Geoengineering - caught in the act?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

HUH?????

I have never been shown proof
that flight paths are not determined as a form of
weather manipulation.

City (A) is *here* on the map.

City (B) is *there* on the map.

Draw a line from city (A) to city (B)......

FIGURE IT OUT!!!!

I mean....duh!

Here is the duh part.
Contrails laid in California disperse to Arizona
Arizona contrails disperse to New Mexico
New Mexico contrails disperse to Texas etc. etc.
Next thing you know the whole United States covered,
in a haze, man made cirrus clouds.
Maybe we should look up one of your post defending persistent contrails that can spread for hours, and hundreds of miles, and with increase of air traffic, could be hundreds if not thousands of trails.
And lots of planes fly over an airport but never land there.
So duh I learned it from you how man made clouds can form and spread, you have even showed me satellite pics
of the man made cirrus clouds covering the USA.

reply to post by ProudBird

Or is it you have a hard time remembering
what you have posted already,
and on which web page,
which forum,
and who you even respond to.
I know your busy,
I heard you speak of all the defending you have to do,
all across the web.

reply to post by ProudBird

You would have a better chance to defend contrails,
If you remember who you respond to and when.
Then spouting out the same old links etc,
and then trying to embarrass the person you don't remember.

You have become the most predictable!

Those of you that know that the spraying of "substances" is actually occuring in this country need to read these articles.

www.darkgovernment.com...
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...


And I could post dozens of more links. Our government has admitted that they sprayed "substances" on it's citizens!

educate-yourself.org...


The body of information is just too great! Big pharma is in on this as well! It states that the U.S. military has been spraying "substances" on us since the 1940's!!! You g-men disinformation agents just ain't gettin' it here??
History speaks volumes for itself. Go peddle your lies to the "sheep"..........

reply to post by luxordelphi

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Your post showed that cirrus sometimes come ahead of weather systems and that areas where clouds have formed may give a glimpse of the rare effect called a persistent contrail. This is not new. Even wiki knows this.

Yet you were denying this when you said "They may have presaged weather in the past when they were rare but since the 1990's when they are more often than not and common, they do not" (they do) and "And they are not an indication of weather systems." (they can be). It's great that you have come to accept this now.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

You still fail to understand that it is not humidity, but relative humidity that determines whether contrails form or not.

Perhaps you could show a textbook reference or something that says there's more humidity the higher you go. Rogue, ambient humidity hot spots are an interesting theory but a rather convenient one for you, don't you think?

I already posted balloon measurements from Nevada which showed that relative humidity can increase as you go higher in the atmosphere. It is not a theory, it is a well known and observed fact of the atmosphere. If relative humidity never increased higher in the atmosphere, there would be no such thing as clouds! Do you not understand why? Humidity often decreases as you go higher, but as the ability for air to hold water vapour decreases, relative humidity can increase and often does. Hence, clouds (including persistent contrails) form.

The observations illustrate many scales of variability in the atmosphere from the seasonal overturning Hadley–Walker circulation to high-frequency transient variability associated with baroclinic storms with high vertical resolution. The Asian monsoon circulation has a strong impact on upper-tropospheric humidity, with large humidity gradients to the west of the monsoon. The vertical structure of humidity is generally bimodal, with high humidity in the upper and lower troposphere, and a dry middle troposphere.

Climatology of Upper-Tropospheric Relative Humidity from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder and Implications for Climate

Originally posted by luxordelphi
My post was about the many billowing chemical trails in a cloudless sky that spread out into fake clouds. You have not addressed this.

I have already addressed how contrails can form in cloudless skies. If relative humidity levels are high in the upper troposhere, persistent contrails can form. Sometimes these conditions occur in cloudless skies, especially in regions that are supersaturated with respect to ice.

