Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds

reply to post by ProudBird


There are lots of patents showing they can put it in the exhaust, and other measures of deploying chemical loads.

I have shown this, linked you one patent in this thread, there are lots of others.

Seems like your in denial.

The patents are there and there are several methods of cloud seeding already in operation, why deny this?

I will agree that there is no proof of current widespread geoeningeering in papers, but to deny that they have the technology to implement cloud seeding (which this paper refers to) makes you look silly.

Why deny it's possible?

Please scroll to page 4 of this document to see the chart where this information is presented.
You will find it under the STATUS column.

unesdoc.unesco.org...

Limited recent tests of atmospheric aerosol injection and ocean iron fertilization have taken place

reply to post by Afterthought

Yes. In the category Sub-scale field testing
Very sub-scale. Here is that aerosol injection test:

Scientists have long known that aerosols in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, and so some geoengineering schemes had proposed cutting global temperatures by deploying aerosols. The Russian scientists put that plan into action by placing aerosol generators on a helicopter and a car chassis, so that they could spew sulfates at heights of up to 656 feet (200 meters) and see how much that cut back on sunlight.

www.popsci.com...


Note what your source says about Large Scale Field Testing

As yet, there are no significant calls for this kind of testing to begin soon

unesdoc.unesco.org...

Phage, the paper says nothing about Russia. How did you come to decide this was what they meant?
The last paragraph prior to the chart states this:

Recent research has mostly involved climate modelling studies in North America and Europe. Proposals for broader involvement of other countries including technological development and field
testing are now emerging.

Again, please note that there is no mention of Russia.

Also, you're trying to sway readers who aren't going to click on my link and read the chart for themselves.
The part of the chart I quoted is in regards to sub-scale field testing. I never said anything about large scale field testing where you decided to direct the attention towards.

The fact of the matter is is that they admit to doing testing on a small scale. What do you think is their next step?
Besides, how I define the word 'soon' may not be the way they define 'soon'.
How do you define the word 'soon', Phage?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

In order for me to take you seriously, can you please quote which paper you took that from and where the sentence exists in the appropriate paper?

For the record, both papers discuss numerous claims and data, if you are going to base your opinion on one solitary sentence, I'm going to have to doubt your credibility.

I took it from the first "paper", page 14:
www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...


And it's not exactly a "solitary sentence", it's the ENTIRE BASIS of their theory.

So their theory is wrong.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

In order for me to take you seriously, can you please quote which paper you took that from and where the sentence exists in the appropriate paper?

For the record, both papers discuss numerous claims and data, if you are going to base your opinion on one solitary sentence, I'm going to have to doubt your credibility.

I took it from the first "paper", page 14:
www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

And it's not exactly a "solitary sentence", it's the ENTIRE BASIS of their theory.

So their theory is wrong.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Uncinus because: link

Apparently not so much:

Leeds University, working with the Met Office Hadley Centre, ran contrails through its climate models and found that you'd need about 200 times the quantity of flights over America to produce a significant effect on DTR.

climate warming contrails join endangered polar bears on the list of flawed factoids

BBC 9/11 research challenged: contrails aren't turning up the heat
CNN

This study even suggest they have a surpressing effect:

These contrail characteristics potentially surpresses the diurnal temperature range (DTR) when contrail convege is both widespread and realatively long lasting over a specific region.

link.

reply to post by pianopraze


Yes, contrails affect the climate a bit. But their theory is that this has only been going on for 15 years.

That's entirely wrong. It's been going on at least since the 1950s. Here's a news report from 1980 (32 years ago) discussing this:



Transcript:

JOHN CHANCELLOR, anchor:

On clear days, you can often see long white lines being traced high in the sky. They are contrails of jet aircraft. They’re actually long, slender clouds. Other men are finding them especially fascinating because the theory is being developed that those long, white lines may be changing our weather for the better. Details from Roger O’Neil.

ROGER O’NEIL, reporting:

The exhaust from jet engines, usually seen as long, thin trails of white clouds behind high-flying jet airplanes, may be a big reason why there are 30 fewer days of sunshine a year in the Midwest now than there were in 1900. The daily range between high and low temperatures has also narrowed. Weather researchers, studying cloud cover in 10 Midwestern states, found a sharp increase in cloudiness with the increase in commercial jet travel, particularly in the main East-West jet corridor, there were even more clouds. A jet produces a contrail or cloud because its exhaust consists primarily of water vapor.

RICHARD SEMONIN (Illinois Institute of Natural Resources): In the absence of natural clouds, given the correct atmospheric condition, jet aircraft in high frequency can almost completely cover the atmosphere, visible atmosphere, with clouds.

O’NEIL: Semonin says, unlike most changes in the atmosphere caused by man, this one is beneficial. Clouds help farmers in the Midwest by blocking the sun. Temperature extremes can damage plants and speed up the evaporation of soil moisture. In the Winter, city people benefit because clouds act as a blanket, preventing warm air from escaping into the atmosphere. No one is trying to make clouds now using jet engines, but this study suggests that jet travel is inadvertently making our days more cloudy and some day, weather researchers may be able to use jets on purpose to change our weather. Roger O’Neil, NBC News, Champaign, Illinois.

