Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Joe Rogan on Chemtrails" video.
-
49
-
45
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
27
-
@MessiahComplx
"1932 - 1972 Us military conducted the Tuskegee syphilis project. Where they experimented on a proximately 600 US soldiers by giving them syphilis and watching the outcome."
Wrong. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was a research study, sponsored by the United States Public Health Service and conducted from 1932 to 1972, which followed 600 men, of which 399 had syphilis. Despite the availability of effective treatment using penicillin (after 1943) participants were not informed of their syphilis-positivity, provided with treatment, or even informed of the possibility of treatment. The Tuskegee Study became one of the main motivators for changes in ethical research practice.
"20s us government poisoned alcohol, blinding and killing many"
When the manufacture and sale of alcohol was illegal between 1920 and 1933, regulatory agencies encouraged measures making industrial alcohol undrinkable, including the addition of lethal chemicals. The "US government" did not poison supplies of alcohol meant for human consumption, nor did it intentionally aim to kill those who drank the tainted products - that would be unscrupulous traders that supplied the black market.
The practice was called “denaturing”. It consisted of adding noxious chemicals to alcohol sold for industrial purposes to make it unfit for human consumption. The process, long used in Europe, was introduced in the United States in 1906 as a means of exempting producers of alcohol used in paints, solvents, and the like from having to pay the taxes levied on potable spirits.
Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol (“wood alcohol”) to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous. Some formulas also contained substances that made the product taste too unpalatable to drink.
One of the ways crime syndicates tried to flout Prohibition was stealing industrial alcohol and finding ways to make it potable. The government, in turn, resorted to making it more poisonous:
"and of course there is MK ultra."
And Operation Northwoods...just because that existed does it then follow that every subsequent terrorist atrocity is a a false flag?
"And many more. But to answer your initial one, you're an idiot if you don't do your own research after asking why."
"Do your research" - said every online conspiracy believer and You Tube addict ever. Well, you obviously didn't "do" yours very well.
What does any of this have to do with the conspiracy theory under discussion in this video which is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails?
26
-
25
-
Well firstly why do you think that a trail is necessarily supposed to disappear? A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can expand, grow in mass, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. What chemical can do that?
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
To address your initial question, how are you establishing precise altitude of these aircraft? - which is impossible as a ground based observer. Even in view of Reduced Separation Minima regulations, these aircraft will be 1,000 feet apart vertically and five miles laterally and horizontally. That is not 'in the same area of sky'. Appreciate that the atmosphere is not homogeneous or isotropic. The interplay of factors that govern contrail formation - temperature, humidity and pressure - can change within a matter of mere feet. Think about the inside and the outside of a cloud. Do variations in cloud cover also perplex you?
23
-
23
-
"Contrails are slender, elegant vapor trails that remain briefly way up in the stratosphere before fading away."
Sometimes. On other occasions, they may not even necessarily form at all, or, if the ambient conditions are conducive then they may expand and spread of be fanned out by high altitude wind shear.
"Chemtrails, on the other hand, are something I only began to notice in the last 10-20 years."
Since you heard about this conspiracy theory then?
"They look like the exhaust from a pollution-spewing jalopy and they hang way down here in the troposphere, often crisscrossed with many other such trails as they slowly spread out and merge with one another into hazy, unsightly "clouds" composed of Lord knows what"
You said it yourself - clouds. That's all they are. The contrails that you are misidentifying as 'chemtrails' are nothing more than persistent spreading cirrus and they are composed of condensed water vapour in the form of ice. This is measurable and demonstrable. Also, what mysterious 'chemical' is able to expand when released, increase in mass and vastly exceed the maximum take off weight of the aircraft producing it? And of course they appear to intersect?The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"When you notice one or two of them, scan the horizon. Chances are it'll be a heavy chemtrail day and you'll see a lot more of them all around."
Or more specifically at those altitudes, low temperature combined with high relative humidity and low vapour pressure. Who'd have thought?
22
-
21
-
19
-
17
-
@InDecibelOffical
"keep believing what you believe. Let me believe what I believe."
??? It isn't a question of 'belief'. Weather modification is the legal and technical terminology for cloud seeding which isn't sinister in the slightest and completely transparent and in the public domain. There are many private companies that freely advertise their services and contracts online - you just found one. You loud hire them for an event yourself. Cloud seeding isn't by any means widespread though and actually, the reliability and science behind it is questionable. Furthermore, since silver iodide and not elemental silver typically constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant - the material used for additional nucleation injected into the clouds does not exceed the level of inflow of these chemicals to the atmosphere from natural and anthropogenic sources.
Geoengineering meanwhile is divided into two branches - GGR and SRM. With the exception of ground based albedo modification, the latter is entirely in the province of hypothetical research proposal and computer modelling.
Both cloud seeding and Geoengineering have nothing to do with each other, and nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails that you are seeing. Neither would actually leave a trail - far less a 100 mile plume in the wake of a jet aircraft. Cloud seeding aims to introduce additional nucleating onto existing cumulus and stratiform masses and so is conducted by light aircraft, usually at altitudes between 2 - 6,000 feet. SRM, in the form of Stratsospheric Aerosol Injection would aim to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and so would need to be deployed in the mid stratosphere. 65,000-70,000 feet which is double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. Because it would be designed to release a fine mist of aerosols, even if it was happening, as a ground based observer, you wouldn't even know it was in progress.
"One day one of us will see the truth."
What? The science speaks for itself.
"What ever you say will not change my mind"
Of course it won't. Believers in online conspiracy are possibly the most closed minded individuals on the entire internet.
"as I have done more than enough research, and observing in my lifetime to understand the reality I live in."
You mean the internet told you what to think. Going back to belief, if you regard You Tube videos, clickbait confirmation bias and pseudoscientific conspiracy websites as 'research' and you choose to 'believe' some online charlatan over independently verifiable sources, then of course you will continue to conflate cloud seeding, geoengineering and contrails. Just don't expect to be afforded any credence in the real world outside of your online echo-chamber .
"Research' is not about what you think you know but about the continual revision of this. Try it.
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
@MNS5
My background is climate science and remote sensing, not that any of that matters given the illusory superiority of internet conspiracy theorists armed with the overnight expertise of a You Tube video. Also, as I always try to get across, although they personalise their replies and deploy ad-hominem abuse, (to which I am impervious), their argument and contention is not with me, rather, demonstrable and incontrovertible physical laws that govern the atmosphere and thereby, contrail formation
You'll find that all this nonsense is very repetitious - the usual regurgitated incredulity about intermittent on/off trails, grid patterns, contrails only lasting seconds to minutes, modern turbofan engines being incapable of producing them, misappropriated footage of ballast barrels and test or research aircraft and conflation with cloud seeding or geoengineering. In addition to this, repeated ad-nauseum reliance upon the same ludicrous supposed 'whistle blowers' and career conspiracy theorists that have been endlessly debunked. Like any online echo-chamber, however, it is utterly impenetrable and immune to logic or reason. All you can do is furnish them with the science. This is a good start...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1
Unfortunately, even though this is independently verifiable, reproducible, objective and axiomatic, because it runs counter to the narrative and emotional investment of the conspiracy theory you will inevitably be branded a "shill" spreading disinformation and propaganda.
Do appreciate though that this nonsense debunks itself. A persistent contrail is composed of millions of lbs of ice - far in excess of the MTOW of any aircraft in existence. This is an in situ study of a persistent contrail using multi-optical spectrometry.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The aircraft is a small Sabreliner jet at FL290 in air of -38.2 degrees C. The two engines produced 1.73 grams of water vapour per meter as a result of fuel combusted. They then turned around and found that the resultant contrail has expanded to 1km wide and 400 metres deep. The ice crystals that this was composed of had grown to weigh 30,000 grams per meter of contrail. The ice crystal growth is a product of ice superstaturation in the immediate environment.
A Sabreliner has a maximum payload of 2000lbs. The resultant persistent contrail was measured at 66,000lbs per square kilometre. It was therefore a physical impossibility for the aircraft to have sprayed this trail and so the persistent contrail was clearly a result of available moisture in the atmosphere.
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@wokengoatdeath9668
"The director of the cia at the time, John Brennan, talked openly about it and referred to it as stratospheric aerosol injection."
Talked openly about what? What do you mean referred to "it"? Sounds as though you are referring to those daft conspiracy videos that have dishonestly appropriated his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations (a thinktank) and stuck the word "chemtrails" in the title. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is talked about openly - has been for years. So what? It's never been secretive or classified and the research is fully in the public domain and always has been.
You are referring to Brennan's 2016 speech on 'Transnational Threats to Global Security'. It is within the remit of the CIA to monitor new and emergent technologies that may in the future pose a threat to global relations. SAI is a hypothetical branch of geoengineering which would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere in a last ditch attempt to arrest rising global temperatures. Aside from the fact that it has not even progressed to the early stages of small scale trial, the technology and logistics are not remotely in place, the costs uncertain, the environmental effects unknown and the geopolitical implications alone render it a virtual impossibility.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI nor is he saying that it is in progress, he is simply appraising the worldwide political and environmental ramifications of such a technology should it ever come to be - he also talked about other areas of ethical concern in the future abstract sense, such as genetics and anti-aging. Forget the dumb conspiracy videos. You can find a full transcription of his speech online.
"There is no debate to the fact that there are compounds being sprayed in our skies."
Agree completely - it isn't happening. I'd be more concerned about ground level urban and industrial pollution which is a genuine killer.
"The debate is only of what exactly those compounds are and why they are doing it."
You surely understand that our atmosphere is independently monitored around the globe. Any organised programme of spraying would be impossible to conceal and would involve the complicity and collusion of governments, states and nations, global aviation, in addition to the silencing and coercion of entire branches of science and technology worldwide.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video (misidentified aircraft contrails)... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
12
-
"There are videos that show the trails behind a jet stop and then start! I have actually seen a stop and then start incident."
So what - I see it all the time. Why shouldn't a contrail be intermittent? Surely you understand that the atmosphere is neither homogenous or isotropic? The interrelating factors that govern the formation of contrails - temperature, humidity and vapour pressure and all change within mere metres. Fly an aircraft at high speed through such conditions and of course a contrail an be interrupted. If you actually looked closer then you'd frequently see seemingly random sections of recently deposited contrails fading, vanishing and sometimes even reappearing. This is confirmation that the atmosphere is in continual motion and visual identification of rising and subsiding parcels of drier/warmer air. Are you equally perplexed about scattered/broken cloud?
"How is it possible for people to film a tick tack toe sky? At the end of the day of multiple jet trails from horizon to horizon my sky go’s from blue to white."
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"No, you can’t have a serious discussion about global warming without talking about the purpose of HAARP"
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme? (which actually isn't 'active' at all). I assure you that you can...it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Would you like me to explain to you what an HF pump is actually capable of, what they comprise and what they were designed to do instead of you lapping up and regurgitating more junk online conspiracy theory? Of course you wouldn't.
"and the odd jet trails that do not disappear, but expand over a 40 minute period to for a whit haze."
Again, are you equally perplexed by cloud cover?
"You guys have not done enough homework on this subject"
And with the understanding that "homework" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites - how precisely did you do yours?
"Contrails do not expand into a white haze."
I assure you that they do. Would you like me to explain that too - unless of course you can identify these mysterious chemicals that can not only linger but, grow increase in mass just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour.
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Feel free to falsify the contents.
12
-
11
-
11
-
@LH23511
"Well said. I noticed the difference, when I would walk my dogs around 2010 . The contrails got much thicker and would spread out like thick tendrils. And another would come beside it, and they would merge and cloud the sky."
Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"This summer, we would have 9 hours of sun predicted every day. Instead we would have a couple hours in the morning, and then the sky would get hazy. We haven’t had a full day of sun in over a month - 2 months, here in Ontario."
Have you actually thought of looking into the meteorological conditions that have determined this?
"I also put a bowl of vinegar out, and it would make a big clear hole in the sky on a windless day. Acid of vinegar dissipates the alkalinity of barium and aluminum. It opens the sky above your house."
This is utterly staggering that there are actually still people online parroting this.
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"Harvard universities Prof David Keith, has been recorded dozens of times reporting his progress with Geoengineering. check out Harvard's web site. Do an internet search on Prof David Keith, Geoengineer."
I don't need to - I'm fully aware of his research proposals which have been in the public domain for years together with the ethical ramifications surrounding his recommendations.
"Remember: In these days of information freedom and access, IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE."
Remember, in these days of information, freedom and access, objectivity is a must.
"Whilst we are at it, here's a few gems from David Keith, via Dane Wigington, Anti-geoengineering Warrior (that's what i call him)"
What's your point?
"and I saved the best for last. In this next clip, David Keith freely admits (at 2:40 minutes) that as a direct result of his geoengineering weather modification program they WILL "... end up KILLING MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE A YEAR..."
The best bit for last???? A Dane Wigington video? Are you serious? He says nothing of the sort. This is a brief clip taken wholly out of context which is precisely the MO of conspiracy theorists. Doesn't the tacky music and sensationalist narration tell you anything or arouse your suspicions?
Keith has never denied that SAI properly evaluated before it is employed. The entire quote is stressing that if such a strategy was ever pursued without due diligence, you "might" end up killing tens of thousands of people as a direct result of that decision so the research if you care to read it is also committed to assessing the dangers of SRM prior to deployment. Assessing efficacy and risks are detailed here..
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/
As a former meteorologist (my current field is the science of remote sensing) I can tell you that there is huge opposition to the notion of SAI. In terms of geoengineering, more funding and research is diverted into ocean fertilisation. The lack of political and public will, the logistical barriers and the ethical, soci-ecomnomic and geo-political implications combined means that SAI is very unlikely to become a reality and progress beyond the small scale trials scheduled for the next few years.
Elsewhere, independent studies are assessing the ethics of such proposals...
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=philosophy_pubs
"who like to troll and support this type of channel"
I think you'll find as the one posting your ill informed subjective content on this channel by definition, the troll is you - and for an example of such behaviour at its worst perhaps read the preceding post to mine which presumably you condone?
"David Keith's proposal to move geoengineering atmospheric spraying of nanoparticles of metals (aka Chemtrails) UP INTO THE STRATOSPHERE where he will have us SPRAYED WITH SULFURIC ACID instead!"
Firstly chemtrails are an online hoax originally perpetrated in the late 1990s by "shock jocks" such as Art Bell on Cost to Coat AM a commercial station that manufactures conspiracy theory to order to inflate ratings and thus sell more advertising airtime. Chemtrails are the erroneous belief that contrails in the wake of civil aircraft are evidence of chemical spraying. Meanwhile on the coattails of cheap conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Wigington are committed to conflating this with geoengineering hoodwinking the gullible, suggestible and scientifically ignorant - and it is precisely that which Rogan and West are debunking in this video.
Moving up into the stratosphere???? It's called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - it has always been designated for altitudes between 65-70,000ft. Now allow me to educate you...
The purpose of SAI has always been clearly defined. The aim is to simulate the cooling effects of a major volcanic eruption after which large quantities of sulphur dioxide and hydrochloric acid are ejected into the mid stratosphere. Once formed, these aerosols stay in the stratosphere for about two years. They reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface, cooling them. The relative coolness of 1993 is thought to have been a response to the stratospheric aerosol layer that was produced by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. The relative influence of volcanoes on the Junge layer varies considerably according to the number and size of eruptions in any given time period, and also of quantities of sulphur compounds released. The stratospheric aerosol layer is sustained by natural emissions of carbonyl sulphide (OCS) through biogenic processes. Carbonyl sulphide is relatively stable can mix into the stratosphere where it is photochemically broken down resulting in the formation of microscopic droplets of sulphuric acid.
Keith has identified a range of possible materials to simulate/catalyse this process. Small scale trials commence this summer involving one KG of material. The objective is beyond that o disperse water, followed by small quantities of calcium carbonate and possibly hydrogen sulphide. Such stratospheric particles exist as thin veils of dust or sulphuric acid droplets at altitudes of 12 to 18 miles.
"A short snibbit of his Report for your edification and information under the heading:
"Knowledge gap 2: potential human health impacts:
Epidemiological studies suggest a relationship between exposure to mists containing sulfuric acid and an increased incidence of laryngeal cancer, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that “occupational exposure to strong inorganic mists containing sulfuric acid is carcinogenic for humans”
- Occupational exposure...what's your point? Your extract is from one of the papers that I referred to in respect of the full evaluation of SAI should it ever be implemented.
And here is the paper in its entirety and full context.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717532/
I quote directly from the abstract...
"There is also little infrastructure in place to evaluate potential public health impacts in the event that stratospheric aerosols are deployed for solar radiation management. We offer several recommendations intended to help characterize the potential occupation and public health impacts of SRM, and suggest that a comprehensive risk assessment effort is needed before this approach to geoengineering receives further consideration."
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@wokengoatdeath9668
Thank you for your reply. Good question.
It's important to understand that an aerosol is simply a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in a gas, so the atmosphere is full of aerosols both of natural and manmade origins - some more harmful that others. Examples of the former are sea salt, pollen, wind blown dust and volcanic emissions. The latter produces between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year and it is this that the proponents of SAI wish to artificially increase. “Secondary” aerosols form when different things floating in the atmosphere, like organic compounds released by plants, liquid acid droplets, or other materials combine, culminating in a chemical or physical reaction. Secondary aerosols, for example make the haze that gives the U.S.’s Great Smoky Mountains their name. Overall, human activity has increased the total amount of particles floating around in the atmosphere, which is about twice as dusty now as it was in the 19th century. The amount of very fine material generally referred to as PM2.5 which is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns across, has increased by 60 % since before the Industrial Revolution. As I said, industrial and urban activity greatly contributes to this and any combustion engine will release particulate matter - and in the case of a hydrocarbon fuel, C02.
So we are all releasing aerosols into the air that we breath whether we like it or not.
Regarding SAI - am I in support of this area of research? - No, absolutely not. The environmental unknowns are manifest and as Brennan said, the geopolitical implications were it to become a reality , very grave. Currently, Solar Radiation Management is almost entirely hypothetical but does exist in the form of ground based albedo modification. In addition to this 'marine cloud brightening' may have some potential. Of the other main division of geoengineering which is GGR (also termed negative emissions technologies) many are already in progress such as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation. But even schemes such as ocean fertilisation may have unknown feedback loops.
All forms of geoengineering are merely a 'sticking plaster though. The key to halting global temperature increase lies in the switch to renewables, curtailing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions reaching at least net zero.
To reiterate, SAI is proposed as a last ditch attempt to arrest global temperature rise, but is fraught with logistical and environmental difficulties and dangers whilst policy and international governance would be nigh on an impossibility which is why it is highly unlikely that it will ever be deployed. So it doesn't concern me in the slightest because beyond small scale trial involving a balloon and a few kilos of chalk, it will never become a reality. Despite this, am I opposed to it in theory? Absolutely.
7
-
@rastiga9196
"I did drive before I was disabled"
I'm truly sorry to hear that.
"There have been tests on jet fuel that have consistently found stuff that wasn't supposed to be in it. Aluminum especially in higher than negligible amounts."
No there haven't. That would trash a jet engine in minutes.
All combustion engines produce metallic elements in the exhaust. These are present in the fuel and exhaust in trace quantities and also to a much lesser extent are the product of wear and tear. The total emission of metals will be less than 0.3 percent of total fuel particulate matter mass. Particles emitted from aircraft turbine engines are generally ultrafine, i.e. smaller than 100 nm. approximately 99.5-99.9% of the molar content of typical commercial engine exhaust consists of N2, O2, CO2, and H2O.
The most abundant metals in jet exhaust are Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, and Ti. As explained, the sources are kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components. To reiterate, all the elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in road going diesel and petroleum.
All hydrocarbon fuels produce harmful effects from combustion at close quarters. There are hundreds of parallel studies into the effects of exhaust from petrol and diesel exhaust. Why are you not similarly concerned about traffic pollution? Also, the effects of PM2.5 are far more acute at ground level - as is the formation and trapping of N0X in our towns and cities.
The relative amount of exhaust emissions depends upon combustor temperature and pressure, fuel to air ratio and the extent to which fuel is atomised and mixed with inlet air. 3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? All those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. Shall we turn to that now?
7
-
6
-
You are simply seeing contrails. The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
The "rainbow" effect that you are referring to is simply iridescence most commonly associated with aerodynamic contrails. This happens when air pressure and temperature over the wings drop dramatically, causing the water vapor to freeze at different sizes. These frozen water droplets refract the light at different wavelengths, which gives the rainbow effect.
Solar Radiation Management, with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical and has not graduated beyond research proposal and computer modelling - it's unlikely that it ever will. It has absolutely nothing to do with the contrails that you are observing that have been witnessed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation. Even if these programmes were underway, they would not leave a trail nor would they be conducted by commercial aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.
You are not the only one that has seen contrails or the atmospheric phenomena that you describe - the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon misidentification of the latter.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@deanhall9292
"The reality, because chemtrails cant be denied(just look skywards)....."
....And your logical fallacy is.
"Brennan....has basically just admitted this."
You sure about that?...
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
During his address as a voluntary speaker to the Council on Foreign Relations, Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if it were to be implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider and evaluate a range of technological initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan is discussing Solar Radiation Management in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a political, socio-economic and technological framework - research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even explores anti-ageing technologies.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or "talks about chemtrails" as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles that Brennan referred to mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilitse the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
Incidentally, you keep forgetting to link to the metabunk thread that resulted in a ban. Let's take a look.
5
-
4
-
4
-
"((((ALUMINUM IS NOT A NATURAL OCCURRING METAL YOU FOOL!))))"
As the third most abundant element on the planet - are you sure about that?
"THERE IS EVIDENCE EVERYWHERE, documents / patents / and in 2018, congress discussions on the subject...."
Evidence of what? Patents mean nothing, and of course congress are discussing the implications of geoengineerig research. What does that have to do with a contrail?
"Jet engines CHANGED in the mid 1980s'.. Rolls Royce developed the 80% BYPASS turbo fan jet engine. Only 20% of the (thrust) is exhaust, where before, 100% was exhaust..."
GE provided high-bypass turbofan engines to the Lockheed Galaxy C5 in the late 1960s. The Tf39s achieved a bypass ration of 8:1 and I can assure you that they produced contrails.
https://youtu.be/mi43q8kQxiE
The turbojet uses thrust generated solely by the expanding exhaust as a means to propel the plane. The exhaust gasses exit at high velocity and high temperature, and therefore are widely dispersed by turbulence before cooling sufficiently to condense into a large, but mostly transparent contrail. In contrast, the turbo fan engine uses the exhaust gasses to mechanically drive a large fan at the front of the engine to generate the majority of the thrust. As the exhaust passes through the additional turbine disks needed to drive the fan, it slows in velocity and cools, so that when it exits the rear of the engine it can condense more quickly into a thick contrail. In addition, this central core exhaust plume is surrounded by a thick layer of cool air from the bypass fan which helps to contain the water vapour, thus enabling it to cool faster while the water molecules produced by combustion are still in close proximity. Any jet engine has a core combustion chamber burning a hydrocarbon fuel and id the conditions are conducive will result in a contrail be it high bypass, low bypass or no bypass.
High bypass turbofan engines actually have a higher contrail factor than their jet-turbine predecessors as the following paper demonstrates.
http://elib.dlr.de/9247/1/aerscitech-2000.pdf
"contrails only last minutes or less."
The duration of a contrail is entirely dependent upon the prevalent atmospheric conditions. They may not form, they may only remain from seconds to minutes or they may last for hours. No different to a cloud. If the surrounding ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, then a contrail will be unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state of invisible water vapour and will not only persist, but can expand and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. They can also be fanned by vertical and horizontal wind shear. There is a large volume of current research into the extent of radiative forcing associated with both persistent contrails and resultant contrail cirrus.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
4
-
+Damanizyo
"For the rest in this thread google patent US3813875 and patent US5003186."
Have you actually bothered to read these? US3813875 is a patent for the release system on a sounding rocket in a vacuum. These are intended for ionospheric research and contain about 1 kilogram of trace material. About 25 are launched a year - so in all, that'll be 25kg released above the Kármán line and into the vacuum of space per annum. Meantime, have you ever explored the contents of a domestic firework? Let me help you there. Typically, that'll be strontium salts, lithium salts and barium compounds. On July 4th alone there are 260.7 million pounds of consumer fireworks and 24.6 million pounds of display fireworks detonated all close to or at ground level. Taking that into account, now add up all the similar festivals around the world, all the private functions and all the countries that sell fireworks for display and domestic use. Then read this...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/20/delhi-covered-in-toxic-haze-after-night-of-diwali-fireworks
- So what's your point?
US5003186 - The Welsbach seeding patent, gas mantles essentially - hence the title.The patent doesn't mention barium or strontium, and they aren't recognised as Welsbach materials, yet the chemtrails believers have incorporated that piece of mythology into chemtrail lore. Again if you actually read it, you'll find it actually discredits the "solar obscuration" method because it leads to further trapped infrared radiation. It also says this...
"The greenhouse gases are typically in the earth's stratosphere at an altitude of seven to thirteen kilometers. This suggests that the particle seeding should be done at an altitude on the order of 10 kilometers."
So what does this have to do with the erroneous belief that contrails at half the altitude are evidence of chemical spraying which is all that Rogan is debunking in this video.
Now here's one for you. What do you make of this? Suspicious?...
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5486900
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@johnpolaski6126
The aluminum particles break up the light (roy-g-biv) red orange yellow gold blue indigo and violet colors of the spectrum"
No, that would be irisation. named after Iris the ancient Greek goddess who passed messages between the mortals and the gods. As Iris ran back and forward her multicoloured robes shimmered in iridescence like a rainbow. You are seeing diffraction - caused by water droplets or ice crystals - bending rays of light - the colours have a metallic quality like colours on an oily surface. Incidentally, I don't advise looking anywhere near the sun - even if there is cloud cover.
Strange then that this effect has been documented throughout recorded history. While Aristotle had mentioned halos and parhelia, in antiquity, the first European descriptions of complex displays were those of Christoph Scheiner in Rome (circa 1630), Hevelius in Danzig (1661), and Tobias Lowitz in St Petersburg
(1794). Chinese observers had recorded these for centuries, the first reference being a section of the "Official History of the Chin Dynasty" (Chin Shu) in 637, on the "Ten Haloes", giving technical terms for 26 solar halo phenomena. Halos were used as part of weather lore, which was an empirical means of weather forecasting before meteorology was developed. You may also wish to learn about the Vädersolstavlan "The Weather Sun Painting" - arguably one of the oldest visual depictions of the phenomena.
https://elib.dlr.de/9247/1/aerscitech-2000.pdf
"Being sprayed You See Spot rainbows or sun dogs huge Sun dogs around the Sun I've been paying attention to these things for years"
Oddly enough so have the entire fields of meteorology and atmospheric science.
"they used to use many planes to spray the sky they've now perfected their methods after the incident with Trump and the paris accord ...."
There is no incident with Trump and the Paris accord concerned reducing emissions in conjunction with addressing climate change.
"but it is real they are doing it the sun is hotter at times there is a hole in the ozone"
We are actually experiencing a solar minima, whilst the damage to the ozone layer is repairing due to the ban on CFCs.
"look up geo engineering and weather modification"
Geoengineering is a very broad term split into GGR and SRM strategies. In respect of the latter, with the exception of ground based albedo modification, SRM is entirely in the realm of hypothetical research proposal and computer modelling. Weather Modification is the technical term for cloud seeding which artificially introduces additional nucleation into existing stratiform or cumulus cloud masses. Neither have anything to do with the misidentification of persistent contrails that the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon.
"the fact is it is chemicals and thay are trailing behind airplanes for real period!"
You mean persistent contrails that have been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of aviation.
Instead of consuming junk conspiratorial nonsense, why don't you actually read up on the science of contrails, understand cloud seeding and learn about the different types of geoengineering proposals rather than allowing junk online conspiracy videos to tell you what to think?
Before you do that, mastering the basic rudiments of written English - in particular, the principles of punctuation will greatly improve your ability to communicate.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@rastiga9196
"Maybe commercial planes don't but it is really common amongst private planes by farmers to cloud seed for rain"
Actually is isn't. Despite high profile state schemes in China and the UAE, and the private organisations that offer contracts largely in the agricultural sector, cloud seeding isn't that widespread. Also, the aerial application of the practice involves negligible quantities of silver iodide, retrofitted to the wings of light aircraft in the form of flare canisters which are then burnt - so it doesn't involve spraying either - and certainly no lasting trails.
"the military has admitted to testing on US citizens by planes multiple times so not exactly a conspiracy."
They have - all at very low level and for a range of reasons. Largely, as opposed to the "people" being the test subjects, using tracers to evaluate dispersion (such as St.Louis). However, there have been more concerning experiments, such as San Francisco. I can assure you that the belief that aircraft contrails are evidence of a sinister programme of chemical spraying (which is what we are discussing here and in this video) absolutely is a conspiracy theory - but you're right, it isn't a "conspiracy" because it isn't happening.
"Do you check what is in your fuel every time? Do you know what is in your fuel?"
Yeah pretty much - and trust me, road traffic is far more harmful to the environment and health than those white trails six to eight miles above your head that chemtrail believers don't understand.
Tell me - do you drive?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@JaxAnanda
"Also when I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s and leading into the late 80’s I hadn’t ever seen the trails we now see."
Then you weren't looking. Wait, you're in South Island New Zealand right? Well obviously that's why. There were so few long haul routes overflying South Island or at the necessary altitude to form contrails, of course they were scare. I lived in Auckland in the mid 1970s and although you would see them, it was nothing like as common as today. Also, from a meteorological perspective, there is a reason that the Maoris christened the place Aotearoa, land of 'the long white cloud'.
As I explained, persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. So any claim that contrails were not present before the 90s (no coincidence that's when this dumb conspiracy theory originated) are demonstrably untrue. You can establish this for yourself. It's true that contrails are more prevalent today, but that is due to the high volumes of air traffic and the increase in routes flown.
"Now, what I now observe is that they begin to spread out and cause a fine musty layer that blocks the sun."
Sounds remarkably similar to this account by legendary French aviator and acclaimed author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry who in In 'Flight to Arras' wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
Jet engine exhaust exits at temperatures ranging from 500 - 600°C. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely all that contrails are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Thebassinkid.
"truth is when our own government has sprayed residents with toxic chemical dust, the doors of possibilities are blown open"
Given the negligible quantities and the low altitude of release it has nothing whatsoever in common with your alleged chemtrails - and tellingly they also did the exact opposite of what a "chemtrail" supposedly does: They dispersed quickly and became invisible once dispersed.and as for motive, well let's take a closer look.
Without even clicking on the link I knew what it would be - The Martino-Taylor paper.
The army performed some experiments to assess dispersal rates of airborne materials. People would have been exposed to minute quantities of those substances. But the army were not testing those substances on people. They were merely evaluating how far the wind blew them, and over what area, and in what proportions.
the author of this thesis wrongly implies the Zinc Cadmium sulphide used in these Biological Warfare field trials was radioactive just because it was manufactured by the US Radium Corp. Unfortunately she seems to be unaware that the ZnCds used in both the US and UK LAC BW field trials was originally manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co. (codenamed NJ 22660) and not the US Radium Corporation. After a company reshuffle, the New Jersey Zinc Co. later became known as the US Radium Corporation and the ZnCds codename changed to 2267. ZCS was chosen for its lack of solubility, like barium sulfate used for x-rays. This suggests that care was taken to avoid harm. Why would anyone bother to render harmful something they had already attempted to make harmless?
ZCS fluoresces in UV light, which means that its presence, even in tiny amounts, may be constantly and precisely monitored. It is already an excellent tool for measuring wind-borne dispersion (which is its designation), and needs no refinement. The products released were biologically inert to "mostly harmless" by contemporary standards of harmless. Some (like FP2266, which does not contain radium at all) were chosen because they reacted to a blacklight - the tests were of dispersion, not effect, the countries involved already knew how effective their aerosol weapons were, most of them had been used in battle as long ago as WWI which yielded applied understanding of their effectiveness, but also how badly understood properties of aerosol dispersion were, often resulting in winds blowing these agents back into the faces of their own troops.
So the flimsy "evidence" that this paper is predicated upon is the fact that it has 226 in the name - that's it. As for the illnesses there is no causal relationship established and just as is the case today, industrial and ground level pollution would have been far more harmful to public health.
Incidentally, I thought you people didn't trust MSM? Selective cherry picking is evidently permissible?
"...adding some of these planes have 5 streams of chemtrails adds to that suspicion"
I took a quick glance at your link and it's a chemtrail website. So as usual the confirmation bias consists of nothing more than a conspiracy theory website, dedicated to this conspiracy theory on behalf of the proponents of this conspiracy theory as evidence of this conspiracy theory.
Being a conspiracy theory site first thing to realise it that it is lying to you... its raison d'être is to deceive the gullible and impressionable - evidently it worked. Five streams of chemtrails? I take it you are referring to Image C - and you would be wholly incorrect, because this depicts nothing more than 5 condensation trails. I quote directly from your source "The arrows in frame B and C point to anomalous aerosol emissions unrelated to normal water vapour contrail formation. The aerosols appear to be be released from the fuselage of the aircraft"
- Indeed they are...and that'll be because these pictures are merely capturing the discharge from a heated drain mast. Very small in fact and certainly not what you would employ for the purpose of releasing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere - (not that an aircraft at cruise altitude would have any effect even if it did). Here are some images of some...
http://ecs.ittaerospace.com/Products/drain_masts/
http://www.flugzeugbilder.de/v3/show.php?id=806977
http://www.camtronicsllc.com/capabilities/drain_mast/etb-drain-masts
- Simply an overflow nozzle releasing an intermittent stream of sink and galley water during flight. They are located on the belly of the aircraft and sometimes at the fore and aft of the fuselage. At such altitudes, in the same conditions that are conducive to the formation of contrails, (low ambient temperature, ice saturation) the water simply condenses into ice crystals. Also worth noting that the auxiliary power unit can also produce and additional contrail, although these are not usually activated during flight.
If you look at Number 6 in this link, you'll also find an accompanying schematic diagram of a drain mast system.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29587/what-are-these-elements-on-the-back-of-a-boeing-737
Why on earth do you people do this to yourselves? Why uncritically parrot and regurgitate this nonsense without conducting your own independent verification? All that you accomplish is your own humiliation.
3
-
"John Yossarian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_cadmium_sulfide
See health effects yes a government study said so...."
Have you actually bothered reading this? - here's what it actually says, confirming my original post.
"Anecdotal evidence[2] exists of ZnCdS having adverse health effects as a result of LAC. However, a 1997 U.S. government study, done by the U.S. National Research Council stated, in part, "After an exhaustive, independent review requested by Congress, we have found no evidence that exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide at these levels could cause people to become sick."
Further - "It is used for its fluorescent properties."
"exactly like chemtrails it's literally not even a conspiracy my second link proves that they have been working on weather control for decades"
What does established micro scale weather modification have to do with the chemtrail hoax that this video is debunking and why would it resemble a large white plume deployed in the wake of a commercial aircraft between six to eight miles in altitude?
"lol your (sic) believing that Zinc cadmium sulfide doesn't harm you"
No, read my post. I'm stating that there was no radium in the material deployed as alleged and that the compound was chosen because it shows up under a blacklight so dispersal patterns could be studied as opposed to an intent to harm civilians. There is an extensive toxicological study in the following link on its effects that disproves any claims of illness. Once again because you seemed to struggle to understand the first time, in the absence of proven cause and effect and owing to the negligible quantities deployed it would have been significantly less harmful than industrial ground level pollution present both then and now in a large urban settlement such as St.Louis.
https://www.nap.edu/read/5739/chapter/1
It is pretty long, reasonably well indexed, and with some pages not html formatted. It nonetheless provides data as to the number of tests that were performed, where, what areas were covered, calculations as to exposures and details all the known toxicology info for ZcdS.
In the worst-case scenario, ZnCdS would have the toxic properties of soluble cadmium compounds. However, the physical and chemical properties of ZnCdS are known. It is insoluble in water and lipids and only poorly soluble in strong acids. Read the data. It was dispersed in minute quantities that would amount to a fraction of the existing hazard of urban pollution or traffic fumes.
Could you provide the longitudinal epidemiological studies demonstrating cause and effect to the contrary? - only I couldn't find any. Thanks.
"Your believing the government who says there's no health concerns really?"
No., I never mentioned the "government" - I'm simply referencing known and demonstrable science and asserting that Martino-Taulor paper is baseless in addition to the fact that the quantities released would have been harmless.
"conspiracy theory website lol are you serious that's operation LAC and from cbs"
Why do you keep typing "lol" - how old are you? And yes, it is a conspiracy website - and a particularly inept one to boot. I was of course referring to your chemtrails planet link not CBS - although as I say, I thought that MSM was anathema to you people?
"your acting like you have done your own research which is a total lie your just regurgitating garbage don't try to call me out on that. You haven't done any independent verification, you just suck up to the lying government."
Actually I am citing independently verifiable references and a single aircraft part that I was already aware of hence I assembled the links with ease - nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with 'research'. Objective fact as opposed to subjective factoid.
"and the problem with your airplane parts is many of them don't produce a chemtrail im the sky just because there's drains doesn't mean they produce a chemtrial,"
What airplane parts? Many of them? We are referring to a heated drain mast releasing a stream of condensed water vapour...nothing more - and no, I agree, they don't produce a chemtrail, rather, they do result in the trail in your photographs as my links illustrate. What would you like to contend about the sources?
"Literally nothing you stated above was proof of anything expect for how gullible you are."
Stated without the slightest trace of irony.
"Your evidence is literally just random pieces information your trying to piece into a big picture"
Coming from a believer in online conspiracy theory.
"just regurgitating what you see online come on now."
No, that would be anyone naive and scientifically illiterate enough to post a photograph of a routine waste water discharge flow from the underside of a commercial aircraft off "chemtrails planet" as supposed evidence of a programme of aerial toxic spraying.
"your attempt to insult me shows your ignorance."
I have no intention to "insult you" - your posts are suitably absurd to accomplish that without my assistance and are ample testimony of your impressionable gullibility for all that have the misfortune to be reading this exchange. Incidentally, I would recommend that you concentrate your efforts upon mastering the basic rudiments of English grammar and at the very least understand how to differentiate between a possessive pronoun and a contraction. Perhaps then we can move on to the fundamental principles of atmospheric chemistry which render your supposed chemtrails both a physical and logistical impossibility.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Rosalind Peterson Presentation TO THE 'United Nations' 2003"
No it wasn't - wrong again . Rosalind Peterson was speaking at an annual climate conference organised staged at the UN not a UN session. Here you go -
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/index.htm
Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC is simply the name of her website. Here's the session that she spoke at:
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/Roundtable4.htm
You're obviously not aware that she has distanced herself from you lunatics?
In 2012 Peterson concluded that there she did not think there was any good evidence to show the trails were anything other than normal contrails. Here's the full quote...
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate.And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminium coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminium coated fiberglass by military aircraft." (Rosalind Peterson 2012).
Anyway, I thought that you people maintained that the UN was complicit in your conspiracy theories?
"I don't have time for you"
Well you clearly do - which is the reason you keep replying with your imbecilic drivel and moronic abuse and precisely why you will be compelled to respond again and humiliate yourself in a similar idiotic fashion. It is as amusing as it is tragic.
"Pilot in 1947 .. 'they' COULD CONTROL WEATHER/HURRICANES .. THAT IS OVER 70 YEARS OLD NEWS .."
Citation? Show me the original reference and I'll illustrate why and where you have become confused again.
It's never been possible to control a hurricane, however, attempts have been made at influencing their initial conditions, so adjusting humidity or temperature could be enough, as the storms grows, to divert them from sensitive areas or to seed precipitation within.
"Fuckoff 'Trolling Shill'
On the contrary, I am in full agreement with the contents of this video so cannot therefore by definition be trolling it. As the one posting abuse on this page the troll is in fact none other than yourself. I have however responded to people's posts which you'll find is what tends to happen in the comments section of YouTube. Many of these are refutations to scientifically ignorant conspiracy theorists such as yourself.
"May I Pee in your Mouth ?"
Not into watersports I'm afraid, perhaps you could ask Josephine Hogg? - though evidently talking shit is more up your street.
On the subject of which you have conveniently forgotten that you said this, remember?...
''snibbit'' IS .'. NOT A WORD Twat ... 'Snipit' IS Though !"
...not realising that I was quoting the previous post by Josephine Hogg. (Actually, you're both wrong it's "snippet")
To clarify then, you are saying that fellow online conspiracy theorist Josephine Hogg is a "twat" or do you wish to retract that statement?
Question for you Louie...why do all conspiracy theorists and their ilk have intermittently malfunctioning caps lock keys? Perhaps that's a conspiracy in itself?
3
-
3
-
@lizardfirefighter110
"The science is sound, the problem is that it does not explain why a blue sky transitions to a white sky in the course of 10 hours."
So you're saying that you don't understand cloud formation then?
"If my conspiracy theories debunk themselves then why do the readers need you? What is your purpose?"
It's a comment section - and there is a reply feature that's all. I am simply correcting your statements and misconceptions. Independently verifiable fact and known science supports this. Anyone is at liberty to learn about this, the problem is, as I explained, chemtrail conspiracy believers seek explanation elsewhere and then become emotionally invested with the results. For this reason, they are amongst the most closed minded individuals on the entire internet, next to religious extremists and cult members.
"It is true , logically, that if the government is corrupt that does not mean there is a conspiracy to secretly spray chemicals. However, logically, one might ask why is there no discussion in the mainstream media."
You mean of an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? Why should anyone entertain this nonsense when there are genuine threats to humanity and real world issues to confront?
"Am I the only one to notice? Evidently not."
Of course not. As I explained, this is a global phenomena. Wherever there is high altitude air traffic there will be contrails - and wherever there are contrails there will be conspiracy believers that don't understand what they are looking at.
"No, I guess Americans don’t need to know about Geo-engineering programs."
Geoengineering has never been concealed or out of the public domain. It is in the interest of the proponents of these strategies to publicise their work to attract funding and support. I'll ask you again, what does geoengineering have to do with aircraft contrails - and why do you suppose that any branch of this in any form would even resemble them? - other than the fact the internet told you what to think. What specific area of geoengineering are you referring to? - As I demonstrated, it is a very broad field.
"Nope, blue skies turning white - nothing to see here folks, move along."
Again, are you similarly perplexed about cloud cover?
"Lack of official dialog is suspect."
There is plenty of "official" dialogue - have you actually bothered looking instead of relying on a drip feed of junk conspiracy websites and videos. Surely you are able to comprehend, that a search engine will return whatever you instruct it to, and the more it does, the more it will skew your results towards your preferences.
"You said earlier that flight paths for commercial flights is unregulated to explain why we would expect to see a sky full of crisscross jet trails. Unregulated, are you sure about that?"
Sigh - can I clarify and correct you here - that is utterly incorrect. Read my comment again. I referred to the unregulated expansion of the commercial aviation sector and routes flown. Of course air traffic is controlled. The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in differing directions in accordance with multiple airways, headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace? Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"I am further suspicious when I tracked the stop start jet trail over my house, it read as a military plane. Just a coincidence I guess."
Military aircraft often do not show on tracking software. Question for you, do you actually understand what causes an intermittent contrail? Because if you did, you have no reason for any 'suspicion'.
"It is probably just my imagination that before the rainy season the sky is filled daily with crisscross jet trails and then it hardly rains for the season. Another amazing coincidence."
No coincidence. The unstable moisture laden air that results in so many contrails to form is frequently a precursor of this weather - or an incoming frontal system. As such, contrails are a result of this as opposed to the cause. If you understood relative humidity you'd know this.
"So with these observations the You Tube videos on subject hold more weight, even more weight than you explaining the science of contrails as if some how we are observing contrail phenomena."
Which as I explained has been studied and understood since the early advent of powered flight. Once again, your personal incredulity, special pleading and susceptibility to online junk has no bearing on physical reality. If you actually learned about aviation, familiarised yourself with some rudimentary meteorological science and humbly took the time to understand what geoengineering actually is and consists of, instead of relying on a ludicrous conspiracy theory then you wouldn't be making any of these statements in the first place.
Speaking of "weight" - do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in the trails that you are describing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielguy1891
Like I said, pure confirmation bias. This is ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social Technological Environmental and Legal framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does research into the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection have to do with a baseless online hoax predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails?
"Also, Monsanto owns a patent for aluminum resistent corn"
The issue is soil acidity.
http://www.plantstress.com/Articles/toxicity_m/acidsoil_chapter.pdf
Firstly, given that aluminium is very common why wouldn't Monsanto have wanted to develop aluminium resistant crops to increase yields in areas with acidic soil? Given the ubiquitous presence of aluminium in the ground, When soils are too acidic, aluminium that is locked up in clay minerals dissolves into the soil as toxic, electrically charged particles - ions, making it hard for most plants to grow. In fact, aluminium toxicity in acidic soils limits crop production in as much as half the world's arable land, mostly in developing countries; in Africa, Asia and South America.and in view of the fact that aluminium ion levels (Al3+) due to soil acidity have been an issue since the dawn of sedentary agriculture and a known problem for a hundred years then it’s hardly surprising that organisations with to engineer crops to have a higher resistance to it.
Secondly, Monsanto no longer exist. They were subsumed by Bayer.
Thirdly, the correct spelling is 'resistant'.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ryuranzou1936
Firstly weather modification is actually the legal term for cloud seeding which does not involve spraying at all - (it can also encompass hail and fog dispersal...all at the microscale).
"Same reason they put iodine generators on mountain tops and such... "
?????? What?????
Cloud seeding employs silver iodide flares, but other than that I I have no idea what you are talking about.
"the pollutants from car exhaust or airplane axhaust form a nucleus for water to adhere to even in the absence of an attempt to spray things. I love the absurdity of the skeptical viewpoint: "It's just natural water vapour" --- yes condensed around particulate material which is toxic."
In discussing contrails, the visible trail that you see is largely atmospheric water vapour in the form of ice. Yes, aircraft exhaust does contain a mixture of gases and chemicals, but the contrails that you see do not.
Actually modern high bypass turbofan engines are pretty clean burning and actually aviation in comparison to ground based pollution is far less of a hazard to human health - however, Emissions from airports and increased volume of air traffic will indeed contribute to the prevalence of respiratory and even neurological health conditions whilst the increased air traffic means higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere.
An aircraft burns a hydrocarbon fuel - the chief product of that is water and C02. The carbon footprint of the aviation sector is indeed a concern.
In terms of emissions, Ulrich Lohmann is a member of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich. Besides other things, she is seriously involved in efforts to assess and potentially reduce the atmospheric pollution induced by aviation, particularly in terms of nanoparticulate combustion exhausts. Here is the original abstract of the paper published by Atmospheric Environment which she coauthored. Here's the original paper - read it for yourself.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016302424?via%3Dihub
The detected metallic compounds were all internally mixed with the soot particles. The most abundant metals in the exhaust were Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, Ti and Zr was also found. They further investigated potential sources of the ATOFMS-detected metallic compounds using ICPMS. The potential sources considered were kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components again in trace quantities. Such an analytical method is very sensitive to the concentration of the analysed compounds which can be as low as one part in 10−15.The elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in diesel and petroleum.