Contrail cirrus initially form behind cruising aircraft as line-shaped contrails and transform into cirrus-like clouds or cloud clusters in favourable meteorological conditions, occasionally covering large horizontal areas5, 6, 7. They have been tracked for up to 17 h in satellite observations

Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus

Contrails form and persist dependent on the surrounding moisture, temperature and pressure fields and on fuel and aircraft specific variables. After formation, contrail persistence requires only supersaturation relative to ice.

Contrail cirrus supporting areas in model and observations

In situ measurements of water vapor and temperature from recent aircraft campaigns have provided evidence that the upper troposphere is frequently supersaturated with respect to ice.

Prevalence of ice-supersaturated regions in the upper troposphere

Originally posted by luxordelphi

you're going to have to sharpen up and understand the evidence posted in this thread instead of simply denying it is relevant when it obviously is

I saw the OP evidence and it was clear to me - is that what you mean?

I mean looking at the evidence such as that above, instead of relying solely on a chemtrail sites misinformed "tips". Assuming that persistent contrails can't form over the desert is futile, given the overwhelming amount of actual evidence from meteorological papers to the contrary.

If you want to prove geo-engineering is occurring over your location, you could do what the OP has done. Take photos and compare it to the actual meteorological data at the time (just make sure to get data from the right time), then you might have evidence.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

It's great that you have come to accept this now.

Your post is unclear. What have I come to accept?

I already posted balloon measurements from Nevada which showed that relative humidity can increase as you go higher in the atmosphere. It is not a theory, it is a well known and observed fact of the atmosphere.

Guess I'll start with a few definitions.

Moisture in the Atmosphere

The amount of water in the air can be measured in different ways. The specific humidity of air is a measure of how much water is in the air. Warmer air can hold more water than colder air. When the air reaches its capacity, it is saturated. This capacity doubles for about every 11°C rise in temperature. The term more often used is relative humidity. This is the measure of how much water is in the air divided by how much it can hold. The relative humidity reading is given as a percent. The relative humidity for saturated air is 100 percent.

So to me, that means that specific humidity tells us how much water is actually in the air while relative humidity tells us how much water is in the air based on how much water the air can hold. So if temperatures and pressure on the ground show that the air can hold 40% more water before reaching saturation, the relative humidity would be 60%. If temperatures at, say 30,000 feet show that the air at that temperature and that pressure can hold 40% more water before reaching saturation, the relative humidity would be 60%. And yet capacity for humidity, just going by temperature, is going to drop by half for every 11 degrees C that the temperature drops. So by the time you get up really really high and really really cold, 60% doesn't mean the same thing that it meant at sea level as far as how humid is it really. In fact, it means vastly different things.

So yes, relative humidity, as the term is defined, can increase as you go up but specific humidity, how humid it really is, drops drastically because the air above is much drier than the air on the ground.

I have already addressed how contrails can form in cloudless skies. If relative humidity levels are high in the upper troposhere, persistent contrails can form. Sometimes these conditions occur in cloudless skies, especially in regions that are supersaturated with respect to ice.

Here's my little wiki quote again:

en.wikipedia.org...

Contrails tend to last longer if there is higher moisture in the atmosphere and associated higher level clouds such as cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus already present before the plane flies through.

The same situations that form clouds would be the same situations that form persistent contrails. And yet observation doesn't show this. Clouds here are rare except for the fake clouds made by chemicals from jets. The fake clouds are common. The fake clouds form almost always in cloudless skies.

So I'm going to have to say, based on my observation, that fake clouds form where no real clouds can form. And that is what you have not addressed.

I mean looking at the evidence such as that above, instead of relying solely on a chemtrail sites misinformed "tips".

So far you haven't told me anything sensible to explain the chemtrails. You've told me that it's more humid higher up than at the ground. It's not. You've told me that contrails form where clouds form. No clouds are forming. You've told me to rely on the 'meteorologists' on ATS rather than chemtrail sites. There was more sensible information in my previous little link on telling contrails from chemtrails than I've had from you. Almost everything you've told me, including humidity levels, hasn't been a reflection of the actual situation.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Your post is unclear. What have I come to accept?

