Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds

Originally posted by Phage

Don't "chemtrails" cover the skies of North America and Europe?

Chemtrails...or Con trails?



www.youtube.com...

reply to post by burntheships

Neat planes.
See a lot of those double fuselage things in your neighborhood?

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

nothing - because there is nothing actually happening.

Yep, thats the Air Force, doing nothing all of the time.

Man you guys get really off topic with the trawling.
Nice try though.

The airforce mostly operates in controlled airspace alongside civilian flights, and uses the same air traffic control systems.

In many countries there are military controllers alongside civilians ones, but in others the task is solely civilian. In either case, in normal controlled airspace there is only one actual system of control used.

It's not getting off topic - it is entirely appropriate to note that nothing is happening when there is nothing happening.

Why are you trying to censor the evidence??

reply to post by Phage


I asked, Chemtrails, or Con trails?
Thats a straightforward question.

reply to post by burntheships

You're asking me about a cartoon?
I like Road Runner cartoons. Especially when the coyote runs off a cliff and hangs there while he looks down before falling.
You know cartoons aren't real, right?

reply to post by Phage


You cant say it can you?

Call it what you want, its a depiction of
planes delivering SRM sulfate aerosols.

Goodness sakes, you expected a real picture?

reply to post by burntheships

What good would a picture of something invisible coming out of the imaginary planes be?
It's a cartoon. It's not real.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afterthought

 

At least we now know that clouds are manufactured to disrupt radar and satellite images

Clouds do not affect radar, neither natural ones or contrails.
Yes, contrails appear on satellite images but as far as "disrupting" them, no more so than natural clouds.

I realize that natural clouds do not affect radar.
The article was speaking about manufactured clouds that are composed of various metallic substances.
We are currently discussing chemtrails. Not natural clouds nor normal contrails.
I suppose we should be referring to chaff instead.

Please visit this site for more detailed information:
(Please refer to the words I've bolded and refer back to where you were inquiring about air traffic controllers)
www.globalsecurity.org...

Chaff and flares are defensive mechanisms employed from military aircraft to avoid detection and/or attack by adversary air defense systems. Chaff consists of small fibers that reflect radar signals and, when dispensed in large quantities from aircraft, form a cloud that temporarily hides the aircraft from radar detection. The two major types of military chaff in use are aluminum foil and aluminum-coated glass fibers. The aluminum foil-type is no longer manufactured, although it may still be in use.

When ejected from an aircraft, chaff forms the electromagnetic equivalent of a visual smoke screen that temporarily hides the aircraft from radar. Chaff also serves to decoy radar allowing aircraft to maneuver or egress from the area. It consists of small, extremely tie fibers of aluminum or aluminum-coated glass that disperse widely in the air when ejected from the aircraft and effectively reflect radar signals in various bands, in order to create a very large image of reflected signals ("return") on the radar screen. In the air, the initial burst from a chaff bundle forms a sphere that shows up on radar screens as an electronic cloud. The aircraft is obscured by the cloud, which confuses enemy radar. Since chaff can obstruct radar, its use is coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

There are two types of chaff, aluminum foil and aluminum-coated glass fibers. The foil type is no longer manufactured, although it remains in the inventory and is used primarily by B-52 bombers. Both types are cut into dipoles ranging in length from 0.3 to over 2.0 inches. They are made as small and light as possible so they will remain in the air long enough to confuse enemy radar. The aluminum foil dipoles are 0.45 mils (0.00045 inches) thick and 6 to 8 mils wide. The glass fiber dipoles are generally 1 mil (25.4 microns) in diameter, including the aluminum coating which is 0.12 f 0.06 mils thick. A new superfine glass fiber chaff is being manufactured that is 0.7 mil (17.8 microns) in diameter.

reply to post by Afterthought

The article was nonsense.

Yes, chaff shows up on radar. So what? Are you claiming that "chemtrails" are chaff being dispensed all over the country? Are you claiming that chaff can stay suspended for hours and spread to fill the sky?

Why don't those chaff "chemtrails" show up on weather radar? They should, shouldn't they?

Here's a nice visual to explain how it works.


Here's another one:


If you understand Dutch:


Here's a meteorologist who doesn't have his head in the sand:


Please explain this video:

reply to post by Phage


I'm simply trying to explain how chaff has more than one purpose.

reply to post by Afterthought


Airborne chaff (ships use it too) has one purpose, to protect aircraft from radar guided missiles. It does not make planes invisible to radar, it creates a big blob that confuses missiles. That big blob is not very discrete, any radar operator seeing it would know that there was an aircraft dispensing chaff.