Road going diesel contains similar trace metals and the emissions at ground level are all around us. In addition to Nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and pm2.5 - there are the huge quantities of metal particulates associated with an internal combustion engine and brake pads to consider. You are breathing these on a daily basis at ground level and such pollution that you seem oblivious to is thousands of times more harmful to health than the commercial air traffic that produces contrails.
3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? All those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. Shall we turn to that now? Do you drive?
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Unknown-UpTown-Resident
"Common sense" is just another term for personal incredulity.
As explained, persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. The main difference is that today they are far more prevalent due to a marked increase in commercial air traffic - both PAX and freight, and the fact that there are far more routes flown.
The explanations for your observations are all provided in this thread.
Chemtrails are a physical and mathematical impossibility. To deposit a 100 mile long trail would require a payload vastly exceeding the MTOW of any aircraft. In addition to this, what chemical can linger and increase in mass - just like, well fancy that, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Moreover, if you really are paying attention then you will observe sections of a persistent trail often seemingly randomly fading, vanishing and reappearing - which your conspiracy theorists never mention and would be unable to explain. This is due to the fact that the atmosphere is a fluid and is neither isotropic or homogeneous. Parcels of air rise and subside and differing humidity, vapour pressure and temperature can mean that a trail may become broken after it has been deposited.
2
-
@Unknown-UpTown-Resident
But to reiterate, the "immense contrails" that you refer to are nothing new - and if the atmospheric conditions are conducive to their spread, they can merge and blanket the sky. Contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading, or they may not necessarily form at all. Whether or not they do is governed by the interplay and interrelationship of vapour pressure, relative humidity and ambient air temperature - all of which is in flux.
In his 1942 book, "Flight to Arras, a memoire and modern classic by French aviation luminary and author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, he observed...
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Can't believe you don't see or think chemtrails are real!!"
What conspiracy believers refer to as 'chemtrails' are nothing more than aircraft contrails.
"The government even said that they are real!!"
At no point has any government anywhere on the planet said that chemtrails are real.
"First they denied it , then it's we are spraying to block the UV Ray's and spraying aluminum and barium and other harmful chemicals."
You see terribly confused. You appear to be referring to Solar Radiation Management which is entirely hypothetical. Research into this is not hidden or secretive - how precisely do you admit to something that wasn't denied in the first place? It would not involve aluminium or barium and it wouldn't bear any relationship to the aircraft contrails that you are seeing. This consists purely of computer modelling and research proposals. Look up SCoPEx, a small scale trial involving a balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere and a few litres of water to evaluate perturbation. That's as far as it gets - only it doesn't, since five years later it is still awaiting approval.
"The government has been trying weather modification in the late 40's it's to destroy other countries instead of war"
Cloud seeding, which has nothing to do with SRM or aircraft contrails.
"Con trails are water and evaporate!!"
How can water vapour evaporate? 🤣Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself? Contrails are formed through condensed. water vapour. If the ambient conditions - air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure permit, they will persist, if not, they will sublimate back into an invisible gas. No different to a cloud - because, that's precisely what they are.
"Chemtrails to into haze in the sky!!"
The persistent spreading contrails that you term 'chemtrails' have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"Use your head and eyes!!"
Perhaps you should?
"Government workers especially military do what they are told to do! Pilot's fly when their told to fly."
What do you find perplexing about a chain of command.
"Plenty of videos proving this."
Proving what precisely?
You watched some conspiracy videos on You Tube, so it must be true?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No. To reiterate, I am saying that chemtrails are an invented meme...a conspiracy theory and the term was created to perpetrate the erroneous belief that contrails are evidence of chemical spraying. SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with contrails as much as advocates of this conspiracy theory are now desperately attempting to conflate the two. Try as they may, SAI will never resemble a large white plume in the wake of a commercial aircraft cruising in the tropopause/lower stratosphere.
The videos that Wigington circulates are largely of contrails, the rest is a farrago of footage of crop spraying, fire fighting aircraft, cloud seeding, aerodynamc contrails and fuel dumps. Ask yourself why he does this if he has honest intent.
Geoengineering in the form of SAI exists in the realms of paper proposal. Like I said, Harvard who have obtained $16m of funding, hope to simulate the effects of a volcanic eruption in a small scale trial by dispersing firstly water then if successful small quantities of aluminium oxide in the mid stratosphere. If they go ahead, then yes this would be imperceptible to the ground based observer.
"so you're saying chemtrails will (or do) exist, we just can't see them-"
I'm saying chemtrails don't exist they are a baseless online hoax. SAI is unlikely to progress beyond micro deployment and even if it does - no you won't be able to see it.
Are you suggesting that SAI should resemble a contrail then?...if so why have you come to this conclusion?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Settings. If the radar is operating in "clear air mode" it is a highly sensitive mode in which there is no need for anything visible in the air. Note the scale here only goes up to +28 db. Clear air mode can also be used to locate frontal boundaries and mesoscale frontal boundaries such as outflow boundaries, sea breeze fronts and drylines. A sharp moisture and/or temperature gradient in the troposphere sets up an interface of higher reflectivity (an example is to think of skipping rocks on water, the rock is reflective as it hits the boundary between the air and water). In a case where rapid refraction occurs, some of the energy will backscatter. Also, convergence occurs along frontal boundaries. Dust tends to convergence along synoptic and mesoscale frontal boundaries. These increased regions of disturbance allow for a higher return on clear air mode thus allowing for the detection of these boundaries. In Clear air mode, the radar sensitivity is increased and it can detect dust, fog, temperature inversions and other atmospheric disturbances that are not precipitation related. When the radar detects precipitation again, it automatically switches back to PRECIPITATION mode.
Most modern weather radars employ the pulse-Doppler technique to examine the motion of precipitation, but it is only one aspect of their capability in processing of the data. So, while these radars use a highly specialised form of Doppler radar, the term is much broader in its meaning and its applications.Doppler radar has.
Contrails can be remotely analysed via Lidar which they are. You'd think that by now there would be data pouring in relating to your claimed chemtrails - or thousands of independently commissioned in-situ studies using optical array particle sized spectroscopy. Perhaps the question you should be asking yourself instead is why aren't your supposed 'chemtrails' showing up?
2
-
2
-
"It's a grey area"
No, it really isn't.
"did the US government lace clouds for rain in warfare"
Yes - and cloud seeding is also practiced by private civilian organisations that freely advertise their services and contracts online. What's your point?
"dust black neighborhoods in St. Louis with radioactive material"
No - Incorrect. Your misconception is based upon a badly written and researched study by a college professor Lisa Martino-Taylor, from Louis Community College-Meramec, Missourii, who released a paper claiming that the U.S. Army conducted secret Cold War tests by releasing toxic radioactive chemicals on cities like St. Louis and Corpus Christi during the 1950s and 60s. That was later found to be untrue.
Firstly the author of this thesis wrongly implies the Zinc Cadmium sulphide used in these Biological Warfare field trials was radioactive (although she did concede that she had no proof). Astonishingly, this was simply because it was manufactured by the US Radium Corp. Unfortunately she was unaware that the ZnCds used in both the US and UK LAC BW field trials was originally manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co. (codenamed NJ 22660) and not the US Radium Corporation. After a company reshuffle, the New Jersey Zinc Co. later became known as the US Radium Corporation and the ZnCds codename changed to 2267. So simple bad research there. Moreover, ZCS simply is not biologically available as many cadmium compounds, because it is insoluble in water! So we can immediately dispel the 'radioactive material' claim.
Regarding the trials themselves, the military performed some experiments to measure dispersal in an urban environment using a tracer material. People would have been exposed to minute quantities of those substances. But the army were not testing those substances on people. They were just seeing how far the wind carried them, and over what area, and in what proportions. True, the army could have been more judicious with their choice of material (although it was in such negligible quantities that any ill effects wouldn't have registered above levels of urban pollution), and in addition to this they should have been honest about the intent of programme, but obviously feared a backlash.
"and inject airborne biological agents in Canada, yes."
Indeed they did, but again, these weren't tests on the public, rather they were conducted to gain an understanding of how biological or chemical weapons would disperse in the event of an enemy attack.
The most important distinction from the "chemtrails" hoax, is that none of these examples took the form of high altitude persistent visible trails - contrails, that are misidentified by chemtrail believers. Most was from ground level or ground fixtures, others a very low altitude. However, more importantly, they did the exact opposite of what a "chemtrail" is claimed to do - they dispersed quickly and were invisible once dispersed. And that's the main false premise upon which the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated. It'd be most intrigued if these clowns could actually identify these mysterious chemicals that can not only linger when released, but expand and increase in mass just like, well no shit...condensed atmospheric water vapour.
2
-
@RobFrank22
Such as those in the image I provided?
A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all. It is entirely dependent upon the ambient conditions and the interrelationship between temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail is the result of superheated exhaust encountering very low air temperatures in tandem with high relative humidity at a lower vapour pressure. Combust a hydrocarbon fuel and the chief products are obviously CO2 and H2O. Burning a gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water since oxygen adds to the mass. do this in the tropopause and lower stratosphere, the regions that aircraft cruise and the trail can persist when the combination of high humidity and low temperature prevents it from sublimating back into its gaseous phase (invisible water vapour). However, in conditions of supersaturation in respect to ice, then the trail will not only linger, but expand and increase in mass - just as a cloud is formed - which is essentially all that contrails are. Such contrail cirrus is possible because the trail is almost entirely the result of the available atmospheric moisture budget.
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 hours and at its peak, covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Incidentally, thank you for your civil responses
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"When I was a child I can remember the greasy black jet exhaust."
Water injected engines and unburnt fuel from older turbojet engines.
"the government made air craft have to clean there exhaust no vapor trail"
Nothing to do with contrails.
"the modern jet engines have a high air by pass no vapor trail"
False. High bypass turbofan engines produce more contrails than their turbojet predecessors. High bypass turbofans have been around since the late 60s and were fitted to military jets like the C5A which I can assure you produced contrails. The water vapour produced is simply a function of the total fuel burnt. While the turbofans allow large engines to be built, the amount of water vapour created has also increased due to the large fuel flows of those engines. The exhaust of the engine is the gasses that come out of the combustion chamber. It's the product of burning kerosene (hydrogen and carbon) with the oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide and H20. It's the water in the exhaust that produces the contrail. This principle is basically the same irrespective of if it's a low-bypass, no-bypass, high-bypass or even an internal combustion engine. What creates a contrail is the mixing of the exhaust with cooler air. It does not matter if it's mixing with the air that passed through the bypass fan, or if it's mixing with the air that passed around the engine. It's still just exhaust gases mixing with the air. As the gasses mix, the temperature falls, and the water condenses out. Exhaust gasses in a high bypass engine are a little less hot (more of the energy has gone into producing thrust from the bypass fan). So they reach the condensation point quicker, and so are actually more likely to form contrails.
"but now we have chem trails found to have radio active barium, radio active stroneum, arsenic and aluminum oxide"
No they haven't. And nope, you have the same persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. The most abundant metals in the jet exhaust itself are Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, and Ti. The sources are kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components. To reiterate, all the elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in road going diesel and petroleum. Incidentally, I think you mean 'strontium'.
"I can remember chem trail starting in the early 90s"
As explained, the persistent spreading contrails that you erroneously term as chemtrails have been around since the early years of powered flight and the best part of a century. They are more prevalent now due to the sustained increase in air traffic.
"I've noticed they will start spraying us and white in 4 days it rains"
Contrails are associated with unstable air and are thus commonly formed on the leading edge of a frontal system.
"there is also harp in Alaska"
Yes, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme which is an HF pump and an ionospheric research tool that is available for hire through its owners the University of Alaska. Incidentally, it's HAARP, not 'harp'.
"and the Russian woodpecker antenna modifying America's weather"
No, the Duga antenna system is an early warning radar network for missile defence. Like HAARP, it has nothing to do with the weather.
"and causing earth quakes with snow"
No, that would be when the movement of fault lines and tectonic plates coincide with the winter.
"digital earth quacks we hade one in edgefield south Carolina"
Earth 'quacks'? What happened, the duck population revolted?
Last month's 4.1 quake in Edgefield was a result of movement on the Eastern Piedmont Fault System (EPFS), an extensive fault system that extends from Alabama-Georgia to North Carolina-Virginia. The young faults remain zones of weakness where movement can occur.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peachesjackofski8363
"I don’t feel comfortable giving my exact location"
Understandable.
"but it’s around Golspie.
Ah, near the Dornoch Firth - I know that area well.
"I would be super grateful if you could find anything, it really bugs me, seeing all these trails, whatever thy are, but never seeing any planes. "
Yeah, as I said, you are under the North Atlantic tracks. Much of the air traffic that you are observing is long haul outward bound for North America from Europe, and the Middle East and vice versa.
https://youtu.be/6pI77r3oAxw
Use this.
https://planefinder.net/
And remember, contrails may appear closer than they are. You could be looking at something that is many, many miles away.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jskypercussion
"Barium, Strontium, and aluminum can do that."
Really? Fascinating. For the benefit of anyone reading this, could you explain the physical process as to how? Go ahead then.
And what do 'barium aluminium and strontium' have to do with the trails that you are seeing other than the fact that you parroted it off chemtrail conspiracy theorists?
"Also, I used to be skeptical about chemtrails like yourself"
Nothing to do with me. You are simply seeing aircraft contrails. When they persist or spread, you term them chemtrails.
"Until I started seeing them in recent times. I never used to see the long trails back in the 90's in my area like I see them now."
I did. So did the rational world and the entire fields of atmospheric science, aviation and meteorology. The persistent contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"I have been studying and surveying it."
Really? Appreciating that "study" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely have you done this? Judging by the question you asked in your previous post, it hasn't been going very well. I suggest you start with lapse rates, dew points, relative humidity and supersaturation. Very basic atmospheric/meteorological science.
"For you to still be denying this is absolutely ludicrous when it is out all over Bill Gate's sites talking about Operation Solar Shield by spraying the skies to block the sun to cool things down."
I'm not denying anything, the chemtrail conspiracy theory debunks itself. "Operation Solar Shield" is nothing but invented conspiratorial nonsense - and no, it isn't all over "his sites". You are referring to 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' which is an entirely hypothetical branch of geoengineering and has yet to progress beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. It's unlikely that it ever will bar isolated small scale trials involving a balloon and a few kilos of calcium carbonate. SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in a last ditch bid to arrest global temperature rise. There is not even agreement over which materials would best accomplish this goal. Further, it would need to be conducted at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are seeing and wouldn't even be perceptible to the ground based observer - far less leave a long white trail. Bill Gates has nothing to do with this beyond lending vocal support a decade ago and donating to the current Harvard research initiative.
"Also there are a few scientific videos from Saudi Arabia and UAE showing how they seed their skies to create rain in the desert from spraying these metals and chemicals."
More false equivalence. You are referring to cloud seeding which again had nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails you are seeing which are formed in the stratosphere where there are no rain bearing clouds. Cloud seeding does not create clouds, rather, as the name suggests, it introduces additional nuclei into existing stratiform/cumulus masses that are conducive to precipitation to induce rainfall. For this reason, it typically takes place between 2,000 and 6,500 feet - much, much lower than the contrails you are witnessing. What "chemicals"? The aerial application of cloud seeding almost invariably involves silver iodide, released via rack mounted flares on the wings of light aircraft. These are ignited and burn, but do not produce a trail. Moreover, cloud seeding although state sponsored in China and the UAE and practiced by private companies is by no means widespread and it is highly unlikely that you have ever seen it in practice. Your claim is no different to saying crop spraying exists, therefore chemtrails.
"There is too much evidence out there that explains the science."
You asked a question - I explained the science to you. Precisely the same science that is axiomatic, self-evident and therefore independently verifiable, and renders your chemtrail belief a physical impossibility. You have gone off on a tangential non-sequitur talking about SAI and cloud seeding - an association fallacy has nothing to do with each other, the trails you referred to, or the subject of this video which is the misidentification and misunderstanding of aircraft contrails.
So to return to my question, you said this:
"Barium, Strontium, and aluminum can do that."
Could you explain how, when released they can increase in mass and cover the sky, just like....well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Also, do you have any idea how much these persistent trails would weigh vs the MTOW of the aircraft producing them?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"There is a military employee who had her life destroyed and her kid taken off her because she worked in auditing and found the chemical purchasing worth alot of money from the budget and she blew the whistle, pilots and leaked photos of the equipment"
Absolute utter nonsense. You are referring to Kristen Meghan who caused a shit storm at the AFB that she was stationed at having been reprimanded on account of her appalling military record. Her supposed whistleblowing related to incorrect storage procedures and had nothing whatsoever to do with alleged 'chemtrails'. However, being the attention whore that she is, following her failed inglorious military stint that ended in shame, she was briefly paraded about by the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax in an appeal to false authority and establish herself as a career conspiracy theorist. She didn't have her child taken off her at all nor did she have her "life destroyed". She now raises a family in staid obscurity in a wealthy Chicago suburb.
"cloud seeding and geo-engineering has been going on since the 50's"
Experiments into cloud seeding date back to the 1950s, "geoengineering" which is totally unrelated is more recent. And what do you mean by 'geoengineering? It is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR/ Negative Emissions technology/BECCS - (involving practices such as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation), or are you are referring to research into Solar Radiation Management which with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical?
What does either have to do with the misidentified contrails associated with the chemtrail conspiracy theory?
"And they aren't trying to control the weather, that's impossible"
Correct.
"they are cooling the earth by reflecting the sun but because of the spraying one part of the country freezes while the other boils, it's changing the charge in the atmosphere and destroying ozone."
Sounds as though you are referring to a branch of research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which aims to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing. SAI has not even reached the early stages of small scale trail. There was a field experiment designated for last year to take place above the Arizona desert and to involve a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere. The intention was to release small quantities of water and later a few kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation and dispersal. However, to date this has yet to take place. This is your SAI as it currently stands...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
You are correct that there are fears that should this ever be deployed it could harm the ozone layer which is one of the reasons that extensive research into the atmospheric chemistry of these proposals is necessary. Incidentally, the ozone layer has recovered by 1 to 3 percent per decade since 2000 and is forecast to recover completely in the Northern Hemisphere and mid-latitude areas in the 2030s, followed by the Southern Hemisphere around mid-century, and Antarctica in the 2060s.
"School children are collecting the material as it falls and have had it tested as part of a project."
What??? Could you present a link to this "project"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Certainly. Persistent contrails are primarily governed by three factors - temperature, humidity and pressure. At the altitude that aircraft cruise in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere is is very cold and contrails given the correct balance of humidity and temperature can form. In ambient air which is saturated in respect to ice, contrails may not only persist because they cannot sublimate back into their invisible gaseous state (water vapour), but can expand, spread and cumulatively fanned by high altitude shear agglomerate and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus - most of the moisture drawn from the atmosphere. This phenomena was first observed in the early years of aviation and has been recorded, documented, photographed and researched since. The unprecedented expansion of commercial aviation sector has resulted in the increased prevalence of contrails. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
Aircraft engines are remarkably clean burning in comparison to their road going counterparts. That doesn't mean that they don't, like any combustion engine, emit harmful particulate and aerosols - but most of the by product of jet fuel is in trace quantities.C02 emission is the main worry. Manufacturers are constantly striving to produce cleaner burning engines and like hybrid power sources, electric battery power is a pipe dream due to battery density...I do agree with you, right now aircraft travel is the largest unregulated source of carbon pollution in the US.
The chemtrail conspiracy theory on the other hand originated in the late nineties, largely as a consequence of Coast to Coast AM - a commercial radio station in the US that still to this day manufactures such hoaxes to boos ratings and thereby generate more advertising revenue. It was predicated upon and encouraged the misidentification of regular contrails which were increasing due to the expansion of air traffic, the abundance of high bypass engines (which contrary to the claims of proponents of this theory have a higher contrail factor than regular jet turbine engines) and the tendency for aircraft to fly higher. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has become a lucrative business to some and such hoaxes have burgeoned (particularly in the USA) preying upon the gullible and largely scientifically ignorant. The main perpetrators of this conspiracy theory now tend to intentionally conflate their fraud with localised weather modification (cloud seeding) and research proposals into a branch of geoengineering known as Solar Radiation Management, in a desperate attempt to afford legitimacy to their ludicrous claims. Not that either would bear any resemblance to a contrail in the wake of a commercial airliner in either appearance, nature or deployment.
Hope this helps.
2
-
2
-
Why the anger, hostility and abuse.
You have simply described commercial air traffic and persistent spreading contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. This is a seventy five year old image from the pages of a meteorological textbook:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
You are correct, that the persistent spreading trails you are witnessing are not simply the result of jet engine exhaust. However, if you burn a hydrocarbon fuel one of the main products is obviously H2O. A gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water due to the oxygen adding to the mass. However, the water in the exhaust merely precipitates the trail. Almost all the ice in the persistent spreading contrails that you have described is drawn from available atmospheric moisture in supersaturated conditions. No different to the formation of cirrus clouds, which is all that contrails actually are.
Any idea of the weight of material contained in just one of these trails you are seeing and the typical MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ReeferMadman
"Of course the ice caps are melting. The ice caps have been melting since we came out of the ice age and guess what? They are going to continue to melt until they are completely melted away. Shocker, I know. And when all the ice finally DOES melt completely away you will see the Sahara turn into a jungle, as it once was. "
Incorrect.. The ice caps receded following the last ice age. The rate of melting over the last decade and a half is unprecedented.
"Currently the Earth is in a solar maximum."
Wrong again. Sunspot maximum is likely to occur in 2024, with most forecasts predicting about half as many sunspots as in Cycle 24. Additionally this is only a 13 year cycle. Global temperature has been exponentially increasing since the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels.
"Meaning temps are gona be slightly warmer compared to a solar minimum. So we could quite possibly see glaciers increasing in size."
Utter nonsense.
"Oh, Im sorry, I was using weather 101 to come up with this statement. I was under the impression that UV rays cause water to evaporate into the air rising up and up until forming a cloud that becomes so saturated that water begins to fall from it, called rain. Thus water falling onto the ground and helping to cool the planet and give water to life sustaining plants. But if the sky is full of persistent jet contrails or chemtrails then the UV light doesnt get through."
The sky is not constantly full of persistent contrails. They occur in conditions of high humidity as a consequence of evaporation. This is the same process that produces clouds through condensation.
"Well I cant find the video. Part 1,2,3 are banned but prt 4 n 5 is on youtube. I did find some transcript so Ill copy and paste some of it. The program is called Dimming The Sun on PBS by NOVA. heres some of the trans"
Thank you. Right, they are referring to global dimming which is a hotly debated topic and far from conclusive. Global dimming interacts with global warming by blocking sunlight that would as you suggest otherwise cause evaporation and the particulates bind to water droplets. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. Conversely though, as I explained, global dimming is affected by evaporation and rain. Rain also has the effect of clearing out polluted skies. The effect of contrails upon evaporation is negligible at best.
"Correct, you in particular have not but chemtrail deniers have and I do apologize but that was more for them than you. But you dont personally KNOW that they PJC's are made up of ice crystals because you have never sampled them."
My background is ground based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range 10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength, and yes I have. Furthermore, as I explained, there are hundreds of analytical studies of the microphysical properties of contrails. Their formation is governed by known physical laws and processes and their composition determined by in-situ multi array spectroscopy. This can also be applied to your supposed 'chemtrails' ...except in the twenty years of this alleged spraying, no one has. Can you venture why that may be?
"So I do apologized at saying you called me a dork when you did not."
No problem at all. Also, I genuinely appreciate your civility and constructive response this time. It certainly differs to online chemtrail believers. Thanks again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"Or you could address the military's experiment code named "Operation LAC" conducted on unsuspecting residents of St. louis"
This ... again. Sigh. Well it certainly didn't resemble a long white line in the wake of a commercial aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere at six to eight miles in altitude. Again...false equivalence/association fallacy.
The author of the thesis that you are inadvertently referring to wrongly implies the Zinc Cadmium sulphide used in these Biological Warfare field trials was radioactive just because it was manufactured by the US Radium Corp. Unfortunately she seems to be unaware that the ZnCds used in both the US and UK LAC BW field trials was originally manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co. (codenamed NJ 22660) and not the US Radium Corporation. After a company reshuffle, the New Jersey Zinc Co. later became known as the US Radium Corporation and the ZnCds codename changed to 2267. Hilarious how selective your appeals to authority are. You refer to a "a certain professor" when it suits you, whilst rejecting the entire fields of meteorology, atmospheric physics and aerospace engineering which unanimously debunk your comical conspiracy theory through demonstrable and axiomatic science. Moreover, what does any of this have to do with a persistent contrail?
The army performed some experiments to measure wind dispersal using trace quantities - People would have been exposed to negligible amounts of the substances deployed and ultimately this was not a test on the citizens. They were designed to quantify how far the wind blew them, and over what area, and in what proportions in an urban environment. All this boils down to is the fact that the military was perhaps not as cautious or judicious as it could have been in its choice of tracer material. However, when compared to actual ground level industrial and urban pollution, it was utterly insignificant in terms of public health.
"Considering it has gone public, and even US senators have demanded answers"
Years ago - and they got those answers. Again, what does this have to do with the misidentification of large plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic that the rational and informed recognise as the persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of powered flight?
"It's really not the best time to be in the business of disinformation, is it?"
The post truth era and the internet age??? - It's the perfect time for baseless conspiracy theory to thrive and hoodwink gullible and critically impaired dullards such as yourself who have managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
2
-
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"The whole "muh government is just misunderstood, they would never demostrate anything but benevolent intentions." argument is really wearing thin"
Who in particular is making that stance and what precisely do you mean by "the government"? Of course governments and administrations have historically mislead, deceived and have been prone to corruption. Look no further than your current incumbent. However, to afford legitimacy and validity to any arbitrary conspiracy theory of your choice or creation based upon this is a logical fallacy. Online conspiracy theory of course is in contrast entirely agenda free, completely honest, unfailingly factually accurate and utterly non-exploitative.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the it disinfo troll business is booming... It just doesn't seem to have had the desired effect on enough people."
Incorrect. There are millions of people that subscribe to baseless online conspiracy theory such as yourself. All you need is an internet connection, zero in the way of objective critical thinking, gross suggestibility, an inability to recognise false equivalence/cherry picked clickbait confirmation bias, an affliction of Dunning - Kruger effect and a large helping of illusory superiority. Congratulations.
"We wouldn't be seeing such devisive political measures being taken if everyone wasn't basically in agreement that the government is totally corrupt."
I think your government is indeed riddled with corruption. What does this have to do with a persistent contrail and a gullible belief in a crap internet conspiracy theory?
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"Look, I could go back and forth with you for days."
Or you could simply answer the question. What does any of this have to do with a persistent contrail?
"Literally, since it takes you at least a day to find the data you want"
Oddly enough, I do have a life beyond your beck and call and outside the comments section of You Tube.
"..to copy and paste before you reply"
Squawked the online conspiracy parrot.
"but it seems rather futile. Anyone who has been paying attention, even slightly, can see that not only have governments historically been corrupt, but they continue to be."
And that'll be precisely what I agreed wth you in my last response.
"Trust is earned, and the government's actions continually do more to destroy public trust than they've ever done to restore it. Upwards of 3/4 of all government documents are labled (sic) classified today."
Your government employs three levels of classification. I'd be fascinated to see the breakdown of this. Do you have a source?
"There is nothing objective about displaying blind trust or obediance (sic) to any group that withholds so many of it's actions (as a matter of policy) from the very people who are supposedly it's master."
Agree. And similarly, there's nothing objective in placing blind faith in the perpetrators of baseless, unsubstantiated junk online conspiracy theory - which is precisely what I was referring to.
"I haven't seen anyone here mention anything about commerical (sic) airliners being used in any aerial experiments either."
And special thanks to Nick Wilson for sending in this week's winning logical fallacy.
Then perhaps ask yourself why chemtrails conspiracy believers insist in posting footage of the latter as supposed "evidence" then?
The entire chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails produced by predominately civil airliners which they attribute to anything from military drones, specially adapted aircraft to holograms. This ridiculous hoax is based upon flawed anecdotal observations, gross scientific ignorance and illiteracy, false equivalence, arguments from incredulity and as I said, a large helping of illusory superiority. Just add an internet connection.
"But I understand that latching on to the more fringe elements of certain stories is a useful tactic when attempting to discredit something."
Could you present some footage that you regard a legitimate capture of a "chemtrail" ? Thanks ever so much.
"Like you said, the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation."
Precisely. It is not incumbent upon another to attempt to prove an absent. Perhaps you could start by presenting just one in-situ analytical study of one o your chemtrails at source using multi-optical ground based spectrometry. There must be hundreds to choose from.
Or perhaps you would prefer to post another Rosalind Peterson' video instead?
"Any person who has engaged in critical thought comes to understand that it is wiser to ascert (sic) that anyone who has proven to be a pathalogical (sic) liar at some point loses the liberty of being given the benfit (sic) of the doubt."
Again, you appear to be suggesting that because any government or administration has lied or mislead in the past - or is currently corrupt, that this then affords legitimacy and validity to any arbitrarily discovered random online conspiracy theory of your choice or creation? A syllogistic logical fallacy -undistributed middle.
Prehaps (sic) especially, when their own CIA director is documented as saying "we will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the american public believes is false".
Which has been appropriated by practically every conspiracy page and theory on the net to legitimise their claims. "Documented as saying"? Could you present your source then, together with William Casey's full quote in its full and intended context? When you fail to do so, come back to me and we'll discuss it in more detail.
To reiterate, this video is discussing the belief that long white trails in the wake of aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere are evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying.
May I ask again, what precisely is your point?
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"Well, here is a short video of a pilot discussing his company's process for dispersing silver iodide into the atmosphere by aerial spraying, if you would like to comment on how it isn't being done."
Again - how many times do
you think that I've seen this Nick? Oh Jesus wept. This a dipshit chemtrail believer that strode into the reception of Weather Modification Inc. and started interrogating staff about chemtrailing. This is cloud seeding and it doesn't involve aerial spraying. Cloud seeding does not produce a trail or create clouds. It is intended to introduce additional nucleation typically via silver iodide flares rack mounted to the wings of light aircraft to be released into an existing cumulus/stratiform mass - those already conducive to precipitation - and thereby induce rainfall. Because of this it is typically conducted at altitudes between 2- 6,500 feet.
Cloud seeding organisations such as Weather Modification Inc. freely advertise their contracts and services across the internet - despite this, the practice is not widespread and the results dubious. What does this have to do with a persistent contrail?
Potassium Iodide, dry ice and even liquid propane have also occasionally been used in very small quantities - we're talking mere kilograms of materials. The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver constitutes the seeding material, the claims of environmental impact have been found to be insignificant by peer-reviewed research. And no, cloud seeding does not leave a lasting "trail" nor is it "sprayed"- but call it "chemtrails" if you insist and if it makes you feel better.
Weather modification - the legal and technical terminology for cloud seeding is not denied and is freely advertised chemtrails appear to be whatever you want them to be - crop spraying, fireworks, sounding rockets - even paint spraying...where do you stop? To clarify, the chemtrail conspiracy theory was predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. If you wish to term cloud seeding as "chemtrails" don't expect to be afforded any credence within scientific circles, amongst the rational and informed and in the real world.
Want to discuss fireworks too? Aluminium, barium strontium?
They produce smoke and dust that contains residues of heavy metals, sulphur-coal compounds and some low concentration toxic chemicals. These by-products of fireworks combustion will vary depending on the mix of ingredients of a particular firework. (The colour green, for instance, may be produced by adding the various compounds and salts of barium, some of which are toxic, and some of which are not.) Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryillium, strontium and radium. Literally chemtrails!!! - and there are an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of fireworks detonated every year. Illuminati confirmed...
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.417292070.4641/flat,1000x1000,075,f.u5.jpg
That's how ridiculous your false equivalence has become. Here, this might help...
https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/association-fallacy/
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"Show me in this video where they claim to only be discussing the potential for "persistent contrails"... and not the possibility of atmosphere manipulation through aerial spraying in general?"
The video is entitled "Joe Rogan on Chemtrails". You yourself have used the term "chemtrails" on several occasions referring me to several chemtrail conspiracy videos yourself whilst also alleging the following:
"I see yass-ass-in has been shilling on several different videos claiming to debunk chemtrails."
Once again, to remind you, the chemtrail conspiracy theory claims that persistent contrails are evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying conducted from jet aircraft. We can discuss Stratospheric Aerosol Injection or cloud seeding as much as you like - If you elect to refer to either of these as "chemtrails" or think that they resemble a long white trail in the wake of an aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere, then don't expect to be taken seriously outside your walled garden of internet conspiracy theory or afforded any credence in genuine scientific circles.
"You can't, because you're still just trying to condense the claims down to something you feel you can disprove."
The burden of proof does not lie with me. You are the one making these claims - the onus therefore lies with you to substantiate them. So far the thrust of your posts appear to be that because a government operates in secrecy then chemtrails must be real, followed by a series of logically fallacious non-sequiturs and false equivalence culminating in several links confirming precisely what I have been patiently telling you, that SAI is a hypothetical concept.
"You're attempting to falsly equate the idea to fucking bigfoot and lizard people and every other stupid fringe theory."
To clarify for the third time. Simply because a government has lied in the past, or is currently corrupt, it lends no more weight to your chemtrails theory than it does the notion of Bigfoot or shape shifting lizardmen.
"Meanwhile, respected scientists are obviousoy discussing it as a logical possibility to combat climate change... "
No, once again as your links confirm, they are discussing the hypothetical notion of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which has nothing to do with the trails that you are seeing from aircraft or the chemtrails conspiracy theory bar the ludicrous attempts of its proponents to conflate the two.
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
"Just as the CIA director did."
You are referring to the ex Director of the CIA John Brennan as a guest speaker at the Council on Foreign Nations (a thinktank). His theme was 'Transitional Threats to Global Security'.
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
During which he also addressed possible future novel technologies that don't even exist yet. One of these Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, in the unlikely event that it would ever be deployed as a last ditch solution to combat climate change, it would have geo-political ramifications and pose significant implications for governance. Brennan also broached anti-ageing technology. It is the remit of the CIA to monitor emergent technologies that may present a threat to global security.
At no point does he advocate the use of SAI rather, his entire speech is a caveat concerning its misuse. He doesn't mention aluminium or barium and does not state that anything resembling this is in progress. Here's the full transcript to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Simply because these ridiculous chemtrail videos are now using research into SAI to legitmise their claims you have mindlessly and uncritically accommodated this. If you wish to discuss Stratospheric Aerosol Injection or cloud seeding in detail, then as my replies are ample demonstration to, I would be more than happy to do so.
"That's the problem with classifying everthing under the sun as secret. Disinfo shills can work tirelessly to discredit what the government is actually doing, and it can take decades before the truth is finally released to the public."
????? SAI is not "classified" as "secret" - which is precisely the reason that you and the goons that perpetrate this nonsense that you parrot know about it in the first place genius. SAI is not a state sponsored initiative. The majority of funding into this research comes from the private sector and its advocates have long been keen to increase visibility and transparency of their work to generate more support.
"Gulf of Tonkin is a good example of governent lying to further an agenda, with the truth only being made avalible to the public years later. "
For the sixth time, because you are really struggling to comprehend this...simply because a government has concealed information in the past, that does not afford legitimacy to any arbitrary claim or cry of conspiracy.
"Now go sell your shit to "antifa" or the "proud boys"...they are more inclined to buy the bullshit."
What "bullshit" would that be? What in particular would you like to dispute about my replies to you?
The William Casey quote - you referred to documentary evidence. For the third time of asking, can you present it?
Also, to remind you, earlier you stated the following...
"I say they're spraying particulates into the atmosphere"
You need to understand that simply claiming something over the internet, that you clearly have no understanding of, does not make it true. May I ask how you have established this and who precisely are "they"?
2
-
@nickwilson8429
“For the seventh time... Just because they (corrupt government entities who have consistently proven to be dishonest ) haven't spoon fed the information to the public on the nightly news, doesn't mean they haven't already experimented with the technologies they, as well as harvard and yale scuentists, have discussed.”
No it doesn’t. Again, what evidence do you have to support that claim? Do please present it. And for the eight time, simply because a novel technology is currently being researched it doesn’t mean that it is secretly underway. My question again – what does the hypothetical concept of SAI have to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory. Are you claiming to have seen some trails in association with this? despite the fact that, y’know, despite what online frauds such as Dane Wigington tell you, it wouldn’t form a trail or be visible to the ground based observer.
“You may think it naive or foolish to discuss what the government may be lying about now when they claim to only be speaking in hypotheticals.”
By all means discuss it and speculate. Why would the “government” wish to institute a programme of SAI? – and again, do please present your evidence.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/no-scientists-didn-t-just-suggest-we-dim-the-sun-to-1830663461
“I think it is infinitely more naive to assume that pathalogical liars can be taken at their word.”
Thereby giving licence to believe any speculative theory on the internet or unsubstantiated claim?
“The government said it wasn't storing everyones metadata when Michael Hastings was still with us, that was proven to be a lie. The government said they weren't digitally cataloging ffl customer's records against federal law... that was also proven to be a lie.”
So therefore your irrational belief in “chemtrails” or any conspiracy theory of your choice must be true? Like I said - a syllogistic logical fallacy. What evidence do you have to support this, (beyond links to articles that tell you it isn’t happening).? Genius.
“I'm confident that the lie you're helping to perpetuate will also be proven beyond a doubt with time as well.”
What lie am I helping to perpetuate? You maintain that SAI is in progress, I have consistently welcomed and invited any evidence in support of this. So far you have produced a bunch of crap You Tube conspiracy theory videos – one of which hilariously featuring Rosalind Peterson who you naively believed to be a UN delegate; referred to a test in St.Louis six decades ago designed to evaluate the dispersal of tracer material and posted footage of a chemtrail clown that marched into the reception of a private sector cloud seeding organisation.
“A government that is proven to lie more often than not does not afford legitimacy in any sense... no matter how much they claim to be. But go aheqd and keep spouting off about how their testimony supports your case.”
I’d rather you presented your evidence and substantiated your claim that “they” - whoever you may be referring to - are "spraying particulates into the atmosphere".
- Are you suggesting that you have observed this? Please answer the question.
Another question for you – do you drive? Do you live in a city?
The William Casey quote - you referred to “documentary evidence”. For the fourth time of asking, can you present it? – only you keep forgetting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@67nextday
"I hate when people talking nonsense."
Said the believer in junk online conspiracy theory.
"Proximity to airports means I see a lot of flying planes and I am able to recognize where are condensation trails from an unusual trails,left by planes."
Aircraft arriving and departing from airports do not deposit contrails. Contrails tend to be formed at cruise altitudes. And your point about people talking nonsense was?
"Normal trail of condensation is visible approximately a few meters behind the plane ( if you are looking from the ground)"
Correct, due to the phase gap. This is hard to discern though as a gound based observer.
"and dissolved asap"
Contrails don't 'dissolve', they sublimate. And why should this be "asap"? Demonstrate why supported by known physical laws and atmospheric chemistry. Go ahead.
"Chemtrails are hanging over for hours and spreading across the sky"
You mean persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and the best part of a century.
"Lines,left behind the plane are connected at the end,if it is done in the squares."
To remind you, this is what you said - ""I hate when people talking nonsense."
"Usually commercial planes doesnt make squares."
As patiently explained f course commercial aircraft can make grid patterns since as explained, they are flying at differing altitudes, headings and to a range of destinations. You can easily verify this for yourself.
"Why do you think that people are absolutely daft only you alone cleaver one?"
Several responses to this.
1/ Firstly, I am irrelevant to this exchange, everything that I type is independently verifiable. The known science that you are demonstrably ignorant of has a voice of its own.
2/ I am pressed for an answer, then perhaps the fact that I am not the one that has allowed myself to gullibly be duped by an online conspiracy theory that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
3/ I can at least compose a coherent sentence and spell the word 'clever'.
"P.S: If your explanation would be true, we would be able to see 'sky in the squares' every single day,because plaines flies by the same traffic management, especially on weekends, when they are flying one after another nonstop in all directions. But it never works like that"
By the same logic, why then do you not see clouds every day? Are you similarly perplexed by variations in cloud cover? A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Do you really require me to explain why? Why are you doing this to yourself?
"This chemtrail thing happens from time to time,never a few days in a row or on the same week."
So do atmospheric conditions and changes in humidity, vapour pressure and ambient air temperature genius. It's called weather.
"I grew up in Lithuania and my uncle back then used to work with planes,who was spraying herbicides and plant food on the farmland so,I can remember well how it looks like :)"
You actually think that crop dusting is analogous to the contrails that you are misidentifying? Jeez. Question for you. Why do you think that corp spraying is conducted at around 100 feet or lower as opposed to 6 - 8 miles high? Think hard now.
"Later on it was banned,because of the damage it does to the nature,but who was worried about that in 60- 70s?"
Crop dusting is not banned. Why are you changing the subject? This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that you have been conned into believing are 'chemtrails'.
2
-
@67nextday
Your comment appears to be shadow banned. I will summarise it here.
"You talking nonsense, 'filibustering ' boy and not answering my simple question"
Again, the irony, was it intentional? To clarify once more, everything that I type is independently verifiable. Nothing to to with me. Regarding your question -
"why it's not happens every single day,if it is normal to aircraft? There is nothing to do with air conditions,if days are the same sunny and nice with the similar humidity and preassure,the same temperature"
Jesus Christ, this is like pulling teeth. Firstly, surely you are aware that the atmosphere is not homogeneous or isotropic. Conditions on the ground can be very different to those at 40,000ft - which in turn can be very different to those at 35,0000ft 30,000ft, 25,000ft, 20,000ft and 15,000ft. Like I said, contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or they may not form at all. Whether they do along with their length and duration is determined by the interaction between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure.
"I do believe my own eyes"
No one doubts the trials that you are seeing, you simply don't understand what they are.
"not stupid theories and presumptions someone makes."
Said the online conspiracy believer.
"You took a lot of effort and time to pick my message into pieces and argue every word."
It was neither and it was very easy to do.
"Im too lazy to do the same,sorry"
Just as you are too lazy to learn about aviation, atmospheric science, meteorology and the physical laws that govern them. It's much easier for you people to become an armchair authority squandering an evening watching junk online conspiracy video.
"but every argument is misleading and nonsense,called bla bla,bla"
Yes, so you keep saying, without being able to address or refute a word of it.
"Only young and passionate believers in sience does that :)"
Known science is not a question of 'belief'.
"Look above your head sometimes and believe your own eyes, not in that rubbish you have been told in school, by media or by purposely educated people. I believe my own eyes,boy. Dont need to be scientist to recognize clean sky from polluted one."
Are you also perplexed by the appearance of a cloud or variation in cloud cover?
"Your speech is a twaddle,like a pouring watter from one empty bucket into another : sound exists but no point to do so :)"
Like I said, no use saying it, demonstrate why.
"You want by sience? Ok!"
Given that you have shown throughout that you can't even spell the word, this should at the very least be entertaining. Go ahead then.
"What is contrail? A frozen water vapour, which is needed cold weater to be formed. By sience -1°C is when water freezes."
The ambient air temperature will be much lower that this, but temperature alone does not form a contrail. It is also a function of relative humidity and vapour pressure. Although water vapour is produced by jet engines for this to condense into a cloud of ice crystals, the surrounding air must be conducive to it. I suggest that you take a look at the Appleman equations/chart.
"There are nearest airports: Leeds 37km away, Manchester 35km, Liverpool approx 50km away. Flightradar24 helps to check speed,altitude, route,so,we can clearly see how many planes overhead,who is landing,who is passing to Dublin,Glasgow,etc. Altitude of landing / take off planes 8-12 thousand feets above our town (3-4 km )."
Correct. And aircraft in proximity to those airports that are either approaching or departing will nor produce a trail.
WNext we are using temperature at altitude calculator. For an example, +20° C at altitude of 4km gives us -6°C. More than enough contrails to be formed."
Incorrect.
"Yes, we see it as a few meters white trail behind the plane,which very fast diapers ( dissolved).This is normal way of watching any plane flying in the sky,whatever altitude it might be ( I mean higher than 4km,because planes normally flies approx 10 kms)"
As explained, contrails do not "dissolve", they sublimate.
"So,why on Earth,according this explanation,a plane ( usualy it works two of them to form squares),who flies low altitude, can leave trails behind on a hot summer day,which cannot be dissolved in a few hours?"
Because, they are not as you claim flying low. You are simply seeing cruise altitude traffic intersecting.
"Visually they are not flying higher than 3-4kms,compare to commercial planes,who flies visibly very high ( even then their contrails dissolved as normally and no white-stay forever- tails left behind, which would be very logical in their altitude and cold air). If it is 20-25°C on the ground,they vapour must be dissolved in the counted minutes,never mind hours to stay and hang over us.Any LOGICAL explanation,please?"
Yes. Your claims of altitude are either erroneous or you are deceiving yourself. I'll ask you again, are you similarly perplexed by the duration of a cloud?
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. It is important to note that simply because the temperature is below freezing, this does not mean that a contrail will be formed particularly if the air is very dry. Otherwise, airports would be blinded by contrails at ground level during winter every time there were sub zero temperatures.
As explained, A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. The water vapour in the exhaust gasses simply acted as the trigger event. As I indicated - this is the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are and all that your supposed 'chemtrails' are. If it were solely a function of temperature as you claim, then an aircraft would produce a contrail at full thrust for take off or near the ground every time it dropped below zero.
Why are you struggling to comprehend this?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@keithjohnson1830
? None of those were conspiracy theories though. MK Ultra was kept completely secret as was Operation Paperclip. There was no conspiracy theory about any of it. The claim of the "Rockerfeller Foundation testing experimental drugs on inmates" - in fact it was the Rockerfeller Commission that independently investigated unethical testing. The same with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. No one specifically theoreticized about any of it so therefore they are not "conspiracy theories coming true" at all. Fluoridation of water isn't secretive, it isn't a conspiracy. There have been ludicrous baseless conspiracy theories surrounding the reasons for it - but these have never been substantiated. We know that social media sells data on so that advertising agencies understand your preferences. It was also known that Government security agencies like the NSA can also have access to your devices through in-built backdoors well before Snowden blew the whistle. Epstein trafficked underage individuals for sex, yes, but no conspiracy theorist foresaw that - just simply broad claims about pedophilia and "the elite". The tragedy is, that children are trafficked as sex slaves all across the world in every echelon of society. And what about Bohemian Grove? Again, it was no secret - all it was that conspiracy theorists claimed that it involved sordid practises and rituals without any substantiation. The only scandal associated with it is that the rich and the privileged that comprise the club have failed to pay their employees minimum wage or acknowledge working time regulations.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that "chemtrails" (misidentified aircraft contrails), or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
And meanwhile then, online conspiracy theory is naturally entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
2
-
"Contrails and chemtrails are two different things."