That contrails form can herald weather systems, since you claimed they do not. If you had said sometimes they do not you would have been correct, but you didn't.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
So by the time you get up really really high and really really cold, 60% doesn't mean the same thing that it meant at sea level as far as how humid is it really. In fact, it means vastly different things.

I have pointed out numerous times that they are different things. Glad you are catching on.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The same situations that form clouds would be the same situations that form persistent contrails. And yet observation doesn't show this. Clouds here are rare except for the fake clouds made by chemicals from jets. The fake clouds are common. The fake clouds form almost always in cloudless skies.

The situations that form cirrus clouds make contrail formation more likely, but there does not have to be cirrus cloud present for contrails to form. I posted far more information than your wiki link provides, which you have apparently ignored. Perhaps I should have explained what a region supersaturated with ice was. It is a region of more than 100% relative humidity with respect to ice. These regions often don't have clouds, but will be conducive to persistent contrail formation. My previous post provided information explaining that these regions are frequent in the upper troposphere (which is where most airliners fly).

For ice crystal formation high ice supersaturation (i.e. relative humidities over ice larger then 100%) are needed; this is confirmed by many measurements (e.g. Koop et al., 2000; DeMott et al., 2003). Thus, the existence of cloud-free air masses in the status of ice supersaturation (so-called ice supersaturated regions, ISSRs) is clear from a theoretical point of view and it was also proven by a variety of measurement techniques.

Ice supersaturation in the tropopause region
To explain, this shows that the conditions for persistent contrails occurs in high ice supersaturation regions, which often occur in cloud-free air masses at common airliner cruising altitudes. This means contrails can form where there are no natural cloud formations.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
You've told me that it's more humid higher up than at the ground.

You clearly have trouble with reading comprehension then. Let me quote what I have said.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
I then explained (with evidence) why humidity at ground level does not in any way preclude contrail formation, as relative humidity can vary as you go higher in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Humidity often decreases as you go higher, but as the ability for air to hold water vapour decreases, relative humidity can increase and often does.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
You've told me that contrails form where clouds form. No clouds are forming.

I've also told you that contrails can form where there are no clouds.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
You've told me to rely on the 'meteorologists' on ATS rather than chemtrail sites.

I've told you to check multiple sources, not just ATS. That is why I've been linking to numerous meteorological studies from different meteorological societies which have nothing to do with ATS.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
There was more sensible information in my previous little link on telling contrails from chemtrails than I've had from you.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Almost everything you've told me, including humidity levels, hasn't been a reflection of the actual situation.

I've provided you with information of high relevance, but you have either misunderstood or just ignored it when it doesn't fit in with your misguided theories on "fake clouds". The saying comes to mind, "You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make it drink." I think that's probably had the most relevance to the "actual situation".

reply to post by Captain Beyond


Thank you for the links.



I did manage to find this video once again, lets see how long this one stays working.
In this News 4 Los Angeles Report, Professor Professor Gregory Benford, NASA,
admits that NASA is working on Geoengineering projects they plan to use.

Of course, its "future tense".



You Tube

Part One is Here:

You Tube

Watching, I learned that even treating physicians in the area were witnessing the
experiments, and reported high spikes in ear infections following the
sightings.

These doctors have said they are seeing larger numbers of patients with these complaints during or within days after the times that the physicians themselves have observed a larger number of chemtrails in the skies above mountain communities.

Ed Burrows, a pharmacist who lives in Crestline, told The Alpenhorn News that he is seeing similar signs of illness in himself. Since early December he has been suffering from a respiratory ailment that has includes a “gooey phlegm” that, despite his best efforts, he has been unable to relieve. Burrows said the issue is raising “high concern” for him that his health may be “jeopardized.” Burrows said he “feels that it is directly related” to recent chemtrail activity.

