Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


(Regarding how chaff interferes with radar)

what other purpose??

SRM.
Please try to keep up.

reply to post by Afterthought

From your source:

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.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Glass fibers will not stay suspended for long, they fall. They are also too large to be effective for SRM. In order to be effective, SRM particles would be of submicron sizes. If it's large enough to work to reflect radar it's too large for SRM. If its small enough for SRM it's too small to reflect radar.

reply to post by Phage

If it's large enough to work to reflect radar it's too large for SRM. If its small enough for SRM it's too small to reflect radar.

Can you please provide a link to this information?

reply to post by Afterthought

I'm sure you've got plenty of SRM sources which provide information about the particle sizes which would be used, and why.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

(Regarding how chaff interferes with radar)

what other purpose??

SRM.
Please try to keep up.

Useless for SRM - do try to be realistic.

And also completely detectable.

the proposal for using aluminium for SRM postulates discs ~5 micrometer in radius and 50 nano-meters thick that can be held aloft by photophoretic levitation (which is explained in that paper)

Chaff is hundreds or thousands of times larger - typically 25 micrometres in diameter, and .3 - 1.0 inches long - see here.

So no, chaff has no use in SRM.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afterthought

 

I'm sure you've got plenty of SRM sources which provide information about the particle sizes which would be used, and why.

edit on 3/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Why are you baiting her with info you already know?

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 (Mie theory). To achieve the proper particle size, the vapor must be emitted at a rate that prevents particles from coagulating into large particles. Analysis7 has shown that a release rate of 0.1 to 0.003 kilograms per meter travelled by the aircraft limits coagulation. For the purposes of this study, concepts of operations are designed around a release rate of 0.03kg/m. However, in some cases higher rates are required due to limitations on airplane range or dispersal method.

link

reply to post by pianopraze

Why are you baiting her with info you already know?

Baiting? I said that SRM particles would be of submicron size. Anyone who researches "chemtrails" should know this and have plenty of sources for it.

reply to post by Phage


If you aren't going to provide a link to that information, I'd like to see your CV.
At least this way I'll know if I can take your word for things if you're not going to back them up.

reply to post by pianopraze


Thanks for the reference and info.
I appreciate you for stepping through the arrogance and answering my request.

reply to post by Afterthought

At least this way I'll know if I can take your word for things if you're not going to back them up.

You don't believe me when I post easy to understand sources.

Would you believe me if I posted links to discussions of Rayleigh, Mie, and other scattering types and how different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are affected by them? As a student of "chemtrails" and SRM, one would think you were famililar with the topic since it is the basis of the whole idea. Or are you not really interested in the science behind it?
www.severewx.com...

Would you believe me if I posted links about how the particle size detectable by radar is dependent upon a relationship between the wavelength and the size of the particle?
ams.confex.com...

Probably not.

reply to post by Phage


This topic is extensive. I don't have everything memorized.
I provide sources to everything that I state and I expect the same.
If you think you're too good to post links to back up your statements, you're the one with the issues, not I.
If we were on scientific debate teams where we knew each other's credentials, I wouldn't expect you to provide sources, but we aren't. This is the internet and providing sources to back your information is not too much to expect.

reply to post by pianopraze


Why do you keep citing as a reference what is simply a cost analysis study?

It is not a "blueprint" by any means.....nor a description of on-going activities. Are you sure you are reading it without the normal "chemtrail" biased approach? Because if you do read it that way, you see the actual language used in it.

And once again.....this particular "source" dates from 2010. The "chemtrail" hoax, myth and con-job started back in the 1990s. Your won "source", besides being only a theoretical study, refutes all of the many ridiculous "chemtrail" claims of the last nearly two decades.....

Oh, (edit)...AND it has nothing to do with the thread OP's topic!!!

The measuring of the average height of cloud tops WORLD-WIDE! Something that was conducted over a ten-year period, and using technology (a new satellite) that was previously unavailable for the very first time!

The results were an average over-all decrease of only 100 to 130 feet, over those TEN years! Does the total insignificance of this not sink in to any one of these nonsense "chemtrail" claimants that keep banging on about something that doesn't even exist?

"Chemtrals" as an actively underway "geoengineering" project do NOT exist.

Period.

Attempting to muddy the issue with irrelevance is just plain ignorance.

Originally posted by Phage

Glass fibers will not stay suspended for long, they fall. They are also too large to be effective for SRM. In order to be effective, SRM particles would be of submicron sizes.

Proof?

So even so, this does not rule out sulfer in the jet fuel, and self levitating
nano particles.

Talk about disinfo!

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Phage

Glass fibers will not stay suspended for long, they fall. They are also too large to be effective for SRM. In order to be effective, SRM particles would be of submicron sizes.

Proof?

www.fas.org...

Radar observations show that chaff can spread over several hundreds
of miles and stay in the air for up to a day.