Remember, that's in 1980, discussing what had already taken place.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Yes, contrails affect the climate a bit. But their theory is that this has only been going on for 15 years.

That's entirely wrong. It's been going on at least since the 1950s. Here's a news report from 1980 (32 years ago) discussing this:

Remember, that's in 1980, discussing what had already taken place.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Uncinus because: /ex

What's entirely wrong?

I did not say they haven't had them since at least wwii, I was an aviation buff growing up. I never said that.

I did say, and all RECENT research proves, there is very little impact overall from these trails, and there is no global warming from them as some global warming "experts" would have us believe. And thus the info I present discredits your information in that slide.

Originally posted by pianopraze


This study even suggest they have a surpressing effect:

These contrail characteristics potentially surpresses the diurnal temperature range (DTR) when contrail convege is both widespread and realatively long lasting over a specific region.

link.

Yes, a suppressing effect on the DTR. Not on warming.

These results suggest that contrails can suppress both daytime highs (by reflecting sunlight back to space) and nighttime lows (by trapping radiated heat). That is, they can be both cooling and warming clouds. But what is the net effect? Do they cool more than they warm, or vice versa? "Well, the assumption is a net warming," Travis says, "but there is a lot of argument still going on about how much of a warming effect they produce."

www.pbs.org...

reply to post by Phage


Keep reading... it's ONE DEGREE...

The result? DTR did indeed widen by a full 1°C during those three days, in distinct contrast to the three days before the grounding and the three days after flights resumed.

But now a US study by Dr Gang Hong of Texas A&M University has found that DTR variations of 1°C during September aren't all that unusual and that the change in 2001 was probably attributable to low cloud cover. Elsewhere, a team at Leeds University, working with the Met Office Hadley Centre, ran contrails through its climate models and found that you'd need about 200 times the quantity of flights over America to produce a significant effect on DTR.

Global warming advocates say its huge horrible going to destroy the planet kill the polar bears end of the world the sky is falling run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eeek........



ETA, i'm too lazy to look it up, other studies said the net effect was cooling... but i'm not going to argue it because regardless... its' one degree....

reply to post by pianopraze

You first use the study to make a point (an incorrect point). And when you find that the study may be flawed you ridicule it.

Keep reading... it's ONE DEGREE...

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between DTR and it's relationship to the question of radiative forcing. It's not talking about a 1º increase in temperature.

reply to post by Phage

You do misquote, and misinterpret me sir.

My point, was this:

Originally posted by pianopraze
Apparently not so much:

Leeds University, working with the Met Office Hadley Centre, ran contrails through its climate models and found that you'd need about 200 times the quantity of flights over America to produce a significant effect on DTR.

climate warming contrails join endangered polar bears on the list of flawed factoids

BBC 9/11 research challenged: contrails aren't turning up the heat
CNN

And i repeated it:

Originally posted by pianopraze
I did say, and all RECENT research proves, there is very little impact overall from these trails, and there is no global warming from them as some global warming "experts" would have us believe. And thus the info I present discredits your information in that slide.

And re-repeated it:

Originally posted by pianopraze
Global warming advocates say its huge horrible going to destroy the planet kill the polar bears end of the world the sky is falling run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I never ridiculed the paper, only the global warming idiots who say the sky is falling. The same ones who will push geoengineering on us which we both agree is a bad thing - unless i misunderstood your other post where you sounded like you thought geoengineering was bad.

So please, do not misquote, or misstate my point. You are very good at making someone seem to say something they have not.

Now if you would care to show me any recent research showing a significant climate change from contrails, I would listen... but all the 911 studies showed very little change.

reply to post by pianopraze

I did not misquote you.

climate warming contrails join endangered polar bears on the list of flawed factoids

BBC 9/11 research challenged: contrails aren't turning up the heat
CNN

This study even suggest they have a surpressing effect:

These contrail characteristics potentially surpresses the diurnal temperature range (DTR) when contrail convege is both widespread and realatively long lasting over a specific region.

link.

It is clear that you believed the study to show a cooling effect. It does not.

Do you understand what DTR is yet?

Now if you would care to show me any recent research showing a significant climate change from contrails, I would listen

Who said contrails have a significant effect? Not I.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Yes, contrails affect the climate a bit.

Your opinion is drastically different than what many experts are reporting. Please face fact. The contrails are a big player in the climate change debate. Whether you choose to believe that they are adding heavy metals or not is neither here nor there at this point in the argument. Until you at least admit that airplane contrails are contributing to climate change, you will continue sticking your head in the sand.

consumerist.com...

A new study contends airplanes leave behind water vapor skywriting that yields frightening messages about the effects flights have on the environment.

Wired reports on a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change which finds that cloud-like contrails in the atmosphere could potentially cause more climate change than carbon emissions emitted by the aircraft. The water vapor clouds formed by planes in high altitudes cause an insulating effect that can make surface temperatures rise. Researchers created a simulation that found airplane-caused hotspots over the United States and Europe.