“Our government’s refusal to level with the people indicates that whatever it is they are polluting our environment with must be dangerous and/or unhealthy. There is no need to be secretive if what you are doing is beneficial,” he said.

Alpenhorn News

reply to post by pianopraze


Piano,

Very interesting here, is a recorded flight by a Fed Ex Plane that encountered not just
one, but Three KC-135 that were not cleared by ATC, they were flying without a
transponder, or did not repsond.

Here is the video of that encounter,
just following the KC-135 ad they explains the capabilities of the 135 aircraft.


You Tube

And now, going back to this research, it all become clear.

The KC-135 is one of the few aircraft that can reach that required altitude,
and is already equiped and fitted with the equipment needed as outlined below in this paper,
THE BENEFITS, RISKS, AND COSTS OF STRATOSPHERIC GEOENGINEERING

4.1. Airplanes ....-

larger planes, such as the KC-135 Stratotanker or KC-10 Extender (Figure 2b), are capable of reaching the required altitude. ......


Clearly it is possible to design an autonomous specialized aircraft to loft sulfuric acid precursors into the lower stratosphere, but the current analysis focuses on existing aircraft.

Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, .......

The military has already manufactured more planes than would be required for this geoengineering scenario, potentially reducing the costs of this method. Since climate change is an important national security issue [Schwartz and Randall, 2003], the military could be directed to carry out this mission with existing aircraft at minimal additional cost. ...

Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed. In the tropics, one option might be for the tanker to fly to the upper troposphere, and then fighter planes would ferry the sulfur gas up into the stratosphere (Figure 2b). It may also be possible to have a tanker tow a glider with a hose to loft the exit nozzle into the stratosphere.

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

That contrails form can herald weather systems, since you claimed they do not. If you had said sometimes they do not you would have been correct, but you didn't.

Thx for the clarity. IMO, back in the days when contrails were contrails and there were no chemtrails, persistent contrails may have presaged weather systems. IMO, chemtrails never do herald weather systems because they are fake clouds. Sorry for the confusion.

I have pointed out numerous times that they are different things. Glad you are catching on.

The current crowd that insists on perpetuating the myth of runaway persistent contrails never makes it clear that the high atmosphere is very dry. All they do is cite relative humidity as though that means something contrasted with sea level specific humidity. This is endlessly confusing and similar to the cavalier toss-out of flight trackers which don't show the jets in question. It it's a real argument that you have, it should hold up under scrutiny and this sort of shout and run or group shout and run approach would not be necessary.

Perhaps I should have explained what a region supersaturated with ice was. It is a region of more than 100% relative humidity with respect to ice. These regions often don't have clouds, but will be conducive to persistent contrail formation.

These are interesting statements but I am mystified as to why you chop the quote so that it can be misinterpreted to mean that they are talking about contrail formation which they are not. Full quote:

Ice Supersaturation in the tropopause region

In contrast to water clouds where the saturated/supersaturated environment and the cloud are almost identical, for ice clouds there is a fundamental difference: For ice crystal formation high ice supersaturation (i.e. relative humidities over ice larger then 100%) are needed; this is confirmed by many measurements (e.g. Koop et al., 2000; DeMott et al., 2003). Thus, the existence of cloud-free air masses in the status of ice supersaturation (so-called ice supersaturated regions, ISSRs) is clear from a theoretical point of view and it was also proven by a variety of measurement techniques.

So they're saying that ice clouds, like natural cirrus clouds, need supersaturation - relative humidities greater than 100% - in order to form. Fake clouds, on the other hand, will form with less.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/Minnis.abs...

Persistent contrails often form in air with relative humidities with respect to ice (RHI) exceeding 100% but with relative humidities with respect to water (RH) less than 100%. Cirrus cloud formation generally requires RH > 100%. Thus, contrails can form clouds in conditions that would not support the formation of most natural cirrus.

This means contrails can form where there are no natural cloud formations.

