explanation. Lying by omission. His paycheck probably comes from toeing the line and/or the paper is edited to toe the line. So he might have included this information and it was edited out. This happens all the time on shows such as the History channel... I've heard people complaining that they have edited things in such ways to say the opposite of their statements.

Either way this paper is proven to be forcing an agenda, skewing data and the discussion and out right lying.
Aviations contribution to climat change.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by stars15k

 

Did you get it from the city archives in a paper or something like that? Or did you get if off contrailscience....... the most blatant piece of propaganda there is for chemtrails. .

Contrail Science has a standing invitation for anyone to correct anything that is on it that is incorrect.

It is not "propaganda....for chemtrails" - it is information about contrails.

If you do not understand what contrails are then you cannot possibly claim that something is not a contrail!!

Back to the OP - I won't tell you that geo-engineering doesn't exist.

There are numerous programmes in place or advanced stages of research and actual real-world trials.

these include carbom sequestration, carbon trading, alternative fuels, alternative ("renewable") energy, nuclear energy, hydrogen economy, etc.

Those are very real attempts at geoengineering.

As the OP says, it does not take much stretch of the imagination to think chemtrails might be real too - but without any evidence that is all it remains - imagination.