How many times do chemtrail believers parrot this because they don't understand basic atmospheric science? A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all.
"The ice crystals will melt and disappear in contrails"
Incorrect. They sublimate. Whether they do is governed by the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. If the latter is low, the air is very cold and humidity is high then the ice crystals that comprise a contrail are unable to sublimate back into their invisible gaseous phase - water vapour....so they persist.
"In chemtrails, the cloud will not disappear, but instead slowly start falling to earth and spreading outward with the wind"
In conditions of supersaturation the water in the exhaust has merely precipitated the trail. Its expansion and increase in mass is because 99% of ice budget and the observable trail is drawn from available atmospheric moisture. No different to a cloud, which is all a contrail is. These then become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. They also spread laterally and vertically due to lateral and horizontal windshear. They do not "fall to earth", these are ice crystals which remain suspended due to their small size around 0.001 millimeters to 0.1 millimeters.
"Not just alluminum but nickel, barium, magnesium, and so on?"
You mean elements already present in our soils. (Incidentally, aluminium is the most abundant metal on the planet, and the third most common element in the earth's crust. Also, it only has one 'l')
If you were to allege that this has anything to do with aerial spraying then in addition to detailing your methodology to differentiate between any samples and existing sources of both natural and anthropogenic origin, you would need to demonstrate causality - which of course no chemtrail conspiracy theorist is capable of doing. Furthermore, you would need to explain how such vast quantities in our skies that supposedly fall and settle to earth have no detrimental effect upon air traffic/jet engines. You would also need to explain precisely how when sprayed "aluminum, nickel, barium, magnesium, and so on" can not only linger, but increase in mass, just like - well no shit - condensed atmospheric water vapour forming clouds.
"wake up people!!"
Never ceases to amuse that those still insisting upon using such a predictable and mindless conspiratorial cliché are the ones that slept through science classes.
2
-
This piece from the BBC is discussing nascent research into a range of geoengineering strategies. Although this is a dated article, it clearly states "could be deployed soon, but at an unknown risk to the environment". SRM technologies exist solely in the realm of paper based proposal and computer modelling. Next year, this will progress to a small scale trial in the Philippines involving mere kilograms of Calcium Carbonate - yeah, chalk - to measure dispersal (look up SCoPEx). Not only is there no agreement yet on the materials that could best be used to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, but as the article stated, the environmental impact needs to be properly equated, and in addition to the formidable problems of governance, geopolitics and logistics, it is most unlikely that such a programme would be deployed any time in the near future. Even if it were to become a reality, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with a contrail in either appearance or nature and would be released in the form of a fine mist at double the altitude of the commercial aircraft traffic that conspiracy believers identify as their "chemtrais"
The misidentification of persistent contrails is precisely what this video is about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Yes they are spraying themselves because they need to make a living and many do not realize how dangerous it really is."
No one is spraying - you are simply seeing aircraft contrails like the rest of us.
"The pilots are not chemist and are nieve. yet some of them suffered bad health from having the toxins so close to them."
You are referring to aerotoxic syndrome in which pilots and sometimes PAX are exposed to dangerous fumes. The culprit is tri-cresyl phosphate, a compound in synthetic oil that is pyrolised in hot engine bleed air, usually admitted into the system by faulty labyrinth seals.
"There was a air force pilot on the news whom admitted they were spraying the skys."
No there wasn't.
"My cousin worked for the Hazemat team that had to change out the old barrels for the big white planes they use."
No he didn't, please stop lying.
"A women whom worked her entire life in enviromental safty in California has a website with the stock market proof, the patents and the min meetings on her fight to stop them from poisoning our enviroment. One of her storys is that every time they reached the toxic level overload she would have to attend a meeting which is suppose to stop anything that goes past a toxic level. Instead these people who are suppose to stop the toxic levels would change what is allowed before calling it toxic. You have those minute meeting and documents of how they kept upping the exceptable levels. Instead of stopping it when it reached the toxic levels."
Name? Link? I guarantee what you'll come back with.
"You are talking to someone whom is paid to help put the blinders on to people."
No, he's talking to Mick West who debunks conspiracy theory using independently verifiable data. He actively encourages civil debate and rational discourse.
"Research California Sky Watch"
The conspiracy theorist Russ Tanner? Is this serious?
"Watch and look for anything Rosline Peterson has on there"
You mean Rosalind Peterson. Righto -
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft." Rosalind Peterson 2012.
"from her career in our government."
Rosalind Peterson didn't work for Government, she was a crops loss adjuster - a sort of agricultural insurance agent.
Stop listening to silly online conspiracy theory.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SwitchedDreams
Sometimes they don't - they may not form at all.
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water vapour in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail - you can see the phase gap behind the engines. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of what is known as supersaturation, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture - where the jet engine itself is merely the trigger event. Exactly the same process as cloud formation which is why when often subsequently fanned out by high altitude wind shear, contrails can become indistinguishable from regular cirrus cloud.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sigh.
"People testify infront of congress"
What people? No one has testified about 'chemtrails' "in front of congress".
"Nano particles"
What about them? A Nano particle is simply matter that is between 1 and 100 nanometres in diameter. The atmosphere and the air that you breath is full of such particulate matter.
"Documents"
What "documents"? Present your best example and I'll explain precisely what it refers to.
"The trails never used to hang around for hours like they do now etc...i remember im 33 now it wasn't like that when i was a kid"
Persistent contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of eighty years. The following image is taken from the pages of a seventy five year old meteorology text book:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
A contrail is merely a form of cirrus cloud. It may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Its length and duration is entirely governed by the prevailing atmospheric conditions in respect of the interaction of temperature, humidity and vapour pressure. The reason for their increased prevalence is entirely due to the exponential expansion of commercial aviation and in association with this, the introduction of new routes flown and more aircraft flying them. To clarify, this video is debunking the chemtrail hoax which is predicated upon the misidentification of the latter.
The chemtrails conspiracy theory largely endures through contrived/intentional association fallacy and conflation with such topics as research into geoengineering or cloud seeding. The perpetrators of this nonsense know that the believers in their hoax are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' on the back of a squandered evening in front of a succession of You Tube conspiracy videos/junk websites and uncritically lap up and regurgitate such false equivalence and parrot fallacious statements about subjects that they are otherwise wholly ignorant about.
By all means do feel free to prove me wrong. Let's begin with your statement that "they never used to hang around like they do now".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Contrails dissipate. Why is it that some do not?"
A contrail is merely a form of artificially induced cirrus. The governing factors are temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour).
"And they expand and create a haze over the sky?"
Can do. In cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of tonnes. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
"Also, it was recently mentioned that the US would be doing weather modification to prevent global warming......."
Weather modification is the technical term for cloud seeding which is commercially practiced. I think that you are likely referring to SAI which is a hypothetical form of goengineering in the research proposal stage. Neither would have anything to do with a contrail in either appearance, nature or deployment.
"we’ve been doing this for years."
Doing what for years?
"Who can we trust?"
Objectivity and independently verifiable sources in addition to known science which is axiomatic and has a voice of its own.
"Independent chemical analysis confirms aluminum and other chemical agents present in chemtrails."
No - I assure you it really doesn't.
"Go figure and do your research...not on YouTube, use Duck Duck Go!!! "
Understandable, because it conceptually avoids the filter bubble - however, no search engine is immune to confirmation bias and will return whatever you instruct it to do or wish to see. Such filters are also preconceived, implanted and internal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Micro Farming
"UK government have been caught spraying millions with poison and viruses"
Caught? This is declassified information detailing a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.
Many of these tests involved releasing chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population usually in very small quantities, but without the public's consent, not to experiment on the population, but to evaluate dispersal to gain more understanding of vulnerability in the event of a Soviet biological attack.
In most cases, the trials did not actually use biological weapons but alternatives intended to replicate germ warfare
'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', for example released zinc cadmium sulphide - its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored.
On the other hand, the DICE trials in south Dorset between 1971 and 1975 involved the release of serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.
However, independent enquiries have shown in all cases that there was no danger to public health from these releases - rather, the concern is, that the tests were carried out without the knowledge and consent of the British public.
None of this is denied and is public knowledge. What does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails upon which the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon, that are the subject of this video? The same phenomenon that has been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years?
Also, why the need for unnecessary and unwarranted abuse?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamiethibodeau1
"look, you’re just wrong."
That settles it then.
"There is peer reviewed information on this."
Present it then.
"Haarp and DARPA with U.S. naval academy using cloud seeding/geo engineering."
What????
"This is now Public knowledge, nothing conspiracy based."
What do you mean now? HAARP has never at any stage been classified and has nothing to do do with cloud seeding which has been around since the 1940s, whilst neither have anything to do with geoengineering which is a very broad umbrella encompassing GGR (aforestation, biochar, BECCS, ocean fertilisation; and SRM (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, marine cloud brightening, space reflectors) and again, has never been secretive. The latter (Solar Radiation Management) is entirely hypothetical with the exception of ground based albedo modification. What's your point? - and what does any of this have to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers term 'chemtrails'?
"The chemicals do alter weather, as well as assist with technology."
What chemicals? How? What technology are you referring to?
"The compounds act as miniature satellites- for global communication assistance."
🤣
"Just because technology has outsmarted you, does not mean it has outsmarted the person you are debating."
Jamie Nadeau, meet David Dunning and Justin Kruger, Dunning, Kruger? - meet Jamie Nadeau.
"You are just absolutely wrong."
About what precisely?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheCarnivoreDigital
"Making it rain is not controlling the weather… you sure about that?"
That's not what I said is it. To reiterate, I said that cloud seeding is not as you claim, "controlling the weather" which is technically impossible. So, yes, I'm sure about that thanks.
Cloud seeding is not necessarily "making it rain". Any idea how erratic and hit and miss it is? To clarify, cloud seeding is the introduction of additional nucleation into existing stratiform/cumulus cloud masses which are already conducive to precipitation in an attempt to prematurely induce rainfall or to intensify it. Hardly "controlling the weather".
Control in this context, implies that we could make it rain whenever and wherever we wish which we cannot. Moreover, cloud seeding is a minor intervention on the micro scale and as an unreliable practice, its very efficacy is questionable. "Controlling the weather" meanwhile, would require manipulation of synoptic/global systems and air masses, as I said, a technical impossibility.
We are however, influencing and changing weather patterns through anthropogenic climate change, but again, nothing to do with 'control'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JJ-kz7sm
Firstly, the air is full of harmful particulate due to ground level and urban pollution. PM2.5 present the greatest health risk. These fine particles can get deep into lungs and may even enter into the bloodstream. Prolonged exposure to these particles can affect a person's lungs and heart. Coarse particles (PM10-2.5) are of less concern, although they may irritate a person's eyes, nose, and throat. Commercial air traffic has very little to do with this - unless you are in proximity to an airport where aircraft are taxiing, taking off and landing.
The trails that you are seeing are not "water vapour" - water vapour is an invisible gas. A contrail is condensed atmospheric moisture in the form of ice crystals. 3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? What about all those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions?
2
-
@JJ-kz7sm
"Are there metals that can be used as lubrant in fuel?"
I think you meant 'lubricant'.
All combustion engines produce metallic elements in the exhaust. These are present in the fuel and exhaust in trace quantities and also to a much lesser extent are the product of wear and tear. The total emission of metals will be less than 0.3 percent of total fuel particulate matter mass. Particles emitted from aircraft turbine engines are generally ultrafine, i.e. smaller than 100 nm. approximately 99.5-99.9% of the molar content of typical commercial engine
The most abundant metals in jet exhaust are Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, and Ti. The sources are kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components. To reiterate, all the elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in road going diesel and petroleum.
"you don't understand the word if."
An you don't the basis of my response. All hydrocarbon fuels produce harmful effects from combustion at close quarters. There are hundreds of parallel studies into the effects of exhaust from petrol and diesel exhaust. Why are you not similarly concerned about traffic pollution? Also, the effects of PM2.5 are far more acute at ground level - as is the formation and trapping of N0X in our towns and cities.
The relative amount of exhaust emissions depends upon combustion temperature and pressure, fuel to air ratio and the extent to which fuel is atomised and mixed with inlet air. 3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted.
"I also ask what happens when they dump fuel in flight? Where does that go?"
It vaporises and disperses harmlessly. However, there have been very rare isolated emergencies in which fuel dumps have been necessary at low altitude over populated areas, which is obviously not good. The practice of fuel dumping in general is not at all commonplace and extremely expensive for airlines operating on very tight margins.
https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-fuel-dumping/
https://www.businessinsider.com/planes-dump-jet-fuel-aircraft-landing-emergency-2019-12?r=US&IR=T
2
-
2
-
@JJ-kz7sm
"so what stops them from putting and additive into the mix?"
Putting what into the mix? And who precisely are they?
Jet fuel is independently sampled post refining and randomly at airports. So you are suggesting that the entire petroleum industry and aviation sector worldwide has been collectively coerced and coopted...and if so, for what purpose? Have you any idea of the litigation if jet fuel was compromised. Additives such as PRIST are in minute quantities and carefully controlled and regulated. Any nefarious addition to jet fuel would have to be in such minute quantities to render any effects negligible.
"The whole chem trail theory is plausible."
No it isn't. To clarify, the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, measured and studied in excess of 80 years.
"I don't prescribe to it but I also don't like people who take the stand that you are."
I am irrelevant. The chemtrail conspiracy theory debunks itself by being a physical and mathematical impossibility.
"People who day they have the answer when all you have is science supporting the plausibility of a different outcome than what you say."
Again, I am irrelevant. Contrails are governed by known physical laws underpinned by mathematical axioms that are therefore demonstrable and have a voice of their own.
"From outside of your own anus it is easy see."
What a strange comment. You simply don't like the fact that I questioned the content of your posts, asked you some questions and challenged your inaccuracies when you are attempting to sound clever online. Strikes me, that you are quite accustomed to talking out of yours.As I said, I am irrelevant, and utterly impervious to your irrational ad-hominem abuse.
"Take a step back and review the English language a little more in depth. If, is a condition as you know from math."
"If" does not mean scientifically illiterate word salad.
"Verbiage means something in this language."
Verbiage is excessively, overly and unnecessary complex speech or writing - as your own posts are testimony to, minus the technical knowledge.
"All you have proven so far is that a plane can distribute and the clouds can deliver."
I haven't really talked about either. I challenged your initial post and responded to your subsequent questions about metal in fuels.
"It's plausible."
No it isn't.
"This is one of those grey areas, not so white and black."
I assure you that the science behind the formation of contrails is definitive and unequivocal.
"This is nothing new. This is a 30 year old theory and it's plausible over and over."
Incorrect. This is a 30 year old conspiracy theory that is parroted over and over - and a particularly dumb one to boot. To reiterate, your chemtrail hoax involves the misidentification of persistent contrails. You can fantasise all you like, but your conjecture is ill-informed and worthless.
2
-
@davidbros849
"You just found info that is relevant to push your point."
On the contrary, confirmation bias and false equivalence are the preserve of the chemtrails conspiracy theory. I can assure you that I'm very knowledgeable about the origins, perpetrators and background of the latter in addition to actually understanding what geoengineering is.
"Look up white papers from the UN and others that outline the goeneneering project going on."
Better still, why don't you simply post them here? - and what "project"?
There are multiple projects into geoengineering both in terms of research and application. There are many GGR strategies such as aforestation, Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS carbon sequestering), biochar and studies into ocean fertilisation. Solar Radiation management, barring ground based albedo modification and the isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening, is entirely hypothetical. The largest research initiative is Harvard's 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' project, exploring the replication of the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and the potential to combat global temperature rise. This has not even graduated beyond paper based proposal and mathematical modelling.
Do feel free to produce these "white papers". You'll find that they are nothing more than feasibility studies examining, method, cost, logistics environmental impact and in the case of SAI, the huge insurmountable problem of international governance.
What does any of this have to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails under discussion in this thread?
2
-
@lizardfirefighter110
"Your funny"
So are you - you can't differentiate between 'your' and you're'.
"Once again my comments bug you enough to try and debunk me."
Your comments don't "bug me" in the slightest - I find them highly amusing. As I explained, I am not "trying" anything. Your daft conspiracy theory debunks itself.
"You speak like a lawyer, maybe in training! Lawyers are payed according to how well they can obstinate the truth to persuade the jury."
The legal process requires evidence and your own insistence, personal incredulity and mindless parroting of online nonsense indicts no one but yourself. Incidentally, I think you meant 'paid'.
"My final comment: “I know my blue sky turns white by mid-afternoon after seeing white streaks from horizon to horizon against a blue sky in the morning” This is a rock solid observation. You have explained eloquently everything that is not what I have seen and have told me condescendingly that I am ignorant for not understanding what you are telling me"
I am irrelevant - as suggested, follow the known atmospheric science.
"The bottom line I am typing out on my phone what I have observed and what I have learned."
No, you are arrogantly making a series of unsubstantiated claims and conclusions based upon your own ignorance and gullibility. That is the diametric opposite. You people refuse to "learn".
"But for some reason you find it necessary to sit at a computer, no doubt with a playbook with BS verbiage and distraction paragraphs, to set me straight."
This is a comments section, I am at liberty to reply and challenge your claims - and don't you and your ilk just despise that. No use simply saying it - what "bullshit" are you referring to? Everything that I typed in reply to you is independently verifiable.
"I know that my observations and understanding on this issue are closer to gettin at the truth than your official explanations"
They are not "my" explanations, As explained, your dispute lies with the known science of the atmosphere and aviation, which is governed by physical laws and is thus axiomatic with a voice of its own. Nothing to do with me.
Ypur "understanding on this issue" ?? - and you have the audacity to call me "funny"?
"Furthermore, given how fucked up our government is, it is perfectly with in my preview to have a conspiracy theory"
Another logical fallacy. Simply because governments lie, deceive and are in your view "fucked up", that does not then afford legitimacy to any random conspiracy theory of our arbitrary choice of or devising. - As syllogistic fallacy. Also, there are 127 'governments' in the world, many of them in opposition. This is a global phenomena - your trails are witnessed wherever there is air traffic.
"Example: If I say that there was more than fire that initiated the collapse sequence of WTC 7, you reach for your 9/11 playbook with every known official argument against such an assertion."
Incorrect again - I'd tell you to stay on topic.
Now did you read the science I provided you with? Of course you didn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimbojimbob6363
"Take chemtrails for ie, we see them they don't go away like they did 30 years ago after a min. or so,....so what's different why do they stay for hours sometimes 8 hours instead of 1 min."
Firstly, contrails are far more prevalent than they were 30 years ago due to the huge expansion of commercial aviation and associated routes flown. Secondly, as I have already explained to you that is simply untrue. The persistent contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. This is independently verifiable.
"How about the 1947 roswell crash....they said weather balloon ...why don't they have armed military and guards over every weather balloon why just that one? Epstein suicide ..... all cameras and guards on watch happened to be down or away at that moment etc....goes on and on... yeah all conspiracy theories LMAO"
Yeah, all baseless conspiracy theories designed to mislead and dupe the gullible, the impressionable and the critically impaired.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why have you felt the need to post this twice? This again? Really? Actually, U suggest that you watch it yourself because you clearly haven't.
This is a voluntary address to the CFN (a think tank) in which the then director of the CIA John Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing. SAI is purely hypothetical and has not even graduated beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. It will never be employed - primarily due to the impossibility of international governance. Also, it would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the contrails that chemtrail believers term chemtrails, would not form a trail in the first place and there is not even agreement upon which materials would best replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. I suggest you look up SCoPeX, which is a planned small-scale trail involving a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress.I can provide you with a full transcription of his speech if you wish. At no point does he "admit spraying". What you said was blatantly false.
You have simply linked to one of the many sensationalist chemtrail conspiracy videos that have appropriated the footage and inserted the word 'chemtrail' in the title.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Cloud seeding is one thing, making it rain. It’s been happening since the 60’s."
Actually, cloud seeding experimentation can be traced back to the 1940s.
"Chemtrails is the act of putting metals into the air to block the sun and cool the planet. It’s completely true. And I suspect it was only done on a small level to test the effectiveness but they don’t seem to spray much anymore"
Incorrect. Chemtrails are simply a dumb conspiracy theory based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails, which have nothing whatsoever to do with Solar Radiation Management.
No one informed or in the real world would refer to geoengineering as 'chemtrails', it's merely a way for the perpetrators of this hoax and unscrupulous grifters such as Dane Wigington to add supposed legitimacy to their claims.
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation and ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification. SRM is a series of strategies aimed at reducing rising global temperatures and combating anthropogenic climate change. The main initiative under proposal is called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would attempt to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Currently there is no agreement upon the materials that could be employed to achieve this, but sulphates, (which also form heterogeneously in the Junge layer) may be a possibility. Early research suggests that clacium carbonate has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulphate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. However, calcium carbonate does not exist naturally in the stratosphere even though it is non-toxic and earth abundant. Therefore, though we can almost certainly expect that calcium carbonate will not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate, the actual stratospheric reactivity needs to be established, which means laboratory and small scale trials are needed.
This was proposed through an experiment involving a steerable balloon launched 20kms into the stratosphere at first releasing a few kilos of water, followed by small quantities of CaCO3 to test perturbation, reflectivity and dispersal. This experiment was denied ethical approval. SAI will never become a reality. Not just because of the logistical problems, cost and opposition but very simply due to the impossibility of international governance. At the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi, Kenya, last week Switzerland pushed UN member states to set up an expert panel to examine solar radiation modification (SRM) technologies. The original Swiss draft had called for the setting up of an advisory panel of specialists appointed by governments and representatives of international scientific bodies to gather information and produce a report on SRM’s possible applications, risks and ethical considerations. Countries were unable to reach consensus in Nairobi. Consequently, Switzerland withdrew a resolution it had tabled to examine the technology.
To reiterate, none of this has nothing whatsoever to do with misidentified aircraft contrails that dumb conspiracy believers term as 'chemtrails'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for your post Russel.
Firstly, why do you perceive that our sunsets have changed? They can be beautiful or unremarkable due to a range of geographical and atmospheric phenomena. It much depends upon the prevailing conditions at the time. There is a common misconception that tropospheric aerosols when present in abundance in the lower atmosphere as they often are over urban and continental areas can cause brilliant sunsets, but in fact they do not enhance sky colours they usually subdue them. Clean air is, actually the main ingredient common to brightly coloured sunrises and sunsets. Particles are good Rayleigh scatterers when they are very small compared to the wavelength of pollution droplets such as those found in urban smog or summertime haze which are on the order of .5 to 1 um in diameter. Particles this large are not good Rayleigh scatterers as they are comparable in size to the wavelength of visible light. If the particles are of uniform size, they might impart a reddish or bluish cast to the sky. Because pollution aerosols normally exist in a wide range of sizes, however, the overall scattering they produce is not strongly wavelength-dependent. As a result, hazy daytime skies, instead of being bright blue, appear grayish or even white. Similarly, the vibrant oranges and reds of "clean" sunsets give way to pale yellows and pinks when dust and haze fill the air. Also, airborne pollutants do more than soften sky colours where they can enhance the attenuation of both direct and scattered light, especially when the sun is low in the sky. This reduces the total amount of light that reaches the ground, robbing sunrises and sunsets of brilliance and intensity. Thus, twilight colours at the surface on dusty or hazy days tend to be muted and subdued, even though purer oranges and reds persist in the cleaner air aloft.
The colours you perceive on the light's path before it got to you, how the object you are viewing reflects that light, and what your eyes are sensitive to. Absolutes don't really exist in colour perception however disquieting it may seem - it is often as much a matter of relative perspective as it is atmospheric chemistry. at sunset, the light takes a much longer path through the atmosphere to your eye than it did at noon, when the sun was right overhead. And that is enough to make a big difference as far as our human eyes are concerned. It means that much of the blue has scattered out long before the light reaches us. There are then a myriad of variables which can influence the resulting colour of a sunset irrespective of wherever you may be in the world.
The most beautiful sunsets that I can recall were as a child following the eruption of Mt.St Helens and later Pinatubo in 1992. Stratospheric particles are derived mainly from volcanic eruptions and exist as thin veils of dust or sulphuric acid droplets at altitudes of 12 to 18 miles. These aerosols usually are invisible during the day because they are obscured by the scattered sunlight (blue sky) of the troposphere. About 15 minutes after sunset, however, with the troposhere in shadow and the stratosphere still illuminated by sunlight passing through the lower atmosphere to the west, these high-level clouds come into view. Since their colours achieve greatest intensity after the sun has set at the surface, volcanic twilights have become known as "afterglows.". Turner's vivid sunsets were captured after the eruption of Tambora in 1815.
It is precisely this effect that Straospheric Aerosol Injection aims to simulate.
"Why do planes make checker board patterns with the trails? And please don't tell me because of air traffic control."
I genuinely don't understand the incredulity over this. Aircraft fly in different directions and altitudes to a multitude of destinations using a variety of designated airways and corridors. If conditions are widely conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, they will remain in the sky and often be blown in a lateral direction by high altitude winds leaving a gird formation. This NATS video illustrates the complex and crowded controlled airspace above the British Isles.
https://www.nats.aero/news/take-guided-tour-around-uk-airspace/
Thanks again for your post.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Bumps in the Night. Thanks for your civil response.
"John Yossarian One normal contrail is not going to spread out and cover the whole sky. "
Indeed not, but together they can. There is a large amount of current research into the spread of cirrus aviaticus and the extent of radiative forcing in association with this.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1068
"My guess is that they are creating extra water vapor to manipulate weather patterns."
???? Creating extra water vapour? You are aware that there is threshold - Water vapour varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapour molecules. This is because temperature sets a limit to how much water vapour can be in the air. Even in tropical air, once the volume of water vapour in the atmosphere approaches 4% it will begin to condense out of the air. The condensing of water vapour prevents the percentage of water vapour in the air from increasing. If temperatures were much warmer, there would be a potential to have more than 4% water vapour in the atmosphere. Temperature and to a lesser extent pressure determines the maximum amount of water vapour that can exist in the air. The higher the temperature, the greater the potential percentages of water vapour in the air. I'm assuming then that you are referring to areas of the planet in which the moisture content is below 4%. Short of the mysterious "they" having a series of giant hidden humidifiers concealed from the public eye, what do you believe would be the mechanism for this given the factors mentioned?
When you see a persistent contrail in the sky it's because the surrounding air is saturated with respect to ice. The jet engine precipitates the trail it can then grow due to the ice budget in the air around it. The water that it needs to do this is already in the atmosphere - something that chemtrail conspiracy theorists seem utterly incapable of comprehending with this "a contrail can only last for minutes" nonsense.
"Do you think the government/military or any other organization has ever used a plane to disperse chemicals above a city ?"
I categorically know that they have - and I can tell you precisely when and why. I can also tell you two things. Firstly it wasn't from the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere from which altitudes it would have been utterly ineffectual and therefore pointless and secondly, it would have looked nothing like a contrail - an opaque white plume in the wake of a commercial aircraft.
I can also tell you that Operation Northwoods was real - but it doesn't mean that I think that every terrorist atrocity since is a false flag.
Thanks again for your courteous reply, if you would excuse me, one more to do...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NickRobinsonICA
You only have to post the one reply. Why are you people incapable of consolidating your responses?
Firstly, none of your patents relate to "controlling the weather" which as explained is technically impossible. I've seen them all before, over and over and over and over and over again. Most of them are either irrelevant. You have for example, for some inexplicable reason included patents for exhaust atomisers, smoke generators crop spraying, and cloud seeding, (which as explained does not "control the weather", it aims to influence it on a local/micro scale). Moreover, none of these are 'government documents', they are patents, which anyone can register irrespective of how outlandish, obscure or ridiculous they are. A patent is not proof of the existence of something, precisely the reason that you can find them for teleportation or mind reading devices. Also, many of these are abandoned or unadopted, for this reason. The last one, in particular, which is utterly absurd, is an example of this sort of nonsense.
Secondly, Joe Biden has not recently announced that "the USA government is about to use geoengineering (weather modification) to 'fight climate change" whilst geoengineering is not "weather modification". It falls into two categories, GGR, which is already underway through such strategies as direct air capture, carbon sequestering, aforestation and biochar. The second is SRM, (which you appear to be referring to) which with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening is entirely hypothetical. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which idiotic conspiracy theorists and believers term 'chemtrails' has not even graduated beyond research paper and computer modelling. It will never become a reality, not simply due to the environmental unknowns, the logistical challenges and the opposition, but the sheer impossibility of international governance because it would need to be globally deployed.
Even if it was, neither, "barium aluminium of strontium" would be used, that is simply another tiresome trope mindlessly parroted by conspiracy believers. It is likely that sulphates would be released given that the aim is to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and those formed heterogeneously in the Junge layer. This means that it wouldn't even leave a trail, look remotely like an aircraft contrail and would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails that you gullibly term as 'chemtrails'.
Stop allowing dumb online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think about subjects that you are demonstrably ignorant about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamiethibodeau1
"you don’t sound very smart"
As I said, the irony was it intentional?
"so I’m not sure if you have access to peer reviewed literature- or maybe you would have just researched it yourself in the time it took you to articulate this weak response."
My background is atmospheric science and I work in research capability. I simply asked you to present it, that's all. Oh, hang on...
"You could start with electromagnetic scattering"
What? Do you mean Stimulated Brillouin Scatter (SBS)? What about it?
"and artificial plasma clouds when doing a university library search to get edu websites to substantiate the information. Or you could refer to an article on science daily for a more commercial source that refers to HAARP, DARPA"
I understand what HAARP was built for, what it was designed to do and what it is capable of. It's my background. Clearly you do not.
"as well as PhD physicist from U.S. naval academy reporting the same factual information. It’s called Scientists Produce Densest Artificial Ionospheric Plasma Clouds Using HAARP. It’s from 2013, shouldn’t be hard to find. "
You mean the potential for HF radar and communications signals to be relayed by the creation of plasma clouds in the ionosphere? I know "it isn't hard to find" because as I said, HAARP has never been classified. Perhaps you should actually try reading it. Incidentally, HAARP was sold by the military to the University of Alaska the same year and was subsequently unused for three years due to refurbishment. What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails, and your claim that "barium and aluminium" is being sprayed by aircraft?
"So again, this may be more complicated than you can comprehend but there are many scholars doing research, rather than being cynical and doing that arm chair crap that you’re doing."
Said the chemtrail believer.
"Not everyone “googled” their facts, and some people know more than you do"
Again...said the chemtrail believer. Many people know more than I do...that's the beauty of being in science. You are not evidently one of them.
"You just sound like a moron, and i normally would not even reply to a douchebag like you who talks down to me."
I have simply asked you to evidence your claims. That's all - and don't you people despise that.
"I don’t need to substantiate evidence when I’ve already done that in school for a degree."
I should ask for your money back, although the University of You Tube...that's free isn't it? And yes, as the one making the claim, the burden of truth is incumbent upon you.
"But you could look into that if you wanted to be more informed, or you could keep doing this cool Chad thing you’re doing. It’s super cool of you."
I'll ask you again, what does an HF pump and the paper that you referred me to which concerns ionospheric plasma generation to evaluate its effect upon communications and space weather have to do with aircraft contrails? Wait, you don't understand the term "space weather" do you.
When conspiracy believers attempt to do science 🤦♂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willyjankins
"Google aerosol aluminum barium patent pdf"
And it returns a method and a device for extracting barium and barium salt from ore.
Do you not understand confirmation bias and cherry picking? Chemtrail conspiracy believers parrot the same nonsense over again from tenuous links and association fallacy. I've seen all of these patents before and understand what they were intended for. Moreover, a patent is not proof of the existence of something, rather, the registration of an idea or process, irrespective how outlandish that may be.
"there are several open government documents about "chem-trails"
No, there are none. There are however as mentioned previously, government impact statements and appraisals of a wide range of geoengineering strategies, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that you are observing.
"its just not called that. Thats a buzz word for conspiracy theorists to look foolish on youtube."
To clarify - the word chemtrails originated with a junk conspiracy theory which misidentifies persistent aircraft contrails which is what this video is about. Over the last decade, the perpetrators of this hoax have introduced a range of false equivalence such as cloud seeding, defoliants/pesticides, geoengineering in the form of solar radiation management and sounding rockets in an attempt to legitimise their ludicrous claims.
Suggestion - why don't you provide a link to one of these patents and an "open government document". I can then explain to you what they actually pertain to. I guarantee that the latter relates to a review of largely hypothetical geoengineering strategies.
What's your point?
1
-
@willyjankins
"My point is I have printed out several military and congressional documents about "warming the climate"
Really? Never seen anything relating to that. So you'll have no trouble producing it then?
"I understand that most people are too lazy to find things, and most are too ignorant to understand even when you do the work for them."
Whoa, whoa there. Hold on. Why is it that you people are utterly incapable of comprehending that the burden of proof is incumbent upon those that are making the claim...the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to search for an absent or negative based upon your insistence, your personal incredulity, your confusion or at your behest.
No use simply saying it - you need to back up your claims.
"I waste time arguing with pleebs about documents because I like sharing information. I could send you several links, you'd spout off a few more buzz words you learned from YouTube or Instagram"
Why the personal abuse? I am simply asking you to substantiate your claims that's all. I am irrelevant. Anything that I respond to in relation to your posts is independently verifiable. A few buzz words learned from You Tube or instagram? - said the online conspiracy believer.
As requested - do feel free to "share" these "links". Not interested in junk conspiracy videos, false equivalence, cherry picked confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites. Original sources please.
"My "point" was that Rogan hosts Propaganda. At best he's irresponsible for not researching it himself before speaking to millions of idiots about it."
Because online conspiracy theory is of course entirely accurate, honest, reliable, not in the slightest bit manipulative or exploitative, is entirely free of bias and agenda and has your best interest at heart?
And in my original response to you I asked you to cite precisely what is non factual about this video. You have yet to do that.
1
-
1
-
@willyjankins
Four replies. Why are you people incapable of at least consolidating your random and erratic emotional responses into one comment?
"no sir, im using a mobile device, no lock keys here."
Then why the sporadic need for capilisation?
"Are you a 55 year old troll, or did you read one of the 390 pages in that link I posted?"
Firstly, why are online conspiracy believers almost invariably in addition to failing to understand burden of proof, incapable of comprehending the meaning of trolling? I am in complete agreement with this video. As the one posting unsubstantiated nonsense, ad hominen logical fallacy and ill informed opinion, by definition, the troll would be none other than yourself. As I explained, I - along with my age, is irrelevant. You need to address the subject as opposed to the individual. Regarding your "link", there is no such post visible. Unfortunately the YT spam filter can block posts containing links - and before you revert to your conspiratorial default position, this also happens to me regularly.
I absolutely guarantee that I have seen and read what you are referring to and that it pertains to impact assessments of geoengineering strategies. What's your point?
"Seems you already know everything so why are you so aggressively defeating your own arguments?"
There is nothing self-defeatist about requesting corroboration of your claims.
"You troll MY post about a nerd spreading untrue facts (lies)"
Sigh - As I have explained, responding over a comments section and requesting substantiation is not trolling. On the contrary, your posts are precisely that. I'll ask you again for the third time, what "untrue facts" (double negative there - well done), are being "spread" here? No use simply saying it.
"The nerd as well as Rogan both act like YouTube is what's wrong with the average conspiracy theorist."
It's certainly a major source of your personal incredulity and the nonsense that you parrot.
"And I agree. So I typed a post. Go take your hypertension pills and read the document"
My blood pressure is below average, but again, I am irrelevant to this exchange. Furnish me with this "document" and I'd be more than willing to read it, but as I said, I guarantee I have done before. I'd be happy to explain it to you to dispel your confusion and personal incredulity though.
"I bet you voted for biden"
Bet again - I live in London. You're doing well here so far.
"I bet you wear blue blockers in the house"
You're getting increasingly desperate here - At no stage have I mentioned political affiliation, or your system, which is irrelevant - as am I. Please try to stay on topic. There's a good lad.
So to return to my questions. You referred to "several military and congressional documents about warming the climate" I asked you to present these. I also queried what was non factual about this video. In spite of claiming it again, actually specifying what you are referring to appears to have slipped your mind. Try again - in your own time.
1
-
1
-
@willyjankins
"Holy Shit Sir. Im done. I sent a "link"
This link you claim to have posted. You either didn't or it isn't visible. Most likely, looks like the spam filter claimed it. Happens quite a lot. Put it in but avoid a hyperlink - or tell me where to find it. If you log off, and return to this thread, you'll likely find that it is not showing. Happens all the time. I absolutely guarantee what it will refer to. Allow me to remind you of what you said:
"I have printed out several military and congressional documents about "warming the climate" intentionally."
And this -
"there are several open government documents about "chem-trails"
Like I said, I guarantee what false equivalence you are referring to. Produce them then - off you go.
"I can't stay engaged in this circular debate with such a long-winded simpleton."
The irony - was it intentional?
Debate? You are incapable of responding or remaining on point, you admit that you resorted to trolling, and you now are reduced to ad hominem logical fallacy.
"If you spend half the energy researching that you've wasted typing and quoting fragments of my YouTube comments, you'd be an expert on the subject."
Given that "researching" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Like I said - atmospheric science is my background. We can discuss it if you like?
"You are very foolish to keep this up, im literally not reading your responses anymore."
Yeah, you claimed that last time, then went on to read my reply. You're not the sharpest tool in the box are you.
You find that "literally" involves "reading" and the written word.
These government "open documents" relating to "chemtrails" and "warming the atmosphere"...when you're ready.
1
-
1
-
@aliced7505
So as I thought , you can't - no surprise there.
"Do your own research""
And there is again, the default conspiratorial cliché and cowardly refuge of those that are unable to comprehend burden of proof.
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"and be honest about it."
Because of course the crap online conspiracy theory that you worship at the altar of is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic, monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
1
-
@jankopandza1072
"how do i know ? i am meteorologist !"
Of course you are. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing?
So you reply with a block of staggering arrant stupidity centred solely around the appeal to your own authority and ad hominem rebuke. Seriously, this has to be the most hilarious claim that I have read from a gullible believer in this dumb online conspiracy theory. A chemtrail believer attempting to pass themselves off as a meteorologist is a bit like a flat Earther claiming to be a geophysicist, a pilot, a surveyor, and astronomer or a civil engineer.
As we both know full well, you are not a meteorologist, rather, a very dim insignificant nobody with an internet connection that you don't know how to use properly that has allowed themselves to be duped by a ludicrous online hoax that has managed to reduce a cloud to a conspiracy theory.
"Do you even know conditions of condensation ?"
Yes, would you like to discuss it in more detail? How about, instead of your pathetic online posturing and attempts at abuse you actually concentrate on the subject concerned and attempt to refute anything that I have written. Start with "conditions of condensation" and naturally, being a "meteorologist" you will be able to substantiate and support any of your claims and contentions with objective meteorological science at source as opposed to what some crap online conspiracy theory told you to think.
Go ahead then. I'm waiting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you actually read this?
Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. As I said, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - yeah, that's right, chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ctaukus9146
“are you a paid troll?”
As the one posting abuse and uniformed drivel on this page, by definition, the troll would be none other than yourself. I am merely challenging your claims which I am perfectly at liberty to do so.
“Very quick to jump on my reply however let's turn the tables a little bit and you show me your evidence that it's not happening because it's fairly obvious.”
The burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim the onus does not lie upon another party to prove a negative or an absent.
“By the way shouldn't a persistent contrail actually persist? Around me they stop and start and stop and start whatever the GPS turns it on and off.”
What?
The atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogeneous in respect of temperature, humidity and pressure, (the chief factors governing the formation of a contrail) – moreover it is constantly in flux. All three can change within a matter of mere metres. Are you similarly perplexed about variations in cloud cover? Fly an aircraft at speeds up to 500knots through such conditions and of course a contrail will appear sporadic and seem to instantaneously turn on and off. You need to pay closer attention. Observe a recently deposited persistent contrail and you will often witness segments of it proportionately fade and vanish – confirmation of rising and subsiding parcels of warmer and drier air. The same effect can be observed with an aerodynamic contrail.
…Oh look, Discovery spraying.
https://youtu.be/Xtfnl_KOuCM?t=174
“You can't suspend the laws of chemistry and physics at will it he there is a persistent contrail or it is not.”
You are absolutely correct that a contrail can be a binary event – however the length and duration is entirely governed by the ambient atmospheric conditions (in addition to velocity and thrust) – they may be short lived, persistent, spreading or not occur at all. In conditions of high RHi, a contrail will persist because it is unable to rapidly sublimate back into its invisible gaseous phase – (water vapour). In cases of supersaturation in respect to ice, a contrail will not only endure but will expand and grow often merging into a single sheet often becoming indistinguishable from naturally occurring cirrus.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
In respect of “laws of chemistry and physics” – would you like to discuss them in more detail in relation to your supposed chemtrails?
“But you know you're full of shit anyway, and so does approximately 30% of the population that live in the NATO Nations that are participating and a global aerosol program.”
And you have established this how?
1
-
1
-
@ctaukus9146
"You must be a newbie On the boards"
It's the comments section of an entertainment platform. How old are you?
"because you’re technique is pretty lame."
So is your grammar (note the use of the possessive pronoun).
Why would that be? - being able to back up my comments and requesting similar substantiation from you?
You questioned how a trail can appear to turn on and off, I presented footage of the Space Shuttle Discovery producing the same effect with an aerodynamic contrail and explained how. You are perplexed and confused about the differing duration and lengths of contrails and that they expand and spread out. I provided you with the science which you reject.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Pay particular attention to Section IV in which the number densities (n) and volume mixing ratios (x) are linked by the ideal gas law to compute the air density M (at the pressure p = 250 hPa) and calculate x = n/M where iw denotes the flux (per unit time) of H2O molecules from the gas phase toward the small ice particles as defined by taking into account the transition between the free molecular and diffusion-limited regimes. As I explained, this flux is driven by the relative humidity in the contrail in respect to ice, given as RHI = 100% × nw/nsat, where nsat is the H2O equilibrium number density over ice. Again, do feel free to refute and demonstrate the error in the applied mathematics that express these mixing ratios and ultimately the contrail factor.
If you are unable to follow the above, then how are you qualified to pass any comments upon what you are observing. If that is the case, I suggest that you commence by reading up on dew points, relative humidity, lapse rates and the Appleman equations.
"How do you know there is an aerosol spray going on? How are you so sure?"
For the third time - you are the one making the claim therefore the responsibility lies with you back that assertion up with evidence. The onus does not fall upon another to prove a negative or an absent. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the concept of Russell's Teapot. In the meantime, this is for you, because you've assuredly earned it - and pray that you never end up in court as the prosecution...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
"Who the fuck are you that you would know if there’s a secret program going on or not."
If it's so secretive - then how do you know about it? Of course - you read it on the internet.
"The answer is you’re bullshit, And you don’t know a thing and less you’re on the inside."
I do know how to conjugate a sentence - which is always a bonus.
Well not entirely. As I explained, my background is atmospheric science and remote sensing. Here's the thing. Given the two decades that this alleged spraying has supposedly been in progress and the fact that you maintain that the sky is supposedly full of these chemical trails; appreciating that there are hundreds of studies into the micro-physical properties of contrails and in view of the sophistication and availability of remote sensing and atmospheric monitoring technology worldwide, there should similarly be a multitude of data gathered in respect of your "chemtrails".Just one in-situ spectrographic analytical study at source will suffice. Oddly, none of you seem to be able to produce this data when requested.
And it doesn't necessarily have to be derived from an aircraft mounted optical array spectrometer. As I mentioned, my specialist field was ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) - handy for me and unfortunate for you. In view of this, I would specifically be most interested in the results from airborne differential absorption LIDAR measurements during a defined IOP, PBL illustrating the dynamics and vertical separation of these aerosol layers of your supposed chemical trails. We can commence with COD data. CGS yielding TWST results - the advantage being that such precisely calibrated instrumentation can examine a narrow segment (0.5 degrees) of the sky directly overhead in great detail, recording the spectral radiance of your alleged chemical trails in the visible wavelength regime at 2-8 nm spectral resolution. It is also a routine undertaking extracted a distinct signature of these chemical trails regarding the extent of thermo-atmospheric scattering which can be derived from mono-static SODAR data and optical thickness equations and in association with the Ångström exponent derivation.
Could you refer me to the hard data? Oh wait...
"But I know what I see"
Of course you do...
https://youtu.be/IPcPuehb0OI
To return to my initial question again then. What is your method/criteria to allow differentiation between persistent spreading contrails and you supposed "chemtrails"?
"and I know the dozens of commercial airline pilots interviewed who can’t explain this phenomenon."
Name them, together with the airlines flown for, flying hours and current position - there should be thousands to choose from - just one will do.
"And why is it that every morning the sky is blue in our area and after three or four hours of planes going overhead it’s a complete white out."
Provide your location together with a date of your choosing and I'll furnish you with the meteorological data.
"Because it’s a normal phenomenon you say? Bullshit. You’re fucking bullshit and so are any of the other trolls That come on here and send us links to more bullshit."
Yeah, two things to understand here. firstly if you insist upon branding something as "bullshit" - you need to state why. Secondly, as I have painstakingly explained, as the one hurling abuse, making irrational statements and attacking this video then the troll would be none other than yourself. I am simply challenging and asking you to qualify your claims.
"Unfortunately any links to actual evidence has been taken down by all of the government controlled websites so that’s why you know it’s true because all of the evidence has conveniently disappeared."
How convenient. What "evidence" would that be? Perhaps you missed the endless pages of search engine results manipulated to return this nonsense? the confirmation bias, the thousands of baseless conspiracy videos on this platform alone, all those hoax pseudoscientific websites? - which is precisely the reason that you subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BornAgain222
"You believe in the corona "science" too probably...?"
If you are referring to the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology then that is my frame of reference, however known science is not a question of 'belief'.
"I know what contrails looked like before chemicals began being added."
Really - and what was that then?
"And their are several documents explaining in great detail that they are indeed attempting to cool the planet with chemtrails."
Produce them - just one will do. Incidentally, I think you meant to type the adverb, there as opposed to the determiner, their.
You appear to be relying on the false equivalence of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is a hypothetical concept positing that the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols can be replicated to arrest rising global temperatures. This is entirely in the province of research proposal and mathematical modelling and has not even remotely reached the stages of small scale trails. The SCoPEx project which was to involve a steerable balloon launched 22km into the stratosphere to release mere kilos of water in order to evaluate perturbation was abandoned. Moreover, SAI would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and believers term chemtrails.
"Did you do any research?"
Indeed, it's my job, whilst my background is climatology and specialist field ground based remote sensing. Would you like to discuss it? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Brennan said nothing of the sort.