So even so, this does not rule out sulfer in the jet fuel

completely detectable - trivially detectable in fact - just buy some jet fuel and check for sulphur - current levels are published, so start checking at regular intervals & see if they go up.

, and self levitating nano particles.

No such thing. what has been proposed is micro-particles - not nano-particles - they are ~5 micrometer in radius and 50 nano-meters thick that can be held aloft by photophoretic levitation (which is explained in that paper) - not self levitating - you still ahve to carry them up, and they will eventually fall out of the atmosphere.

A bit harder to find - but by no means impossible - you'd have to take air samples at altitude.

Probably easier to track their manufacture and transport, identify the a/c "spraying" them, etc. - they would have a considerable logistical tail to their deployment.

So still not a secret.

And still not happening.

Talk about disinfo!

hang on - what is disinfo about pointing out the problems with chaff being used for SRM when it is suggested that chaff is used for SRM??

What is disinfo is changing the goalposts when theory #1 is shown as rubbish you hurriedly change to theory #2, #3...still without any actual evidence!

reply to post by Phage

You don't believe me when I post easy to understand sources.

Again, you didn't provide a 'source'. You provided a statement. A 'source' backs up a statement.

www.yourdictionary.com...

-- a person, book, document, etc. that provides information: to consult various sources
-- to identify the source of (information, quotations, etc.)

If you would like me (and others) to consider you to be a reliable source of information, please provide your CV as I already stated. If you're not willing to do this, please provide links to back up your information. It's really that simple.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Oh, I see your talking about chaff.

I was referring to Keiths SRM particulate.

reply to post by burntheships


You were replying to a post of Phage's which had this as the subject :

There are two types of chaff, aluminum foil and aluminum-coated glass fibers......

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by burntheships

 

You were replying to a post of Phage's which had this as the subject :

There are two types of chaff, aluminum foil and aluminum-coated glass fibers......

Really, you sure? Since you two are speaking in turn, and you answer when I address him
its a bit hard to keep track of your dual personalities.

The days of ribbon chaff are long gone, in any case....
and yes there is nano particulate. I have posted many links previously,
not going to do it again.

Originally posted by Afterthought

Again, you didn't provide a 'source'. You provided a statement. A 'source' backs up a statement.

Previously:

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

(Regarding how chaff interferes with radar)

what other purpose??

SRM.
Please try to keep up.

Where is your source for your statement that chaff serves a double purpose?



You want a scientific source specifically saying that chaff would not be effective for use in SRM. You'll find no such source because there is no reason for any scientist to consider it. Scientifically and practically it makes no sense.

You can just walk away not believing that I have taken the time to get some understanding of what SRM actually is. Or, in the spirit of denying ignorance, you can use the sources I did provide as a jumping off point to begin understand the topic more deeply. Who knows, maybe you can prove me wrong rather than just putting your fingers in your ears.

reply to post by Phage

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

Yes, and, in forming, prevent the formation of natural clouds.

www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Cirrus_&_Climate.pdf

In addition, the study highlights for the first time that contrail cirrus are capable of reducing natural cloud coverage and optical depth by consuming moisture that would otherwise be available for growth and maintenance of the natural clouds.

In this quote from my source:

www.nature.com...

The change in cirrus coverage, calculated by vertically overlapping all ice clouds in a column (Fig. 4b), confirms that the natural-cirrus coverage is decreased owing to the presence of contrail cirrus.

So when you quote from my link:

www.nature.com...

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

They are talking about the supplanting of natural clouds with cirrus aviaticus. Of course they increase cloud coverage. They do this in and of themselves. This is not what I call taking a closer look at the study. Observationally, without any study at all, I could have told you that cloud coverage has increased. There is a sky full of cirrus aviaticus and little else.

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.

The mechanism, though not directly explained in the studies but just observed and verified, would seem to be a combination of heterogenous nucleation from a set of specific aerosols apparently injected via jet emissions creating very small ice crystals that do not aggregate. The reasons for non-aggregation are in part higher temperatures and non-supersaturation at inception. I'm not a chemist but that's what I get from reading the material even though it never gets specifically stated all in one paper.

They differ throughout the cycle because they differ at inception:

www.ipcc.ch...

cirrus clouds have been found to be composed of primarily nonspherical ice crystals with shapes ranging from solid and hollow columns to plates, bullet rosettes, and aggregates, and with sizes spanning from about 10 to thousands of micrometers.

Based on a number of recent field experiments, contrails were found to predominantly consist of bullet rosettes, columns, and plates with sizes ranging from about 1 µm to about 100 µm.

Persistent contrails often develop into more extensive contrails in which the ice supersaturation is generally too low to allow cirrus clouds to form naturally.

A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times greater (in W m?2km?1) than recent estimates of the average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet.

So their effects have been deliberately or ignorantly grossly underestimated in the past and based on the continued 'let's try this and see what happens' M.O., I'm sure that future revelations will be even more startling.