It's possible that we are seeing more contrails lately because they needed this warmer weather to convince investors that global warming is indeed happening and needs to be countered immediately. You are on ATS enough to know that there have been more than a few threads written by those who have noticed an obvious up tick in contrails in the past few months. So, considering the idea that contrails may cause the atmosphere to store heat thus creating above average temperatures for this winter, wouldn't you agree that this would work in their favor to ensure that they had the financing necessary to move ahead with SRM technologies. Or do you believe that the increased contrails and a warmer winter are simply a coincidence?

Companies such as Climos, Inc. are more than eager to get involved in the battle against global warming as I'm sure many other companies are, too. There's an insane amount of money out there to be collected and used for this "worthy" cause.

reply to post by Afterthought

You are misreading the article.

Wired reports on a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change which finds that cloud-like contrails in the atmosphere could potentially cause more climate change than carbon emissions emitted by the aircraft.

consumerist.com...
It says that the effects of contrails may be greater than the effects of the CO2 emissions of aircraft. It does not say that either one has a great effect on climate.

So, considering the idea that contrails may cause the atmosphere to store heat thus creating above average temperatures for this winter, wouldn't you agree that this would work in their favor to ensure that they had the financing necessary to move ahead with SRM technologies.

The warm temperatures in some places have nothing to do with contrails. They have a lot to do with the La Nina cycle.

reply to post by Phage


I didn't misread the article. I was simply using it to point out that contrails do have a bit more to do with climate change than Unicus' opinion. Regardless of the article comparing it to emissions, I'll locate more sources to point this out that do not consider the emissions and only the contrails in regards to climate change.

The warm temperatures in some places have nothing to do with contrails. They have a lot to do with the La Nina cycle.

Your above comment doesn't make sense. Did you mean El Nino?
www.weatherexplained.com...

This warm pool expands to cover the tropics during El Niño, but during La Niña, the easterly trade winds strengthen and cold upwelling along the equator and the west coast of South America intensifies. Sea-surface temperatures along the equator can fall as low as 7°F below normal during La Niña. Both La Niña and El Niño impact global weather patterns.

Even if we were in one of the above cycles, since we are able to predict when one is going to occur, certain people could use this information to their advantage and create an even warmer winter. I'm not saying this is a definite, but it certainly is something to ponder. I wouldn't put it past any of them to use Earth's natural cycles and combine their effects with artificial/manmade technologies to push/prove their global warming agenda.

reply to post by Afterthought

Aircraft emissions are thought to account for a few percentage points of warming. So perhaps, if that study is correct, contrails could account for a bit more than that. It is not a great effect but it is an effect and should be included in climate modelling.

Your above comment doesn't make sense. Did you mean El Nino?

No. I meant La Nina. Were you talking about conditions along the equator?

I wouldn't put it past any of them to use Earth's natural cycles and combine their effects with artificial/manmade technologies to push/prove their global warming agenda.

So you don't believe that we are in a warming trend? Ok...I guess.
You think that the industries which would be most affected by things like penalties for carbon emissions would be aiding and abetting a plan to make global warming appear worse than it may be?

El Nino and La Nina affect the climate globally, so I wasn't speaking just about the equator.

I do not dispute that this winter has been warmer than those in recent years. I'm simply pushing the idea around that certain governments and scientific communities such as Climos, Inc. who already have companies invested in their technologies may have come together to manipulate the weather in order to skew the data as proof that geoengineering needs to begin sooner rather than later. We already see in the UK that they want to deploy their little test balloon and have delayed its release from October to this spring. A reason was never provided as to why they chose to delay its deployment. So, my creative mind has its wheels turning and I can certainly see how they can add this past winter's temperatures to their experiment. They have many stake holders that may need just that last little push in order to convince them that geoengineering is necessary and that their money is going to a worthy cause. This is just my two cents though. It seems to me that much data is coming forth (including the article this thread is based on) in relation to climate change being deployed soon. It's as though they are even using predictive programming memes to condition people into believing that we need what they're selling. I'm just simply not buying it.

reply to post by Afterthought

El Nino and La Nina affect the climate globally, so I wasn't speaking just about the equator.

Well globally to a lesser degree but the effects vary across North America.

I'm just simply not buying it.

I'm not clear on what you're not buying. On the one hand you seem to think that geoengineering is already going on and on the other you seem to think that global warming is a hoax and that the geoengineers are in a hurry to get going with something they are already doing.

Originally posted by pianopraze
And that this might trigger an ice age... we are at a natural historic peak, and I think an ice age is much more dangerous than the current climate even if it continues to raise a few degrees.

yes that would be ironic wouldn't it? If the current waeming trend is a sign of impending ice age and that by tryinng to cool things down they end up speeding up the onset Ironic but likely..

The Lake Vostok ice core samples tell a very interesting, and scarey, story. I already stocked up on firewood and put in a wood burning stove

Here is the result graph from Lake Vostok... go to the far right and see where we are today...

415,000 Year Temperature Graph





I think we are good in Vegas we could use a little cooling down here.