Here's ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered reading this or was it the ridiculous strapline of some conspiracy video that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway or planned, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI is a hypothetical concept that hasn't even graduated beyond paper based proposal, computer modelling or reached the stages of small scale trial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1nation919
"your a sheep"
Oh Jesus wept...is that really it? Doesn't it get embarrassing for you and don't you see the irony in mindlessly regurgitating the same banal conspiratorial clichés? And in common with practically every conspiracy theorist in existence, you fail to differentiate between 'you' and 'you're'. I guess that's the consequence of an internet connection substituting for an education. The chemistry of the atmosphere may well be slightly premature.
"Let me guess u don’t believe in global warming either?"
As I explained, climate science is my background and science is not about 'belief'. That would be online conspiracy theory.
"Why do these “trails” seem to appear on only certain day’s? If it was a flight path well traveled it would be an everyday thing."
Did you not even bother opening the links that I sent you?
A contrail is merely a form of artificially induced cirrus. The main governing factors are temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all of the air is very dry. Are you equally as perplexed by variation in cloud cover? By your logic a cloud should be a permanent fixture continually present in the same location in three dimensional space. The atmosphere is studied as a fluid and is continually motion. Moreover it is non-isotropic and not homogenous in terms of temperature, humidity and pressure. You obviously haven't been looking hard enough. You can frequently see evidence of this in recently deposited lasting contrails. Very often sections will seemingly arbitrarily fade vanish and even reappear. As if you really needed a final nail in your chemtrail nonsense. This is due to the motion of the atmosphere rising and subsiding pockets and columns of warmer/drier air. Have you ever actually flown? Think about turbulence in an aircraft.
In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise however - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
The links that I provided you with explain the science behind all this.
"As smart as you think you are you are still an idiot when it comes to common sense"
Why the pointless personal attacks? Why do you people react with such indignation when your emotional investment and anecdotal incredulity are challenged? Because face it, that's all conspiracy theory is. Common sense? Read back your last reply to me why don't you.
I am irrelevant - as is your subjective notion of 'common sense, You are choosing to contend known physics of the atmosphere in defence of a puerile conspiracy theory that has managed to convince you that a cloud is a conspiracy theory. Tell me, do you spout this nonsense outside of your echo-chamber in the real world?
"look up in the sky sometime and open your eyes and mind!!!!!"
Thanks for that. I have alpine climbed since a child - leading and guiding on four continents, obtained post graduate qualifications in applied Climatology and Meteorology, my subsequent field was Ground Based Passive Remote Sensing - specifically in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) - I also taught GIS and currently work in Research Capability. To reiterate, I am irrelevant to you...as much as you desperately try to personalise this, your contention lies with the physical laws of the atmosphere not me.
Like I said, what have you got to tell me? Perhaps we could start with your data? There are after all hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails - I sent you two. In over two decades of this alleged spraying there must be a multitude of analyses to choose from into your supposed 'chemtrails' at source....'surely your 'common sense' tells you that?
Just one will do. Go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Wait a minute. Cloud seeding is an actual thing not a conspiracy"
No one is suggesting that it is. What's your point? It has nothing to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and their believers term chemtrails.
"Also all of these bureaucracies have admitted to dispersing aerosols into the air at one time or another. Its know as geoengineering and is a very real thing."
Have they? Could you provide an original link at source to one of these supposed "admissions"?
Several things here. Firstly, geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) carbon sequestering, biochar, aforestation and ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. Other than ground based albedo modification, this is entirely hypothetical. Sounds as though you are referring to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which has not progressed beyond research proposal and computer modelling. Moreover, it has never at any stage been secretive. The proponents of this research are keen to publicise it to generate support and funding. How precisely do you admit to something that isn't denied?
What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails?
"Also aluminum is an aerosol released by NASA. Link below
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sounding-rockets/tracers/metals.html"
Sounding rockets...again? Really? Again, this has never been concealed from public knowledge and have been launched since the 1950s, These are not "sprayed", they are launched into the ionosphere and contain trivial amounts of material. Strikes me, your 'chemtrails' are whatever you want them to be.
Consider for example fireworks. They produce smoke and dust that may contain residues of heavy metals, sulphur-coal compounds and some low concentration toxic chemicals. These by-products of fireworks combustion will vary depending on the mix of ingredients of a particular firework. (The colour green, for instance, may be produced by adding the various compounds and salts of barium, some of which are toxic, and some of which are not.) Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryillium, strontium and radium. Literally chemtrails!!! - and there are an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of fireworks detonated every year! It would be like me saying "fireworks have been admitted to".
Incidentally. that's 460,000,0000lbs detonated on or near ground level in comparison to the 20 sounding research rockets launched by NASA annually used at altitudes between 50-248 miles and which contain about 1lb each of vapour tracer material - so 20lbs in total each year.
What's you point?
1
-
@mikec4196
"My point was that manipulating geomagnetic frequencies to disrupt weather patterns is not only equally as destructive, but boarders on a doctor evil level, and were also without a doubt developed by weapons engineers. Coupled with the FACT that these exact chemicals in question, are know to be intentionally emitted, gives some credence to an argument."
That wasn't your point at all. You were talking about cloud seeding, a supposed admission that doesn't exist and sounding rockets which as I have explained have been launched into the ionosphere since the 1950s and contain around a kilo of tracer material.
What you are now alleging is absolute conspiratorial nonsense and junk internet pseudoscience. Typing "fact" in caps lock doesn't make it real.
"Maybe you have some specials clearances that i do not making such definite claims. However we know the internet was created in 1969, again by weapons engineers."
What's your point? Oh hang on....
"My point being that if you are suggesting you know the extent of these programs and can site fact, then you are sorely mistaken. Research is never just research with DARPA."
What does any of this have to do with cloud seeding, sounding research rockets and misidentified aircraft contrails?
"Its stupid I actually have to give you these examples."
What's "stupid" is that the first is summary of the effects of exposure to a pesticide, the second pertains to a defoliant used to reduce vegetation and therefore cover for the Vietcong in the Vietnam War and the third is a list of experimentation on the public compiled by Wikipedia.
Simply because governments have and do deceive or act without the knowledge or consent of the people, that does not automatically add legitimacy to any random conspiracy theory off the internet of ones arbitrary choice, agenda or devising. Surely, surely you are capable of comprehending that?
Again, what does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails that you are witnessing and been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years?
"Oh yeah lets not forget COVID"
What about it?
"Also thanks for the fireworks explanation, I am complete now."
Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryillium, strontium and radium. Literally chemtrails!!! - 460,000,0000lbs detonated on or near ground level in comparison to the 20 sounding research rockets launched by NASA annually used at altitudes between 50-248 miles and which contain about 1lb each of vapour tracer material - so 20lbs in total each year. Glad you actually understand that now.
"Point is, Lets not be sheep."
Bleated the online conspiracy believer.
1
-
@mikec4196
"The point I made was exactly what I intended. Thanks for telling me what I meant though, that's as much fun as a nagging wife. Joe's initial claim was that aluminum cant be an aerosol. That is factually untrue."
Could you provide the time in the video in which he claims this? thanks.
"I never claimed to believe that contrails were dangerous. I said cloud seeding and geoengineering coupled with the known toxins purposefully released in the air, gives credence to an argument. How is that pushing a conspiracy?"
Gives credence to what argument precisely? This video is about the chemtrail conspiracy theory.
"What is truly stupid, is that you are suggesting malathion and agent orange were some benign pesticides that didn't kill and mutate thousands. You might want to educate yourself a little further."
Nice strawman there. At no stage have I said anything of the sort. What I am asking and will repeat again is what does any of this have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
"Every world government has released viruses, gasses, bacteria, and radioactive elements on its own people.
None of that is conspiracy theory. Is this something your capable of understanding?"
That is incorrect. However some have either carried out atrocities using chemical weaponry such as the Assad regime, or Saddam Hussein - other, covert experimentations for a range of reasons. I did not at any stage refute this, rather asked again, what does this have to do with this video or the chemtrail conspiracy video? I also asked you whether you are capable of comprehending the fact that throughout history, although governments have experimented and deceived the people, it does not then naturally follow that chemtrails or any random online conspiracy theory of your arbitrary choice or devising is legitimate. Not hard to understand.
"If you care to look you will find hundreds of examples where harmful agents were purposefully released. There is a long history of bio weapons being used on civilian populations. I never claimed this was a reason to believe all conspiracy. You made that assertion."
To reiterate, this video is about the chemtrails conspiracy theory. So why are you posting all this, which is already known and acknowledged? Again, what does all of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails? That is all I have been repeatedly asking you.
"What does COVID have to do with it?
Are you fucking serious? You asked for examples of man made harmful agents being released in the air genius."
SARS-CoV-19 is a naturally occurring zoonotic disease - it is not man made. There are hundreds of coronaviruses present in the animal kingdom that could make he leap to another vector.
"And don't call me Surely."
Original then. I'd stick to your 1980s Zucker horseshit - although even the airplane in airplane made contrails
"Said an adult with a stupid nickname lolol"
Said an 'adult' that types "lolol".
Yassassin is Turkish for "long live". That's all. Clear now?
1
-
@mikec4196
"Well well, I was about to round the kids up, head out and start a search party to look for your sense of humor."
No need - I find you and your chemtrails nonsense hilarious.
"Rite at 13:00 min he goes into it. Granted he is tired and has been beaten down by every wack job conspiracy in the bag."
Cheers for that. I've taken a look. At no stage does he say that aluminium can't be an aerosol. Rather he's implicitly suggesting that if it was, it wouldn't look like a cloud - which is correct.
"Sweetheart, if you don't know that COVID came from the Wuhan lab of virology, then I'm not sure what more of a rational conversation we can have about that subject."
No one does. The accidental release hypothesis from the Wuhan Institute of Virology has not been proven. SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans. However, a lab leak has not been ruled out. Even if that were the case however, that does not mean that it was "a man made harmful agent released into the air" - and to reiterate once again, this would have nothing to do with the aircraft contrails discussed in this video that chemtrail conspiracy theorists refer to as "chemtrails". Why do you insist on constantly changing the subject. If you want an example of man made harmful agents released into the air, then I'll refer you back to fireworks. Strikes me, that chemtrails are whatever you want them to be.
"The matter is, that it has happened, and just because you have the specs from FAA regulated jet fuels, doesn't mean you know for sure it isn't happening."
What has happened? What is happening?
"You are 100% correct, not every nation has done it. Unfortunately the lineage is long, dark, and not so far in the past."
So in another spectacular tangential non-sequitur you're back to something totally unrelated to trails behind high flying aircraft? To clarify again - this video is about the ludicrous belief that aircraft contrails are evidence of a planned programme of chemical spraying.
"For the record: You actually called me Surely. Your sentence was constructed funny."
Mate - trust me, you are in no position to comment upon written English anymore than you are atmospheric science. I suggest that you read back your own posts.
"Leslie Neilson was a champion, no?"
Well police squad and naked gun was mildly funny if telegraphed American humour is your bag.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Are you saying the "vapor" in the e cigs do not contain metals and nickel because the people are blowing water."
Water vapour is an invisible gas. It is present in any combustion process of a hydrocarbon fuel. The exhaust that produces this will also contain by products. All combustion engines produce trace metallic elements in the exhaust. These are present in the fuel and exhaust in trace quantities and also to a much lesser extent are the product of wear and tear. The total emission of metals will be less than 0.3 percent of total fuel particulate matter mass. All the elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in road going diesel and petroleum. Not sure of your point here.
"B. Gates was on this initiative to replecate volcanic plume cover, but not with water!! Smh."
Bill Gates has leant vocal support and some funding to Harvard's geoengineering research initiative - other than that, he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The main branch of this is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is an entirely hypothetical concept aiming to replicate (note the spelling) the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. This is purely in the province of research paper and mathematical modelling, however a small scale trial was planned in 2019 which never took place. The SCoPEx project intends to launch a balloon 20km into the stratosphere to evaluate dispersion and perturbation using...you guessed it, several kilos of water. Based upon this data similarly negligible quantities of calcium carbonate would be harmlessly released. Here's your SAI as it currently stands....
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... again, may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Just because people are aware of what power can do DOESNT mean they are scared, or afraid."
To clarify - you've managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
"Its sick when people make the others who dont believe the same out to be crazy or trippen (rabbit hole), or not credible. WHEN did You get Bent this way?"
Known science is not a question of belief.
"I'm shocked you let this guy slander jim lee. His website climate weather dot com is very well made and has so many intractive maps, "real maps" that ur "square" viewers would jealously scoff at, yet most ain't never even crossed any oceans."
Jim Lee???? Are you actually being serious? I suppose that explains much. No, as one of the main perpetrators of this hoax his website contains false equivalence, association fallacy and misrepresentation to bamboozle and dupe the scientifically illiterate.
"Check your yourself Joe Rogan, debunking doesn't mean go extremely over to another conspiracy. $HIP TRaCKS? Bunker fuel? Its OLD news, operation popeye, the men who injured my dad in operation brown water didnt know what they were doing"
Cloud seeding wasn't secretive. Again, what are you talking about? The brown water strategy was an attempt to blast the Vietcong out of the Mekong delta using gunboats.
"So of coarse someone could release on thier own heads or families unbeknownst to them for years...duh"
In the guise of aircraft contrails that have been observed for the best part of a century. And what would be the purpose of that?
"LOOK at what cloud seeding is? Get a grip, Silver Iodine is what primes the clouds to create rainfall..."
I think you mean silver iodide. Again, what's your point? It's typically deployed in very small quantities from flare racks retrofitted to light aircraft. The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant by peer-reviewed research. Also, it's not at all widespread despite high profile state sponsored schemes in China and the UAE.
"This video makes me cringe, and regret all the others I have watched. So so sad, but glad I heard what you people are capable of $hit slinging and singing and they are influenced."
Because of course online conspiracy theory is entirely trustworthy and accurate, not in the slightest bit deceitful, deceptive, opportunist, exploitative or manipulative, completely free of agenda or profit motivation and has your best interests at heart? Ok then.
1
-
@starlaseattle7948
"retro fitted..."
Yes - rack mounted flares, usually installed on the wings.
"small doses...to do what, for what?"
As you suggested, to apply additional nucleation to existing clouds already conducive to precipitation in an attempt to induce rainfall, either prematurely or over a designated area. It has nothing to do with contrails which are non-rain bearing cirrus clouds formed at a much higher altitude, nor is it related to any aspect of geoengineering.
"Low doses eventually become enough of a dose for more damage"
As I said, cloud seeding is not widespread and the quantities of materials are so negligible such cumulative/incremental build up is impossible. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels.
"Thanks for responding anyway and bringing your info."
Genuinely, thank you so much for your constructive and civil response. Much appreciated.
"Do you have any info to share about the ionosphere, or frequencies, Is that a conspiracy that has a clear explanation?"
These conspiracy theories stem from a misunderstanding of the HAARP project - (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme). Its original designations was to explore the Luxembourg-Gorky effect to enhance long range communications. HAARP has been able to create Extremely Low Frequency waves as low as 1 Hertz, the hydroacoustic potential of this meant that the Navy could more effectively communicate with its fleet of submarines worldwide - though at an almost uselessly slow data rate. Since being sold off by the Military in 2012 and purchased by the University of Alaska is has been commissioned as an ionospheric research tool for atmospheric scientists and physicists from all over the world. There is nothing remotely sinister or secretive about the HAARP facility - it was never classified nor is access restricted. Aside from being hired out for research purposes, you can actually visit it through open days. and tours. Also, our weather takes place in the troposphere, not the ionosphere. HAARP can be trained on and agitate a very small area of this for research purposes, but it gives out well below 0.03 W/m2 yielding an energy density in the ionosphere that is less than 1/100 of the thermal energy density of the ionospheric plasma itself - which compared with the solar flux at the Earth's surface equates to about 1.5 kW/m2. What this means is that it is capable of producing only 75 times the power of a commercial radio station - a mere fraction of the strength of the natural solar radiation striking the same part of the ionosphere at which it was aimed.
During aurora generally no ionospheric effects can be observed because the radio wave power is completely absorbed by the naturally heated ionosphere.
Now consider and contrast the power and energy of a lightening bolt.
"No one is trying to control weather via radio waves?"
No, that is impossible, as is controlling the weather. All internet baloney and online conspiratorial pseudoscience. We can attempt to modify or influence it though, albeit on the micro local level but certainly not at the macro, synoptic or global scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SweetBrazyN
Oh Jesus wept - I even speculated that you couldn't have been stupid enough to fall for the Brennan videos and fuck me, that's precisely what you post???!!! How is this possible?
This is ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
Perhaps start with the part in which he "admits" that they are "using planes to release gasses that will ‘help golbal (sic) warming"
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Do you even understand what SAI is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kalebvera1841
Solar Radiation Management which with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical. The branch of this that you refer to, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing that have been witnessed, photographed, filmed, measured and studied for over 80 years and since the early advent of high altitude powered flight.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
@kalebvera1841
Incorrect - SAI is entirely hypothetical - and why would it involve aluminium, barium, cadmium or pathogens? Strikes me that it's whatever you want it to be. Saying it's been used for years? As I said, the contrails that you are misidentifying have been observed and studied for almost a century. You are caught in a circuitous logical fallacy based upon a deceptive false premise. You are told that SAI would look like contrails, so when you see contrails you think it is SAI and if anyone challenged you on this or says anything contrary to your parroted conspiratorial narrative, you respond with the usual ludicrous accusations. Let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous chemtrails conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Odd don't you think that the entire independent fields of atmospheric science, meteorology, environmental monitoring and aerospace engineering worldwide - y'know, the people that actually understand the physics of the atmosphere - remain completely oblivious to these supposed geoengineered 'chemtrails' yet a community of online key board warrior conspiracy theorists and self-appointed overnight 'experts' think that they know better because the internet told them so?
Defend what or who? I simply asked you to detail the "lies" that are contained in this video.
I notice that you avoided or are incapable of answering my question? So even if you think that SAI is in progress, in view of the fact that by design and deployment, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
Burning a hydrocarbon fuel? Of course it produces water, that is precisely the case. The combustion process looks like this:
CHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2OCHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2O.
In short, what this means is that because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of the combustion process are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. In this case, the aircraft exhaust was merely the trigger event where 99% of the ice is from atmospheric origin. Exactly the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
Think about it, how could the aircraft you are seeing possibly carry the required material to completely cover the sky above you - and what chemical is able to not only linger, but increase in mass, just like - well fancy that - condensed atmospheric water vapour?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeyanglada1275
"so explain why a " contrail" expand and last for hours. So tell me why they do cover the whole sky."
If I do, will you suspend your preconceptions and listen? Let's see. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. If the superheated exhaust of the airliner encounters frigid air at a high relative humidity and differing vapour pressure, then the water vapour will condense forming a cloud. In such conditions, the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (invisible water vapour). If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will not only remain, but expand and spread almost entirely composed of the available atmospheric water vapour - hence the growth. No different to cirrus clouds which they become indistinguishable from. Here's the science:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
"Have you ever seen the shape of those "contrails" something they even drawn words or x patterns?"
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace? Other than that, pareidolia is common amongst conspiracy believers - you see what you want to see. Regarding words, all I have seen is appropriated videos of skywriters.
"We're do you live 20 feet underground and never watch the sky."
I live in London, I have alpine climbed since the age of nine, worked as a mountain guide in four different continents (including your own) and my background in atmospheric science is over a quarter of a century. So, yeah, you could say I "watch the sky" given that my living and those in may care has depended on it.
"The heavy metal in your blood, I've seen case brought to court about that."
Link?
"There are so many retired pilots who have spoken out about the contrails. And chemtrails."
Name just one. I can guarantee what you might come back with - but in reality, there would be thousands to choose from.
"Like it or not MIKE MORALES is more relevant than you."
I am entirely irrelevant. This isn't about either me or some conceited conspiratorial conman on You Tube, rather, known atmospheric science which being governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms has a voice of its own. And yes, Mike Morales is completely irrelevant to the real world.
"Because I've seen those ships in the middle of the ocean releasin "clouds" in the ocean an then he do a predictions and boom nailed."
You mean emissions from funnels? "Boom nailed"?? I'm afraid science doesn't work like that. Present the causative data.
"And on top of what ever you say I've seen the effects of the " contails" over the weather.
So you can say what ever you say."
As I explained, I am irrelevant - known meteorological science speaks for itself. The atmospheric conditions that result in the formation of contrails are also the cause of the weather that you observe, not the other way around. Like cirrus clouds, contrails are often a precursor of unstable air and approaching weather front. It is this that forms the contrail, not vice versa.
"The elite knew tha led was toxic and they still using it on paint and many other product. Even knowing that many country banned the use of it but it's ok Round up is causing cancer and now one of Monsanto is in charge F.D.Aspartame was banned as a medical treatment but later they approve to use as a artificial sweetener."
What does any of this have to do with contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years?
Couple of things to pick up on though, the banning of lead in domestic products and petrol has been piecemeal worldwide, which is why 'The Global Alliance to Ban Lead Paint', a WHO-UN Environment Partnership involving countries and civil society, set a goal to ban lead paint in all countries by 2021.
Monsanto does not exist - it was purchased by Bayer in 2018. Although there is ample correlation, there is no causal link between roundup and the incidence of cancer.
Aspartame has never been banned nor used as a 'medical treatment' and is one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients. Reviews by over 100 governmental regulatory bodies found the ingredient safe for consumption at current levels. Personally, in spite of this, I choose to avoid artificial sweeteners. Again, what does any of this have to do with contrail cirrus?
1
-
@joeyanglada1275
You appear to have completely disregarded all of my replies to you. Not unexpected.
"So gravity does not exist?"
What?
"So do you tell me that commercial aircraft have different routes every day"
Aircraft route planning and designation is highly complex. There are a multitude of airways/air tracks that a flight may be directed through on any day and yes, these can vary at any stage of a designated route.
"spartame wasn't created by mistake trying to make a medicine? Jajaja you sound so stupid trying to deny something that is undeniable."
Firstly, it's 'aspartame'. Secondly aspartame is made up of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine. It was a serendipitous discovery by a chemist attempting to synthesise an anti ulcer drug. However, that is not what you said. To remind you, you claimed the following...
"spartame was banned as a medical treatment"
All of which is untrue.
"Sometimes for weeks we don't se planes on the sky"
Incorrect. The aircraft are still there, it's simply that the atmospheric conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Are you similarly perplexed by natural variations in cloud cover?
_"and if you search plane routes none of them match with a sky covered of "contrails" _
I've never found that. Appreciate that some of the contrails that you may be seeing are 150 miles away or more. Also, not all aircraft are ADS-B equipped. Your personal anecdotal incredulity does not substitute for evidence.
"The video of the retired pilots talking is all over the internet."
Must be true then. And actually, no it isn't all over the internet - it's all over the echo-chamber of chemtrail conspiracy believers. Like I said, I absolutely guarantee what you'll come back with because it's the same nonsense over and over and over and over again. Forget junk You Tube videos and online conspiracy theory, there should be thousands of these genuine testimonies out there in the real world and the aviation sector. As I invited you to do, present it - I promise you I've seen it before. I can then explain it to you.
Also, I've just noticed that you had posted this:
https://youtu.be/e1HgWZJAouQ
😆 😅 😂 🤣 This isn't a weatherman "acknowledging chemtrails" as the ludicrous title suggests, he's simply talking about 'chaff' which has been used by military aircraft as a radar countermeasure since WWII. It was deployed as part of an AF exercise. It is designed to distract radar-guided missiles from their targets. Most military aircraft and warships have chaff dispensing systems as a decoy.
Contemporary radar systems can differentiate chaff from target objects by measuring the Doppler shift. Once deployed, chaff quickly loses velocity relative to the aircraft and therefore betrays a signature change in frequency that allows it to be filtered out.
At what point does he mention "chemtrails"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Aluminum is not found in free form in the environment. For it not to be bound to another element it has to be mined, refined and dispersed."
Oh christ - this again? There are multiple pathways in which aluminium can find its way into soils. As the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element, aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
You are referring to aluminium production, the bayer process the principal industrial means of refining bauxite to produce aluminium from mined bauxite. Although Al is the most abundant metallic element in the Earth's crust, it is highly insoluble and generally unavailable to participate in biogeochemical reactions. However, under highly acidic or alkaline conditions, or in the presence of complexing ligands, elevated concentrations may be mobilised to the aquatic environment. In fact, natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Whilst as I explained, acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes will also occur mainly to air.
Also, any soil or water test submitted by the perpetrators of this hoax, which invariably has been collected through flawed and incorrect methodology will be tested by analytical laboratories using ICP-MS. I'm sure that you will be able to comment on precisely why this is significant?
"The high bypass jet powered engine is nearly incapable of producing any visible condensation."
Absolute nonsense. The enormous fan at the front is powered by a combustion chamber through a turbine linkage. That shaft powers both the compressor and the fan. Irrespective of the bypass hydrocarbon fuel is still burnt to drive the process. The myth about high bypass turbo fans "not" producing contrails was started long ago by some clown by the name of Jack Baran, since then Russ Tanner and Dane Wigington have promoted it to the impressionable, gullible, uneducated and critically impaired to further their online fraud. High bypass engines actually produce MORE contrails than the older low bypass engines. This is not my opinion, you can easily verify this by visiting objective sources and avoiding confirmation bias through deceptive conspiracy based websites.
High bypass turbofans have been around since the late 60s and were fitted to military jets like the C5A which I can assure you produced contrails. The water vapour produced is simply a function of the total fuel burnt. While the turbofans allow large engines to be built, the amount of water vapour created has also increased due to the large fuel flows of those engines. The exhaust of the engine is the gasses that come out of the combustion chamber. It's the product of burning kerosene (hydrogen and carbon) with the oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (water). It's the water in the exhaust that produces the contrail. This principle is basically the same irrespective of if it's a low-bypass, no-bypass, high-bypass or even an internal combustion engine.
What creates a contrail is the mixing of the exhaust with cooler air. It does not matter if it's mixing with the air that passed through the bypass fan, or if it's mixing with the air that passed around the engine. It's still just exhaust gases mixing with the air. As the gasses mix, the temperature falls, and the water condenses out.
The only difference with a high bypass engine is that the exhaust gasses in a high bypass engine are a little less hot (more of the energy has gone into producing thrust from the bypass fan). So they reach the condensation point quicker, and so are actually more likely to form contrails.
Your contention can be routinely dismissed simply by a review of the objective published scientific literature which oddly doesn't seem to conform to your definition of 'research'. The likelihood that a particular engine will create a contrail is governed by the "contrail factor", and this is higher for high bypass engines
Any idea of the bypass ratio of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D or the GE TF39? Of course you haven't.
Suggestion. Visit General Electric, Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney or any college of aeronautical engineering...tell them that their high bypass engines are "nearly incapable of producing any visible condensation" and don't forget to mention that Dane Wigington said so and the University of You Tube sent you.
"I could go on and on..."
Parroting dumb online conspiracy theory about subjects you clearly don't know the first thing about? Please feel free. It's highly amusing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattycakesmuhammmad
"nice try khazaar devil...."
Grow up.
"but your quick and speedy response lets me know om doing my job..."
It's a comments section you clown.
"whut eye wrote stands true and eye don't need to repeat myself or dispute a paid shill....."
Then why are you repeating yourself and replying then you imbecile?
"and eye grew up the DC area and know plenty of alphabet agency folks including people in the FAA who verify whut eye say is true......"
Of course you do.
You are nothing more than a very silly man with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it and inhabiting a fantasy world.
"simple math folks.....if the trail doesn't disappear......they are spraying"
Then perhaps you can identify this magical chemical that can linger, expand and grow in mass, y'know, just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour. While you're at it, the precise aircraft with the payload capacity to deposit a horizon to horizon trail - any idea how much these weigh? Of course you haven't. Simple math folks.
"but do your own research"
Errrr.. right. Firstly, I absolutely guarantee that I know more about the origins, the history, the background and the perpetrators of your crap conspiracy theory than you do. Secondly, appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight "expertise" following a squandered evening in front of junk You Tube chemtrail videos, cherry picked clickbait confirmation bias and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how did you do yours? Oh wait...
"watch the FRANKENSKIES documentary on bitchute"
...Matt Landman's hoax internet conspiracy movie??? Are you actually being serious? And you call this "research" 😆 😅 😂 🤣
"and just know that the chemtrail spraying/solar radiation management played a HUGE role in the corona virus doing as much damage as it did....corona patients are vitamin D deficient...."
😂 🤣😂 🤣Seriously, stop it - you're busting me up here.
"eye think there is a bigger reason other than climate change they are doing this.....its part of the population control agenda of the elites.....why else would they lock down everyone, try to force a mask and vaccines on us, all in the name of health and then proceed to spray our skies up with chemicals and the block the sunlight which would help us combat this virus."
2021 update - instead of wearing masks to avoid chemtrails, conspiracy theorists now avoid masks, even in the midst of a global pandemic.
"there is sum sinister people who secretly rule this country apparently, and they need to be captured, given a speedy trail and executed! spread the word people.....the only reason they can away with it is because people don't know about it"
Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that like yourself, the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Clever lad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MirMMadani
"Don't you have anything better to do?"
Says that...posts this -
"Watch this https://youtu.be/FeTaejpg18g"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So you present a link to possibly the most obligatory chemtrail conspiracy video, posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, produced by the main perpetrator of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, featuring fellow advocates of the chemtrails conspiracy theory about the chemtrails conspiracy theory as evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory???
This is Dane Wigington's farcial chemtrails rally of July 15th 2014, which culminated in a march to the Shasta County Supervisors chambers where they proceeded to bore the shit out of the few people present. A bunch of conspiracy cranks in a town hall. Most of these are Wigington's local cronies, others, career conspiracy theorists. One of them, Jeff Nelson, who has early onset dementia was even dressed up as a pilot, and another, Iraja Sividas, y'know, the clown that thinks that a contrail should be analogous to your breath on a cold day is a local maths teacher. Yes, there are I concede two medics present - but although Stephen Steven Davis was a Chiropractic he is now a Certified Traditional Naturopath quacktitioner - and peddler of all manner of snake oil and woo. Dr. Hamid Rabiee a Neurologist at the Redding (Mercy Medical Centre) has since been struck off for sexual harassment of his patients and staff. Since you're so interested in 'testimonies', perhaps you'd like to take a look at his?
https://eu.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/03/29/grand-jury-indicts-redding-neurologist-already-facing-sex-abuse-charges/469649002/
Seriously, I swear you people are getting exponentially dumber and gullible by the post. I mean, did you actually bother watching this garbage?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NT-is8pv
Yassassin? Third track on 'The Lodger' and Turkish for 'long live'.
"I reply as many times as I would like, I’m not sure why that’s an issue unless you are just looking for issues to pick at?!"
It isn't an issue, I simply questioned why the multiple erratic comments when you could consolidate them into one reply?
"I understand the options that exist as far as creating artificial rain or weather modification but I guess you had to tell me I don’t understand so you can feel better about yourself for whatever reason?! Is fighting with people on YouTube the highlight of your day, little man?"
What an odd comment. Known science is not about "opinion". Your OP shows that you don't understand - that's all. Not fighting with you. You are the one that has responded so indignantly with your multiple triggered responses and ad hominem rebuke.
"you are definitely a comment section genius. Lmaooo. It’s important enough for you to keep droning on and on and copy pasting from Wikipedia to seem smart. I see you have this attitude with several people in several different comment sections so I don’t take it personally."
Yet you are the one that feels the need to respond with personal attack. I am irrelevant to this exchange. I simply explained to you the rudiments of cloud seeding that's all. Nothing to do with Wikipedia...and at no point have I copied and pasted any information. From your posts, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about but appear to loath the fact that you have been called out.
"I use emojis to communicate the tone i’m saying things in bc it facilitates a better understanding and communication. It’s something many humans do and it’s another weird thing to pick at."
You appear to deploy legion of them as some sort of compensatory tool - en mass, like a child would do. Nothing to do with communication. We have the written word for that. If you really feel the need to use an emoji to accentuate your point, then surely one will suffice?
"I must also remind you…cloud seeding has evolved over the years and there are several different options when it comes to cloud seeding. There is not just one way to create articulate rain."
It has, but that has nothing to do with your ill-informed OP, in which you said this..."They make it rain in Dubai … what is so hard to understand".
Regarding the evolution of cloud seeding it is commonly dispersed via at least four methods --[1] light aircraft, retrofitted with flare racks containing a few grams of silver iodide (although other materials can be used). [2] Burn sticks - again containing silver iodide, placed in desirable spots on the ground, [3] Rockets (they are often also fired in order to prevent the formation of crop-damaging hail. Some tea growers also use them, sometimes with radar-reflecting "needle" wire dipoles scattered through the silver iodide, to enable tracking of the release points; some hail rockets are at least partially reusable). [4] Surplus AA (anti-aircraft) guns, whose shells contain silver iodide instead of high explosive. The Chinese make extensive use of cloud-seeding AA guns, the shells' fuses can be set to burst at any desired altitude within the guns' altitude capabilities.
What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brent-sherman
_"ahh, so you're definitely a "chemtrail denier".
I am irrelevant to this exchange. The chemtrail hoax debunks itself.
"If I sent you 5,000 pictures of non-labeled non-commercial Jets with contrails behind them, and obviously no passengers, not flying in a flight pattern from one airport to another, you would just hide your head in the sand?"
No need. Feel to just send me just one.Your best example.
"Wow that's pretty sad"
Well no one forced you to subscribe to a dumb online hoax.
"So basically what you're saying is every contrail that's ever been behind a plane has always been either United or Delta or American or some other airline, but you're definitely saying it has to be some type of flight whether private or commercial with a flight pattern going from one airport to another."
Not at all - military aircraft produce the trails you are witnessing too, including spy and reconnaissance planes and stealth aircraft too. That's somewhat of an oversight don't you think?
"You might want to check into that a little deeper."
Check into what? If the conditions are conducive to their formation, a jet engine in the stratosphere will produce a contrail, be it commercial flights, cargo or military exercises. Completely unremarkable and very rudimentary science. That you choose to term them chemtrails has no bearing upon the rational/real world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Chemtrails’ are a form of geo-engineering."
No, they really are not. The chemtrail conspiracy theory originated in the mid nineties, and is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. Yes, the perpetrators of this nonsense have conflated the two, but only in a lame attempt to add credence and validity to their tenuous claims.
"The actual name is stratospheric aerosol injection or SAI. You can find a clip of former CIA director John Brennan speaking about it at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on YouTube."
Those are largely deceptive chemtrail videos that have appropriated and dishonestly titled the footage. In his voluntary address about transnational threats to foreign security to the COFN (an independent think tank) Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan wasn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he was warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech by which to refer to...
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
"The theory behind this is that the particles sprayed in the stratosphere will reflect solar radiation back into space and stop the earth warming."
Correct. SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols in an attempt to arrest global temperature rise. As you say, it is nothing more than a "theory". SAI is entirely hypothetical and has yet to graduate beyond mathematical modelling and paper based research proposal. In 2019 an experiment was scheduled that never took place and has yet to, involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. Google Keutsch Group 'SCoPEx project'
"The problem, heavy metal particles have been observed by Keele University to cause dementia in bees. Could it do the same to humans?"
This has only been postulated, there is no causal evidence.
What "heavy metals"? SAI would involve nothing of the sort. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. Regarding Calcium Carbonate I mentioned, early research suggests that it has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulphate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. It is also non-toxic and earth abundant. However, it does not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may respectfully I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marktheshark1984
"Since we can create contrail cloud formations inadvertantly and numerously at times, wouldn't it be logical that we would research methods of seeding these cirrus clouds with materials that would increase their reflectivity or albedo to further enhance their dimming properties? It would be similar but not the same as the research done on marine cloud brightening. Also, I am aware of cirrus cloud thinning which is a method of injecting material into cirrus clouds to attempt to manipulate their radiative properties. And so, exploring similar methods with a different purpose doesn't seem out of the question."
Cirrus clouds are thin and opaque. Marine cloud brightening would be far more effective as would Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is intended to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. It is highly unlikely that the latter will ever get off the ground though (if you'll pardon the pun).
"At this 'moment of creation' of a contrail cloud that would then instantaneously be classified as a cirrus cloud, what would be the specific species of this cirrus cloud forming at that exact moment of creation (e.g. cirrus castellanus, cirrus fibratus, cirrus floccus, cirrus vertebratus, etc.)?"
Regardless of their subcategories, all cirrus clouds are formed
through similar generating mechanisms that are needed in order to “trigger” their formation. A proportion of the nuclei associated with cirrus clouds and contrails originate from different sources, but both phenomena go through similar freezing processes as they develop.
"Influencing the temperature couldn't affect other aspects of the weather such as evaporation rate?"
Radiative forcing associated with contrails cirrus occurs at night, and as I mentioned earlier, the net diurnal balance between dimming and forcing is negligible.
1
-
@marktheshark1984
"But, if you could seed cirrus clouds in such a way as to enhance albedo, you might aim to keep them thin to minimize forcing while attempting to enhance dimming. And wouldn't Stratospheric Aerosol Injection also be transparent? Although, SAI could potentially have impacts on cloud formation at lower levels of the atmosphere."
The optimum cloud to conduct marine cloud brightening would be stratocumulus.
I mentioned SAI purely as another proposed method of Solar Radiation Management not as a means of increasing albedo from clouds. And yes, it would not be discernible to the ground based observer. There are a great many unknowns associated with the idea which is why is is highly unlikely it will ever progress beyond the stages of small scale trail. Following the indefinite postponement of SCoPEx, that isn't looking forthcoming either.
"After their formation has been 'triggered', what specific species/subcategories of cirrus cloud is a contrail capable of becoming?"
That would depend upon the atmospheric conditions, altitude, windshear.
Firstly, there are five generating mechanisms - synoptic, injection cirrus, mountain-wave updraft, cold trap, and contrail-cirrus. Cirrus castellanus is associated with injection (we have already discussed the anvil at the top of a cumulonimbus cloud). Persistent spreading contrails may commonly resemble fibratus, thin and fibrous formations, aligning with the high altitude wind direction, and giving the appearance of white parallel stripes which streak across the sky. The conditions that create uncinus formations may also add to their growth.
Lidar observations have detected contrails in the range of 0.05 and 0.5 microns in optical depth - so not sufficiently dense to form spissatus or cirrostratus.
"So, for instance, if it happened to be a cloudless/full sun day over a specific location, but then cirrus cloud cover moved in throughout the evening and covered the sky during the night, in this specific scenario, there would be no dimming to balance the forcing at this location."
I was referring to the net global balance. In the above scenario (although there are many other variables to consider) you would likely not see the temperature drop away so acutely at night as it would have done under clear skies.
Question for you. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, returning to your OP - why did you mention Dane Wigington and why is he claiming otherwise?
1
-
@marktheshark1984
Yes aircraft deploying stratospheric Aerosol Injection could create high altitude contrails in the process. Amusingly, fools like Dane Wigington would continue to claim that this was the visual evidence of the practice itself.
It may enhance sunsets, and create a barely discernible thin haze, but understand that volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year. Such aerosols are also produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present and occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Sulphate aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
"Also, with the introduction of a large number of potential ice-nucleating particulate into the stratosphere, this could very well affect contrail clouds and other cloud formations, as they would inevitable fall back through the atmosphere to earth."
What???
Transformation? We've already discussed this. We can debate semantics if you like. In fact I can refer you to a paper titled "On the Transformation of Contrails into Cirrus During Success". Or another; "On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus" - but since contrails are already cirrus as your definition states, the transformation is one of appearance. I explained the mechanism of formation and that the atmospheric conditions creating uncinous formations may add to their growth, but really what we are referring to here is that supersaturation and wind shear can spread aircraft contrails in which may then resemble fibrous formations across the sky.
"Get some boots on the ground and keep your eyes to the sky."
I do indeed and have done for most of my life through working as an alpine guide across four continents. Furthermore, my field was ground based remote sensing. Apologies, and to clarify, I understood this conversation related to the stratosphere where most contrails are created since that is the region in which commercial airliners cruise. Some regional flights may be lower and aircraft ascending and descending will of course pass through the tropopause and troposphere and in so doing produce contrails. Contrails can be formed at a range of altitudes. It is the atmospheric conditions at these altitudes that govern their growth and evolution.
You have asked me well over twenty questions during this exchange, which I have duly responded to and am more than happy to do so. I have asked you just the one which unfortunately you were unable to either through an inability or refusal to answer it. Here it is again: Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft). That the practice has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which concerns misidentified aircraft contrails... may I ask you, returning to your OP - why did you mention Dane Wigington and why is he claiming otherwise?
You seem to enjoy google, odd though that you seem reluctant to place Wigington's claims under the same level of scrutiny. Perhaps you do. What precisely is your position? - Only you haven't stated that either.
1
-
@marktheshark1984
"Due to the uncertain lifetime of stratospheric aerosols, the fall out of these particles into the lower atmosphere is most likely inevitable and there may be side effects regarding weather such as cloud formation."
SAI is designed to be conducted in the tropics to utilise the Brewer Dobson wind circulation patterns meaning the aerosols can remain in suspension for years. Like I said, there are between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols produced by volcanoes every year. As I also mentioned, sulphate aerosols also form heterogeneously in the stratospheric aerosol layer. The introduction of additional aerosols are unlikely to create significant impact in terms of cloud formation once they disperse - and of negligible concern in comparison the the climate chaos that we now find ourselves in. There are however undoubtedly negative environmental feedbacks and potential unknowns and most significantly, the danger of snapback if once employed it were ever to cease. This is precisely why it's a reckless and dangerous idea that in all likelihood will never happen.
"I had assumed, based on your response, that you understood that this was a question regarding cloud classification as the term species directly correlates. I never asked about the generating mechanisms. Furthermore, the papers in which you cited, make no mention of taxonomic classificaton beyond the use of the word cirrus nor do they involve any ground based observational analyses."
You may not have asked for the generation mechanisms, but formation helps you to understand what you are looking at. Persistent spreading contrails increase in mass due to supersaturation, and are spread via windshear. Visually this most often assumes a fibrous appearance.
"Based on the WMO definiton, they would not be classified as a cirrus cloud type unless they persist in the environment for at least ten minutes."
Interesting, because Wigington was one of the individuals that started the false belief that contrails can only last between seconds and a few minutes. We refer to them as "contrail cirrus" since they are cirrus. Frequently when they spread they can become indistinguishable from existing or naturally formed cirrus cloud. You seem to be very preoccupied by semantics.
"Are you similarly perplexed by cloud classification?"
No not at all and like I said, it would help you if you understood the generating mechanism for each instead of cherry picking what you want to find.
"Any altitude considered to be stratospheric would qualify. So, any aircraft exhaust dispersed into the stratosphere at any altitude could be considered SAI."
If you wish to term it that then that is entirely your prerogative - more fool you. The branch of geoengineering research titled SAI which your cult leader claims is underway, as you well know, is intended to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols.
"Such a feat should easily be accomplishable based on the specifications required. There actually does exsist a commercial aircraft capable of 60,000ft before any modifications a.k.a. Concorde."
The Lockheed U2 reached FL700 And the SRN Blackbird flew to FL850 - so what?
No it couldn't. You clearly haven't read the any of the literature and have very little grasp about aviation. Another false premise to suit your sorry, Dane's narrative. SAI would require a fleet of purpose built aircraft to deliver the necessary payload. Currently there is no aircraft with the MTOW and capacity to loft the required material to the designated altitude.
"65,000ft is only a currently proposed rough estimate for optimal dispersal of an albedo enhancing aerosol into the stratosphere."
Approximately 20kms. 65,000 - 70,000 feet. You understand why yes?
"Yet you claim that SAI, "...would not form a trail..." when explaining why it couldn't exist?"
The actual process itself wouldn't form a trail. And I explained why currently it doesn't exist and why it is unlikely to. Do you have an entire legion of straw men at your disposal?
"Depending on the semantics regarding SAI but both (contrails & SAI) are considered weather modification."
As you say, depending on the semantics. The popular press has termed SAI 'weather modification' and I'm sure I've even seen the term in some of the papers I've read about SAI. Ken Caldera, who was instrumental in the inception of this research has always been very clear about the distinction. Your point about potential indirect weather modification is a valid one.
"Dane Wigington makes no claims about aircraft flying at 65,000 - 70,000ft."
You have evidently misunderstood the question. That's precisely the point. He claims (amongst many other things), that regular aircraft contrails observed at half the altitude are proof that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is underway. In fact, he is one of the main drivers behind the conflation of the two and the subsequent false equivalence/association fallacy employed by critically impaired chemtrail believers.
"If Mick West can be interviewed by Joe Rogan, then it would only be fair that Dane Wigington may also be interviewed."
Mick West is not a conspiracy theorist and following the recent debacle surrounding Robert Malone, you'd think he's choose his guests more carefully. Now as a consequence I can't listen to Joni Mitchell on Spotify any longer!
I don't believe in granting these opportunistic and exploitative charlatans air space - far less oxygen. However, despite what you read on these comments sections, I'm not sure that a chemtrail lunatic is about to imminently interfere with a flight or pose a danger to life - (although the use of laser pens and attacks on pilots and their families have occurred in the past). They may do from their other irrational beliefs though. Conspiracy theories are mainly agenda driven and are seldom accommodated individually.
Wigington would at least be amusing I guess, and unlike the anti-vax movement, chemtrail believers are largely anonymous beyond their online echo-chambers rarely venturing and voicing their nonsense beyond their walled gardens into the rational world. in short, no one in the real world really gives two shits about such Dunning Kruger afflicted scientific illiterates and acolytes of Dane Wigington.
Through all your prevarication, pedantry and deflection, you still haven't stated your position on the chemtrail hoax. Go ahead.
1
-
@marktheshark1984
Oh, hello again.
"The introduction of additional aerosols are unlikely to create significant impact in terms of cloud formation once they disperse - and of negligible concern..but then you say, "There are however undoubtedly negative environmental feedbacks. Contradicting yourself to downplay the potential effects on clouds? That's peculiar."
Why? and how am I contradicting myself?
"And since i know how much you like cherries"
As much as your penchant for unintentional irony? That's the icing on the cake.
"here's a few i picked from one of the fellas on how SAI would affect the climate/environment"
One of the fellas"? Source? Until you provide one, I'll assume you selectively extracted content from the original context conerning a recent paper titled "Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention by reflecting sunlight to cool Earth" In so doing, you intentionally omitted perhaps the most important sentence: "Although climate science research has resulted in greater understanding of predicted climate effects should SRM be implemented, little is known about how those changes would affect ecological systems"
No one knows precisely how SAI would affect the climate and environment nor the extent of this feedback because it is not underway, which is why it is currently pure speculation. It is to an extent modelled, but as I said we are dealing with unknowns which is why it is such a terrible and reckless idea.
"We? As in who? Alpine mountain guides?"
Well certainly not Dane Wigington or his legion of gullible online conspiracy believers.