Right - that is because they are fake clouds and form under conditions where natural clouds do not form. The very rare persistent contrail of yesteryear formed in the same conditions where natural clouds form and that was why they sometimes heralded weather just like natural cirrus sometimes does that. The fake clouds forming today form in conditions where natural clouds would not form and they do not herald weather systems because of that, for one.

I've provided you with information of high relevance, but you have either misunderstood or just ignored it when it doesn't fit in with your misguided theories on "fake clouds".

There is a clear difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. You have still not addressed this except to try and confuse me by saying that chemtrails are contrails. This is clearly not the case because chemtrails spawn the creation of fake clouds in areas where natural clouds would not form. And moving on to the intermittant, ambient supersaturated ice hot spots is again, very convenient for you but not really necessary because chemtrails will precipitate fake clouds without any of this because they form in areas where natural clouds don't form.

reply to post by burntheships


That video is mis-identifying normal air traffic. In the cruise regime.

That is not a "near collision".....they are separated by the normal 1,000 feet vertically. The Second "KC-135" is a lot higher than 1,000 vertically.

You have fallen for yet another Internet hoaxed video, that is an utter lie.

At 1:58 the video has text superimposed that is a complete LIE as well.

reply to post by burntheships




That is an amazing video and it exactly matches what I was seeing.

These planes were not in "formation" but they were flying one after another like you see on that video.

Great find!

watching rest of video now...

ETA.... how the heck did proudweed post so fast? She sent me a message telling me to look I didn't even have time to watch it yet... and you both saw her response, and watched the video???

something smells fishy here...

her post 3:17. Your response 3:21... seems nigh impossible since the video is 8 minutes long and i'm sure she didn't tell you she posted it...

reply to post by ProudBird


*SIGH*

No proof from YOU, just your usual DISINFO tactics, and sad you expect anyone
to take your word for anything, you claim your a pilot, but admit you dont keep log books
proper, so I doubt your credibility at this point.

Your really grasping to call that fake. I suppose you
would call the Research Paper that cites the KC-135 as the perfect aircraft for the job of geoengineering "fake" too? NO? How about the Audio on that video, faked?

You cant, its as real as your log book.....well....er....um
more real than your log book.

reply to post by burntheships


My description of how to maintain log books was clear......there are recognized alternate methods, and the company I worked for (the airline), their own records meet that qualification.

There are two Mods here at ATS that also once worked for the same airline as I, and can vouch for my veracity, as I have been in contact with them, long ago.

The entire ATS staff are aware of my past, and can vouch for my authenticity too.

Shoot them a U2U.......go ahead, make my day!!!

reply to post by pianopraze

These planes were not in "formation" but they were flying one after another like you see on that video.

They were on the same Jet Airways......so, no not in "formation".....and, that is exactly how it looks when you in opposite-direction airplanes, at cruise altitudes.

Here, these are absent the lies about "tankers" and "chemtrails" in that video by BTS:








This is why airline pilots everywhere laugh at the "chemtrail" claims.



Here's one, a KLM 1,000 feet below, same direction (as opposed to opposite direction):




The video claiming a "near miss" with the FedEx jet is a complete fabrication. And lay people fall for it, it seems.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by burntheships

 

My description of how to maintain log books was clear......there are recognized alternate methods, and the company I worked for (the airline), their own records meet that qualification.

There are two Mods here at ATS that also once worked for the same airline as I, and can vouch for my veracity, as I have been in contact with them, long ago.

The entire ATS staff are aware of my past, and can vouch for my authenticity too.

Shoot them a U2U.......go ahead, make my day!!!

But i dont see them yelling out "look at me ,I am a pilot" at every oppurtunity . We get it ,you are a pilot and most likely a damn good one .but enough already.I dont mean to be rude but Stow it in the overhead locker for the duration of the flight.

reply to post by ProudBird


What are all of those videos supposed to prove?
Grasping at straws is what they PROVE!

What is this post? FIVE YOU TUBE videos which have NO relevant description, what
are THEY about? You did not even give a clear description of what
they are about??? GRASPING.