So if you were merely pointing out what chaff is for, what does it have to do with "chemtrails"?

reply to post by Phage


I'm just bringing up the topic because it may be the reason why the NASA satellite is reading that clouds are closer to the ground now.
If they are using chaff/chemtrails for other purposes than to obscure radar guided missiles, the public needs to be made aware.

Regarding your comments in relation to the videos, why would chaff be needed to obscure large portions of a state like the cloud over California? Are you saying that the US is at risk of being hit by radar guided missiles?

reply to post by burntheships


Seriously???

This is beyond silly. And, tell us: Just what does a cartoon depiction of imaginary airplanes doing imaginary things have to do with the thread TOPIC?

reply to post by Phage

So, the water vapor in the air, instead of forming natural cirrus, may tend to form contrail cirrus instead. I don't see the difference. If the contrails weren't there, natural cirrus would have "used up" the water vapor if they formed, but they wouldn't have because the conditions weren't right for them to form in the first place.

This is exactly the sort of statement that I don't get about your arguments. There is no way for you or anyone else to know if natural clouds would have developed or not because the venue was muddied with artificial clouds that do not presage a weather system because they form in conditions not conducive to natural cirrus. Left alone, the venue would eventually develop natural cirrus because that is what happens. But before the venue has a possibility of becoming super-saturated, it is sucked dry by cirrus aviaticus. How can this not make sense? How can this be interpreted any differently than the studies I linked and quoted interpreted them? Cirrus aviaticus eats natural clouds. How? It sucks them dry. Just like a vampire.

It sounds to me like there is a trade off of sorts, with contrails replacing natural cirrus to a certain degree but resulting in overall greater cloud coverage. Either just contrail cirrus where natural clouds wouldn't form or a combination of the two (with contrails dominating) where they would.

This is the same argument without any validity in real life. Cirrus aviaticus dominate. They don't share. They don't replace natural cirrus, they supplant it. They behave differently - this is clear from their very inception.

What causes the ice crystals to fall? Are cirrus contrails less likely to produce those falling ice crystals than natural cirrus are? I don't think so, I don't think the ice crystals in contrails are so different that they would not behave in pretty much the same way as the natural ones.

This is not correct. They are different. There is, however, confusion on this point because I maintain that geoengineering of the atmosphere has not always had the same goal. This means different strokes for different times of cirrus aviaticus (artificial clouds caused by jet emissions.) Previously the goal was maximum coverage but the reasons given were 'cooling the planet.' Studies shot this 'reason' out of the water showing that there was more heating than cooling from such abundant cirrus. The natural system was already destroyed wherein there was a balance. With cirrus aviaticus it was not balance that was sought but coverage and to hide the real reason, cooling was put forward. Cooling didn't happen and annoying atmospheric scientists continued their studies and proved it wasn't happening.

Now, supposedly in the 'proposal stage' although we've been seeing the observational evidence for some time, 'seeding' (not to be confused with rain-making) is to take a bit of a detour and aim for larger ice crystals which will fall out deleting the cloud even as it forms. So no cirrus aviaticus, no natural cirrus, no clouds of any kind in order to cool the planet which is now the stated top priority. The goal is to get rid of cirrus period. But cirrus, natural cirrus, is joined at the hip in the planets' hydrological cycle. Drought is inevitable but perhaps it can be more conveniently geographically located. Still...sacrifices will need to be made.

In the link you quoted...the very first sentence says that a "new cloud class 'contrail cirrus'" is being introduced. This is not indicative that something has changed in River City? Yes...there are peculiarities in the ice crystal structure. And, in fact, some of those peculiarities are being exploited to make them even more peculiar. Because the current aim is to rid the planet of natural cirrus. It is ill-considered because natural cirrus and the role of this cloud in the hydrological cycle of the planet is not really understood. And will probably only be fully understood after its' loss when it will be another 11th hour scenario requiring more geoengineering.

Your comments on SRM not being undertaken - tests have been done. A lot of stuff has already been injected into the atmosphere and admitted but only after a long time or only if the rockets carrying the stuff were too visible to pooh pooh.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Phage

 

This is the same argument without any validity in real life. Cirrus aviaticus dominate.

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

They don't share. They don't replace natural cirrus, they supplant it.

ditto - what is the mechanism by which "natural" cirrus is "supplanted"??

They behave differently - this is clear from their very inception.

how is that??

clearly their inception is different - but what is the evidence that the behaviour after that is any different?

This is not correct. They are different.