"Based on the fact that you have not been able to provide the correct answers to simple questions about cloud transformations which i have now had to correct you for by citing information from a source in which you reffered me to? (*"...WMO Cloud Atlas..."*) It seems strange that you would try to downplay the cascading impacts that contrails can have on cloud formations and the environment. You seem to be in '*denial*' of the '*known science*' regarding these matters."
What "cascading" effects of contrails are you referring to?
"Concorde seems reasonable based on its service ceiling and MTOW."
Possibly the most ludicrous sentence you've typed since originally mentioning Dane Wigington in your OP. A decommissioned supersonic passenger aircraft with a maximum payload of 29,500 lbs that was taken out of service due to crippling operating costs. Ok then. Like I said, the Lockheed U2 and the SR-71 Blackbird also flew to the required altitudes - should we drag those out of a storage hangar too?
"If you want to inject aerosols into the Brewer-Dobson wind circulation current specifically, then maybe someone should call it Brewer-Dobson Aerosol Injection."
Bit of a mouthful though. Perhaps Dane Wigington felt that 'chemtrails' rolled off the tongue better.
"You've seen the actual definition that you claim to exist but can't cite it?"
Cite what? Don't misquote me. I was referring to the conflation of the term "weather modification" with SAI in the press, and from memory I ventured that have also seen similarly wrongly applied in a small amount of academic literature. I may be mistaken.
"Based on all the known science about contrails, if you were to purposefully disperse aerosols into a jet aircraft engine exhaust plume through an area of the stratosphere conducive to cirrus cloud formation, what do you think would be the outcome?"
What aerosols, what material? I believe that Dane is claiming aluminium yes?
"I think it's clear that based on your actions and incessant ramblings here in this comment section that you are, infact, the 'chemtrail lunatic"
Perhaps take some time to revisit your own posts. Actually, don't.
"How many years? How many comments?"
It's a comments section - you'll find that's the general idea.
"Saying the same things over and over again"
How would you know?
"And then you can't even classify clouds?"
You mean I don't tell you what you want to hear based upon your misunderstanding of the classification of clouds. Odd that you mention me, whilst my presence on the comments section of a video entertainment platform seems to irk you, but you appear to have no issues whatsoever with Dane Wigington's pseudoscientific hoax or the fact that he thinks that aluminium is a heavy metal. Have you ever actually placed 'geoengineeringwatch' under even a cursory level of scrutiny?
"You would also wish to deny people, who you are openly prejudice against, *oxygen*, as it is necessary for survival?"
Are you this literal with your family, friends, relationships, people you meet? - (assuming you have any or at any stage you interact with the real world).
"You exhibit the symptoms of a psychopath."
The words, pot, kettle and black immediately spring to mind.
"Joni Mitchell claims to have Morgellons disease, what say you?"
Which has no bearing upon my enjoyment of 'For the Roses' which was recorded half a century ago.
"Said the psychopath who spends years of it's time trying to manipulate and harrass said people. And so, you would spend all of this time here because you can't resist your psychopathic tendencies."
So a full on descent now into ad hominem rebuke. How precisely have I "manipulated or harassed" anyone?
"You've also deleted six of your replies against me which implies how weak you are and that you are trying to hide something regarding 'misidentified aircraft contrails'."
What on earth are you on about you lunatic? 😂That is completely untrue. At no stage have I deleted any replies to you - you are entirely mistaken. You're clearly getting desperate now.
"Shall i sing you a lullaby?"
Is it the same as the one Dane puts you to bed with every night?
Actually, any chance of a 432Hz flute by Peaceful Waterstream?
To reiterate, you avoided my question, for all your prevarication, pedantry and deflection, you still haven't stated your position on the chemtrail hoax. Also, what is your opinion of 'geoengineeringwatch' and the validity of Dane Wigington's claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Google SRM, solar radiation management."
A hypothetical series of research proposals, with the exception of ground based albedo modification. SAI? a strategy which would aim to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in the mid stratosphere. There is no current agreement on the material that would best be deployed to achieve this aim nor is there the current lofting mechanism or aircraft with the requisite payload to transport and disperse this material to the necessary altitudes. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails that have been observed, documented recorded and studied since the early advent of powered aviation - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"Ho Chi Min Trail we used "cloud seeding"
Again, what does cloud seeding/weather modification which takes place at the fraction of the altitude of a contrail, does not leave a trail, does not create cloud and does not involve large commercial jet airliners - rather, rack mounted flare assemblies fitted to the wings of light aircraft have to do with a white plume in the wake of a high flying jet aircraft?
"If they are not real and a part of 'normal air travel', then why do they not appear everyday?"
Are you equally as perplexed by daily variations in cloud cover?
"The military will control the weather by 2025, read the public report."
It is impossible to "control the weather" at the global and synoptic scale. Mankind may well be influencing weather patterns by our activities and through anthropogenic climate change, but that is very different to "controlling" it. Do however feel free to link me to this "public report" - I guarantee what you'll come back with.
"Aluminum levels are on public reports as well. The aluminum levels are 60,000% above normal according to govt surveys. This is in all regions."
60,000%???????? Sure about that are you? Could you present these "government surveys"?
"I researched them for 3 years."
You "researched" them? - And how precisely did you undertake this? Oh, wait...
"There are several 'reasons' for this according to conspiracy theorists"
According to conspiracy theorists? And it never occurred to you to commence your enquiry with objective independently verifiable meteorological science? "Research" does not mean squandered evenings in front of You Tube conspiracy videos, cherry picked confirmation bias, quote mining, and baseless self - referencing pseudoscientific websites.
"I don't care about the why, I care about what I see and want to know why. I still don't know why exactly."
Logical fallacy much?
"The real contrails are the same as exhaling on a very cold day, the water vapor freezes and then melts. When I can walk around the block on a cold day and leave a trail of my breathe that lasts for hours and slowly dissipates, then I will believe there is absolutely nothing going on."
Because the exhalation of your lungs is of course comparable, equivalent and analogous to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C, emitting a stream of 900°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst travelling in excess of 500 knots.
"Learn Daily."
I suggest that you start. Commence with some basic rudiments of aviation and atmospheric science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dubtownman9508
"rain/cloud same thing"
No it isn't. The clouds that aircraft produce as contrails are a form of artificial cirrus, these are not rain bearing and are composed of ice crystals. Cloud seeding in the other hand does not create clouds, it introduces additional nucleation into existing cumulus and stratiform masses - clouds which are already conducive to precipitation in an attempt to induce rainfall. This is precisely why it is conducted at much lower altitudes between 2 - 6,000 feet compared to the contrails that you are observing typically between 20,000 and 44,000 feet. As I said cloud seeding isn't in the slightest bit secretive, actually isn't that widely practiced and no one has suggested it is a 'conspiracy'. Why do you people fell compelled to comment on subjects that you clearly have no knowledge upon whatsoever simply because you have an internet connection? Is this what you do in the real world?
"chem trails are real , also openly acknowledged by military personnel.."
Chemtrails are simply misidentified contrails a phenomena which has been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied for the best part of a century and virtually since the early advent of powered flight. There are no 'military personnel' whatsoever that acknowledge the existence of chemtrails unless you are referring to a handful of career conspiracy theorists or the ludicrous Kristen Meghan. Are you sure you really want to go there?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This again??? Really?
This is the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous deceptive title that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. As part of this he referred to an area of geoengineering research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, which is entirely hypothetical. It has never been secretive and the research has been well publicised to generate funding and support. How do you 'admit' to something that has never been denied?
In the miniscule possibility that it were ever to be implemented, it would have significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance which would be impossible, there are many unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can provide you with a full transcription of the speech if you wish.
What the hell does research into SAI have to do with aircraft contrails anyway?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petrikVSempty
"Well, I saw him proposing this to the public in one of his speeches on TED, where he claimed that he is studying this as one of his projects for many years now and that he thinks that this could be a solution to the global warming, not definitive, but solution nontheless. It was scheduled for 21 June 2021, but postponed for a year at minimum for ethical reasons."
I suggest that you watch the talk again. He makes it explicitly clear that in spite of his support, this is purely in the form of research based proposal and that although a small scale trial was planned (involving a steerable balloon and a few kilos of water), there is no material identified that yet that can replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. He also emphasises that this is one entirely hypothetical strategy designed to combat global temperature increase. As I said, aside from the technical barriers and environmental unknowns, SAI would be impossible in terms of international governance.
"On the other hand... talking about this as a hypothetical matter is irresponsible and naive especially when there are msm news from China for example, where they managed to "change the weather"using this geoengineering recently and successfully."
You appear to have unwittingly changed the subject to cloud seeding which is a wholly unrelated topic and has nothing whatsoever to do with geoengineering.
"Independent studies done on this matter saying that wherever this geoengineering takes place, the air and especially rain contains heavy metals. Havey metals poisoning symptoms are more/less same as flu."
There are no such "independent studies" - simply junk chemtrail conspiracy nonsense and self-referencing pseudoscience from the usual suspects and perpetrators of this hoax such as Dane Wigington. Do by all means feel free to reference these "independent studies", and present the data which is able to demonstrate a direct causal relationship with alleged chemical spraying. I absolutely guarantee what you'll come back with.
"Also here in UK we had recently 2 weeks super nice weather with no clouds, no chemtrails in the sky. On the last day of those 2 weeks, early morning I saw almost a dozen planes creating chemtrials and the nice weather was gone by end of that day. Since then there was 2 and a half days of skies full of clouds without any gap."
I am also in the UK and you are referring to a frontal system that passed over the country following a period of settled and warm weather due to a high pressure anticyclone from the south. The presence of contrails is often a precursor of an advancing depression or low and as such - as is the case in the clouds the followed - are the result, not the cause of the prevailing atmospheric conditions.
"So sorry, but doesn't seem so hypothetical to me."
It wouldn't though would it? - because you have been lead to believe by the perpetrators of this hoax that the contrails you are seeing are evidence of geoengineering in the form of SAI. You are trapped in a circular logical fallacy - you think SAI would look like a contrail, and so when you see a contrail you think that it is geoengineering.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded and studied for over 80 years... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
@petrikVSempty
So you were completely incapable of answering my question?
No one is disputing that geoengineering is real. Ground based albedo modification, carbon capture, aforestation, biochar - all active geoengineering strategies. It's likely that as we approach the tipping point our only option available is DAC. However, SAI exists simply in the province of research proposal and mathematical modelling. As the article that you yourself referenced, it has not even reached the stages of small scale trial involving a balloon and several kilos of water.
Known science tells you that the trails you are seeing are the result of condensed atmospheric water vapour and can be nothing else - nothing to do with the "government". The meteorological science itself is governed by physical laws which are axiomatic and thereby have a voice of their own.
The Geoengineeringwatch team? Are you actually being serious. So as I predicted and as you vehemently denied, you are simply parroting one of the main originators of the chemtrail hoax Dane Wigington, a proven liar and a fraud. Instead of actually understanding the actual meteorology, aviation and the physics of geoengineering you instead have allowed yourself to be sucked in by junk online conspiracy theory which appeals to the impressionable and the scientifically illiterate. You then regurgitate all manner of pseudoscience, appeal to authority and false equivalence claiming overnight armchair expertise as opposed to employing an objective critical faculty to independently verify his claims. So the 'science' you refer to comes from 'The Dimming'. Completely as I predicted.
I would like to correct you on on major thing here. Wigington's claim that you have gullibly swallowed and regurgitated that "Hi Bypass Turbofan" jet engines which are by design nearly incapable of producing condensation trails except under rare and extreme conditions" is utter horseshit. A complete lie and in direct contradiction to the physics of contrail formation. Have you any comprehension what the bypass ratio of the Pratt and Whitney JT9D that originally powered the first Boeing 747s was? Or the TF39s first used on the Lockheed Galaxy C5 in the 1960s were? Of course you haven't.
The enormous fan at the front of a high bypass engine is powered by a combustion chamber through a turbine linkage. That shaft powers both the compressor and the fan. Irrespective of the bypass hydrocarbon fuel is still burnt to drive the process. The myth about high bypass turbo fans "not" producing contrails was started long ago by some clown by the name of Jack Baran, since then Russ Tanner and Dane Wigington have promoted it to the impressionable, gullible, uneducated and critically impaired to further their online fraud. High bypass engines actually produce MORE contrails than the older low bypass engines. You can easily verify this by visiting objective sources and avoiding confirmation bias through deceptive conspiracy based websites.
As I said, high bypass turbofans have been around since the late 60s and were fitted to military jets like the C5A which I can assure you produced contrails. The water vapour produced is simply a function of the total fuel burnt. While the turbofans allow large engines to be built, the amount of water vapour created has also increased due to the large fuel flows of those engines. The exhaust of the engine is the gasses that come out of the combustion chamber. It's the product of burning kerosene (hydrogen and carbon) with the oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (water). It's the water in the exhaust that produces the contrail. This principle is basically the same irrespective of if it's a low-bypass, no-bypass, high-bypass or even an internal combustion engine.
What creates a contrail is the mixing of the exhaust with cooler humid ambient air. It does not matter if it's mixing with the air that passed through the bypass fan, or if it's mixing with the air that passed around the engine. It's still just exhaust gases mixing with the air. As the gasses mix, the temperature falls, and the water condenses out.
The only difference with a high bypass engine is that the exhaust gasses in a high bypass engine are a little less hot (more of the energy has gone into producing thrust from the bypass fan). So they reach the condensation point quicker, and so are actually more likely to form contrails than their tubojet predecessors.Again, there are studies that verify this. Persistent contrails have been a problem for military stealth aircraft for decades - and continue to be so.
Suggestion for you. Pay a visit to any aerospace engineering college, or GE, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney. Tell them that their high bypass engines don't produce contrails because Dane Wigington said so, and don't forget to remind them that the University of You Tube sent you.
Laughable.
"Like I said. Good luck believing people like Gates who are linked with depopulation programs"
Known science is not a question of "belief". But you have at least finally revealed your conspiratorially tainted true colours.
And talking of questions, you missed mine - again. Given that by your own inadvertent acknowledgement SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails you are seeing... I ask you again - what precisely is your point beyond badly parroting a deceptive charlatan like Dane Wigington?
1
-
@petrikVSempty
"That exactly what you have to believe in to be able to fit into your perfect worldly narrative where goverments are here for our good and to protect us. If it's not from you or the sources that you believe to, it's not true."
As I said, known science is not a question of "belief" or beliefs and at no stage have I expressed any - nor have I commented on 'government' other than meteorological science is governed by known physical laws that are axiomatic and ineluctable. Nothing to do with me, I am irrelevant to this exchange - as I said, the science of aviation, meteorology and the physics of geoengineering are independently verifiable. Bit rich that you speak about narratives, when parroting Dane Wigington which as I said, I suspected was the case when you insisted that the contrails you are seeing are evidence of SAI.
"Nobody said that high-bypass jet engines don't produce contrails. Quiet opposite. I said they do, but only under specific circumstances, that are highly unlikely to occur at the altitude that these planes are flying."
No you didn't - you copied and pasted the same old nonsense from Dane Wigington. Let me remind you of what you said.. Here you go..
"For the record, all US military jet air tankers and all commercial jet carriers are equipped with "Hi Bypass Turbofan" jet engines which are by design nearly incapable of producing condensation trails except under rare and extreme conditions."
Absolute utter arrant nonsense. Complete rubbish.
"And you talking about "known science" is exactly what I am talking about. Must be from very few or it ain't true. That's anti-science because science is made by arguments. You simply rely and dwell only on one side, refusing any argument from other side."
Known science is demonstrable and speaks for itself. It may be challenged, but any 'arguments' must be reproducible and substantiated by data to the contrary. The laws of physics that you are ignorant of are not by decree of some 'government' as you seem to think, but by verifiable fact. Dane Wiginton's nonsense about High bypass ratio turbofan engines that you feebly attempted to pass off as your own can be independently falsified. The fact that you are too afraid or lack the critical capacity or the will to do so demonstrates how emotionally invested you are in junk conspiracy theory.
"You simply rely and dwell only on one side, refusing any argument from other side"
I invite evidence to the contrary - that's what science does through the process of falsification. That's how the scientific method works. As yet, you haven't been able to produce any, instead, relying on junk online conspiracy theory and badly parroted pseudoscience.
"Good luck believing"
That you would sooner listen to an online con-artist and opportunistic fraudster than objectively learn about the science of aviation, meteorology and the physics of geoengineering confirms that the 'belief' is all yours.
You appear to have missed my question yet again, unless of course you are vehemently avoiding it. Given that by your own inadvertent acknowledgement SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails you are seeing... I ask you again - what precisely is your point beyond regurgitating Dane Wigington?
1
-
@petrikVSempty
"Just as I suspected from you 2nd reply to me. You only looking for an argument with me because I dared to say something that you seriously disagree with and yet you still claim that you welcome arguments."
Indeed I do welcome them - you have yet to offer any. As I suspected from the start because it was abundantly obvious and which has indeed turned out to be the case, you are simply badly parroting Dane Wigington in the absence of the remotest understanding about aviation, meteorological science or what geoengineeering actually is. As I said, I am irrelevant to this exchange, your claims are not only in direct contradiction of themselves, but are contrary to independently verifiable facts.
"Saying that something is impossible unless a specific circumstances occur for you means that that I said is definitely impossible. You constantly referring to "known science" but defined by who?!"
Mathematical axioms and demonstrable physical laws.
"And once you find out by who, ask yourself a question who is be funded by, because like I said you dwell on it so much that regardless of the context of the argument made or regardless who the argument came from, you will keep fighting otherwise your world crumbles"
What funding? As I said, known science has a voice of its own - scientists are funded. Moreover, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or as you suggested, institutional interest. We have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method which is the ultimate leveller.
And meanwhile, the online conspiracy theory that you faithfully and uncritically regurgitate is unfailingly honest, accurate, reliable, not in the least bit deceptive, exploitative, opportunist or driven by agenda and profit and naturally has your best interest at heart. Righto, Even a cursory glance at Wigington's laughable comedy fraudulent website wouldn't fool the most gullible and impressionable child, it's that glaringly obvious. What's your excuse?
"Also being discredited as scientist or doctor or as a fact any expert is quiet common especially in a last 3 decades"
As I explained, at no stage am I talking about individuals or any 'scientists' I am referring to the science itself. Why are you so preoccupied with appeal to authority?
You realise that you could routinely debunk Dane Wigington's ludicrous claims yourself if you had the critical faculty and the will to do so?
"so I tell you last time. Keep believing your "known science"
As long as the science in question is proven and backed by physical laws then it is self-evident. My beliefs, (which at no stage have I mentioned) are irrelevant. Unfathomable, that you should choose to "believe" an online charlatan over independently verifiable fact. Still insisting that "Hi Bypass Turbofan" jet engines are by design nearly incapable of producing condensation trails except under rare and extreme conditions."?
Quite telling that you are incapable of addressing my question. Let's try again shall we?
Given that by your own inadvertent acknowledgement SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails you are seeing... I ask you again - what precisely is your point beyond regurgitating Dane Wigington?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Soo....fuel burned in a turbine just makes a cloud??? Does anybody else know about this?"
Yes, the fields of atmospheric science, meteorology and the entire aviation sector for starters.
"When I looked it up , in decending order, exhaust from a turbine contained ' carbon dioxide, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, unburned fuel,soot and metal particles,as well as water vapor. Water vapor is the least. The first hydrocarbon in history to be burned in an engine and produce innocuous water vapor!???!"
What? If you burn a hydrocarbon - (the clue is in the term), the chief products are CO2 and H2O. Burning one gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water due to the oxygen added. Yes, there are by products of the combustion process, such as sulphur and soot, together with a range of trace elements and gasses - whilst the particulate you mention is minute. To reiterate - burn a hydrocarbon and you will produce carbon dioxide and water. This is basic high school chemistry for goodness sake.
Furthermore, persistent spreading contrails are not a product of water in the exhaust, that merely acts as the trigger event. If the air temperature and vapour pressure are sufficiently low and humidity high, the water in the exhaust will flash freeze and condense out as a trail. In conditions of high relative humidity in respect to ice, then the trail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous phase - water vapour. In conditions of supersaturation, then the trail will not only endure but expand, spread and increase in mass where 99% of the ice is being drawn from the atmosphere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deoccupyhawaii6268
"lol, they've used aerosolized metals since ww2 to seed clouds for paratrooper cover"
Oh Jeez, you're likely referring to chaff which is a radar countermeasure and has absolutely nothing to do with the trails you are witnessing, aerosols or geoengineering in the form of SRM. Cloud seeding only works if there are existing clouds to seed it doesn't create them.
"its not just a hypothetical proposal. They were denying using it for years until they recently admitted it was being done to seed clouds"
Cloud seeding is not Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, they are two completely different things. And yes, SAI is completely hypothetical. Why are you doing this to yourself?
No one is suggesting that cloud seeding doesn't exist - and it hasn't "recently been admitted'. Cloud seeding has existed since the 1950s and uses a range of different methods and materials to introduce additional nucleation into clouds that are already conducive to precipitation - cumulus and stratiform masses - in order to induce/divert or intensify rainfall. This is why it takes place at comparatively low altitudes 2,000 - 6,500 feet a fraction of the altitude of the contrails that you term chemtrails which are formed in the tropopause and stratosphere where there are no rain bearing clouds. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. SAI would be conducted at double the altitude of these trails, 65,000 - 70,000 feet because it would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and naturally heterogeneously produced sulphates in the junge layer.
"If you think the perfect grids made over every major UN city (and ONLY in the UN) is just condensation spreading out into a haze all day, you're delusional."
Contrails can indeed form grids - not necessarily perfect ones - and you see them wherever there are commercial air routes. This is nothing new. Contrails will persist and spread in conditions of supersaturation. Identify one chemical when released that can expand and increase in mass in the same way as - well no shit - condensed atmospheric water vapour. Are you equally as perplexed by a cloud? Any idea of the weight of material contained in these trails versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't.
"Explain the new "sun bow" phenomenon with condensation."
This isn't "new" - Irisation has been an observed phenomena throughout recorded history.
"When they spray in Hawaii it looks like there's a rainbow ring around the sun like oily asphalt in the rain."
No one is spraying in Hawaii - you are simply seeing a well understood meteorological phenomena. Look for your explanation in known science rather than junk online conspiracy videos.
"People have gathered air samples and determined the ingredients are indeed nano particles of metal and chemical compounds."
No they haven't - there are simply chemtrail conspiracy theorists that tell you what to believe and present no methodology or conclusive empirical data whatsoever. But do feel free to present the claimed samples that demonstrates causality with your claimed chemtrails. Better still, one in-situ sample of a chemtrail itself using optical array spectrometry. There are plenty such studies of contrails. Just one into a "chemtrail" will do.
"There have even been military whistle blowers who handled the logistics or flew the planes they remove from civilian radar trackers."
Name one - just one. Try to avoid the inevitable and obligatory Kristen Meghan - if this was true you should have thousands to choose from. I guarantee I've seen al of this bullshit before.
"You gotta be born yesterday"
Said the believer in an ludicrous online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
"to think this is something airplanes have always done, just look at old photographs and you won't see a single line in the sky."
Aircraft contrails have been observed, measured, filmed, photographed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of high powered flight and the early advent of high altitude powered flight. This is all independently verifiable. So your statement is demonstrably false. The chemtrail conspiracy theory originated in the mid-1990s through the sensationalist late night radio shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM, based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails (only in America 😆). Since then, all manner of false equivalence has been shoehorned in to justify such an ignorant and childish belief as your posts are ample testimony to.
Your personal incredulity is irrelevant as is your association fallacy. Once again, geoengineering has nothing to do with the trails you are seeing, neither does cloud seeding which equally has nothing to do with geoengineering. Why do you people feel the need to comment on subjects that you have absolutely no understanding of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Flap999
"Bill Gates has been working overtime financing the spraying of aluminum particulate in the upper atmosphere (among other heavy metals) for years."
He has been doing nothing of the sort. Around a decade ago Bill Gates leant vocal support and funding to an area of geoengineering research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. This is entirely hypothetical. Moreover, it has never been secretive. The proponents of this research are keen to raise awareness to increase funding and support of their work. However, the environmental unknowns, the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles, the technical and logistical challenges, in addition to the impossibility of international governance mean that it is highly unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to arrest climate change that SAI would ever be employed.
It aims to arrest global temperature rise by replicating the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols, but currently there it has yet to be determined how to do this. Volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these sulphates are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. Calcium carbonate could be a possibility. Early research suggests that it has near-ideal optical properties, but obviously does not exist naturally in the stratosphere even though it is non-toxic and earth abundant. It is likely expect that calcium carbonate will not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphates however, the actual stratospheric reactivity is not known, which means laboratory and outdoor studies are needed. This is why in 2019 an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
Incidentally, aluminium is not a "heavy metal".
"Even more alarming is the video of US military aircraft being used for this."
There is no video of any aircraft conducting SAI since it has never progressed beyond hypothetical proposal. Plenty of false equivalence perpetrated by chemtrail conspiracy videos capturing contrails though. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Weather control has been a thing since the 1800s"
No it hasn't - controlling the weather is a technical impossibility. We can attempt to modify it on the micro/local scale however through practices such as cloud seeding. Also, the unintended effects of mankind's activity is inadvertently altering global weather patterns through anthropogenic climate change. But 'control' is the realm of fantasy and sci-fi.
What does any of this have to do the aircraft contrails under discussion in this video that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years?
1
-
@Flap999
So, you not only believe that the contrails you are seeing relate to a hypothetical geoengineering strategy that hasn't even undergone small scale trial but also they simultaneously serve as population control - all masterminded by evil genius Bill Gates. Only, no one has noticed - opposing world governments, the global aviation sector, independent environmental monitoring and the entire field of atmospheric science. However, you, alongside a community of online conspiracy believers know this...because you read it on the internet.
Contrails disappear after a short time? Really? A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all. The persistence, length and expansion of a contrail is a function of the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Are you similarly perplexed by the growth and duration of a cloud?
Appreciate that the atmosphere is neither obligated or duty bound to conform to arbitrary time limits imposed by a community of cretinous, credulous scientifically illiterate, conspiratorially addled clowns that have managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
My channel contains plenty of content - in addition to basic meteorology, do I need to explain the rudiments of You Tube security settings that a child could comprehend?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jesus - where to start.
You are evidently unaware then that in the troposphere, tropopause and lower stratosphere, temperature and pressure reduce with altitude which governs the amount of water vapour that the air can hold. I suggest that you investigate, relative humidity, dew point and adiabatic lapse rates.
The two main products of hydrocarbon combustion are obviously H20 and CO2. Do this in the regions that aircraft cruise, the tropopause and lower stratosphere, where temperatures are frequently <55°C then the water content of the exhaust will frequently condense out. If the ambient conditions are conducive a contrail will form. This may be short lived - or in cases of dry air , not at all, but if the RHi is high then it will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). If the atmosphere is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the contrail will not only remain, but will expand drawing upon the the available atmospheric moisture budget.
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18hrs, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But what is taking place now is actually covering the entire sky in a haze after the trail has spread out."
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
the following paper is almost five decades old.
" Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of powered flight. Here's the science here is what you are witnessing...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1
-
@HosstheBoss4
Thank you for proving the point that “we are covering ourselves with a toxic blanket” of toxic fuel exhaust.
Could you clarify precisely where I confirmed this? Thanks.
“Yes there is water vapor involved but it’s water saturated with toxins.”
Contrails? Incorrect. A visible persistent spreading contrail is composed of ice crystals drawn predominately from the available atmospheric moisture budget in conditions of supersaturation in respect to ice. In-situ studies of contrails using multi array spectrometry reveal that any by products from the combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel are trace – although sulphides and soot may serve as additional CCNs in the cloud formation process. Moreover, water vapour is invisible.
“Just smell a planes exhaust next time you are at / near an airport.”
Same can be said of an ocean liner, diesel locomotive or a family car. What’s your point?
“Also your statement proves they could be spraying to manipulate weather as well.”
No, my response to you explains the process of contrail formation and the chemistry of condensed atmospheric water vapour which is precisely what you are witnessing. However, there is a high volume of research into the extent of radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus.
“Just because the planes normal exhaust can create a sheen or blanket of toxins encased in water vapor does not mean it’s the only thing going on.”
It doesn’t. That’s just you talking nonsense over the comments section of a video entertainment platform. You perhaps need to understand, that simply because you elect to type something over the internet, it does not make it true.
“Harvard just announced they are spraying the skies to mitigate global warming. http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-scientists-to-release-chemicals-into-sky-in-2019-to-cool-earth-2018-12 “
Did you actually bother to read this? Harvard have announced nothing of the sort. This article is about the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which aims to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. If you take the trouble to read your link you’ll discover that it refers to the SCoPEx project. This involves two steerable balloons launched 22km into the mid stratosphere to evaluate perturbation and dispersal. Because there is no agreement upon the materials that would accomplish the aim of SAI the trails will initially involve a few kilos of water ice followed by mere kilograms of chalk. Here’s the status of your SAI as it currently stands…. I suggest that you read it…
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. As I explained, the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
“The globe is on a cooling trend with fluctuations of higher than normal temps in areas as the climate finds its new patterns.”
No it isn’t.
“John Brennon explained the fact that they were looking into spraying the skies at the council of foreign criminals(paraphrasing) years ago. https://youtu.be/0vBhEDbIy7g”
???? Do you even understand what the CFN is? It’s John Brennan actually.In his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the ex-Director of the CIA discussed the theme of "Transitional Threats to Global Security". https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline and insertion of the term “chemtrails” that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you... https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
“If you do your research”
And appreciating that research does not constitute or involve squandering evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, quote mined cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or crank self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, tell me, how did you conduct yours?
“you know by the time the public is brought in the loop, chances are it’s been going on for a while”
SRM/SAI has never been out of the “public loop” – it is entirely transparent. The advocates of this strategy are eager to increase visibility to try to sell their concept, increase funding and gain support given the political and environmental objections and concern.
“Appreciate your work in making an actual reply but you simply proved some of my points for me and made the other points that much more valid for those who doubt blindly.”
On the contrary, I have thoroughly debunked your ill-informed post on a point by point bases. Thank you for your civil response however. Genuinely appreciated.
1
-
@HosstheBoss4
"for starters to claim exhaust from a jet airliner is all or nearly all water vapor is completely false."
I said nothing of the sort - that's yet another poorly fashioned strawman on your part.. To clarify again, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification and misunderstanding of persistent contrails. The long visible or spreading white trail that see in the wake of an aircraft is composed of condensed water vapour in an ice saturated environment. The trail endures because in such conditions it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible phase (water vapour) and grows because most of the ice is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture content. Any by products within the trail are trace, however as I mentioned the presence of sulphides and soot may contribute to the presence of existing CCNs. Aircraft exhaust on the other hand is full of a cocktail of chemicals but as in any combusted hydrocarbon fuel, the chief products are CO2 and H2O. Actually modern high bypass turbofan engines are pretty clean burning and aviation in comparison to ground based pollution is far less of a hazard to human health - however, emissions from airports and increased volume of air traffic will indeed contribute to the prevalence of respiratory and even neurological health conditions whilst the increased air traffic means higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere. No one is denying this. Road going diesel contains similar trace metals and the emissions at ground level are all around us. In addition to Nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and pm2.5 - there are the huge quantities of metal particulates associated with an internal combustion engine and brake pads to consider. You are breathing these on a daily basis at ground level and such pollution that you seem oblivious to is thousands of times more harmful to health than the commercial air traffic that you decry.
3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? All those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. Shall we turn to that now? Do you drive?
I would be happy to discuss the environmentally harmful effects of the exponentially expanding aviation industry and in particular, the chemical composition of aircraft exhaust, but this has nothing to do with the erroneous belief that a persistent contrail is evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying or the subject under discussion in this video.
"The article about Harvard was to make a point that these programs are being publicly disclosed now and have been in affect for years."
You mean the article you posted that tells you that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is a hypothetical concept, the preserve of research proposal and is not currently in progress? That article? No it wasn't - you said...and I quote:
"Harvard just announced they are spraying the skies to mitigate global warming."
Which is completely false.
As I explained, SRM has never been out of the public domain or concealed from the public interest since its inception. The proponents of such strategies wish to increase visibility to increase funding, awareness and support. Incidentally, you meant to say "effect". Another association fallacy. What does this have to do with a mistaken contrail or aircraft exhaust?
"look up weather modification in Vietnam, look at the Olympic games in Beijing."
You mean cloud seeding? Yet again you lurch tangentially into yet more false equivalence. This has nothing to do with aircraft exhaust, persistent contrails or geoengineeering. Weather modification is the legal and technical term for cloud seeding. Cloud seeding aims to induce precipitation from existing cumulus or stratiform masses which are conducive to rain. Commonly using silver iodide flares rack mounted to the wings of light aircraft, it is deployed at altitudes between 2,000 - 6,500 feet. There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity. Cloud seeding is neither secretive and has been in the public domain for years. It does not spray, produce clouds nor does it make trails and the environmental impact of the negligible quantities of silver iodide used is zero. The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant by peer-reviewed research.Moreover, despite being deployed in some high profile cases, it isn't by any means widespread, the science is disputed and the results erratic. What's your point?
"Did you bother to look at the patents on geoengineeringwatch.org"
Yes - did you? Clearly not, since this farcical list contains everything from a hot water heating element to exhaust atmomisers, smoke generators a garden sprinkler system and a device for measuring toner level on a printer...
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5486900
That'll be because this is Dane Wigington's supposed "extensive list of geoengineering patents"...and if you regard "geoengineeringwatch" as anything other than a self-referencing pseudoscientific scam conspiracy website, then you really are infinitely more gullible than your naive and ill-informed posts betray.
"or did you automatically make that grave error most ego driven academia seems to make which is discrediting before researching because it does not fit in your box."
The unintentional irony at this point is excruciating.
"Your attempt at insulting someone based on seeing something on the internet is lazy work to say the least. Oh and you are commenting on a video from youtube right now so not sure why you are throwing stones in that glass house."
I merely pointed out that when an online conspiracy believer is prone to saying "do your research", they should perhaps appreciate that "research" does not involve regurgitating lay You Tube conspiracy videos, out of context quote mining, cherry picked click- bait, confirmation bias and the contents of junk pseudoscientific websites such as geoengineerig watch...as you are ample testimony to.
"The global is actually cooling as we enter a solar minimum, most climate models completely ignore solar forcing as well as blaming CO2. Carbon Dioxide is plant food and is not a problem for the climate."
Oh Jesus wept.
"John Brennan is guilty of crimes that go far beyond lying to the public" "I feel you are either afraid to look into or are simple doing your part to keep people ignorant while attempting to overload someone with articles and false statements."
What "you feel" is irrelevant. The dishonest, inaccurate and sensationalist title of the You Tube conspiracy video that you presented purported that his voluntary address to the CFN was an admission of chemtrails. This is not only flagrantly untrue, but the majority of feeble minded online conspiracy parrots with the critical faculty of a sea cucumber don't actually bothered to watch it before mindlessly linking it as supposed "evidence".
"Ignorance is the only enemy we have in this reality"
God bless the internet.
"I wish you well my friend, when you see a bigger piece of the picture please message me and we will discuss."
Nice beard by the way.
1
-
@HosstheBoss4
"yet again using long drawn out responses"
The unintentional irony is hilarious.
I have addressed your posts on a point by point basis. Try it.
"Saying contrails are nearly all water vapor and ice nucleation again. Deliberately tiptoeing around the fact that it’s created by exhaust from an engine burning 500-850 gallons of jet fuel per hour."
Once again, and to reiterate, if you wish to discuss the chemistry of combusted hydrocarbon fuel exhaust I would be more than happy to do so. But be prepared to also broach road going vehicles, locomotives, ocean vessels and industrial pollution. I'll say this again, because you appear to be struggling to comprehend; the visible white plume in the wake of a jet aircraft is composed of condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals...no different to a cirrus cloud. In conditions of high RHi then most of the composition is drawn from the atmospheric moisture budget and in such conditions of supersaturation, the contrail is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous phase (water vapour).
"How does one assume that there is little to no affect on the environment with those numbers?"
The exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector has appreciably detrimental implications for the environment...no one is disputing that. Incidentally, once again, you are confusing "effect" and "affect". Affect as a verb meaning to influence something and effect for the something that was influenced.Clear now?
"Cloud seeding is changing the weather from what was naturally occurring, is it not?"
Yes, on the micro scale, it is an attempt to induce rainfall from existing clouds that are already conducive to precipitation ...the science is questionable, the environmental impact negligible and it bears no relationship whatsoever to the persistent contrails that are misidentified as your chemtrails...so what's your point?
"This by definition is weather modification. "
Indeed, as I pointed out, the legal and technical term for cloud seeding. What does this have to do with a trail in the wake of a jet aircraft and the topic under discussion in this video?
"Why is it so hard for you to wrap your mind around? Our food, water, medical systems, education systems have been systematically turned against what they stand for. Causing more harm than good, literally laced with poisons."
A spectacular tangential leap in logic there even for you. What does this have to do with persistent contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of powered aviation? Furthermore, are you claiming that you eschew medical science?
"I see you have your mind made up."
Squawked the online conspiracy parrot.
Science is not about opinion or preconceptions.
"What I needed to say has been said, one day you may figure it out. If not, no worries."
I assure you I have the measure of atmospheric science as much as I have the measure of you. It isn't hard, it's my background.
"So I wish you well, and hopefully someone as dedicated to posting as you will put that energy to better use by working against what’s being done to us all."
I dedicate my life to the battle against anthropogenic climate change and genuine environmental concerns..as opposed to baseless online hoaxes that have managed to reduce a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
That beard...tell me, are there regular and mandatory waxing requirements?
1
-
1
-
@biffteutsch3402
I have. And when you do you simply brand it a chemtrail. You are referring to irisation.
Similarly, what if you were to now discover that the expanding coverage that you term chemtrails are actually persistent spreading contrails?
A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all - it is governed by the prevailing atmospheric conditions, in particular, the interplay between temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. In conditions of high RHi then a trail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible gaseous state (water vapour). However if the air is saturated in respect to ice, the contrail will not only linger, but expand and grow in mass where 99% of the visible trail and ice budget within it is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture. Contrails are simply cirrus clouds. If you question their duration and expansion, then you must logically also question cloud formation too.
Here is the science behind the phenomena that you are seeing:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
Persistent contrail coverage has been recorded to last over 24 hours. The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@millsy3221
You say that you understand it, but then gullibly and badly parrot another mindless online conspiracy theory. Stop believing garbage you read on twitter and social media. The simulated scenario listed the initial "attack" occurring on May 15, 2022, as the tweet says. The first cases in the current outbreak were in fact reported to the WHO on May 13....so you're wrong.
Back in March 2021 The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), an organisation focused on reducing strategic threats, created a simulation of a pathogen outbreak in the world. The virus they chose was monkeypox. In their simulation, a terrorist group released a modified version of it from a lab, which then spread across the globe. The date they chose for the outbreak was June 5th this year – which some people have erroneously pounced on to argue that this means this is not a simulation but is happening now.The World Health Organisation on Tuesday described the recent outbreaks as a ‘containable’ situation and that the likelihood of a rapid increase in infections remained quite low on a whole. No, it isn't weird at all.
Monkeypox (MPX) is a zoonotic disease and is currently the most prevalent orthopoxvirus infection in humans after the eradication of smallpox and the cessation of universal smallpox vaccination. In endemic areas such as parts of Africa, monkeypox virus (MPXV) is probably maintained in nature through circulation among a number of mammals, with occasional spill-over events to humans. the recent cluster of cases in the UK indicates that transmission likely occurred during close physical contact during sexual activities.
Bohemian Grove, this again? The only unsavoury thing about it is the fat, privileged abhorrently super-rich capitalists and Republican dullards that congregate there to get drunk and create more business cartels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Fuck Google", tells you to google. You actually couldn't make it up.
"Um google the csiro Australia and there weather modification that flooded Tasmania's hydro electric dams."
Bizarrely Hydro Tasmania conducted cloud seeding over the upper Derwent catchment the day before heavy rains were forecast. Even if it did intensify the rain, what does cloud seeding have to do with this video?
"They have studied and documented spraying silver nano particles into the stratosphere using planes for aresol style injection."
No, that is a hypothetical area of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would attempt to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There is currently no agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose and although aluminium oxide has been suggested it is likely that sulphate aerosols would be employed. This has not yet even graduated beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling and although some small scale trials involving balloons have been designed to measure dispersal and perturbation, it is unlikely to proceed any further than that. You appear to be getting confused with silver iodide that is used in cloud seeding. Again, what does any of this have to do with the subject of the video or the misidentified aircraft contrails that are the source of the chemtrail hoax?
"They have been doing it since the 60s."
No 'they" haven't, SAI is entirely hypothetical. Cloud seeding however has been practiced since the 1950s. What's your point?
"How is that a conspiricy."
It's not. This video is about the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the erroneous belief that aircraft contrails are a sinister programme of intentional spraying.
"Turnbull spends 11 million dollars of tax payer money on unproven science" said the head line and i read the article the unproven science the spoke of was weather modification... "that is chemtrails"
No it isn't, it's cloud seeding. If however you choose to term it as such, then don't expect to be taken seriously.
"Spraying chemicals into the sky is the very definition of chem-trails no matter to what ends spraying chemical tails is chemtrail."
Strikes me then that "chemtrails" are whatever you want them to be. Let's add to that list, crop dusting, defoliants, herbicides, sky writing, air displays and fireworks then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solraczevehc3761
"Also why thirty years ago there was only con trails Not a hazy sky due to spraying."
You mean like this? The following image is taken from a meteorological text book dating back 75 years.
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
Contrails have been observed, documented and studied since the early advent of aviation and the best part of a century... In 'Flight to Arras', the legendary aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry recounted his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
The following paper is almost five decades old:
"Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
'Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail'
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
This details the science behind your observations:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1
-
@solraczevehc3761
"The sun use to look orange and now it’s white. Why’s is that?"
Absolute nonsense. The appearance of the sun is dependent upon it's position relative to the observer - when it is low in the sky, it may appear yellow, orange, or red. But that is only because its short-wavelength colours (green, blue, violet) are scattered out by the Earth's atmosphere. When the Sun is high in the sky, the shorter waves, primarily the blue, strike air molecules in the upper atmosphere and bounce around and scatter. Hence explaining why the sky looks blue. All forms of light and energy are part of the same phenomena: the electromagnetic spectrum. Our eyes can detect only a small amount of this energy, that portion we call "visible light." Radio waves, X-rays, microwaves, gamma rays all have longer or shorter wavelengths than visible light, but otherwise are the same phenomena. The Sun emits a lot of energy in the visible range. In wavelength scale it is from 390 nm to 700 nm, and when you translate it to colours, you get all colours from violet to red, just as we see them in the rainbow. When you mix all those colours together you get white, and that is why white is the true colour of the Sun. Most people perceive the sun as yellow because as I have explained the shortest wavelengths (that we see as different shades of blue) are being scattered by the Earth’s atmosphere, colouring the sky blue. And when our eyes combine the spectrum, except the blue , the Sun’s colour that our eyes detect is yellowish.
1
-
@solraczevehc3761
"man you really think you know it all. well keep thinking that lol so your education makes you an expert LoL."
You said the following...
"dude you don’t even look up."
I assure you that I do.....it's my living.
I am irrelevant to this exchange. Everything that I have posted is independently verifiable and supported by known physical laws. What in particular are you disputing - bearing in mind that your contention does not lie with me, rather the information that I have provided for you.
"It looks like you are a paid troll trying to disprove chem trails."
I don't need to 'disprove chemtrails' - they are a physical and mathematical impossibility that debunks itself. As the one making the claims the burden of truth is incumbent upon you - the onus does not lie with me to prove or disprove an absent. I am simply challenging your baseless claims. You are seeing persistent contrails which as I have shown, have been observed, recorded, documented, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight. Moreover, I am in full agreement with this video - as the one posting unsubstantiated claims, assumptions and allegations on this page, the troll would be none other than yourself.
"We all need a living, right."
And as I have explained, I have had a particularly interesting and fulfilling one.
Wait - you mean I can derive an income from lampooning your incredulity? Easy money - where do I sign?
"Just like those chem plane pilots ."
What "chem plane pilots" would that be?
Now, returning to my replies...what in particular are you disputing? Here again is the meteorological science explaining precisely what you are seeing. Perhaps commence with falsifying the applied mathematics in section 4?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cloud seeding, although deployed in some quite high profile cases is not that widespread and certainly not as reliable/dependable as people believe. - in fact the validity of the science is still disputed by many who are critical of the practice.
I wasn't aware that the are law suits directed against certain states for stealing atmospheric moisture. Could you link me to these? One of the implications of governance concerning any form of weather modification is the issue of beneficiary against cost. Some critics of cloud-seeding raise concerns about interfering with the natural equilibrium of the atmosphere. The amount of moisture in the atmosphere is determined by the balance between evaporation and precipitation. If cloud seeding was ever conducted on a large scale, it might lead to increased evaporation from locations outside the seeding area, - rain falling in one place would have fallen somewhere else.. Atmospheric budgets suggest that cloud seeding is unlikely to steal moisture from downwind sites though, because clouds represent a modest portion of the moisture in the atmosphere, a cloud-seeding effect of 15% would only remove about 1–2% of the total water vapour in the seeding area - and remember, cloud seeding cannot create clouds, it aims to introduce additional nucleation to existing stratiform/cumulus cloud masses.
A new study from the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service estimates that if cloud seeding augments annual rainfall by one inch, then for every dollar invested in weather modification, $19 is returned through more bountiful harvests and the use of less irrigation. I do hear you and more research is needed to understand if the practice works and what its environmental, social, and governance impacts will be.
Regarding any harmful effects, independently conducted peer reviewed studies have examined the ecological impact of cloud seeding in great depth demonstrating that the amount of reagents (crystallising reagents based on silver iodide (AgI), cooling reagents, and powder reagents) injected to the clouds does not exceed the level of inflow of these chemicals to the atmosphere from natural and anthropogenic sources. These data and the data on the pollution level in the areas where AgI is actively used, emphasise the extremely low impact of cloud seeding on environmental pollution. So no, you really can't, as you claim, find this in our soils.
Moreover, cloud seeding has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentification of persistent contrails in the wake of commercial aircraft that the chemtrail hoax is predicated upon other than the either the deliberate or unintentional conflation of weather modification and branches of geoengineering with this particular online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@faithesprit81
"have you heard of HAARP?"
You mean the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, and HF pump facility originally developed to explore submarine communications derived from the Luxembourg-Gorky effect, owned by the University of Alaska - for which you need no security clearance whatsoever to visit.
Yes have heard of it as opposed to allowing a dumb conspiracy video to tell me what to think. Would you like to discuss the science of HF pumps in more detail?
"Do you know what a contrail looks like Vs a Chemtrail?"