The only question for you is do any of those videos show a KC-135 ???

reply to post by 12voltz


I merely needed to respond the casting of aspersions, and the insult to my integrity.

It goes tremendously to credibility on the topic of contrails, and aviation, etc. It also goes to the credibility of the hoax and myth of the non-existent "chemtrails".....

People (lay persons) can be easily fooled, as shown in the "FedEx near mid-air" video nonsense. Unless or until someone with actual experience can point out the fallacy.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by ProudBird

 

I suppose you
would call the Research Paper that cites the KC-135 as the perfect aircraft for the job of geoengineering "fake" too? NO?

No - whar is fake is saying or implying that this is proof that geoengineering is being done. I is well known that there is a lot of research into geoengineering - and hte paper, totled

THE BENEFITS, RISKS, AND COSTS OF STRATOSPHERIC GEOENGINEERING

Is one such. These people are actually researching the risks and costs as well as the benefits, not just screaming "chicken little" in a conspiracy forum.

I hope you are supporting their efforts!

How about the Audio on that video, faked?

The audio is fine and there's nothing in it actually showing any geoengineering going on.

The fake text overlays about KC-135s carrying "aerosols", and operating in "civilian airspace with no ATC authority thus endangering pax aircraft are BS too, aircraft identified as "tankers" on no basis whatsoever and some of them are clearly civil, and all sorts of claims abou where a/c are flying and why, "bazaar" new chemicals, etc - all without a shread of evidence that any of it is true, and the visual evidence from the video that it is BS...


- this video has been put together to deliberately convey fake and known false information - it is another case of deliberately dishonest chemtrail "evidence"

In short it is fabricated chemmie scaremongering.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

No - whar is fake is saying or implying that this is proof that geoengineering is being done. I is well known that there is a lot of research into geoengineering - and hte paper, totled

HUH ?????

Ridiculous assertions, I cant even understand them.

However, I'll just throw this in for good measure.

Here are the links...
ams.confex.com...

92nd American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting (January 22-26, 2012): Aerosol,
Precipitation, and Cloud Properties—

E-PEACE (Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol-Cloud Experiment 2011 ).

... a technique for dispensing GCCN (milled salt particles) in marine stratocumulus clouds and then measuring the response of the cloud to the seeding was developed and tested.

The Twin Otter was equipped with an extensive suite of instrumentation for characterizing clouds and aerosols and measuring meteorology parameters and turbulence. A 95 GHz Doppler cloud radar was operated in an upward facing configuration to measure cloud and precipitation structures observed above the aircraft and served as an effective tool for detecting a broadening of the cloud droplet spectrum and drizzle production due to seeding. The salt powder consists of salt milled to 3-5 micron particles that are coated to minimize clumping. The particles were dispensed from the Twin Otter using an apparatus that uses a variable-speed auger feed to deliver salt from a reservoir into a fluidized bed of sand (to breakup any particle clusters) and then blow the particles into the airstream from a tube extending from the underside of the aircraft fuselage. ams.confex.com...

The Eastern-Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment (E-PEACE) uses satellite and in situ ship- and airplane-based measurements of anthropogenic aerosol in stratocumulus off the coast of Monterey, Calif., to shed light on cloud-property modification by aerosol. One novel aspect of the experiment is the controlled release of aerosol particles. These order 100 nm-diameter particles are produced on board a ship at a rate of 10^15 s^-1 and greater along pre-selected ship tracks to raise aerosol concentration above marine background levels over areas of hundreds of km^2 in area. Production of the aerosol patterns is timed to permit study by instrumented aircraft and the morning and afternoon Earth Observing System (EOS) satellite constellations. We describe the particle release patterns employed in the E-PEACE 2011 campaign and the cloud structures into which the particles were released, and we present results from the study of these tracks and other ship tracks using EOS satellite cloud and aerosol observations. ams.confex.com...