In what way are they different?

There is, however, confusion on this point because I maintain that geoengineering of the atmosphere has not always had the same goal. This means different strokes for different times of cirrus aviaticus (artificial clouds caused by jet emissions.) Previously the goal was maximum coverage but the reasons given were 'cooling the planet.'

I have never seen any reason being given for deliberate formation of cirrus aviaticus at all - where did yuo get this from?

Studies shot this 'reason' out of the water showing that there was more heating than cooling from such abundant cirrus. The natural system was already destroyed wherein there was a balance. With cirrus aviaticus it was not balance that was sought but coverage and to hide the real reason, cooling was put forward. Cooling didn't happen and annoying atmospheric scientists continued their studies and proved it wasn't happening.

so what are the references for this conclusion?

Now, supposedly in the 'proposal stage' although we've been seeing the observational evidence for some time, 'seeding' (not to be confused with rain-making) is to take a bit of a detour and aim for larger ice crystals which will fall out deleting the cloud even as it forms. So no cirrus aviaticus, no natural cirrus, no clouds of any kind in order to cool the planet

Destroying all clouds?? Really? so no rain? How will that cool the planet?

Again - where are the references?

The goal is to get rid of cirrus period. But cirrus, natural cirrus, is joined at the hip in the planets' hydrological cycle.

Again references please - where is this goal stated?

AFAIK cirrus has a minuscule % of the atmosphere's water and I imagine they are not particularly important to the hydrological cycle at all - clouds in general certainly are, but the vast majority of them are not cirrus.

Your comments on SRM not being undertaken - tests have been done. A lot of stuff has already been injected into the atmosphere and admitted but only after a long time

Like what?

or only if the rockets carrying the stuff were too visible to pooh pooh.

So what else where the rockets were not too visible?

reply to post by Afterthought


Something funny that I want to mention is that there could be a link between the 4th dimensional entities that masquerade as ghosts and how easily clouds manifest at that level.

I used to live at an relative's house in one of those nice little cities full of willow trees and witch lore where, when the dusk and dawn would come around, the entire front yard would be full of dense looking misty clouds, so much so that it looked like the clouds had fallen right there. Anyway, from what I would hear all the time, from the rest of the family that lived there, there seemed to always be some supernatural ghost activity going on.It made me wonder if this city was at higher altitude compared to other areas. But after hearing about this stuff about the clouds getting closer to the ground of the Earth, I'm starting to wonder if maybe paranormal activity has something to do with the altitude of a location or the ability for clouds to manifest closer to the ground.

reply to post by Afterthought

I'm just bringing up the topic because it may be the reason why the NASA satellite is reading that clouds are closer to the ground now.

No.
Clouds are not closer to the ground now.
I was found that between 2000 and 2010 the average level of cloud tops showed a slight decline. The reason for the decline was mostly because there were fewer high altitude clouds.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Phage

 

I'm just bringing up the topic because it may be the reason why the NASA satellite is reading that clouds are closer to the ground now.
If they are using chaff/chemtrails for other purposes than to obscure radar guided missiles, the public needs to be made aware.

what other purpose??

Regarding your comments in relation to the videos, why would chaff be needed to obscure large portions of a state like the cloud over California? Are you saying that the US is at risk of being hit by radar guided missiles?

Only California

Of course obscuring California is just a happy byproduct of it occasionally spreading further then expected

The very cases you show make it obvious that chaff is NOT being used very often - when it is used it is patently obvious to everyone - there is no way to hide chaff - its use cannot possibly be secret!

reply to post by luxordelphi

There is no way for you or anyone else to know if natural clouds would have developed or not because the venue was muddied with artificial clouds that do not presage a weather system because they form in conditions not conducive to natural cirrus.

From your source:

Contrail cirrus form and persist in air that is ice-saturated13, 14, whereas natural cirrus often require high ice supersaturation to form15. This implies that in a substantial fraction of the upper troposphere, contrail cirrus can persist in supersaturated air that is cloud-free16, 17, thus increasing high cloud coverage

Contrail cirrus form in airmasses which have insufficient moisture for the formation of natural cirrus.

This is the same argument without any validity in real life. Cirrus aviaticus dominate. They don't share. They don't replace natural cirrus, they supplant it

From your source:

Contrail cirrus exist alongside and interact with natural clouds and, depending on their overlap with natural clouds, can increase overall cloud coverage

This is not correct. They are different.

Please explain those characteristics of contrails which would prevent the ice crystals of which they are composed from falling and thus carry moisture to lower levels.

www.nature.com...