A contrail is the visible result of condensed water vapour initiated by the superheated exhaust of a jet engine in conditions of high relative humidity, low ambient temperature and vapour pressure, whilst a chemtrail is simply misidentification of the latter.
"I'd be more than happy to send you some photos which I had taken yesterday here in Portugal over a course of 5 hours in which the haze and artificial clouds remained"
You could do, but it's an unremarkable and familiar sight since such persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@midwayer11
"wow, you must think you,re pretty smart don’t you?"
Not at all - I am irrelevant to this exchange, do try to stay on the topic. Thanks.
"All my points still remain true."
You need to understand that simply saying that over the internet does not make it so.
"I have the pictures, I’ve seen the videos and everything else"
That settles it then.
"I’m not gonna try to argue with a stranger about it. I’m interested in why you want to oppose me so aggressively?"
I didn't mean for it to come across that way - and apologies if it did, but absolutely everything you said is false.
The planes in reality wouldn't have been "side by side" (and yes atmospheric conditions can change in a matter of mere feet). There are no professional testimonies about chemtrails in front of congress. Be honest with yourself, you actually haven't "heard family members of chemtrail pilots and people who are involved in the commercial transport and sale of the chemicals themselves" have you. There are no 'ads for chemtrail pilots' - cloud seeding yes of course, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the contrails that you are witnessing. There are advertisements for crop spraying pilots too - do you term that 'chemtrails' as well? Joe Rogan isn't involved in any cover up whatsoever. He's just an opportunistic podcaster and former UFC fighter that has struck gold with his online brand. One of the reasons that Spotify removed many of his shows was because of the association with conspiracy theory which he has spent much of his career promoting aspects of.
All of your post is opinion, assumption and unsubstantiated anecdotal claims.
"I mean look up and see them spraying the stuff"
You mean the airline contrails that have been observed measured and studied for almost a century that you have been conditioned by the internet to believe are 'chemtrails'? Logical fallacy much?
"Find that congressional hearing. It’s there if you want to see it but you just seem to want to use your time and energy to oppose reality. That’s not helpful."
No it isn't - it doesn't exist. I know exactly what you are referring to and I assure you it isn't a 'congressional hearing'. Seriously, I suggest that you invest your time and energy critically appraising your source instead of misconstruing a You Tube conspiracy video.
"The people who see it and want to expose it do so out of concern for society and the world. You can’t fix something that you aren’t aware of right?"
No they don't - those who peddle this hoax do so for their own personal and financial gain - (has it passed you by how lucrative this racket can actually be?). Those that believe it do so because they are duped into it. Anger and outrage sells and engages, that's precisely why platforms like You Tube knowingly nurtured conspiracy theory for years. Once they have your emotional investment they have your money.
I absolutely guarantee you that I know infinitely more about the origins, the background, the perpetrators and the false equivalence surrounding the chemtrail conspiracy theory than yourself. We can discuss it if you like.
"You try to reinforce ignorance."
The irony, was it intentional? To clarify, you subscribe to a dumb online scientifically illiterate hoax that has managed to convince you that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
I suggest you read your OP back to yourself, both reflectively and honestly.
If you want to discuss any aspect of your supposed 'chemtrails' perhaps commencing with your alleged 'congressional hearing' I would be delighted to do so. Thanks for your reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lenzer50
"no, contrails don’t stay in the air like these do"
Why? A contrail can be short lived, persistent or persistent spreading. Are you equally perplexed by a cloud. How then do you determine the difference between your supposed chemtrails and persistent contrails given that these have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and the best part of a century.
"And there’s always a lot of them crisscrossing each other, unless there are dozens of planes crisscrossing each other all at once."
Transport of passengers worldwide has steadily increased from just over 300 million in 1970 to almost 4.1 billion in 2017. The expansion of air networks is the result of liberal air regulations and the rise of lowcost carriers. Air freight (the transport of goods by plane) too has increased over twelve-fold since 1970. The phenomena of persistent and spreading contrails was first observed in the early years of aviation. The unprecedented expansion of commercial aviation sector has resulted in the increased prevalence of this. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
The sky is full of such commercial air traffic flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffkerr807
"whatever. Believe what you like."
Known science is not about 'beliefs" - least of all mine and at no stage have I mentioned any.
"I suppose you're an expert in this matter."
I am completely irrelevant, (although my background is applied meteorology and climatology). I can however guarantee that I know infinitely more about the origins, the background and the perpetrators of your crap conspiracy theory than yourself.
"Tell me, do commercial flights usually go in crisscrossing grid patterns?"
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"Do contrails normally stay suspended for hours eventually merging into full blanket coverage?"
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. Any idea how much the material contained in one of these materials weigh? Take a guess - and then tell me the MTOW of the aircraft that are producing them. Think about how it may be that an F16 fighter plane or a small business jet can produce a contrail over a hundred miles in length. The phenomena that you are observing has been witnessed, studied, recorded and measured for in excess of 80 years and the early advent of high altitude powered aviation. It's the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
Here's the science for you - feel free to falsify it. Go ahead.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
"Dont talk to me about junk science"
Don't talk to me about chemtrails then and I won't have to.
"Complete denial is the reason they get away with it."
Says that, then this...
"BTW. The gubmint has already admitted to it."
Have they? Fascinating. You'll have a link at source to this admission of course. I absolutely guarantee what false equivalence you'll come back with.
On the contrary, complete scientific illiteracy and gullibility is the reason they get away with selling you this hoax.
"And there have been court hearings on it."
No there haven't - but again, I guarantee what you'll come back with because I've seen it all before over and over and over again.
"Go bury your head in the sand"
Said the online conspiracy believer.
1
-
@jeffkerr807
"even if they are " normal contrails" you and everyone else should be seriously concerned about it."
I am. Aside from the nuisance on a clear day, they are a testimony to the sheer volume of commercial air traffic in the 21st century and the near exponential growth of the sector following deregulation in the 1970s. The release of carbon as a result is not a good thing.
"Mark my words, in the very near future the official explanation will be that they are blocking the sun to combat climate change."
SRM is a current area of research which is highly unlikely to ever become a reality. Not least due to the environmental unknowns and technical challenges, but also the implications for geopolitical relations and international governance.
"Dude they've been geoengineering and terraforming for decades. Whether you believe it or not."
As I explained, known science is not a question of 'belief' and at no stage have I mentioned mine. With the exception of ground based albedo modification and some very isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening, Solar Radiation Management is entirely hypothetical and the province of research publication and computer modeling. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has not even reached the stages of small scale trial, which would involve a balloon and several kilos of water released 20kms in altitude. The other category of geoengineering - Greenhouse Gas Removal/Negative Emissions Technology such as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation is however underway in the form of many active projects globally. What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails?
Let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of 'geoengineering' were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense such as yourself, are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will assume overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about. I'm sorry, but just be honest with yourself. Why don't you actually learn about geoengineering objectively instead of relying on junk pseudoscientific conspiracy websites? You people comically claim 'authority' over subjects that you are clearly completely clueless about - as your posts are ample testimony to.
"Dont waste your energy responding. Im not interested in anything you have to say."
Of course you aren't - you are an online conspiracy believer and next to religious extremists and fanatics, amongst the most closed minded community of individuals on the entire internet. In fact, it is only a step away from cult membership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stylespopping
"Show me some “Chemtrails” in Russia or China."
These people appear to think so...
https://youtu.be/xQhOZPEsGAs
https://youtu.be/EqRFPCRDyOE
https://youtu.be/EqRFPCRDyOE
https://youtu.be/V9j0mBOJl3k
https://youtu.be/gqFd0UVNg5w
"The countries you shared were either EU countries, or Asian countries that are friendly to US interests."
You originally claimed that these trails do not exist beyond the USA.
"Our two biggest enemies politically. Countries that I’ve traveled extensively over that last couple decades. They’re not there."
I assure you that they are...and they are nothing more than contrails. You need two things for chemtrails to "exist" - internet access and commercial air traffic. You will then invariably find people who are susceptible to online conspiracy theory and ignorant of very basic science.
"If this was a “naturally occurring” thing...it would be global, regardless of political affiliation."
Like I say, you will see trails wherever there is air traffic. One of the major problems for during bombing raids of WWII was deposition of contrails and during the 1960s it was realised that the U2 would also reveal its presence in this way. Although contrail mitigation has been investigated by the military, unbelievably the solution to the latter was a rear view mirror so that the pilot could adjust altitude if the ambient conditions were producing contrails.
"It’s the thin cloudy residue that turns into complete blankets of cloudy have over entire cities that have me interested in answers."
Did you read the paper that I linked you to? Here's another. The following study tracked contrail‐induced cirrus using a number of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, and at its peak, covering over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Again, you'll find all the scientific explanations contained within.
"Also try to find video of Chemtrails before 9/11. Most people report that they kicked up nationwide after 9/11."
Most people? Who are most people? Chemtrail conspiracy theorists couldn't even agree upon what day it is. Firstly, the moratorium of commerical air traffic over the United States immediately in the aftermath caused a total cessation in contrail coverage....
https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/
...Leading some scientists to conclude that this affected temperatures (however this claim has now been challenged.)
Secondly, contrail coverage has been documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation. This conspiracy theory originated in the late 1990s through the late night radio shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM - a commercial radio station eager to shock and sensationalise to boost ratings and increase advertising revenue. 9/11 and the growth in internet access saw a huge growth in popular conspiracy theory and as an online industry, this nonsense has burgeoned. The proponents of this hoax now conflate it with cloud seeding and research into geoengineering in attempts to vindicate their claims despite the fact that neither bear any relationship to the misidentification of persistent contrails upon which this fraud was originally predicated.
"unless of course it is naturally occurring but showing up more regularly because of global warming."
There is no relationship other than the fact that contrails are a useful testimony to the appalling carbon footprint associated with the largely unregulated growth in demand and provision of commercial air travel.
"Since the counter argument is humidity and temperature changes."
That isn't a counter argument. The atmosphere is not homogeneous in respect of either temperature, pressure or humidity. Burn a hydrocarbon fuel and the chief products are H20 and Co2. Do this in the regions in which aircraft cruise, (the tropopause and lower stratosphere) and depending on the interplay of these three factors and the ambient air conditions, a contrail may form. in conditions of high RHi, this will persist because the crystals are unable to sublimate back into their invisible gaseous state (water vapour). If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will spread and expand largely through the available atrmospheric moisture budget and fanned by shear, often becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
"So maybe global warming is more serious than mainstream media wants us to know. "
Contrails have nothing to do with global warming, aside from research suggesting that they may contribute/exacerbate radiative forcing at night.
"Either way it’s an observable phenomenon that has been increasing over the last several years. That’s a fact."
Absolutely - and the increased prevalence of this phenomena correlates with the huge growth of the commercial aviation sector. As I said earlier, this is an industry that has undergone exponential expansion with very little in the way of regulation. An industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Carbon emission and contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No it isn't - chemtrails conspiracy theorists have simply told you that. No one informed or in the real world would refer to geoengineering as 'chemtrails', it's merely a way for the perpetrators of this hoax to add supposed legitimacy to their claims.
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation and ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification.
SRM has nothing whatsoever to do with the magnetosphere, rather it is a series of strategies aimed at reducing rising global temperatures and combating anthropogenic climate change. The main initiative under proposal is called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would attempt to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Currently there is no agreement upon the materials that could be employed to achieve this, but sulphates, (which also form heterogeneously in the Junge layer) may be a possibility. Early research suggests that clacium carbonate has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulphate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. However, calcium carbonate does not exist naturally in the stratosphere even though it is non-toxic and earth abundant. Therefore, though we can almost certainly expect that calcium carbonate will not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate, the actual stratospheric reactivity needs to be established, which means laboratory and small scale trials are needed. This was proposed through an experiment involving a steerable balloon launched 20kms into the stratosphere at first releasing a few kilos of water, followed by small quantities of CaCO3 to test perturbation, reflectivity and dispersal. This experiment was denied ethical approval.
SAI will never become a reality. Not just because of the logistical problems, cost and opposition but very simply due to the impossibility of international governance. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers term as 'chemtrails'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cfh4201969
Please, spare me the attempt to do science - you are a conspiracy believer, it will only end in you humiliating yourself - (not that you haven't already).
"perfectly normal levels of dust particles? 😂 Aluminum barium strontium manganese etc do not exist normally in the skies or anywhere else."
To reiterate, because you are clearly struggling here. Dane Wigington comically employed a hand held Dylos air quality instrument which measures the number concentration of particles. They recorded around 1700 ultrafine particles per cubic centimeter which is not only in the low range, but even lower than what you would expect taking a measurement from an air vent. 🤣At what point did he find any of the substances that you refer to?
"Aluminum barium strontium manganese etc do not exist normally in the skies or anywhere else."
Righto - lets start with aluminium shall we? Aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
Background levels of barium in the atmosphere are actually very low. Could you provide your data? I'm not interested in what Dane Wigington told you, the analytical results and the source please. Do bear in mind that I'm infinitely more familiar with this ludicrous conspiracy theory than you are and the false claims made. Just the science if you will.
Because strontium in its elemental form occurs naturally in many compartments of the environment, including rocks, soil, water, and air. it can mobilise through the environment fairly easily, because many of the compounds are water-soluble. Strontium is always present in air as dust, up to a certain level. Again, your data please.
The primary source of manganese in the atmosphere results from the air erosion of dusts or soils. The mean concentration of manganese in ambient air in the United States is 0.02 μg/m3; however, ambient levels near industrial sources can range from 0.22 to 0.3 µg/m3.
You now need to not only differentiate samples from those extant and naturally occurring sources, but demonstrate the causal link between any claimed findings and your supposed chemtrails.
Good...luck...with...that.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't answer my question. Do you know why ICP-MS is significant?
1
-
1
-
@cfh4201969
"ok so the icp-ms is a piece of equipment that can test for elements down to nanoparticles, okay so what."
No - it is an analytical method - a technique which works is by turning the sample into a plasma (essentially a very hot ionised gas, up to about 10,000 degrees C). This breaks down all the substances in the sample into their constituent atoms (ions, to be precise) and then analyses them according to their individual mass. So any substance containing aluminium, whether that is aluminium oxide, or clay, or granite rock, or whatever, will be broken down and give a signal for aluminium ions. Any idea why this is significant? Think hard now.
"You can take your own time and find the patents on all of those things they are readily available. I've already seen them and the government documents."
I am familiar with all the the patents that you refer to - specifically, those that Wigington attempts to pass off as evidence of chemtrails from exhaust atomisers, to smoke generators and even crop dusting devices. Moreover, a patent is not proof of the existence of something, it is simply the registration of an idea, irrespective of how outlandish that may be. Many of these patents that chemtrail websites feature are unadopted because they contain significant flaws. A prime example being- Welsbach Seeding, which you people still insist upon parroting. Also, you made the claim, so the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. The onus does not lie with me or any other party to search for an absent based upon your insistence, arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.
So I'll ask again, with the above in mind. Please may you provide me with the patent number for what you regard to be your singular most compelling and conclusive piece of evidence for the existence of your supposed chemtrails? I'll then explain to you the actual purpose of the device in question. Of course you can't.
"I've already seen them and the government documents."
Sure you have, must have missed those too. Again, could you direct me to them?
"And by the way the plane used to take the samples from the lower atmosphere was a NOAA flying lab"
In the clip that I am referring to the filmmakers flew a learjet into condensation trails. Using a particle meter, they recorded residual unidentified dust particles coming through the vents of the bleed air system at a negligible level 🤣. The NOAA turboprop aircraft that they asked to film in action was flown between 17,000-20,000 ft. and sampled a cloud layer. What did they find? - as you would expect, airborne dust and condensation nuclei. Why is it even necessary to explain this to you?
"And aluminum in its pure form from the bauxite ore is a heavy metal. It's then mixed with other metals and becomes alloys for different purposes. Like 6061-T6 aircraft grade or 7075-T6 like my mountain bike or certain truck wheel spacers I've have made etc"
Aluminium isn't being found in its 'pure form' though. Again, why is it necessary to explain this? Hardly surprising since you think that aluminium is a 'heavy metal'
"Anyways I'm done with your official native BS. Keep lying to the people because the Geo engineering program is becoming harder and harder to hide."
Why are you changing the subject to 'geoengineering'? What 'programme? Geoengineering consists of vastly different methods from carbon sequestering and aforestation to albedo modification. Then there is SRM which is entirely hypothetical. Geoengineering isn't in the least bit secretive. What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails?
"Hell they're even showing us the 12 new "natural" cloud formations."
Nope, wrong again reclassifications. Refinements to our existing taxonomy. Anthropogenic cloud species have been added due to contrails and industry.
"A good friend of mine is an aircraft mechanic at one of the big international airports here. When I ask him about this topic all he can tell me is "we can't talk about it". What he can't tell me is it is correct that these GE high bypass turbo fan jet engines are almost incapable of producing a condensation trail. Because most of the air that passes through is non-combusted."
You're getting desperate now and simply parroting Wigington again and dressing it up in anecdote. High bypass turbines were first used in the 1960s and are actually more conducive to contrail formation. There is still a core combustion process taking place, it's simply that they utilise a larger turbine fan which generates bypass air and increases efficiency. This is actually cooler air surrounding the exhaust so increases the likelihood of contrails.
"Anyway I'm done with your BS."
Yes, so you already said. No use simply saying it.
"This will all be over soon as they can't hide it anymore."
Hide what? Contrails have been observed and understood for the best part of a century.
"You can respond to this if you want but I'm not even going to look at it."
Whether you do or don't, as a conspiracy believer you are amongst the most closed minded and arrogant individuals on the entire internet next to religious/political extremists and cult members - and therefore incapable of challenging your own preconceptions.
"Wasted too much time already."
Well if you will insist on listening to con artists like Wigington and being duped by crap like 'The Dimming'...Your choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@annarussell2547
"my ass."
What about it?
"They attach onto each other and spread out, blocking out the sun."
Yes, persistent spreading contrails.
"blocking out the sun."
That would depend upon your position relative to the trails as a ground based observer.
"Basically, they're trying to reflect the sun back toward space."
Solar Radiation Management, which with the exception of ground based albedo modification, is entirely hypothetical and has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that you are seeing.
"I worked outside for over a decade as a ground water treatment operator in Texas, always watching the sky, it was normal. Moved to Oklahoma and spent '12-'15 there and that's where I really noticed them first."
Then you weren't looking very hard. persistent spreading contrails that have observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"If you watch the sunrise, that's where they start."
I suggest you simply watch the air traffic above you. You can use flight tracking software to do so.
"They follow the sun."
Again, you seem to have difficulty understanding observational perspective relative to your position on the ground.
1
-
@eatpizzle9766
Seriously, you need to understand what SAI actually is. It would take the form of a very fine mist, at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are witnessing and wouldn't even be perceptible to a ground based observer. When the chemtrail conspiracy theory originated in the 90s through the likes of Art Bell's nonsense on Coast to Coast FM and the sensationalist feature by William Thomas, it was entirely predicated upon the erroneous belief that aircraft contrails had some sinister intent based on the ludicrous false premise that contrails must immediately 'dissipate' and that persistent trails had never been observed before then. With the advent of the internet and the explosion of online conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Michael J Murphy and Dane Wigington eager to jump on the bandwagon, quickly seized upon SRM geoengineering strategies and in particular the emerging work of David Keith (SAI). This association fallacy was a lame attempt at affording legitimacy to their claims and was a complete watershed in the chemtrail belief. Both attributed aircraft contrails to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. Because the believers in this nonsense hang on the every word of the perpetrators, most followers of the chemtrail conspiracy theory now falsely associate the sight of contrails with geoengineering, without even understanding what either actually are.
SAI, which would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols is entirely hypothetical and the stuff of computer modelling. I suggest that you look into SCoPEx, which is a proposed trail on behalf of Harvard/The Keutsch Group who are at the vanguard of this research. They aim to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere and releases a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation. Subsequent runs may release negligible quantities of calcium carbonate - which is precisely the point, the materials to best effect this haven't even been determined. This has been delayed for five years seeking ethical approval. SAI is a reckless, ludicrous and frankly dangerous folly. Because of this it will never become a reality. Not simply due to the environmental unknowns, the appreciable logistical challenges and the opposition, but the impossibility of international governance. SAI proposes to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns to envelop the entire planet - the legal implications, far less the implications for global security don't bear thinking about which is why it will remain in the realms of fantasy.
Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve regular jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"hahaha okay bro, nothing to see here"
That hasn't been repeated over and over and over and over again.
"Tell me, if a notorious liar Tells you he doesnt lie, do you believe him?"
Absolutely not, which is why the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax are so amusing.
"OFC It was "debunked", people asked 2 many questions. And epstein/pizzagate was also debunked, all the Media went Off on it, stating it as absolutely crazy."
Ha! Pizzagate???? Jeez, I thought you were gullible but...
"And just for your Information, i have collected plenty of Data/pictures/Videos of this and im 101% sure."
Of course you are - conspiracy believers all over. You mean you've collected plenty of false equivalence, and pictures/videos of regular contrails and unremarkable meteorological phenomena that you also don't understand.
"But Please, Please go on with your Ignorance so you can drag all of us down with you. Im tired of this."
I absolutely guarantee that I not only know infinitely more about the junk video that you have just posted in addition to the origins, perpetrators, and background associated with your crap conspiracy theory than yourself. Try me.
"And you clearly didnt Watch the whole Video"
I have seen every aspect of this bullshit repeatedly. It's the same deception, false equivalence, appropriated misrepresented footage and charlatans batted around your vacuous echo-chamber time and time again. As I said, I absolutely guarantee that I know more about the content of this video than you. Which aspect would you like to discuss in detail? Your choice.
"if u had done that you would have seen that this is questioned from many angles and people with good Reputation"
Good reputation???? Ha! The likes of Kristen Meghan - are you actually being serious?
"yet it is covered up very carefully."
So much so its readily accessible by any gullible fool such as yourself through scores of similarly ludicrous videos mindlessly posted and shared on You Tube. Ok.
"just test it for yourself if u cant believe it if Not seen with your own eyes, its not even that expensive."
Test what precisely. If you are referring to soil, or water then state your precise methodology. How do you differentiate between your samples and existing sources of both natural and anthropogenic origin. In addition to this, the standard laboratory analysis method is ICP MS - can you tell me why this is significant? If you are thinking of atmospheric samples, remote sensing is my background - want to discuss it in detail? Of course you don't.
"And do you even have Eyes? This can be seen everywhere around the World and it increased a lot recently."
Sounds exactly like contrails and the commercial aviation sector to me...oh wait.
"Might not Sink into your Smartphone all thetime, Works Wonders."
I don't bother with a smart phone. And yourself?
"But Yeah, that Maybe already too much for you, better go on Living in a Dream World."
Said the chemtrail believer.
"Its been prooven, not debunked."
Present your singular most compelling piece of evidence then. You're going to need more that a crap You Tube conspiracy video.
"Of course they debunk it, like i said, a notorious liar like governments will never tell you the truth."
What does any government have to do with the microphysics of contrails and the physical laws of the atmosphere?
"so many Incidences where they lied"
Because junk online conspiracy is of course entirely accurate, truthful, reliable, not in the least bit deceptive, manipulative or exploitative, entirely devoid of agenda and has our best interest at heart? Ok then.
"but with geoengineering/HAARP they tell the Truth?"
Research into geoengineering is entirely transparent and has never been secretive. GGR is actively pursued - biochar, aforestation and carbon sequestering; whilst SRM with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical. The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme was never classified which is precisely why you imbeciles know about it in the first place. Would you like me to explain what it consists of, what its actual design purpose was and what it is actually capable of doing instead of listening to some online pseudoscientific conspiratorial horseshit? Again, of course you wouldn't. What does geoengineering or HAARP have to do with the misidentified contrails discussed in this video that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and the best part of a century?
"You Honestly cant be that Naive"
The unintentional irony at this stage is as hilarious as it is staggering.
"Have a nice day anyway"
It's actually the middle of the night where I am, but nonetheless, you too.
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"didnt expect a Proper answer, thanks for that. Finally someone who is willing to discuss and goes into the Points i Made. Thats very rare these Days, appreciate it."
And I appreciate your gratitude and would be grateful for your continued civility. Here's my pledge. I will address all of your comments on a point by point basis - (so long as you stay on point). I may need to split my reply into two, or even three because the damn YT spam filter often indiscriminately and randomly cuts out lengthy posts. I will answer all of your questions - I would appreciate if you would do the same should I pose any to you.
"Evidence i cant present to you properly in the comment section, obviously. Im very hard to convince, im not Sharing this based on nothing. Just know i have taken many samples from air, water etc."
Have you? So as requested you need to detail your methodology. Have you any idea how complex this is? It isn't simply a question of sticking a bowl on your window ledge when it rains. How precisely did you ensure that you discriminated your samples from existing sources of contamination owing to anthropogenic and natural origins? And how do you then establish causality with aerial spraying? Soil samples?? Any analytical laboratory will use the standard test method which is ICP MS - I'll ask you again, do you understand why this is significant? Regarding atmospheric samples - this was my background. Again explain how you conducted this.
If it were me, I would specifically be most interested in the results from airborne differential absorption LIDAR measurements during a defined IOP, PBL illustrating the dynamics and vertical separation of these aerosol layers of your alleged chemical trails. Radiosonde data and scanning backscatter LIDAR comparisons would also be interesting in addition to the information yielded by combined LIDAR scanning electron microscopy and x-ray microanalysis. I would also expect to see a distinct signature of these chemical trails regarding the extent of thermo-atmospheric scattering which can be derived from mono-static SODAR data and optical thickness equations and in association with the extrapolation of the Ångström exponent calculations.
COD data is easily derived from a quantitative COD sensor or spectroradiometer, all designed around a modern compact grating spectrometer (CGS) yielding Three Waveband Spectrally-agile Technique. (TWST). The benefit being that such calibrated instrumentation can examine a narrow segment (0.5 degrees) of the sky directly overhead in great detail, recording the spectral radiance in the visible wavelength regime at 2-8 nm spectral resolution. I appreciate that this is incredibly obvious but it is nonetheless a very thorough method by which to collect data pertaining to the optical depth, layering and back scattering of these supposed chemicals and capture spectral radiance during a defined IOP. Please don't tell me that such a rudimentary and routine approach hasn't been attempted by your chemtrail websites?
You see, given the two decades or so that this supposed spraying has allegedly been in progress and the fact that you maintain that the sky is supposedly full of these chemical trails; appreciating that there are hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails and in view of the sophistication and availability of remote sensing and atmospheric monitoring technology worldwide, there should similarly be a multitude of data gathered in respect of your "chemtrails". Just one in-situ spectrographic analytical study at source will suffice.
Do you have one?
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"Maybe you can tell me, why is there for ex Aluminium, dont you think that shouldnt be the case at all?
And aluminium and other Metals are found everywhere around the World, according to other researchers, some of them i know personally and i Trust them. Its even found in plants and animals. How come that so many people Adress this supposed issue? I dont believe in coincidence."
Aluminium is the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element in the earth's crust comprising 8% of the earth's surface. We are as you say surrounded by it having many natural and anthropogenic pathways into our air, soils and water. No one is finding abnormal levels of aluminium anywhere - your online conspiracy simply tells you that. Again, appreciate that the analytical laboratories that charlatans such as Dane Wigington have taken their pond sludge to will do what they are asked to do and use ICP MS. I'll ask you once more - do you know why this is significant? Aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
"Im not saying every conspiracy theory is right. And im also not saying every Government only lies. the World isnt just black n white.. Please dont assume im a blind Believer, im definitly Not."
Hallelujah - genuinely, you are the first person that entertains the notion of conspiracy theory to realise that. Simply because a government has lied or deceived their voters in the past (and they do), it does not them follow that chemtrails or any random/arbitrarily selected conspiracy theory of our choice of devising must therefore be true.
"And i dont even want to convince Somebody with just the Link, my purpose is more General. Spreading Awareness and get people to do their own Research. That was my Intention."
...Er, yeah. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self proclaimed armchair overnight expertise following squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how do you do yours?
The easiest way is to post empirical data at source demonstrating causality - but there isn't any. We can routinely measure a contrail, but not a chemtrail. Ask yourself why that may be.
"And i dont get it either why you assume i wouldnt Listen to your explanation or what u have to say?"
Because believers in conspiracy theory generally don't. They are incapable of self appraisal, questioning their preconceptions or considering any actual evidence that runs contrary to their regurgitated narrative. In fact next to religious fundamentalists/extremists they are among the most closed minded people on the internet. You are clearly different - and I do appreciate that.
"And Another Tip, if you go on assuming everyone who believes conspiracy theories is dumb or misinformed, less and less people will Listen and that cant be the purpose you aimed at, right? + people looking into all this crazy Stuff show that they are very interested in finding truths."
That was purely a response to your own reply and the deceptive video that you posted, which as I offered to do, I will discuss any aspect of in detail.
"They just throw all this Stuff out there so nobody can differenciate whats right, wrong etc... (both gov and stupid people)"
That's the interent and the post truth era for you. It has afforded a platform to those with nothing informed or worthwhile to say who suddenly find that unlike the real world they have a voice. Many find it hard to differentiate between fact and fake because either they are substituting for the education that has eluded them or are wolly ignorant of science and nature. in this populist age, rational discourse, true objectivity and critical thinking is dying. The internet is also a haven for conmen and manipulators. I refer you back to the video that you posted - albeit clearly with good intent
"Now i want to Apologize, my Comment wasnt appropriate too, Made assumptions on what you Think. This wasnt ok and i want to say sorry. Maybe we can work this out together."
Truly, no apology necessary - but such humility is a refreshing sight to see.
*_"And You are asking what the Government has to do with contrails and the atmosphere? Lol? Maybe they authorize flights, send Weather Balloons (intended 😂) and Collecting Data for themselves (which is np to me at all, itsnecessary)
And howcan u be so sure. They Maybe tell you all this,and its actually reasonable, i get what you say. But why are you sure? Why do you Trust them?"_*
You misunderstand my point. The science of contrails is known, understood and being axiomatic has a voice of its own. No "government" has anything to do with their formation and cannot subvert the physical laws that determine this which are ineluctable.
"And howcan u be so sure. They Maybe tell you all this,and its actually reasonable, i get what you say. But why are you sure? Why do you Trust them?"
I don't trust any "government" - I trust known science. The latter renders the chemtrail conspiracy theory a physical and mathematical impossibility.
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"Maybe you can tell me, why is there for ex Aluminium, dont you think that shouldnt be the case at all?
And aluminium and other Metals are found everywhere around the World, according to other researchers, some of them i know personally and i Trust them. Its even found in plants and animals. How come that so many people Adress this supposed issue? I dont believe in coincidence."
Aluminium is the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element in the earth's crust comprising 8% of the earth's surface. We are as you say surrounded by it having many natural and anthropogenic pathways into our air, soils and water. No one is finding abnormal levels of aluminium anywhere - your online conspiracy simply tells you that. Again, appreciate that the analytical laboratories that charlatans such as Dane Wigington have taken their pond sludge to will do what they are asked to do and use ICP MS. I'll ask you once more - do you know why this is significant? Aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
"Im not saying every conspiracy theory is right. And im also not saying every Government only lies. the World isnt just black n white.. Please dont assume im a blind Believer, im definitly Not."
Hallelujah - genuinely, you are the first person that entertains the notion of conspiracy theory to realise that. Simply because a government has lied or deceived their voters in the past (and they do), it does not them follow that chemtrails or any random/arbitrarily selected conspiracy theory of our choice of devising must therefore be true.
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"And i dont even want to convince Somebody with just the Link, my purpose is more General. Spreading Awareness and get people to do their own Research. That was my Intention."
...Er, yeah. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self proclaimed armchair overnight expertise following squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how do you do yours?
The easiest way is to post empirical data at source demonstrating causality - but there isn't any. We can routinely measure a contrail, but not a chemtrail. Ask yourself why that may be.
"And i dont get it either why you assume i wouldnt Listen to your explanation or what u have to say?"
Because believers in conspiracy theory generally don't. They are incapable of self appraisal, questioning their preconceptions or considering any actual evidence that runs contrary to their regurgitated narrative. In fact next to religious fundamentalists/extremists they are among the most closed minded people on the internet. You are clearly different - and I do appreciate that.
"And Another Tip, if you go on assuming everyone who believes conspiracy theories is dumb or misinformed, less and less people will Listen and that cant be the purpose you aimed at, right? + people looking into all this crazy Stuff show that they are very interested in finding truths."
That was purely a response to your own reply and the deceptive video that you posted, which as I offered to do, I will discuss any aspect of in detail.
"They just throw all this Stuff out there so nobody can differenciate whats right, wrong etc... (both gov and stupid people)"
That's the interent and the post truth era for you. It has afforded a platform to those with nothing informed or worthwhile to say who suddenly find that unlike the real world they have a voice. Many find it hard to differentiate between fact and fake because either they are substituting for the education that has eluded them or are wolly ignorant of science and nature. in this populist age, rational discourse, true objectivity and critical thinking is dying. The internet is also a haven for conmen and manipulators. I refer you back to the video that you posted - albeit clearly with good intent
"Now i want to Apologize, my Comment wasnt appropriate too, Made assumptions on what you Think. This wasnt ok and i want to say sorry. Maybe we can work this out together."
Truly, no apology necessary - but such humility is a refreshing sight to see.
"And You are asking what the Government has to do with contrails and the atmosphere? Lol? Maybe they authorize flights, send Weather Balloons (intended 😂) and Collecting Data for themselves (which is np to me at all, itsnecessary) And howcan u be so sure. They Maybe tell you all this,and its actually reasonable, i get what you say. But why are you sure? Why do you Trust them?"
You misunderstand my point. The science of contrails is known, understood and being axiomatic has a voice of its own. No "government" has anything to do with their formation and cannot subvert the physical laws that determine this which are ineluctable.
"And howcan u be so sure. They Maybe tell you all this,and its actually reasonable, i get what you say. But why are you sure? Why do you Trust them?"
I don't trust any "government" - I trust known science. The latter renders the chemtrail conspiracy theory a physical and mathematical impossibility.
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"If You want to Spray people on a global scale, you definitly will need some scientific explanation to it and... there it is. And other non-scientifc claims are just labeled conspiracy theory so no one even argues...And in fact it WAS done in secrecy until some people Adressed it."
There is no worldwide "spraying" - those are contrails. That's it. Yes you are correct that small scale dispersal experiments have been conducted in secrecy by the military. I can think of examples both in the US and here in the UK, but these were on or near ground level and have nothing to do with the trails in the wake of high altitude aircraft that have been observed, measured and studied for in excess of 85 years.
"first they said they dont do it it. Then they say, Hey we have this tech now we do it but its no harm. And Now they are putting it in school Books etc.. And if you go back 20+ years they were already talking about Controlling Weather and stuff, bill Gates for example.
Seems very fishy to me."
You are confusing lots of different things here. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is the belief that contrails in the wake of jet aircraft are of a sinister purpose and are evidence of an intentional programme of spraying. This hoax uses all manner of false equivalence and association fallacy such as cloud/seeding or research into geoengineering to qualify it's claims. Let's be honest here, and apologies if this sounds harsh, its believers would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate this ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
"I would go on gut i cant right Now. If u want to Continue our Conversation, im in. And dont get me wrong, sometimes i can be convinced but since nearly no One is even able or wants to communicate and find Solutions or conclusions together about serious issues its hard for me to actually find someone with some knowledge about this. I dont Trust Government sources and i have many reasons to do so, personally and from my Experience regarding other Topics"
Atmospheric science is my background (although I now work in research capability). Without meaning to sound arrogant, I can discuss the science with authority and also guarantee that I know more about the origins, history, background and main perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory than yourself.
Once request though, could you post concise points at a time - succinctly, because I had to split this post into four due to the fact that it was too lengthy to post. Also it is very time consuming.
I suggest that you select what you regard to be the most compelling evidence from the video that you wish to share and I will discuss it/go through it with you.
Thank you again for your civil and courteous reply - so rare on these comments sections and makes constructive debate so much more forthcoming.
1
-
"December 8, 2017 the CIA admitted to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection..."
How do you admit to something that is already common knowledge? Some conspiracy that. Albedo modification in the form of geoengineering strategies such as SAI have always been in the public domain.
And actually, the CIA did nothing of the sort.
I take it you are referring to former head of the CIA, John Brennan and his address to the Council on Foreign Relations, during which he discussed future issues that may result in global instability?...
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts.Brennan is discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a PESTLE framework. Research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"December 8, 2017 the CIA admitted to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection...
This was published four days later lol. Uhhhh"
Wrong again, the speech was delivered on the 29th June 2016. Unless you are referring to something else. Do tell.
Moreover, what does SAI have to do with the belief that a contrail in the wake of a commercial aircraft is evidence of a programme of chemical spraying? - Precisely what this video is debunking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimsworthow531
"Another disinfo troll smoked out."
Oh for goodness sake, change the record. Firstly, I am in agreement with this video, and simply using the 'reply' feature to respond to your post on a comment section - so how can I possibly be a 'troll'? Secondly as the one posting ill-informed content, making unsubstantiated claims and posting ad hominem logical fallacy, then by the very definition of the term, the troll would in actual fact be none other than yourself.
Secondly, what disinformation? no use simply saying it - demonstrate how.
"You guys have lost this battle of knowledge."
Knowledge? What knowledge, you are simply badly parroting junk internet conspiracy theory. And there you go again - please try to stay on subject, I am irrelevant. Everything I said to you in my reply is independently verifiable. The science behind the research speaks for itself. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Most people know the truth. They trust their eyes, research, and own judgement."
And what could possibly go wrong there?
Incorrect, they trust the perpetrators of this hoax over known and objective science. Research? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"I checked your posts against a list and see you conment on SAI discussions to spread your lies."
Of course you did...that settles it then.
You need to comprehend, that simply saying something over the internet does not make it true. Prove it. You wish to brand me a liar? - then address the content of my post and demonstrate why instead of reacting with childish indignation when someone challenges your claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Al_Pollock
You think that jet fuel isn't regularly sampled and tested? That a third party in connection with a refinery could make these additions in secret? That the airlines, jet engine manufactures, and aerospace companies would remain completely oblivious to this? That the concentration of these chemicals would be sufficiently low not to compromise performance or the operation of a jet engine, yet capable of producing trails 100s km in length using some mysterious chemical that is able to expand and increase in mass in the same way as - well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Yet, during maximum thrust settings, take off and climb these trails are for some reason not produced when they should be at their thickest?
The chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, recorded, documented, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and the best part of a century.
Finally, there is still air traffic - albeit at a vastly reduced level in terms of commercial passenger carrying services - but air freight is still being flown. Contrails can dim the sun and cause radiative forcing at night, but the weather that you are experiencing is likely to do with a large ridge of high pressure and totally unrelated to the virtual cessation of civil air traffic.
Where are you located?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sillybutt7
This again? Still? Really?
You can indeed look up information on Kristen Meghan - and if you avoid self-referencing conspiracy chemtrails websites and videos then it might be accurate.
Are you new to this? You mean Kristen Meghan, formerly Staff Sgt. Edwards who on account of her appalling Military record tried to stir up some shit at Robins AFB where she served. Her 'whistle blowing' concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly:
"My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonise me in case I spoke out." Kristen Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate issue I believe she was introduced to the conspiracy theory by her brother over FB. Being an attention whore, and a former USAF employee she was paraded around by the perpetrators of this hoax as an appeal to false authority obviously chasing the lucrative dream of career conspiracy theory. She claimed to have tests but never produced them. Furthermore, the carcinogens she reported on (Chromium Oxide and Strontium 90) have a perfectly innocent reason for being on the base. They're used in the repair of airframes.
Kristen Meghan has for years lived in staid obscurity raising a family in leafy suburban Chicago – however she stills postures online in a desperate attempt to appear relevant and justify her existence. And here is your appeal to authority...
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
She's bills herself as an 'expert on chemtrails, weather control, and synthetic biology' - in reality she is an opportunistic failed career conspiracy theorist, and attempt to salvage an ignominious military career.
Complete horseshit.
In reality, if there were any basis to these claims, there would be hundreds if not thousands of Kristen Meghan's - difference being presenting genuine evidence. It's the same old perpetrators of this hoax and conspiracy theorists - over and over and over and over again. That Dane Wigington is still able to dupe and deceive people is frankly astonishing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noneyall2819
Scientists are irrelevant here - the physical laws and mathematical axioms that govern the duration of a contrail speak for themselves.
But to briefly explain. As I explained, a contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or they may not form at all. The governing factors are the interplay between temperature, humidity and pressure. If the ambient air is of high relative humidity, sufficiently low temperature and vapour pressure, then a contrail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible phase, which is water vapour. If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then it will not only linger, but will expand, spread and grow in mass because the water vapour is almost entirely being drawn from the available atmospheric moisture. In such cases, contrails can become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
Thank you for your civil replies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@time2see192
"It's unbelievable that with so much evidence available"
Evidence? In the quarter of a century of this hoax not on shred of independent, genuinely scientific or rigorous objective 'evidence'has ever been provided by the perpetrators of this nonsense. Meanwhile conspiracy believers with zero actual knowledge of atmospheric science, aviation or meteorology continue to gullibly consume and regurgitate it the same old tiresome tropes, misconceptions and misinformation.
Evidence? You're going to need more that a crap Dane Wigington video.
"STILL continue to deny the truth, either by totally refusing to do their own research"
Errr, right. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence, association fallacy and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy theory, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"or simply by being incapable of logical sound intelligence once they do see it."
The unintentional irony at this stage is as staggering as it is entertaining.
"I have a playlist on my channel where I've saved just some of the evidence...perhaps you should take or look."
And quelle surprise...turns out it consists of?... junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence association fallacy and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy theory. 🤣
"Or just stay simple, I mean ignorance IS bliss"
I absolutely guarantee I am infinitely more acquainted and knowledgeable about the origins, background, perpetrators and agendas associated with this dumb conspiracy theory than yourself and that there is nothing that you can present to me that I haven't already seen over and over and over again.
"I dont really care."
Clearly you do, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to comment and why you will be compelled to do so again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dexterd1188
"Why does the subject of an obvious spray pattern in the sky of chemicles being sprayed and the government admitting they sprayed bring such a negative response"
Because those '"spray patterns" that you are seeing are simply condensed water vapour in the form of misidentified persistent contrails. Is it really so hard to comprehend that commercial air traffic departs from all over the planet and flies in a multitude differing directions to disparate destinations across the globe in accordance to a range of headings, altitudes routes and corridors? In conditions which are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails why would you not expect, from the perspective of a ground based observer for these trails to appear to overlap and intersect when looking upwards into three dimensional space?
Here - nice X shape when viewed from below.
https://youtu.be/oNGI8fX71fM
Here's why...
https://youtu.be/d9r3H4iHFZk
https://youtu.be/G1L4GUA8arY
Since vertical separation is typically a thousand feet, it is practically impossible to differentiate between altitude from ground level.
"and the government admitting they sprayed"
No one has "admitted" to any such thing.True, there were incidences of experiments conducted by the military in which negligible quantities of agents (some biological) were released in urban areas and subsequently monitored to measure dispersion - but this has nothing whatsoever to a white plume in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere in the wake of a commercial aircraft that chemtrail believers claim to be evidence of a programme of intentional chemical spraying.
Apologies for the length of this, but I do feel that this needs some clarification. The chemtrail conspiracy theory originated in the late nineties, largely as a consequence of Coast to Coast AM - a commercial radio station in the US that still to this day manufactures such hoaxes to boost ratings and thereby generate more advertising revenue. It was predicated upon, and encouraged, the misidentification of regular contrails which were increasing due to the expansion of air traffic, the abundance of high bypass engines (which contrary to the claims of proponents of this theory have a higher contrail factor than regular jet turbine engines) and the tendency for aircraft to fly higher. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has become a lucrative business to some and such hoaxes have burgeoned (particularly in the USA) preying upon the gullible and largely scientifically ignorant. The main perpetrators of this conspiracy theory now tend to intentionally conflate their fraud with localised weather modification (cloud seeding) and research proposals into a branch of geoengineering research known as Solar Radiation Management - or SAI, in a desperate attempt to afford legitimacy to their ludicrous claims. Not that either would bear any resemblance to a contrail in the wake of a commercial airliner in either appearance, nature or deployment.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection exists on paper..that's it. The formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address global warming, that it would ever be employed. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate (that's right, chalk), is hoped to be taking place, possibly in the Arizona desert. Learn more about the SCoPEx project here...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Research into SAI has never been out of the public domain. How does one "admit" to something that has never been hidden or denied?
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground base observer to to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist and the fact that it would likely be conducted in equatorial regions in order to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns. It certainly wouldn't be resemble the long white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic that gullible online conspiracy theorists and believers claim to be "chemtrails". The latter is precisely what this video is debunking - that's all.
1
-
@dexterd1188
"water vapor evaporates within what? A minute?"
???? Water vapour is a gas, therefore it has already evaporated. Contrails are the form of condensed water vapour.
"Let's say an incredible 20 minutes.These vapors last all day."
Why shouldn't they? You are clearly unaware or misinformed about the science underpinning this, so please allow me to explain. Persistent contrails are primarily governed by three factors - temperature, humidity and pressure. At the altitude that aircraft cruise in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere is is very cold and contrails given the correct balance of humidity and temperature can form. In ambient air which is saturated in respect to ice, contrails may not only persist because they cannot sublimate back into their invisible gaseous state (water vapour), but can expand, spread and cumulatively fanned by high altitude shear agglomerate and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus - most of the moisture drawn from the atmosphere. Here's the science...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
And it is measurable...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
This phenomena was first observed in the early years of aviation and has been recorded, documented, photographed and researched since. The unprecedented expansion of commercial aviation sector has resulted in the increased prevalence of contrails. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
"If you were to jog in the Forrest on a chilly morning and turned around to ok see your path. Would you be able to follow your same trail and see the exhaust of your breath hang in the air for 5 minutes?"
Well let's see...if the exhalation from your lungs was equivalent or analogous to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C, emitting a stream of 500°C superheated exhaust; and the ambient air in your "chilly forest" was an ice saturated environment below -60°C and assuming that you were able to run in excess of 500 knots....then yes, you it's probably safe to say that you would.
"The spraying stays up all day the natural exhaust stays up for a couple of minutes."
There is no "spraying" and exhaust contrails, much like a cirrus cloud can, if the atmospheric conditions permit, last even longer.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1
"This argument is like a Trump rally."
There is no argument from me. In fact I am irrelevant to this discussion. Your dispute lies with the known physical laws of meteorology and being axiomatic, have a voice of their own and are demonstrable. Condensed atmospheric water vapour is neither obliged nor duty bound to conform to the arbitrary time limits imposed by a baseless online conspiracy theory.
"Nobody is gonna talk a Trumper down from the tree."
Ironic, since a great many proponents of this theory are clearly Trump supporters. Aside from that, your analogy is another poor one. Donald Trump, is an ignorant, arrogant, brusque and vulgar buffoon, whereas the science that you are rejecting is beautiful and underpinned by the elegant language of applied mathematics which as natures own voice allows us to ascribe our understanding. As I said, such science is axiomatic. Its beauty is in its being.
"You have some strong feelings and so do I."
As I explained, known science is not about my "feelings". I may be moved by the chemistry of the atmosphere - it can be a beautiful thing, but emotions aside, the physical laws which govern this, that you choose to remain oblivious to, are incontrovertible, ineluctable and independently verifiable. If you elect to go through life believing that condensation can only remain visible for "a minute", then don't expect the informed and rational world to mitigate for this or legislate for your ignorance.
"I cant be convinced the spraying isn't occuring because common sense alone shows me it is."
Common sense also "shows you" that the sun goes around the earth. 80% of what people put down today to "common sense" is neither common to others nor ultimately sensible, given hindsight. Common sense describes beliefs or propositions that seem, to most people, to be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge. The trouble is there are extremely few beliefs or propositions that "most people" can agree upon. Known science is not about belief and does not defer to popular opinion.
"I respect ur position bc of ur conviction."
Thank you for your civil words, but as I said, irrespective of me, you are disputing known science.
"I wish u well."
You too.
"God bless u and yours. We'll get through this."
Trust me, there are far greater threats to humanity than condensed atmospheric water vapour as a result of aircraft exhaust. But let the latter in blighting our skies serve as an indicting testimony to the damaging consequences of the carbon footprint associated with the exponentially expanding and largely unregulated commercial aviation sector.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Well, I actually watched a Military, I Think he was a Pentagon spokesman, said "Yes the US Military is conducting weather modification". This is happening."
Source? Beyond cloud seeding which was used in the Vietnam War it really isn't.
"This is not weather related material they are dropping on our heads. I do believe that Aluminum reflects sunlight, right, light emits heat?"
Who mentioned aluminium? Aluminium Oxide was suggested as a possible material for the hypothetical concept of SAI which would be intended to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols, but this has never progressed beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. Moreover, it's likely that sulphates or calcium carbonate would be used. What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails?
"Right? what a way to speed up Global warming, maybe."
SAI is designed to do precisely the opposite.
"If we're doing it, how many other Country's are also doing it?"
Doing what precisely?
"Yeah, let's blame it all on Humans, and their obsession with the Freedom their car brings in the quality of life."
What?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobbycarlucci6158
Not at all, i am irrelevant. Your contention that the CIA invented the term conspiracy theorist is demonstrably untrue - and if you are interested I can tell you where this lie that is now parroted over the internet originated.
But let's look first at the claim that you have gullibly swallowed.
A cursory search of the Oxford Dictionary reveals that the phrase was used in 1964 - two years before Dispatch 1035-960 appeared:
"Conspiracy theorists will be disappointed by the absence of a dogmatic introduction."
New Statesman 1 May 694/2
You may also wish to find "The Conspiracy Theory of Politics of the Radical Right in the United States by William C. Baum"
Or Karl Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies", 1950. In which he writes:
"what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of the social sciences; I call it the ''conspiracy theory of society'."
All irrelevant though, since the earliest appearance of “conspiracy theory’ in the OED goes as far back as 1909 to an article from the American Historical Review:
"The claim that Atchison was the originator of the repeal may be termed a recrudescence of the conspiracy theory first asserted by Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia in 1880." Amer. Hist. Rev. 14 836 T
We can go back further than that. How about The Journal of Medical Science 1871?
"It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Beade"
Look it up.
And in 1881, the phrase appears in Rhodes’ Journal of Banking: “As evidence of a conspiracy this showing is pitiful, and in any view, the charge is ridiculous, as no conspiracy theory is needed to account for the facts.”
Or from 1890, "Some Kind of Political Conspiracy Mainly Ridiculed"
"The conspiracy theory may be well founded, but then again it may not."
1899, from an article discussing various conspiracy theories regarding South Africa. And an early debunking:
"Mr. Balfour proceeded to discuss one theory of conspiracy and to dismiss another."
You'll find that in 'The Speaker Volume 1, Mather and Crowther.
You can routinely establish all of this for yourself in a matter of minutes. It only takes a brief moment in time and a modicum of critical awareness to check the validity of these things. You people claim to be awake but time an time again are caught napping by these con artists
Would you now like me to tell you where this false claim you are regurgitating originated? Your choice...but then hopefully you'll think twice about making claims that you haven't bothered to substantiate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Although impurities in jet engine exhaust can act as hygroscopic nuclei, the reason that contrails are able to persist and grow is due to the ambient air - no different in that sense to the formation of a cloud. If the air temperature is sufficiently cold and approaching supersaturation, deposition in the form of a contrail will trigger growth. At such point, the ice is not being drawn from the water vapour in the exhaust, but available atmospheric moisture. This is precisely the reason that contrails can expand and increase in mass - often fanned by wind shear and becoming indistinguishable from cirrus cloud. In warmer or drier air, a contrail may not necessarily form at all, or it will be very short lived and sublimate back into water vapour. You can often see the motion of the atmosphere where sections of recently deposited contrails may fade and vanish and on occasions, subsequently reappear.
Commercial aircraft do indeed leave X patterns. The sky is full of civil aircraft and freight, flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
Finally, you appear to be referring to a hypothetical branch of geoengineering research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. This has not even progressed beyond research proposal and computer modelling - although a small-scale trail (SCoPEx), involving several kilos of water and a steerable balloon to be launched kms into the stratosphere was due to take place in 2020. This has been postponed.
1
-
@99David99
"Your reply is accurate except that the higher you go the less ambient moisture there is."
Contrails and cirrus cloud can be formed well in excess of 50,000 feet. Pilots of the Lockheed U2 needed to be vigilant when performing reconnaissance missions at 70.000ft which is why it was fitted with a rear view mirror so that altitude could be adjusted in the event of contrail deposition. Also, you clearly need to understand the physics of relative humidity and its interrelationship with vapour pressure and ambient air temperature.
"Also you are ignoring anecdotal evidence where “normal” commercial traffic is present in the same area and their contrails dissipate in short order when according to you, their contrails should react in the same fashion as the aircraft creating the chemtrails."
"Anecdotal evidence" - you mean the insistence of chemtrail believers based upon personal incredulity? According to me? - nothing to do with me. Meteorological science is independently verifiable and has a voice of its own. The Atmosphere is not homogeneous or isotropic. The factors governing the formation of contrails and the interrelationship between these can changed in mere seconds and minutes. A contrail may be short lived,, persistent, persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all. If you see a trail immediately that does not immediately dissipate at the same time as those that do, you think it is and term it a 'chemtrail' A ground based observer cannot discern VSM, which in most cases is 1,000ft. You may get contrails forming and persisting above of below this separation. Also, oddly not one of you ever comments on the frequently seen phenomena of sections of recently deposited chemtrails fading and vanishing and often reappearing. You people seem utterly oblivious to this. Simply confirmation of the motion of the atmosphere and columns of parcels of warmer of drier air.
"IMHO, the aircraft creating the chemtrails are doing cloud seeding on “steroids”. Just what the chemical makeup of the substance is, I have no idea."
The trails that you are observing are in the tropopause and stratosphere where there are no rain bearing clouds - nothing to seed. Understand that cloud seeding does not create clouds - it needs existing cumulus and stratiform masses conducive to precipitation to inject additional nuclei into in an attempt to induce or intensify rainfall. Precisely why it is conducted at a fraction of the altitude of the contrails that you are witnessing - typically 2,000 - 6,500 feet.
No barium has nothing to do with cloud seeding. All this comes from chemtrail conspiracy theorists that fail to understand a hypothetical area of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (proposed to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols to arrest global temperature rise) - and the misconception that barium, aluminum and strontium would be employed to accomplish this. This has nothing whatsoever to do with cloud seeding which when conducted aerially typically uses silver iodide flares retrofitted to light aircraft. A standard run lasting 90 minutes will dispense 151.2 grams of AgI into the cloud mass. Clearly this does not leave a visible or lasting trail.
"IF that is true, it is incredibly stupid to be spreading that in any concentrations over farmland. Barium’s effect on soils are cumulative and detrimental."
It really isn't - pure internet nonsense. You are simply seeing aircraft contrails, that's all.
1
-
1
-
Dane Wigington...is this a joke?
"All you have to do is look up. Look up and look it up."
You'll find that's precisely what atmospheric science and meteorology do.
"It’s always in front of the sun."
Surely, surely, surely, you are able to comprehend that your observation in relation to the sun is entirely dependent upon the perspective relative to your position as a ground based observer? Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"We get these fantastic sunsets but they look like another planet sometimes"
As we always have...and how do you know?
"It Creates a metallic rainbow sometimes."
You mean irisation.
"And if there’s enough moisture it turns the sky grey and featureless."
It's called cloud - and it covers approximately 70% of the earth's surface. The clue's in the word 'moisture'.
"Some planes create lines some times. Other planes will be right along side and not produce a cloud behind it."
How have you established relative altitude in relation to the ambient atmospheric conditions, given that the factors governing the formation of contrails (temperature, humidity and pressure) can change within mere metres? Even taking into account RSM vertical separation is 1,000ft whilst horizontal and longitudinal regulations are five miles.
"Dane Wigington does have evidence."
Trust me, he actually has none. Geoengineering Watch is a fraudulent, pesudoscientific con-spiracy website. All of the content can be routinely debunked.
"Aluminua exists in the earth but not in free form."
???? What do you mean 'free form' and how has it 'been found'?
"Aluminum has to be mined and refined. And this is produced into nano particles. It would look like fine powder like flour. And it can act as the nucleus of a raindrop."
Aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock (and is refined from the latter via electolysis). Aluminium combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China and Mongolia. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides and can serve as CCNs. What on earth do you mean 'free form'? More Wigington nonsense.
"Check this out people. And you tell me what doesn’t check out"
I assure you that I have...Wigington's tiresome old nonsense was comprehensively debunked years ago, yet it is still mindlessly bounced around the chemtrails online echochamber.
1
-
@justincoyer5297
"look up. Dumb fuck."
So the abuse starts immediately then.
Thanks for that, my background is atmospheric science.
"Tell me whats happening. Watch the lines come out of the planes."
Yes, contrails, which have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight.
"Look for other nearby planes to compare exhaust behavior."
Not "exhaust behaviour" simply ambient atmospheric conditions. As I explained to you, temperature, humidity and pressure can change within mere metres. RVS is 1,000 feet vertically and five miles horizontally and longitudinally. What's your point?
"aluminum strontium and barium are sited in aerosol injection weather modification patents."
No they are not. There is no agreement on the materials which would be used to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. SAI is a hypothetical concept that has yet to progress beyond research, computer modelling and small scale trial. The patents that you refer to are simply that - and do not prove the existence of something. Moreover, SAI is designed to be deployed in the mid stratosphere and would not leave a visible trail, far less a large white plume in the wake of a commercial airliner.
"Did you know that defense contractors provide a script for all meteorologists to read?"
This is possibly the most ridiculous claim that I have ever heard a chemtrail believer make. Congratulations.
"All weather personnel have to sign an NDA. A gag order"
Oh Jesus wept, you're really deep into Wigington's nonsense. Regarding the NDAs on Wiginton's ludicrous website, I would be more than happy to explain them to you.
"They made an international law stating you can not try aerosol injection outside of your own country. "
International governance and policy regarding any Solar Radiation Management is one of the biggest challenges to any future implementation. The following paper from the Royal Society reviews the ramifications for global policy making.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2019.0255
"Most gov have openly admitted to weather modification"
Weather modification is the technical terminology for cloud seeding which isn't at all secretive. There are private companies that can be hired for this purpose. How do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied. Cloud seeding has nothing whatsoever to do with either geoengineering or the contrails that you are observing.
"Look up operation popey."
Operation Popeye...again cloud seeding - again, nothing to do with geoengineering or a contrail.
"I’m just keeping an eye out and this one appears to be true."
I really recommend that you steadfastly avoid Dane Wigington then.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/geoengineering-watch/
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jskypercussion
"In the same day at same altitudes I have seen planes spraying long lasting chemtrails behind it and the regular planes were just emitting a normal condensation trail behind it that was disappearing a hundred feet behind the planes. The other planes long trails stayed for at while and eventually began to open up, dissipate, collect moisture and start the hazy overcast. In 3 hours the sky was closed. How do you explain that buddy?"
I don't need to - atmospheric science has the answers. Tell me, are you equally perplexed by daily variations in cloud cover?
The factors that govern contrail formation and the subsequent length and duration of them are relative humidity. air temperature and vapour pressure and the interrelationship between these. The atmosphere is continually in flux and motion and all of this can change within a matter of seconds and mere metres. How did you establish that the aircraft you were seeing were "at the same altitude"? Vertical separation minima is 1,000 feet. Moreover aircraft are separated by five minutes longitudinally and five miles horizontally. An aircraft producing a persistent contrail at FL320 may not do so at FL310 or FL330. The Lockheed U2 spy plane actually had a rear view mirror fitted so that the pilot could detect the incidence of contrails and adjust altitude to avoid detection.
If the ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, a contrail may not only persist but expand and spread because the growth in the ice budget is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture. This is called deposition - no different to the appearance and formation of clouds. If however a persistent contrail encounters or is interrupted by a warmer of drier parcel of air - usually rising or subsiding, then portions of it may fade and vanish (sublimation) and even reappear.
Think about it. These trails contain millions of lbs of material - far in excess of the maximum take of weight of the aircraft producing them. If that wasn't enough of a physical impossibility, what magical chemical can you name that can then expand and increase in mass precisely as you describe?
You are simply seeing commercial air traffic except when you see a persistent contrail, you term it a chemtrail and think that it is sinister.
"Also, my cousin that is an officer in the airforce admitted to me that one time he had to help assist set up the tanks and ejection system in the plane for spraying. Our own military is doing it as well."
Anecdotal - so worthless. He likely knows you believe in conspiracy theory and is pulling your leg. Also, military aircraft have sprayed defoliant and pesticide at low levels in the past - most recently after Hurricane Harvey in Texas.
1
-
1
-
@jskypercussion
"On top of that buddy, like I said before I am watching these jets spray this shit."
No, you are simply watching the same aircraft contrails that the rational world has observed for the best part of a decade.
"I got a Nikon P900 and can zoom right into them. I can see the Military, Amazon, UPS, nd commercial jets doing this."
So have many contributors to this platform, resulting in some spectacular footage of contrails. The difference is, they understand what they're looking at and you don't.
"I can see the Military, Amazon, UPS, nd commercial jets doing this. I have witnessed them on many accounts make their runs, turn it off for 5, 10 or even 30 or so seconds and then turn it back on."
And yet you've managed to miss one of the most common sights that I explained involving large sections of recently deposited contrails apparently fade and vanish at random and even reappear. If you can manage to comprehend why this happens then you can also understand the intermittent contrails that you are describing.
"Also I have seen some jets, not specifically military, make a run towards north spraying, turn it off, turn around, turn it back on, and come back overhead spraying another trail. I have seen them make x's and even 3 side by side only within hundreds of feet apart."
Then aside you'll have no problem posting this supposedly incriminating footage, as others have done with videos of cruise altitude contrails then.
"When I go back through all my photos and boy do I have alot, it's interesting that all my beautiful landscape pictures from the 90's and early 2000's don't have any of those long chemtrails in it. But my more recent photography starting around 2012 has quite a bit of it."
The rational world says otherwise. As I said, persistent contrails have been observed, recorded and documented since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation. Of course they are more prevalent today, due to the unregulated and unfettered expansion of the commercial aviation sector and routes flown.
"Now I do know the chemtrailing program began back in the early 70's. It was in a more experimental phase until it was more recently perfected."
A You Tube video tell you that as well?
"Back then they only sprayed in low populated areas. But now it's common and sprayed over heavily populated areas. Especially the areas up north to cool things down."
Again, history says otherwise. Your spraying coincides with wherever there are commercial aviation routes.
"All the nano metals deflect the sunlight allowing for moisture to accumulate and create the large fronts."
Your word soup won't bluff me. This is my background. As I said, I actually have no idea how you can type that and keep a straight face.
Also amusing, since contrails are often the precursor of an advancing frontal system due to the atmospheric conditions that produce both.
"Anyone else that reads this debate I highly encourage you pay more attention to these jets. You will see what I am talking about. It's time for people to wake up and question everything."
Actually, I'd suggest that a rudimentary knowledge of meteorology and aviation will suffice.
"Take everything with a grain of salt and use your own mind."
Unless it's junk online conspiracy - in which case uncritically and mindlessly consume it and regurgitate it over the internet.
"Don't let a shill influencer like Rogan shape the way you think. There is too much deception out there and MSM and mainstream info misleading society"
Because populist online conspiracy theory and social media is of course entirely honest, unfailingly accurate, not in the slightest bit manipulative or exploitative, completely devoid of agenda and has your best interest at heart.
"Joe Rogan is a master of not showing you truth or actual evidence. He is the master of shaping the way you think about things so you don't have an open mind to think critically about what you have been taught or told."
"Think critically"???? - said the chemtrail believer. Trust me, the shocking ignorance of basic known science is diametrically the opposite to an 'open mind'.
"So that way you are misled from the actual truth or real evidence."
Perhaps you should actually get around to presenting some? instead of relying upon anecdote and appeal to incredulity.
1
-
@jskypercussion
"Once again buddy, you have done nothing to disapprove chemtrailing."
I think you meant to say "disprove".
I have responded to all your questions, your misconceptions and your claims. Furthermore, all the content of my posts is independently verifiable as opposed to being parroted from a subjective self-referenced conspiracy website of video.
As I have explained, the chemtrails conspiracy theory debunks itself through being a physical and mathematical impossibility. Moreover, as the one making the claims, the burden of proof is incumbent upon you, not me. the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to disprove an absent.
"All that cute pseudoscience"
Again, was the irony intentional? Nothing to do with me - as I explained, your dispute lies with the meteorological and aviation science that is axiomatic and therefore is independently verifiable and has a voice of its own...not me.
"doesn't have any real evidence to back it at all, you sound just like wikipedia and the not so fact checkers that don't actually fact check try so diligently to keep society in line so it doesn't think outside of the system and wake up to what the hell is really going on."
It absolutely does. It's called empirical science. As I said, persistent contrails have been measured and studied - your personal incredulity and ignorance has no bearing upon the real world and the physical laws governing contrail formation.
"We are talking about meteorology which is a "science" of "observation". My observation and many others that are actually paying attention can clearly see some man made geoengineering going on in this day and age."
And that observation is achieved by data and measurement. It's also my background.
As I explained to you, the branch of geoengineering you refer to is entirely hypothetical and not only would it need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails that you are witnessing, would be imperceptible to ground based observation.
"Because what we learned and knew about meteorology for a long time has all of a sudden changed dramatically in the past decade."
Really? How?
"We are seeing formations that never occurred before or formed naturally."
Such as?
Incorrect. You are "seeing" phenomena that was always there but you never noticed before your belief in a dumb online conspiracy theory. That you don't understand what you are looking at is manifestly evident from your posts.
"When you got Haarp and other facilities blasting the aluminum enriched ionosphere from chemtrails with various frequency, naturally all these new formations don't look natural when you see the wave lengths going through them with all those fancy ripples of various sizes."
Oh Jesus. Would you like me to explain what HAARP/HF pumps consist of, what they are capable of and are originally designed to do? Because yet again, your reliance upon junk online conspiracy theory is as tragic as it is comical. The natural meteorological phenomena you describe that again, you don't understand, are present in the troposphere. The ionosphere has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterbulloch4328
"go and get a real job you TROLL LOSER."
Why are you still attacking me Peter? you're simply humiliating yourself even further and showing your desperation. All I did was ask you to evidence your claims.
"Oh and that caps comment is TROLL 101 material, they would have taught you that one your first lesson."
It still doesn't seem to be resolved Peter. And who precisely are "they"?
"Also you haven't proven one thing, just like everyone else you just quote shit you've heard or read without EVIDENCE yourself."
I'll explain again, because you seem to be struggling here Pete. The science I referred to is independently verifiable - it is nothing to do with me. The other person asked some questions, I answered them and have addressed every aspect of his thread. Contrail formation and duration is governed by known physical laws - these being axiomatic means that the science is demonstrable self-evident and has a voice of its own. Clear now?
The other thing that you seem to be unable to comprehend is that if you make a claim, then the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. The responsibility does not lie with me to establish, prove or disprove an absent. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the notion of 'Russell's Teapot'.
You stated that the airline industry was contracted to dump toxic waste during flights I asked you what basis you have for this claim. You also insist that your alleged chemtrails are the reason for the decline in insect populations - I simply asked for your data in support of this and causal evidence.
"If you believe you are right PROVE it or just leave nice people alone."
I am simply asking you to prove, sorry, PROVE, the claims you made, that's all. And you people absolutely despise that. How is asking for substantiation trolling? unsubstantiated, ill-informed opinion, and personal abuse in this comments section most certainly is though.
"you just quote shit you've heard or read without EVIDENCE yourself"
Said the chemtrail believer.
1
-
1
-
@peterbulloch4328
"and no matter how many comments I make telling all that I will never reveal evidence especially on YouTube (your boss) information that your company will smear and spread as disinformation about it (what your paid to do) then delete the info so open minded truth seekers never find out the truth."
Aside from being one of the most absurd things I've ever read on this platform form a conspiracy believer - and that really is an accomplishment - what you're basically saying is that you made a series of claims that you can't back up, which is all that I was challenging.
"I just thought of something, maybe Joe employs you (the government) but who cares we all see through you people with your coward stance of "I don't have to prove anything, only you do", just so gutless."
Let's try and explain that again. It's called burden of proof. If you make a claim, then the responsibility lies with you to substantiate it. Like I suggested, familiarise yourself with 'Russel's teapot'. I am perfectly prepared to present the science that debunks chemtrails, however the onus does not lie upon me to establish an absent based upon your own ignorance and personal incredulity. Pray that you never end up representing yourself in a court of law.
"Spouting some so called facts in one of your word salads doesn't mean s*it anymore."
Said the chemtrail believer.
"Everyone knows the authorities lie to the public in every field now, and they are your sources of information?"
No "they" are not. I have at no stage mentioned any "authority". As I explained, the physical laws that you are ignorant of that govern atmospheric science are axiomatic and therefore self-evident and have a voice of their own. Nothing to do with me. Your dispute lies with meteorology and aviation.
"Just laughable, you must be a Kamala fan the way you think is just incredibly narcissistic."
To reiterate, I am irrelevant to this exchange, please try to stay on topic. It's you that insists upon steering back to me.
"How about you reveal your sources, or have they got you scared?"
Atmospheric science, meteorology and aviation. As I said, all of which are independently verifiable. Why don't you actually attempt to learn some basic rudiments of each of them Peter?
Back to your original post. You claimed that airlines are dumping toxic waste during flights and that chemtrails are responsible for insect die off. What is the basis for this and where is your data in relation to the latter demonstrating causality?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterbulloch4328
"I'm happy I've become your obsession"
On the contrary, you are the one that has the personal preoccupation with me as opposed to staying on topic.
"oh anointed TROLL of the year."
How is asking you to evidence your claims trolling? Like I said, as the one making unsubstantiated claims, allegations and resorting to ad hominem abuse, the troll would be none other that yourself.
"The day you learn how to contribute to social media instead of smearing the information shared is the day your conTROLLers will release you from their bondage."
I'm simply asking for you to provide evidence, that's all.
"For someone soooo interested in this topic you have nothing to share and seem incapable of RESEARCH."
Given that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"Then again that would take an open mind (intelligence) and we all know your conTROLLers can't accept that from its lapdogs."
To reiterate. I am inviting you to make your case. Go ahead - I'm all ears.
"Keep repeating your meaningless questions, I've told you I'll never reveal my sources."
Once again, I'm not asking you to reveal your "sources" (see above) - simply quantify and evidence your claims. You stated that airlines are contracted to spray toxic waste during their flights and that this is responsible for the decline in insect populations. What basis do you have for this?
1
-
1
-
What?
You are conflating a lot of different things here and misunderstanding them in the process. Firstly, cloud seeding was first conducted in the 1940s. No one is saying that it doesn't exist, and it is not in the slightest bit secretive or sinister. Aside from large conspicuous state sponsored programmes, such as China or the UAE, there are many private organisations that conduct cloud seeding (also termed weather modification) and freely advertise their services on the internet. Saying that, it is not particularly a widespread practice or reliable and it's very efficacy questionable. Aluminium crystals to help it rain??? Cloud seeding typically involves silver iodide flares which are retrofitted to the wings of light aircraft. The objective is to introduce additional nucleates into existing rain clouds to induce rainfall over a desired area or intensify precipitation. As I said, the results are erratic at best. It does not leave a lengthy or lasting trail if at all, and it conducted at comparatively low altitudes for obvious reasons. The quantity of material involved is negligible and the immediate environmental impact zero - (although you have to question the implications of attempting to artificially divert or induce rainfall).
You seem to have confused this with a hypothetical branch of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax have seized upon in a lame attempt to add legitimacy to their claims. SAI, would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in a last ditch effort to slow or arrest global warming to buy time. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose - aluminium oxide was one initial suggestion due to its reflectivity - but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing.
So neither cloud seeding or the wholly unrelated hypothetical branch of geoengineering have anything remotely to do with the misidentified contrails upon which the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon. Persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThaTurdBurglar
"you simply haven't looked..."
Oh but I assure you that I have, and genuinely, without meaning to sound arrogant, I absolutely guarantee that I am infinitely more familiar with the origins, history, perpetrators and false equivalence of these junk online conspiracy theories than yourself - in particular one of the most ludicrous, chemtrails.
"There are thousands of patents regarding chemical spraying from an aircraft, with applications from weather modification to communications technology, to carbon offsetting, to warfare, to biowarfare etc.. maybe dozens of applications, some substantiated with real world use - like operation popeye, agent orange, operation seaspray, tuskeegee etc etc.. it's all there in the patents with great detail."
All false equivalence/association fallacy and none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon. Moreover, again, I guarantee you that I am familiar with each and every one of them. Furthermore, a patent is not proof of the existence of something, merely the registration of an idea irrespective of how outlandish that may be. Many of the patents presented by chemtrail believers are unadopted and almost invariably, the conspiracy believer doesn't even understand them in the first place. Also, no one is denying the existence of cloud seeding, carbon offsetting, defoliant spraying or military dispersal experiments - again, what does any of this have to do with a contrail?
"To start, maybe read up things released by the usgov, like this - https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-sprint-us&source=android-browser&q=owning+the+weather+by+2025"
This, again - really? You mean an essay by a group of students commissioned by the USAF as an assignment, to “examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future." "Owning the weather by 2025" - you mean the one that clearly specifies at the start that it does not reflect official government policy, and that the weather modification and control scenarios described within it are “fictional representations of future situations/scenarios”? That 'Owning the Weather by 2025'? Instead of relying on junk conspiracy websites to tell you what to think, why not do this for yourself?
"Don't forget about the biowarfare connection very relevant to today, where initial experiments were done from 1937-1945 by nazis spraying aerosolized hoof-in-mouth disease (and others) by aircraft over herds of cattle & reindeer in Siberia- not only for "research" but also to induce "famine" conditions on their soviet enemy. A small amount of this has been uncovered thru foia requests and declassified operation paperclip documents surrounding nazi virologist Erich Traub - (who is PARAMOUNT to understanding modern virology & immunology"
Again, what does this have to do with trails in the wake of jet aircraft in the tropopause and lower stratosphere?
"All information surrounding these topics have been greatly obfuscated and obscured, for very good reason!"
No it hasn't...which is precisely the reason that you know about it. The deliberate deception and misrepresentation is on behalf of the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory in the way that they appropriate and dishonestly frame such false equivalence.
1
-
@ThaTurdBurglar
"I am greatly disappointed in your approach in this conversation.. mainly assumption that you know me or you know what I am seeing. Simply, you do not."
With respect, that being the case, then perhaps you shouldn't yourself have said this to me:
"You simply haven't looked"
...twice. Or in respect of this video:
"This wanker is framing this like all conspiracies are theories.. without acknowledging factual conspiracies"
Which he isn't...but I'll come back to that.
"mainly assumption"
The irony - was it intentional?
"that you know me or you know what I am seeing."
I don't presume to know you and you never made any mention of what you are seeing. Do tell.
"I never said anything about contrails, that's you projecting a straw man"
To clarify - again. The chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of contrails. Understand now? That's precisely what this video is about. Yet my pointing out your reliance on false equivalence is a "straw man"? Really? You were the one that introduced these irrelevancies and this association fallacy - not me.
"However the volume of such patents, their specificity, the paper trails regarding those named, and documentation of their real world use - citing such patents/technologies are more than enough to confirm their existence. Period. You can't deny existence of chemtrails thru history."
It strikes me then, that your chemtrails are simply what you want them to be. If you wish to refer to cloud seeding, smoke generating machines, military dispersal exercises, exhaust atomisers, chaff, aerial application of defoliants herbicides and geoengineering research (which many of these patents are) as "chemtrails" - then more fool you. Perhaps we can also add sky-writing and fireworks to the list. No one is denying the existence of these technologies or practices and they aren't in the slightest bit secretive. However, to reiterate, the chemtrail hoax, which this video is debunking, concerns the erroneous belief that the visible trails in the wake of high flying jet aircraft are evidence of a nefarious programme of chemical spraying. Irrespective of your false equivalence, they are nothing more than condensation trails largely produced by commercial aviation.
"Even if it COULD be proven that there is absolutely no such thing as chemical spraying from aircraft"
There is though - and you have listed some examples for a range of purposes. But as I explained to you, none of them have anything to do with the contrails that are misidentified by chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?
"Then you simply cannot disprove the fact that there are many # of men who have given immense energy/resources/thought into the possibility - often with nefarious purpose (warfare - chemical or biological, electromagnetic or other etc) which alone should be a wake up call - and reason for vigilance on this issue."
Absolutely not. What I can categorically tell you however, is that they have nothing to do with the contrails that chemtrail believers are witnessing - irrespective of whatever they choose to ascribe to them.
"So please whatever you do don't poo poo, be constructive. Such an educated individual as yourself should know the importance of integrity when discussing such important subjects."
I do - furthermore, I understand the importance of intellectual honesty, objectivity and genuine scepticism critical thinking - and such lazy association fallacy is completely the reverse. Moreover if you elect to pass off a fanciful essay, clearly identified a work of fiction, as a legitimate government document, then don't react with indignation when challenged.
"Now, what was that about the increasing reality of things like carbon offsetting and weather manipulation?"
We can discuss carbon offsetting if you wish - although I have no idea what relevance it has to this video. GGR (or negative emissions technology) involves such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation - what's your point?
"Weather Manipulation" is a commonly misapplied term, (usually in relation to cloud seeding) and a misnomer. Manipulating the weather is technically impossible. We can attempt to modify it at the local/micro scale but controlling synoptic/global weather is nothing more than fanciful science fiction. That's not to say that athropogenic activity has not altered weather patterns as a result of climate change, but that is very different to the notion of harnessing and controlling them.
Incidentally, may I just say that I greatly appreciate your civil and courteous reply and the fact that you genuinely are seeking constructive discourse. Thank you - a rarity on these pages.
1
-
"How about when they admit Chemtrails themselves."
Brennan - again??? Seriously?
This is the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. As part of this he referred to an area of geoengineering research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, which is entirely hypothetical. It has never been secretive and the research has been well publicised to generate funding and support. How do you 'admit' to something that has never been denied?
In the miniscule possibility that it were ever to be implemented, it would have significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance which would be impossible, there are many unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can provide you with a full transcription of the speech if you wish.
What the hell does research into SAI have to do with aircraft contrails anyway?
1
-
1
-
@TheSecrecyOfFrequency
I know - it happens to us all on this page. It's almost impossible to post links. Maddening.
Proves what point precisely? I'm familiar with many of the sources that you are attempting to post. Like I said, the geoengineering content at the Paris Agreement examined such consideration of ethics, cost and logistics, environmental implications and above all the problems surrounding international governance.
Geoengineering consists of two branches - GGR (or Negative Emissions Technology) - examples being, carbon sequestering, aforestation, biochar, ocean fertilisation. Obviously, some of these strategies are already in progress. The second heading is Solar Radiation Management - examples being, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (that Brennan was referring to), Space Reflectors and Marine Cloud Brightening. With the exception of ground based albedo modification, all of this is hypothetical. There have been some limited field exploration of marine cloud brightening and there is a small scale trial planned for next year into SAI involving a steerable balloon launched 20kms into the stratosphere and a few kilos of water (and possibly calcium carbonate if all goes well), to establish dispersion, perturbation and reflectivity (look up SCoPEx). It's likely that, given the severity and urgency of global temperature increase, the only viable solution going forward will be DAC which is very costly. SAI would never in reality be implemented or undertaken - the main barrier being the impossibility of international governance and legal ramifications, not to mention the environmental unknowns.
Again, what does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and believers term 'chemtrails'?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sassssky
Cloud seeding is not "controlling the weather". The technical term is weather modification, because it is conducted on the micro/localised scale. Moreover, the science behind it is still disputed and the results unreliable. Furthermore, although in rare cases liquid propane has been used, this is because it quickly expands into a gas and can produce ice crystals at higher temperatures than other seeding methods. So strictly speaking, it doesn't involve spraying at all. Typically cloud seeding will utilise silver iodide, but also potassium iodide and occasionally dry ice.
What it looks like? Nothing like a long white plume in the wake of a jet aircraft. Cloud seeding is deployed by wing mounted flares fitted to small/light aircraft. Because it does not create clouds, but rather injects additional nucleation into existing stratiform/cumulus cloud masses already conducive to precipitation to induce rainfall, it is typically conducted between 2- 6,500 feet - a fifth lower that the contrails that you are observing as a consequence of commercial aircraft cruising in the tropopause and lower stratosphere.
Finally, although a commercial enterprise and despite several high profile instances of its use such as the Beijing Olympics, cloud seeding is not at all widespread or commonplace - so it is very unlikely that you have "seen it".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonasolaiowe5514
Intense? What are you talking about? And what does geoengineering have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails.
You don't even know what geoengineering is. The only reason that you have even heard of the term is because of the junk chemtrails conspiracy videos and websites that you have been duped by.
Geoengineering is a very broad area divided into two branches - GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR encompasses strategies such as aforestation, biochar, ocean fertilisation and carbon sequestering. Its future likely lies in DAC although this is expensive and is likely to be resisted by all but the most wealthy countries. SRM on the other hand, (with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening) is entirely hypothetical. You have been fooled into believing that one branch of this, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is not only underway, but accounts for the aircraft trails that you are seeing, which are nothing more than aircraft contrails.
To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory originated in the mid 1990s through and article by William Thomas and Art Bell's junk radio show on Coast to Coast AM. It claimed that the visible lasting trails behind aircraft are actually of sinister intent ranging from such ludicrous assertions as mind control, depopulation and to screen the return of Nibiru (Planet X). With the advent of the internet and the explosion of online conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Michael J Murphy and Dane Wigington eager to jump on the bandwagon, quickly seized upon SRM geoengineering strategies and in particular the emerging work of David Keith (SAI). This association fallacy was a lame attempt at affording legitimacy to their claims and was a complete watershed in the chemtrail belief. Both attributed aircraft contrails to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. Because the believers in this false claim hang on the every word of the perpetrators, most followers of the chemtrail conspiracy theory now falsely equate the sight of contrails with geoengineering, without even understanding what either actually are.
SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Again, SAI is entirely hypothetical and has yet to graduate to small scale trail. is currently purely the stuff of computer modelling. I suggest that you look into SCoPEx, which is a proposed trail on behalf of Harvard/The Keutsch Group who are at the vanguard of this research. They aimed to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere and releases a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation. Subsequent runs were proposed to release negligible quantities of calcium carbonate - which is precisely the point, the materials/'chemicals' to best effect this haven't even been determined. This trial has been delayed for five years seeking ethical approval and will likely never happen. SAI is a reckless, ludicrous and frankly dangerous folly. Because of this it will never become a reality. Not simply due to the environmental unknowns, the appreciable logistical challenges and the opposition, but the impossibility of international governance. SAI proposes to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns to envelop the entire planet - the legal implications, far less the implications for global security don't bear thinking about which is why it will remain in the realms of fantasy. Chemtrail believers need to understand what SAI actually is instead of listening to conspiracy theorists. It would take the form of a very fine mist, at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are witnessing and wouldn't even be perceptible to a ground based observer...and right now, it doesn't exist outside of mathematical modelling and paper based proposal. As explained, it's likely that the solution to global temperature increase is the GGR strategy, DAC, but this is a very expensive which even wealthy developed nations are reluctant to pursue. SAI does not exist beyond paper based proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve regular jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. There is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails. I'd suggest that with respect, if you choose to refer to 'geoengineering' as 'chemtrails' then do not expect to be taken seriously outside of the online echo-chambers that perpetuate this nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jesus, this again? How many times? It's the same things over and over and over again. What "truth"? Peterson was a chemtrail believer - and it's not a UN meeting is it.
You are referring to an old video that was deceptively framed by a perpetrator of the chemtrail hoax and is still over a decade later batted about your vacuous echochamber as supposed evidence of chemtrails. Supposedly she was addressing the UN - only she wasn't. This was simply a 2007 conference on Climate Change organised by the UN, not an actual UN session. Peterson did not work at the UN, or have any connection to the UN at all. Peterson is a retired crop loss adjuster (a type of insurance agent working in agriculture). She worked for the USDA in Mendocino, California. Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defence Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC was simply the name of her personal web site. And contrary to your claim, Peterson did not mention "chemtrails", rather misappropriated weather modification (cloud seeding), regular aircraft exhaust and some NASA sounding rocket experiments.
And despite becoming an unwitting spokesperson for this fraud the late Ms.Peterson later (in 2012) entirely distanced herself from the hoax and explained that she did not think there was any good evidence to show that any trails were anything other than normal contrails:
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminium coated fiberglass by military aircraft." Rosalind Peterson 2012.
Note - it's 'Rosalind' - you couldn't even parrot that correctly.
1
-
1
-
"Conspiracy theories like , government spying on everyone, phones/laptops recording passively , proven government tests of diseases and toxins on civilians, glyphosate(Round up) causing cancer, gulf of Tonkin misinformation to start Vietnam war....you mean like these?"
None of which were conspiracy theories though. Also, there is no proven causal link between glyphosate and cancer.
So simply because governments lie and have historically acted in secrecy, then this affords legitimacy to "chemtrails" or any other random conspiracy theory of your choice of devising?
"Honestly most people are too egocentric, programmed and/or stupid to understand chemtrails."
The unintentional irony in that statement is quite simply staggering.
"It influences the planet's natural weather zones/patterns by using HARP arrays(did you research where they are?)"
Clearly you didn't. It's HAARP. Moreover, it has been inoperable for the last two years due to refurbishment. This "research" you mention. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"to focus heat spirals to channel the energy apart or together therefore being able to amplify (not create) or dissipate weather energy."
😆 😅 😂 🤣 You people and your illusory superiority, nothing if not consistently entertaining.
HAARP is an HF pump and an ionospheric research tool. It has nothing whatsoever to do with weather in the troposphere. Stop badly parroting junk online conspiracy theory in an attempt to make yourself sound clever. Could you detail precisely what the HAARP facility consists of, and then in your own words explain, with reference to physics, precisely how it..."focuses heat spirals to channel the energy apart or together therefore being able to amplify (not create) or dissipate weather energy".
In your own time.
Cue the inevitable indignation and personal abuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottlomas5509
"It's in nasa documents going back tens of years here thay state that through high level spraying of metal particulates along with EMF waves that thay could control the weather and even make weather patterns"
Present it then at source. Go ahead. Good luck with that.
"their are so documents from the USA military where thay state thay own the weather"
Sigh...no there are not. You are simply being duped by crap chemtrail conspiracy websites. "Weather as a Force Multiplier" - want to discuss it? I've seen all of this false equivalence before.
"and then give you all the information showing you how thay control the weather and yep spraying the skies is a massive part of Geoengineering."
Sigh. "Controlling the weather" is a physical impossibility and no, spraying the skies is not a "massive part of geoengineering" it's a very small one and the SRM strategies that you refer to are entirely hypothetical.
"Bill gates even states he's going to be spraying the skies to block the sun to fight global warming"
No he hasn't, he has leant his support to a strategy called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is purely the province of research proposal and computer modelling.
"ffs what do you think that will look like??"
Replicating the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols at 20km into the stratosphere? Nothing like a contrail at half that altitude - do you think you can venture why that might be?
"Jets spraying shit like thay already do maybe?"
You mean contrails, the same contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied for the best part of a century and since the dawn of high altitude powered flight? No one is 'spraying shit' - you have fallen for an online hoax predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails.
"Its not hidden information ffs thay tell you their doing it."
Absolutely not, which is the only reason that scientifically illiterate chemtrail clowns know about it in the first place. Because, let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about - as your posts are ample testimony.
Now present your claimed NASA documents at source. Go ahead then. Good luck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MG-tl6yz
"it's obvious your not here to answer questions but attack my stance with zero facts while ignoring my question."
As I explained, your dispute doesn't lie with me, rather basic physical laws governing atmospheric science and the fundamentals of powered aviation. Moreover, as the one making the claim that these contrails were not present prior to the year 2000, then the burden of proof is incumbent upon you, not me. However, I am very happy to answer any questions that you may have.
"If you can help show me proof you could change my stance but instead you attack me."
I'm not attacking you at all - I simply challenged your claim.
"Tell me where to find these pictures or videos or someone who has this documented????"
There are many, many pictures of persistent contrails throughout the 20th century, that much is independently verifiable. Unfortunately, this page block links. However, persistent contrails have also been documented and studied.
In 'Flight to Arras' the legendary French aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 50 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
"That's all I want , don't need your opinion I have my own"
Known science is not about "opinion", yours or mine, and at no stage have I offered one. As I stated, since your contention lies with the science, I am irrelevant to this exchange. The physical laws of the atmosphere are axiomatic and therefore have a voice of their own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+John daLoire
"assuming that you use a clean glass jar in order to collect the rain water, how do you think aluminium is getting into the rainwater?"
You wouldn't use a "clean glass jar", you'd obviously utilise purpose built sanitised collection containers.
However assuming you did - assuming that there was no contamination from the lid or vessel the question you should be asking is why would you not find aluminium in rainwater? Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides. If you were to allege however that is is a consequence of chemtrails you would not only need to demonstrate a causal link but you would also need to detail the robust methodology to not only ensure discrimination of your samples but to differentiate them from existing sources of both anthropogenic and natural origin. Moreover, repeated tests over the past 40 years have shown the same or even higher levels of aluminum, consistent with that which is found in aeolian dust of crustal origin. Here's one such paper: A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE COMPOSITION OF PRECIPITATION IN S.E. ONTARIO, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol 4, 1967 Notice, the figures for aluminum in rain above are 0.52 to 1.12 ppm, which is 520 to 1120 ppb, mcg/L or ug/L - that's three times higher than the findings in the risible 'What in The World Are They Spraying". I suggest that you read the conclusion - and the methodology would also be insightful to you.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/e67-077#.WjlxplSFiRs
And here's one from 1973
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698176902560
Surely spectrographic analysis via ground based remote sensing would be preferable - interesting that this entire field of science worldwide deployed in a variety of sectors and settings has remained oblivious to chemtrails particularly those involved in atmospheric and air quality measurements. Alternatively what about direct sampling at source? Plenty of analytical data obtained through this into contrails, such as this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuZhkaJzSHE&t=1s
Here's the related journal published peer reviewed paper...
http://rdcu.be/p699
Where are the comparable parallel studies into your chemtrails?...
Precisely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Joe you are so fucking dumb...."
Said the chemtrail believer.
...Here we go.
"there are patents on alum particle dispersion"
Present just one - your best example, I'll tell you what its purpose is. Also, surely you are able to comprehend that a patent is not proof of the existence of something? - merely the registration of an idea, irrespective how outlandish or impractical that may be.
"amd many jets are set up w them."
No there aren't - unless you are referring to military fighters dispersing chaff as a radar countermeasure?
"Everyone knows a CONTRAIL OF WATER VAPOR, DISSAPATES IN MINUTES"
Do they? Try telling visiting a meteorology station or a college of atmospheric sciences and telling them that - don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you. Firstly, a contrail is not water vapour - water vapour is an invisible gas. Secondly, perhaps you could explain why your randomly imposed time limit doesn't apply to a cloud? Make it easy for me - simply explain why a contrail must "dissipate in minutes", detailing the physical processes that determine this. Go ahead then.
"BUT "LOADED" CHEM TRAULES ARE RELEASED THEY HANG IN THE AIR ALL DAY"
You mean like the contrails in the following paper which tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments and was found to persist for a period of around 18 hrs, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
"THEY DO MODIFY THE WEATHER! ITS CALLED CLOUD SEEDING YOU DUNCE!!!"
Cloud seeding has absolutely nothing to do with the chemtrail hoax - it doesn't create clouds, does not produce a lasting trail, is applied on the micro/localised scale and is actually not that widespread a practice.
"NEVER EVER BELIEVE A BRITT ABOUT ANYTHING CONCERNING AMERICA OR CONSPIRACY THEROY'S! HE STILL WORSHIPS A QUEEN MONARCH.... SHILL 4 SURE"
"Britt", theroy's" ???? And you think that you sound credible yourself?
How do you know Mick West is a monarchist? I assure you, there is a very strong proportion of the UK populace that are abolitionists and pro-republic. Besides, Mick West lives in California.
Incidentally, your caps lock seems to have jammed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jwol11741
Your video links.
John Brennan as a guest speaker, the theme of his address to The Council on Foreign Relations (a thinktank) being "Transitional Threats to Global Security" during which he also addressed possible future technologies that don't even exist yet. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, in the unlikely event that it would ever be deployed as a last ditch solution to combat climate change, would have geo-political ramifications and pose significant implications for governance. Brennan also broached anti-ageing technology.
Here's the full transcript to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does research into a SAI have to do with a contrail? Particularly given that it exists solely in the form of paper based proposal and computer modelling, hasn't even reached the stage of small scale trial, wouldn't be visible as a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the contrails under discussion in this video?
Your second conspiracy video for some reason laughably feels the need to claim to be "100% undebunkable". Known science is axiomatic and as a self-evident reproducible and demonstrable ineluctable reality, speaks for itself without such crass proclamations.
So as I explained before this is a refueling operation, followed by separation. Initially the aircraft are flying together, with similar power settings, so the exhausts are similar, and they both leave contrails. Then the lower plane (the AWACS/E3) separates, moving away by greatly decreasing power, so the contrail stops. Then when there's enough separation the power is restored, and the contrail resumes.
https://youtu.be/Xa-2PqlgJuI
I suggest that you read the following...
https://elib.dlr.de/9247/1/aerscitech-2000.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seriously, Brennan again? Have you actually bothered watching this? This is the former head of the CIA John Brennan in a voluntary address to the CFN (a thinktank) entitled 'Transnational Threats to Global Security' in which he discussed future issues and emergent technology that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the future misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as some of the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress.
There are Solar Radiation Management strategies that have been proposed to tackle climate change, but (with the exception of ground based albedo modification) these are entirely hypothetical, Chief amongst these is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which exists solely in the realms of research and computer modelling. No materials have been determined yet, but one suggestion involves the use of sulphates to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. A planned trial called SCoPEx involving a steerable balloon to be launched 20kms into the stratosphere would release a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation - and possibly CaCO3 during subsequent runs. This has been consistently delayed however due to ethical approval. SAI will never be conducted or become a reality - not simply due to opposition, logistics and environmental unknowns, but the impossibility of international governance. Solar Radiation Management/SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with misidentified aircraft contrails or the subject of this video, would need to be conducted at double the altitude and wouldn't even result in a visible trail.
Most significantly, SAI has never been secretive. The proponents of this are very keen to publicise their work and share their findings to attract support, potential backers and crucially funding. How precisely do you "admit" to something that has never been denied?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickoliver2059
"Hi ya troll"
So you immediately start on the offensive? How is asking someone for substantiation trolling? Why are you people so averse to being asked to evidence your claims? This is a comments section - if you can't handle replies, particularly being asked to back up your statements, then don't post.
"no I`m not going to start with Strontium"
Of course you aren't because as you and I both know, there's absolutely no basis for your claim.
"I am only going on what I`ve read over the years"
So you are simply repeating what chemtrail conspiracy theorists and their websites and videos told you? You saw it online, so it must be true.
"What the hell is it doing in chemtrails anyway? god only knows"
Logical fallacy anyone?
Has it at any point occurred to you that it isn't, and that your chemtrails don't actually exist?
"Seen as you`re so knowledgeable"
Read my reply again. At no point did I claim any knowledge whatsoever - i simply asked you how you have established that in your alleged chemtrails... "besides aluminum , there is barium , strontium and a heap of petroleum based nano particles" It turns out that you haven't.
"why don`t you fill me in on why the wildfires only happened on the West coast of America and the East coast of Australia"
You can't back up your claims when asked to do so, so in common with your conspiracy believing ilk, you deflect and return a question with a question based upon your own personal incredulity. There has been an increase in wildfires across the planet. Geographically, in regions that are naturally prone to them this has intensified due to climate change and global temperature increase. It will continue to do so. The situation is also exacerbated by urban encroachment.
"I`ll tell you something else I`ve seen"
I'm sure you will - without bothering to understand that either. Go ahead, the suspense is killing me...
"straight after those fires happened in Australia , there was a release of a couple of photos of Lear jets with bloody bulging attachments ( Lazer ? ) screwed onto the noses of said jets , 24 altogether , parked up at two Air Force Bases , one base near Canberra , the other I think was in the State of Victoria ! Surely they didn`t use these to start the wildfires which devastated NSW, we`ll never know"
Why is it that anything you can't comprehend has to be of sinister intent? You seem to be completely oblivious to the chaos that nature is capable of wreaking.
In fact we do know. What you likely saw were meteorological research aircraft configured for measurements of atmospheric properties, air motion, turbulence and fluxes, air-sea interactions, atmospheric chemistry and aerosols and cloud physics instrumentation. Specifically, they will be fitted with temperature sensors a platinum wire reverse-flow temperature sensor, an E.G.G. dew point sensor, a hot-wire liquid water content (LWC) meter and a cloud water collector together with an range of scientific instrumentation, radars and recording systems for both in-situ and remote sensing measurements of the atmosphere, the earth and its environment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LaymanGamin
"known science is guessing and "theories" bro."
No it isn't. that's precisely why it is "known". When you log on to you computer and post your comment - that's known science, when you put detergent down the toilet, that's known science. When you stir your coffee, that's known science. Similarly, when combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel results in superheated encountering frigid air at a lower vapour pressure and high relative humidity, the ice crystals that condense are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour) resulting in a persistent contrail. If the air is supersaturated, then the trail will expand and grow in mass drawing on available atmospheric moisture, the resultant clouds becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus - again, that's "known science". That scientifically illiterate imbeciles then term these as chemtrails is not.
To clarify, "known science" is not guesswork, it is falsifiable, empirical, data driven, reproducible and thereby understood.
Yeah, "theory" - heard all of this all before.
There are two senses of "theory" which are problematic. These are the senses which are defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” and “an unproven assumption; conjecture.” The second of these is occasionally misapplied in cases where the former is meant, as when a particular scientific theory is derided as "just a theory" implying that it is no more than speculation or conjecture. One may certainly disagree with scientists regarding their theories, but it is an inaccurate interpretation of language to regard their use of the word as implying a tentative hypothesis; the scientific use of theory is quite different than the speculative use of the word as you apply it.
Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts. For example, atmospheric physics theory that goes back to the late 1800's and early 1900s established that small amounts contributions of carbon dioxide can warm the atmosphere.
I also notice that some people tend to confuse or conflate "hypothesis" and "theory." A hypothesis is an idea that is offered or assumed with the intent of being tested. A theory is intended to explain processes already supported or substantiated by data and experimentation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Nothing this guy says makes any sense. With this guy's beliefs, all airports should be surrounded by them cloud trails when planes break through them invisible clouds. But that's not true."
What "beliefs"? Why should they? What on earth are you talking about?
"Idk what they put up there, but something don't seem right."
Why?
"And who knows, maybe they created some sort of chemical that will flout when above a certain elevation."
What?
"And they have been working on weather manipulation for decades."
Manipulating the weather is impossible. You can however attempt to modify it on the micro scale - cloud seeding being one such example.
"but from what I understand. Bill Gates wants to block out the sun."
Bill Gates provided funding and leant vocal support to research into the hypothetical strategy of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic emissions to arrest global temperature increase.
"The governments works on so much shit, the average person can't even comprehend."
The average person thinks that they can because an online conspiracy theory video told them so.
"Faucci is being investigated and tried for his connections and funding of the very lab that the COVID virus is believed to have come from. Where they study gain of function."
Incorrect. The funding was not remotely linked to gain of function whilst SARS-CoV-2 is not 'believed' to have come from a lab at all, rather natural zoonotic origin.
"Amazing how he also became the face of the vaccines for it. I wonder how many politicians made investments into the vaccines, and why they now want to keep their documents closed from public knowledge for 75 years."
Politicians have vested interests in many areas of industry and tech.
"Fact of the matter is, globalists all over the world are working together, have installed themselves into high power positions in every country that matters, and are working in co'op to force their agenda on the whole world. The NWO is no longer a conspiracy, when you see it playing out, and them saying the words to match."
How's that coming along right now?
1
-
@brianlewis420
"typical tactic of a leftist. Break it up and focus attention on parts of something, well shadowing the bigger picture."
You mean addressing every point in your post? Typical conspiracy believer, joining the dots without the big picture. Reading between the lines...while forgetting to read the lines.
"Leftist"? What? at no point have I mentioned any political affiliation. Why does everything have to be so black and white to you people, why so binary? so polarised and divided. What happened to discourse, the dialectic?
"Instead of picking it apart and focusing all your energy on asking who, what, where, when and why. You should try focusing some of that energy on putting things together."
When everything that you parrot is demonstrably incorrect? Righto - what could possibly go wrong.
"By the way you answered this, with attempts to discredit all of what I said, with a whole bunch of why's and nothing of real substance. Except for your one attempt to discredit foucci's gain of function funding claim. Which your completely wrong on. Because it came right from his own mouth, what kind of studies he was funding. And it is the lab in wohon China, the city that the virus also started in, that he was funding. But the fact all your doing is saying what mainstream media says."
Firstly, it's 'Wuhan' and there is compelling evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 made the zoonotic leap elsewhere but was bought in via the huge fuck off wet market there that you appear to be conveniently overlooking which was the focus of the superspreading event.
Regarding Fauci, it was the popular press that spread these misconceptions you clown. That, and the r/w media that you evidently devour. It appears that as I suspected, your sources originate with the r/w US media and the allegations concerning Fauci's involvement stem from Republican Senator Rand Paul. It is beyond reasonable doubt that China is conducting experiments into 'gain of function'. Dr Fauci, as well as being an adviser to President Biden, is the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH). This body did indeed allocate grant money to Eco-Health Alliance, an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Half a million dollars as I recall. However the research in question has been demonstrated not fall under 'Gain of Function'. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary. I guarantee where it will come from.
"Tells me, your prolly paid to combat internet narratives the globalists don't want people thinking. How much do they pay hourly? Is it good money, or are you still living in mommy's basement?"
Original then.
Yes, you seem very fond of unfounded assumptions. I couldn't give two shits what you think - but if you elect to post such garbage over a comments section then don't get all indignant if and when someone challenges you.
Grow up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly, climate change and rising global temperatures is independently verifiable and the erratic weather that you are referring to is a cause of it. These extremes are only set to get worse.
Secondly, contrails are frequently a precursor of an advancing front. They are a consequence of the changing weather, not the cause of it.
Finally, contrails do not as you say 'evaporate' - they sublimate. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading, or it may not necessarily form at all. It's duration and length is chiefly a consequence of the interrelationship between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure.
The contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lootskywater4328
"chemtrails are left from bioengineering shmuck
"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Bioengineering? You sure about that? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You can't even parrot your false equivalence successfully.
I'll ask you again, what does cloud seeding have to do with the contrails discussed in this video? - or if you like, your 'chemtrail' hoax?
"they weren't discussing contrails they were discussing chemtrails."
....And your logical fallacy is?
"Condensation trails dissapate where as chemical trails do not."
Of course contrails dissipate - as every cloud must do. Whether they are short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or form in the first place is a function of the interrelationship between temperature, humidity and vapour pressure. Incidentally, I think what you meant to say was 'dissipate.'
Could you identify the precise chemical that when released as a cloud does not dissipate and is able to expand and increase in mass just like, well no shit...condensed atmospheric water vapor? Could you also name the aircraft with the requisite MTOW to lift and carry this payload of materials? Any idea how much one of these persistent trails you're looking at weighs? Of course you haven't.
"You can't even follow the conversation"
This "conversation" - what do you think they are demonstrating that your supposed chemtrails actually are in reality? Take your time with that one. I'll give you a clue, they have nothing to do with "bioengineering" or "cloud seeding".
"so I wouldn't expect you to know the difference"
Finally!!! You can be the first since no chemtrail believer has managed to actually answer the question. Could you detail your precise methodology to allow differentiation between your alleged "chemtrails" and those persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years? Go ahead.
"Do some homework"
Errr, right. Appreciating that "homework" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube chemtrail videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how did you do yours?
"before you decide to turn your assignment's in"
And what's this week's topic? "Bioengineering"? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Quick tip. If you really feel the need to claim academic and intellectual superiority, two suggestions. Perhaps actually "do your homework'' yourself before making claims about subjects you clearly haven't the first clue about. It also helps if you can master the rudiments of basic written English - starting with punctuation and the correct use of apostrophisation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ogretowman8695
"Okay I'll educate you"
If it's all the same to you I'd rather continue to refer to independently verifiable science than relying upon a salivating conspiracy addled lunatic rabidly pounding their keyboard over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
"In nature aluminum is bound to bauxite"
Aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and as you say, bauxite rock (and is refined from the latter via electolysis). Aluminium combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
"Aluminum has been directly related to Alzheimer's ."
Said no credible study or specialist ever.
https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/risk-factors-and-prevention/metals-and-dementia
Who to afford credence? The Alzheimer's Society informed by neuro-specialists, consultants, practitioners and decades of evidence based medical research, or 'Ogre Towman' - an impressionable, credulous conspiracy believer parroting internet woo that subscribes to an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory. Tough one that - let me think about it
"Now about nano particulate , it's so small that it will go through the skin , cell walls and even the blood brain barrier . Our bodies don't even recognize it as a foreign body . If you noticed on a lot of new vitamins it will have nano this or nano that and people think it must be good . Wrong , it goes where it wants to and our body cannot use it ."
As I said, nanoscale colloidal alumina particles are all around you. Why wouldn't they be? If you light a candle you are ingesting harmful nanoparticles. "Nano" seems to be the new buzzword for dim witted conspiracy theorists such as yourself.
"Do some research before the internet gets closed down and you will see ."
That priceless, excruciatingly embarrassing moment when a chemtrail believer mentions 'research'. You mean crap You Tube videos made by online fraudsters, cherry picked confirmation bias, quote mining and self-referencing pseudoscientific chemtrail websites? - Think I'll pass on that.
"Oh I forgot to tell you where it's coming from , well it's from geoegineering to help stop global warming by reflecting the Sun's heat . Geoegineering = chemtrails ."
Association fallacy anyone?
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which David Keith is the main proponent of - would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. Aluminium??? Keith posited that Al2O3 was a possibility but currently here is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, this year, an experiment is scheduled involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing mere kilograms of water and possibly calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to measure dispersion and perturbation. Here's your SAI as it currently stands.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. As I explained, the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
"Nothing wrong with my caps lock ."
Sure about that...looks like you broke it.
"The reason why aluminun is all around us is from decades of spraying"
Nothing to do with being the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element in the earth's crust then?
Repeated tests over the past 40 years have shown the same or even higher levels of aluminium, consistent with that which is found in aeolian dust of crustal origin. Here's one such paper: 'A preliminary Study of the Composition of Precipitation in SE Ontario', Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol 4, 1967. Notice, the figures for aluminium in rain above are 0.52 to 1.12 ppm, which is 520 to 1120 ppb, mcg/L or ug/L - that's three times higher than the findings in the risible 'What in The World Are They Spraying". Take a look at the conclusions - and an understanding of the methodology would also be insightful to you.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/e67-077#.WjlxplSFiRs
And here's one from 1973 demonstrating similar results...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698176902560
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrWuChung
"I don't give a rat's ass about your education"
In which case, don't pass comments like this:
"The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, yet refuse to investigate."
As I simply said, atmospheric science is my background - but I am irrelevant because the known science of contrails is axiomatic and thereby speaks for itself. The fact that you choose to disregard this accounts for both your incredulity and your puerile belief in chemtrails. However aside from understanding the physical processes of contrail formation, I also guarantee that I know infinitely more about the origins, the perpetrators, the history and the background to your absurd conspiracy theory than you do.
"Listen to Kristen Mehgan testimony on YouTube." She witnessed firsthand."
Seriously?? How many times. It's the same thing over and over and over and over again with you people. Kristen Meghan, formerly Staff Sgt. Edwards, owing to her appalling Military record (and amongst other things such as being caught fellating her boyfriend on duty) tried to stir up some shit at Robins AFB where she served. Aside from her own 'blowing', her 'whistle blowing' (entirely a diversionary tactic) concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly:
"My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonise me in case I spoke out." Kristen Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate issue I believe she was introduced to the conspiracy theory by her brother over FB. Being an attention whore, and a former USAF employee she recognised an opportunity and was relentlessly paraded around over a decade ago by the perpetrators of this hoax as an appeal to false authority obviously chasing the lucrative dream of career conspiracy theory. She claimed to have tests but never produced them. Furthermore, the carcinogens she reported on (Chromium Oxide and Strontium 90) have a perfectly innocent reason for being on the base. They're used in the repair of airframes.
Kristen Meghan now lives in staid obscurity raising a family in leafy suburban Chicago – however she stills feels the need to posture on social media in a desperate attempt to appear relevant and justify her existence. And here is your appeal to authority...
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
She bills herself as an 'expert on chemtrails, weather control, and synthetic biology' - in reality she is an opportunistic failed career conspiracy theorist - an attempt to salvage an ignominious military career.
1
-
@MrWuChung
"In addition, the government has admitted to engaging in geo-engineering on multiple ocassions."
What 'government'??? No it hasn't. Geoengineering has very little to do with any government bar the occasional hearing about future policy, potential environmental impact and the ramifications of these proposals for international relations. And what precisely do you mean by 'geoengineering'? GGR (also known as negative emissions technology) is actively pursued through such strategies as aforestation, biochar and carbon sequestering, Solar Radiation Management on the other hand is entirely in the form or hypothetical research proposal with the exception of ground based albedo modification. Geoengineering in any of its forms has never been secretive or hidden. How precisely do you admit to something that isn't denied? What does any of this have to do with the persistent contrails that you are witnessing and have been observed measured and studied for almost a century?
"Even China announced that it would cause rain before the 2008 Olympic marathon to clean the smog, and it did."
That's cloud seeding you imbecile, which has nothing to do with geoengineering or the contrails that you are seeing. Cloud seeding (also termed weather modification) does not produce a lasting trail, does not create clouds and actually, in spite of organisations online freely advertising their contracts and services and some high profile state sponsored schemes such as China as you mentioned and the UAE, is not actually a widespread practice, is highly erratic in its results and its very efficacy questionable. It works by introducing additional nucleation into rain bearing stratiform/cumulus cloud banks and hence is conducted at a fraction of the trails that you are seeing in the tropopause and lower stratosphere (typically ,2,000 - 6,5000 ft). Light aircraft are retrofitted with silver iodide flare racks. Liquid substances have on occasions been sprayed from larger aircraft - saline solutions and even liquid propane, but this does not result in a trail. The Chinese have also used rockets and artillery
"Remember what I said about chosen ignorance.
"
Indeed and so should you - it's a great shame that you people lack the critical awareness to enable humility, self-appraisal and reflection and introspection. You've just completely humiliated yourself and demonstrated that you haven't the first clue what you are talking about.
Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering or even cloud seeding were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
You finally notice contrails because the internet told you they are chemtrails, you don't understand them and as opposed to seeking your explanation in science you look to a ludicrous online internet conspiracy theory. You then have the audacity to arrogantly tell people more informed than yourself to "look up". It's as comical as it is tragic really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sharapova593
"type this on youtube you dummy 'cia Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' it takes 2 minutes to find information about it"
No, it takes two minutes to find a click-bait crap conspiracy video featuring ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does Stratospheric Aerosol Injection have to do with persistent contrails which have been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of aviation? And your point about "dummy" was precisely what?
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. Indeed, later this year an experiment is scheduled involving a steerable balloon launched 20km above the Arizona desert and mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
SAI it would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond hypothetical research proposal, would not form a trail or involve large commercial aircraft cruising in the troposphere and lower stratosphere, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"Also David Keith talks about geoengineering there you go"
Indeed he does...
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
...there you go.
1
-
@sharapova593
Firstly, why are you people utterly unable to express and condense your thoughts into one cogent reply instead of multiple posts?
Secondly, why are conspiracy believers oblivious and utterly in denial of constructive replies? I asked you to highlight where John Brennan advocates, endorses or confirms that SAI is in progress. I demonstrated that David Keith denounces the chemtrails conspiracy theory and detailed the hypothetical science of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, all of which you have completely disregarded.
Thirdly, I asked you what hypothetical research proposals into SAI has to do with persistent contrails?
To address your latest replies, which you are utterly incapable of doing yourself...clearly you are new to this and are easily satisfied by internet conspiracy theory, unable to see beyond cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias and self-referenced pseudoscientific websites...and you have the audacity to say this...
"You living in denial there is nothing i can do about it"
Classic conspiracy believer afflicted by illusory superiority.
"What about Kirsten Meghan is she a click bait crap conspiracy?"
As I said - you're new to this. Kristen Meghan??? Are you serious? The obligatory go to wannabe career conspiracy theorist? Do you really think you are the first occupant of your online echo-chamber to ask this? Doesn't it get tired even for you people? Kristen Meghan...again, ten years on???
There's no pea in her whistle in the the first place - far less blowing it. Although Staff Sergeant Edwards was caught fellating on her boyfriend in the industrial shop/workcentre at Robins AFB (which is pretty much at the route of everything.)
Appeal to authority fallacy aside, what is she actually saying? "Clouds used to be puffy and now they are feathery"??? Really?
Like I say, are you new to this? because it’s the same thing, over and over again. This is Kristen Meghan, formerly Staff Sgt. Edwards who on account of her appalling Military record tried to stir up some shit at Robins AFB where she served. Her 'whistle blowing' concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly:
"My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonize me in case I spoke out." Kristen Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate issue I believe she was introduced to the conspiracy theory by her brother over FB. Being an attention whore, and a former USAF employee she was paraded around by the perpetrators of this hoax as an appeal to false authority obviously chasing the lucrative dream of career conspiracy theory. She claimed to have tests but never produced them. Furthermore, the carcineogens she reported on (Chromium Oxide and Strontium 90) have a perfectly innocent reason for being on the base. They're used in the repair of airframes.
Kristen Meghan now lives in staid obscurity raising a family in leafy suburban Chicago – however she stills postures online in a desperate attempt to appear relevant and justify her existence.
So this is what you would regard as legitimate scientific authority??? Laughable.
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
She's billed as a supposed 'expert on chemtrails, weather control, and synthetic biology'. That is a quote right from the start of one of her main speaking appearances. So, why didn't she divulge where she got her advanced degrees in said subjects from? Where is her peer-reviewed research published at? From the get go, this is an utter embarrassment. "Clouds used to be puffy, but now they are feathery?" What?! Where is the data?
Utter joke.
"What about this man, is he mentally ill?"
Very possibly. Again, are you serious? Do you think that this has neve been flogged to death by you people? You appear to regard random You Tube conspiracy theory videos as legitimate sources of valid data. On May 12th, 2014, at a German Peace Demonstration in Dresden, a person who claimed to be a former aerospace engineer (later identified as "Jens") gave a brief talk, claiming to have have installed "chemtrail" spray equipment on planes. But his story fell apart after he presented his "evidence". The plane he claims to have worked on in 2008 was an 2003 icing test plane, retired in 2005. Ridiculous.
"Stop shilling please"
https://hatepseudoscience.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/155563c33065bcce2169f5e3aca73c99.jpg
"maybe you should watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEUg8uLoZNY"
Micheal J Murphy???? So you present a link to possibly the most obligatory chemtrail conspiracy video, posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, produced by the main perpetrator of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, featuring fellow advocates of the chemtrails conspiracy theory about the chemtrails conspiracy theory as evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory??? Murphy?? - again are you serious. You realise that there is a sequel to this bollocks, intended to be followed by the final instalment in the trilogy - "An Unconventional Shade of Grey"? Unfortunately after making an unfulfillable pledge to hire a light aircraft and sample these supposed trails at source (something that none of you fools have managed to do in the two decades of this ludicrous conspiracy theory) Murphy embezzled the crowd funding proceeds on crystal meth and was last heard of living out of a parking lot in So Cal.
"All these people are crazy !"
No - just cleverer and more cynical than you, and cashing in on gross stupidity, utter scientific illiteracy, innate gullibility and impaired critical awareness. If you hadn't noticed, conspiracy theory in the post-truth era is big bucks, a highly lucrative industry. These are simply opportunistic wannabes riding on the coattails of millionaires such as Icke and Jones. To those at the to of the tree you are simply the low hanging fruit, ripe for the picking..harvesting stupidity. You don'd discover this, this junk comes looking for you. You are the target audience and in your bid to feel clever, empowered, significant and relevant, you don't realise it.
"Tell me this is normal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRNTujoV3xg"
In an ice saturated environment, contrails are not only unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase, but will persevere and spread. To those informed about meteorological science, yes, this is completely normal.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l76qzSEzREM/Uv1he_7qpXI/AAAAAAAAAPY/bp3hs-kCOd4/s1600/77.jpg
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2e2bef9f7bf79dfae36fc0669651578f.jpg
https://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Chemtrails-as-contrails-by-the-WMO-and-RAF-1024x913.jpg
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Not knowing about something doesn't make it not exist."
You chose the wrong person to make that statement to. I can assure you that I do. I am a qualified meteorologist and my field is remote sensing. And yourself?
"They created HAARP knowing this technology could be used for many applications, including manipulating weather patterns."
Absolute nonsense. HAARP consists of an observatory and an adjacent 28-acre field with 180 HF antennas, each 72 feet tall, with a maximum transmission power of 3600 kilowatts, about 75 times the power of a commercial radio station, but only a tiny fraction of the strength of the natural solar radiation striking the same part of the ionosphere at which HAARP is aimed. Although the observatory operated continuously, the HF antenna array is activated only rarely for specific experiments, which averaged about once a month.
HAARP has no potential to affect weather. The frequency of energy that HAARP transmits cannot be absorbed by the troposphere or the stratosphere, only by the ionosphere, many miles higher than the highest atmospheric weather systems which was the basis of its inception.
Communication and navigation signals are sent through the atmosphere for a broad range of civilian and military purposes. Guided missiles rely on digital transmissions which can be affected or jammed by a whole variety of natural and artificial causes. GPS and encrypted communications all need to be able to make it to their recipients in wartime, regardless of the atmospheric and electromagnetic conditions. The study of these effects is the primary reason that DARPA, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Navy contributed to HAARP's funding. In addition, by bouncing signals off the ionosphere at at altitude of 100km, HAARP has been able to create Extremely Low Frequency, or ELF, waves as low as 1 Hertz, which could potentially be used for worldwide communication including reaching submarines, though at an almost uselessly slow data rate.
Note that the maximum ELF signal amplitude produced by HAARP has been measured at less than one ten-millionth of the Earth's natural background field.
HAARP's maximum frequency is 10 MHz, and the dielectric heating effect of a microwave oven requires 2.5 GHz, or 250 times higher than HAARP. Dielectric heating also requires reversing the polarity of the field more than a million times a second, one thousand times HAARP's fastest frequency.
HAARP was decommissioned in 2014 and subsequently purchased by the University of Fairbanks. In February, studies of atmospheric effects on satellite-to-ground communications resumed, in addition to optical measurements of artificial airglow and over-the-horizon radar experiments took place. These were available for the public to follow in real time.
There's nothing remotely secret or even classified about HAARP. No security clearance is needed to visit and tour the site and they even host summer barbecues for visitors.
"I've seen the documents, some of the original creators of the technology talk about its potential for modifying weather... "
Citation necessary...direct quote please...particularly about the supposed potential to steer hurricanes.
"NEXRAD can generate radio waves at the same intensity and act like mini-HAARPs."
????????? A doppler radar network???? I'll remind you, my profession is remote sensing - that's my specialism, that's my field. Now explain to me supported by applied physics how a doppler radar can affect the weather.
"Look into it if you want, or dismiss it out of hand, your choice. I'd wager you will dismiss it without giving the idea consideration"
Give it consideration? It's my background. Watching conspiracy videos on YouTube is not "looking into something".
Actually, the NEXRAD HAARP/hoax is "old news". It dates to the late 1990's being attributable to a Roy Hoagland. It got debunked back then but has be resurrected in the main by Begich and youtuber Dutchsinse who surprise surprise, sells products and merchandise associated with it.
It's becoming abundantly clear why you have also been hoodwinked by the chemcult.
Now put your conspiracy theory aside for a few hours and objectively read up on the real science behind this - "Look into it if you want, or dismiss it, your choice". I'd wager you will dismiss it without giving the legitimate science consideration
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You've done a great job just cutting and pasting the official narrative from rationalwiki.org. I don't consider that the authoritative source on what HAARP can or cannot do. "
Firstly it was largely tongue in cheek and secondly what would you like to disagree with about the contents? Thirdly, what do you consider an authoritative source on what HAARP can or cannot do? Could I see it? And fourthly, what would you like to challenge about my own response?
"Being a meteorologist doesn't mean you are an expert on the effects of EMF on the atmosphere, or on all forms of man made weather modification."
And parroting online conspiracy theory does?
...I can however tell you that a doppler radar cannot steer a storm.
"I would put more faith in people who actually worked on the HAARP project."
They have open days, Why don't you visit? You can also Q/A via email and skype.
"There is much we don't know about natural weather systems, but evidence suggests they are effected by electro magnetism more than we once understood."
What does this have to do with HAARP and NEXRAD and your original comments that "they" can steer and guide storms by harnessing EMF?
"I don't blame you for your mainstream thinking and training,"
What is your own occupation?
The science that I have learnt and apply is demonstrable, testable independently verifiable and you benefit from it on a daily basis. What specifically would you like to challenge about the content of my post? Moreover, the "mainstream thinking and training" that you scorn takes years of dedication and commitment as opposed to a evening on YouTube. It also taught me the scientific method, through which we constantly appraise our knowledge base. What have you done to challenge your preconceptions?
Please explain how HAARP a low frequency transmitter array and NEXRAD a network of S - Band Doppler weather radars can influence and steer storms. Your answer will be supported by established physics and academic empirical evidence.
"I don't even blame you for mindlessly copying and pasting from rationalwiki articles"
I didn't copy anything from rationalwiki I posted a link. Is mindlessly and uncritically parroting the conspiracy theorists that this lampoons preferable then? Again, what would you like to challenge about the content?
"but I think you should do more research before thinking such a copy and paste debunks anything."
What do you wish to challenge about my written response? How did you do your "research" beyond gullibly regurgitating a succession of You Tube conspiracy videos? Could you produce it then?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I'm not sure which is worse, the people who are truly ignorant, or those who just pretend to be. "
I'd say the latter. Those at the top of the tree that perpetrate this nonsense do so cynically and for their own agenda. The gullible and scientifically ignorant that are hoodwinked by it do so innocently and are simply low hanging fruit ripe for the picking.
"Why is it that none of these geniuses who try to convince everyone that all chemtrails are just contrails, cannot explain why "contrails" that last all day in the sky didn't exist 20 years ago and beyond???"
They did. Persistent contrails are nothing new, why do you believe otherwise? Granted, they weren't as prevalent but then in the last twenty years commercial air travel and associated routes flown have grown exponentially whilst the IATA expects passenger demand to double over the ensuing two decades.
This paper from 1972 studies the phenomena of persistent contrails and explains the mechanism behind their formation.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Do feel free to dispute or challenge any of the science contained within.
"The same jets with the same engines existed then, and anyone who paid enough attention would, in fact, see contrails form, and when they watched for five more minutes, they were GONE."
Incorrect. Their duration was a function of localised atmospheric conditions as it is today; being ambient temperature, pressure and humidity. Familiarity with what is known as the "contrail factor" would be beneficial to you.
(Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.)
"Yes, that IS a contrail. You can see them being formed, and then lose their form, all in five minutes."
Now explain why you believe this to be a universal occurance, citing physical laws and principles of atmospheric chemistry to support your contention. Again. please do feel free to refute the demonstrable science contained within this peer reviewed journal published paper of which there are hundreds more.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The ignorance and stupidity that exists today is frightening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVyje8kazEQ"
Stated without the slightest hint or suggestion of irony. You couldn't make this up. So you post a You Tube chemtrail conspiracy theory video, made by a perpetrator of this conspiracy theory about this conspiracy theory as proof of this conspiracy theory? Genius. Let's take a look at it shall we?
Unfortunately for you my field is the science of remote sensing. Your video contains an image of a meteorological research aircraft and at 0:41 the instruments depicted include a Rosemount total temperature sensor, a platinum wire reverse-flow temperature sensor, an E.G.G. dew point sensor, a Johnson-Williams (JW) hot-wire liquid water content (LWC) meter and a cloud water collector. The rest of your video contains a farrago of dishonestly assembled footage capturing regular contrails, fuel dumps, firefighting tankers and laughably, the obligatory pictures of water ballast barrels connected by pump mechanisms designed to shift the centre of gravity during test flights.
Watch here -
.https://youtu.be/IxMSoxzYhG8
Read here -
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/peek-inside-boeing-747-8/
So your posting of this video is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and a consequence of your own incredulity. All that you have succeeded in illustrating is that you clearly have no comprehension of aviation or meteorological science and in addition to your innate gullibility, that you are a very silly man with a search engine that doesn't know how to use it yet likes to brand others as "ignorant" over the internet.
Even more ridiculous at 5:46, is the doctoring of an image taken of the hugely publicised ALPA protest at Wall Street over benefits and pay deceptively altered to depict a supposed chemtrail protest by pilots. Here you go...
http://dailym.ai/2cPtZaU
Moreover, a friend of mine who flies for Continental and was among the marchers posted pictures in Instagram the same day of the event.
This raises the following two questions:
1/ Why do the perpetrators of this belief feel the need to deceive you?
2/ How have you allowed yourself to be duped by the laughable and risible contents of a YouTube conspiracy video?
A further question for you, and note, one that not a single online conspiracy theorist has managed to answer. What is your occupation? You attempt to refute the physical laws of the atmosphere...and your background and credentials are?
And your point about the frightening "ignorance and stupidity that exists today" was precisely what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danbarker8895
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is a suggested branch of Solar Radiation Management/Geoengineering which is intended to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols should a last ditch attempt to arrest global temperature increase ever be required. SAI is a hypothetical concept which has not progressed beyond research proposal and computer model, would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails you are seeing, and would not even result in one. I suggest that you look up the SCoPEx project which is coordinated by the Keutsch Group/Harvard for more understanding of what SAI actually is and how in its infancy this idea is. The experiment would be the first significant small scale trail and would involve a steerable balloon launched 20 kms into the stratosphere, releasing a few kilos of water (and subsequent flights, possibly a similarly negligible quantity of CaCo3) in order to evaluate perturbation and reflectivity. No need to be scared, SAI will never be employed, not simply due to the huge environmental unknowns, but the impossibility of international governance.
To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. The perpetrators of this hoax have intentionally used false equivalence of this branch of research in a lame attempt to validate their claims.
Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) it therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why are you people incapable of consolidating your vacuous thoughts into one response? Both your comments are shadow banned. I will summarise below.
"Seeing is believing and I see contrails and chemtrails everyday.normal contrails from planes disappear fast and chemtrails persist and spread..."
Fascinating. Could you explain why detailing the physical laws that determine this?
"Everyone can see them and you are the only one who doesn't???"
Yep. The persistent spreading contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.Unfortunately, instead of learning about meteorological science and aviation, you allowed a dumb online conspiracy theory to tell you that to think.
"your government already admitted chemtrails spraying so I don't know what you are talking about?"
Source? - full quote and context please. Thanks. You understand what association fallacy is yes?
My government? There are 195 sovereign states - which are you referring to?
"There is a secret nozzle inside jet engines that sprays whatever they put in the added containers.."
A secret nozzle? - but nothing gets past you genius. Containers? You mean those test aircraft ballast barrels that chemtrail conspiracy theorists appropriated to deceive the gullible and critically impaired such as yourself?
.
"You are just another pawn spreading misinformation"
Said the online conspiracy believer.
No, I simply asked you what geoengineering in any of its forms has to do with aircraft contrails. You are unable to answer my question.
"while most of the people know the truth already..."
Of course you do - you saw it on the internet and you put it in your name, (original then), so it must be true.
"Give it a rest."
Said the one trolling this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@psilocybinvibin502
Made your mind up?
So commercial airline pilots are unbeknown to them, not only carrying thousands of tons of chemicals but unwittingly spraying these from their flightpaths on a daily basis. Moreover, no one - ATC, ground staff, fuelling crew, loadmasters, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, aerospace engineers, airport management, sector analysts, atmospheric scientists...have noticed. But you know this, because you read it on the internet?
Ok.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TrentGustus
"do a little research"
My background is climate and I work in research capability. What 'research' would you like me to do?
"they experimented in California"
Experimented with what precisely - and who are "they"?
"the government admitted it"
Admitted what?
"second they are trying to geo-engineer the weather"
Did you even read my reply? So as predicted, you're are indeed another one that thinks that hypothetical geoengineering concepts such as SAI is evidence for a dumb conspiracy theory that misidentifies aircraft contrails? Geoengineering in any of its forms has nothing to do with the trails you are seeing and aims to effect climatic change not the weather.
"gates has been investing in it. If he's investing in it, you think he's put money in it and they haven't sprayed anything out of an airplane?"
Again, as predicted, you are using the association fallacy of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft trails you are seeing which are contrails. Bill Gates has leant his support and provided some funding to the Harvard research initiative, but as explained SAI is entirely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond proposal and computer modelling.
"I certainly don't think it's all that popular, but if they've already done it, studying in it, investing in it, they're doing it somewhere."
No. SAI, with the exception of the aborted SPICER project in the UK, has yet to reach the stages of small scale trial. It would aim to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols so would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the contrails that conspiracy theorists erroneously term 'chemtrails'. It wouldn't even leave a trail and would be imperceptible to any ground based observer. Look up the Harvard/Keutsch Group SCoPEx project. This aims to launch a small steerable balloon 20km into the stratosphere and release a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation. That's your SAI - and they've been waiting 5 years to get ethical approval just to do that. SAI will never become a reality, not simply due to the opposition, the approval, the environmental unknowns and the logistics, but the sheer impossibility of international governance.
What does any of this have to do with a ludicrous conspiracy theory centred around the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
1
-
1
-
@TrentGustus
"The "Science" of climate change is no science at all since it can't stand scrutiny"
Incorrect, it is measurable, demonstrable, axiomatic and undeniable. Your scepticism about climate change does not make the science of climatology invalid.
"It's political.. not science"
Incorrect. There are sustained efforts of a coalition of business lobbies, politicians, maverick scientists, charlatans and contrarian internet attention-seekers to politicise it and to discredit and derail the notion of anthropogenic climate change – efforts that continue even today, as the world literally burns. The data is irrefutable and speaks for itself.
Global temperature increase, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and increasing weather extremes do not do politics - there is no agenda. The solution is in part political, but is also incumbent upon this generation and the next.
"if it were science.. the IPCC would support all study on climate without agenda.. but we'll never have the IPCC or climate scientists telling us "everything is ok" because that doesn't make them any money"
Please don't take offence to this, but there are occasions, even in the comments section of You Tube that someone floats a notion so ludicrous, or submits something that is so transcendently stupid that one is perplexed by the sheer variety of overwhelming valid counterpoints that simultaneously present themselves. In such times you find yourself left to suffocate in the overwhelming paralysis of indecisive bewilderment, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlight, which suffers for its immobility when any action would be preferable to none.
"the "business" of climate change requires that problems must be found in order to get and keep getting funding.. It's "non-science"
What does your ignorance and incredulity have to do with the disciplines of atmospheric and meteorological science/climatology? You can't write off an entire branch of science simply because you think that climate change isn't real. Has it occurred to you at any point when you make these arrogant statements, decrees and pronouncements, that you might not actually possess the requisite knowledge and education to back them up? Is this what you do in the real world with people that you meet? (Assuming that you engage with reality). And why are you desperately changing the subject from your erroneous claim that aircraft contrails are 'chemtrails'?
May I ask you a question, and one that I very much doubt that I will receive an answer to. What is your profession/line of work?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social Technological Environmental and Legal framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does research into the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection have to do with a baseless online hoax predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blahblahblah8261
"Sure I can say, that through my own research, I would say that chemtrails and a lot of other "conspiracies" are not what you may think."
"Through your research" you say? I'm sorry, but the instant that a conspiracy believer mentions "research" its impossible not to raise a wry smile. You said this ...
"I truly believe that we are intelligent enough to be able to sort through the nonsense and we should have the ability to do so."
Do you actually believe that you are doing precisely that?
"I can tell you how I have seen a fair amount research to suggest that chemtrails are very real and there is plenty of documentation to prove that."
No there really isn't. There isn't any.
"Plenty of whistle blowers experts, gov documents stating this fact."
On the contrary, there are none whatsoever. There are career conspiracy theorists such as Kristen Meghan and Kevin Shipp, who use appeals to false authority to sell this nonsense...experts though? there is no credible scientist and proponent of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. There should be thousands.
"At the end of the day though, unless you're willing to seek out the other viewpoint and put your judgments aside and make your own determination on these topics"
Are you?
"Below are some links to chemtrail's (geoengineering) specifically, but these journalists cover a variety of topics that I recommend you check out."
We'll examine them individually, but first you need some background and context to understand where you are going wrong. Apologies, I may need to split my response into two posts.
the chemtrails hoax originated in the late nineties largely through Coast to Coast AM and the late night shows of Art Bell based upon the erroneous belief that persistent contrails in the wake of commercial air traffic was evidence of a government programme of intentional chemical spraying for undefined purposes ranging from speculation about mind control to population culling. Astonishingly, such beliefs still endure amongst chemtrail believers. As a commercial radio station, the manufacture of conspiracy theory (which they still do to order), not only boosted ratings, but in so doing, advertising revenue. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has burgeoned and has now perversely become lucrative big business. The now perceived relationship with "geoengineering" is purely as a result of the efforts of the perpetrators of the chemtrails hoax - in particular Dane Wigington - to intentionally conflate the two in a desperate bid to afford credence and legitimacy to their ludicrous claims.
As a reminder, the chemtrails hoax is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails - important that you appreciated that. Geoengineering is a very broad term, as the third link that you provided details...
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf
So you can see that as a range of strategies, it can be divided into two main headings - GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR involves such approaches such as aforestation, carbon sequestering, ambient air capture, and biochar, whilst most funding and interest is channelled into ocean fertilisation. SRM (Solar Radiation Management) exists very much in the real of paper based proposal and would involve methods such as marine cloud brightening, albedo enhancement and space reflectors. One of these, Stratospheric Aerosol injection has not even progressed beyond the status of isolated small scale trial. In fact one such experiment (SCoPEx) is designated for next year using mere kilograms of calcium carbonate, (that's right, chalk). I suggest you read this...
https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-to-launch-groundbreaking-solar-geoengineering-experiment-in-2019
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-12-05-sun-dimming-experiment-planned-2019-harvard-scientists
From the first article...
"That said, there's still a huge amount we don't know about what solar geoengineering might unleash, which is all the more reason to conduct small-scale experiments like SCoPEx, which will only release about the same amount of particulate as one minute of commercial airliner emissions. As always, even if the experiments prove successful – and demonstrate that solar geoengineering is something we could potentially roll out on a larger scale – it's not a silver bullet for global warming."
SAI exists on paper..that's it. The formidable and likely insurmountable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance are discussed in detail in your penultimate link...
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RaschPhilTrans.pdf
"We emphasize that, while the studies highlighted here are a step along the way, we believe no proposal (including the ideas explored here) has yet completed the series of steps required for a
comprehensive and thoroughly studied geoengineering mitigation strategy
Our review of studies of geoengineering by sulphate aerosols suggests it will ameliorate some
consequences of global warming. The study highlights some positive aspects of the strategy. However, many uncertainties remain in understanding the influence of geoengineering on the climate system (particularly on aspects related to likely impacts on the biosphere). More work is required to understand the costs, benefits and risks involved, and to reconcile the legal, political and ethical
issues of geoengineering."
In addition to the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles, it is therefore very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address global warming, that it would ever be employed. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols.
No one is denying the existence of geoengineering or that such research proposals are funded and small scale trials are imminently pending. However, even if in the unlikely event that SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer owing to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist and would probably be equatorial in location to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns. It certainly wouldn't be resemble the long white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic at half the altitude that the perpetrators of this fraud and believers in this nonsense would have you believe are "chemtrails". The latter is precisely what this video is debunking, not research into SAI - which is very real.
So to address your links...
1
-
@blahblahblah8261
"https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1185-peter-kirby-explains-the-new-manhattan-project/"
James Corbett, featuring a new book by Peter Kirby??? - are you actually serious? So you link me to a conspiracy theory website, owned by one of the main believers of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, featuring a perpetrator of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, selling and attempting to profit from a product devoted to and about the chemtrails conspiracy theory, as proof of the chemtrails conspiracy theory???
What was your comment earlier?
"there will always be lazy people who want their info fed to them in convenient sound bites and fun drama. That doesn’t mean the vast majority of people are like that. I truly believe that we are intelligent enough to be able to sort through the nonsense and we should have the ability to do so."
"Open Source Intelligence News" ???? James Corbett is an anarcho-capitalist youtuber and conspiracy theorist. What do you people consistently fail to understand about objectivity? Of course he's going to tell you chemtrails exist - it's his stock in trade.
Secondly, we have the equally ludicrous "We Are Change" founded by Luke Rudkowski, an American self-branded investigative journalist, right-wing activist and again, conspiracy theorist. We Are Change was influential in promoting Ron Paul in both his failed 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns. Despite bearing a name which may suggest a tendency to liberalism, We Are Change is a right-libertarian organisation, most evident through their support of Paul.
So this video is featuring the obligatory Kristen Meghan - a supposed chemtrails whistleblower, only she's nothing of the sort. Meghan was actually introduced to the conspiracy theory through her brother who showed her some nonsense off Alex Jone Infowars. To clarify, Meghan is an ex air force employee who served as a technical consultant on industrial hygiene evaluations of work equipment. Her 'whistle blowing' concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly: "My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonise me in case I spoke out." Kirsten Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate thing but as a former USAF employee is paraded around by the perpetrators of this hoax in a desperate bid to gain some credibility - so you'll find that she is a ubiquitous feature in chemtrails conspiracy videos and within the associated vacuous echo-chamber. She is currently busy raising a family in Chicago, but that doesn't stop the occasional forays and shameless self-promotion within conspiratorial obsessed social media predictably lauding herself as some self-righteous prophet, self-proclaimed "scientist" and harbringer of "truth".
https://en-gb.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
Your link from the Royal Society is a very informative summary of geoengineering technologies - I suggest that you read it. It details the various means of SAI which could be employed in the future, with a particular emphasis upon the possible viability of sulphate particles given that the aim of SAI is to duplicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and the naturally occurring presence of such microscopic particles in the Junge layer.
Although this paper that you provided is ten years old now...
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RaschPhilTrans.pdf
...it again offers a useful examination, discussion and speculation of the principles and possible deployment of SAI in addition to the substantial challenges that such a programme would face - particularly via aircraft...
"Our studies have shown that the delivery of aerosols or their precursors, at least using our hypothetical aircraft, is a formidable task. For the conservative scenarios we have explored, it would take of the order of a million flights of 4-hour duration (2500 km) per year to deliver the nominal
amount of aerosol (10 Tg particles yrK1 Z2.5 Tg S yrK1) needed to balance the warming associated with increasing greenhouse gas emissions. These numbers are still quite rough, and it is possible that up to four times as much sulphur might be required. We have not investigated the entire spectrum
of delivery systems. The issues and methodology we have suggested may be relevant to other proposed delivery systems (artillery shells, balloons, hoses, other aircraft), although details will certainly be different."
Once again, what does SAI have to do with a conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails formed in the wake of commercial air traffic cruising in the troposphere and lower stratosphere at half the altitudes designated for SAI - a series of hypothetical geoengineering research proposals that don't exist yet?
You penultimate link is simply a baseless YouTube conspiracy video produced by online YT conspiracy pedlars "Truthstream Media". YouTube is an entertainment platform not a legitimate source of information. This video captures the usual footage of regular contrails set to the predictable commentary and conspiratorial narrative. The intersection and crossing over of the trails is nothing unusual given the multiple headings, destinations and routes flown by commercial aviation when viewed from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional airspace. YouTube can however provide a graphic illustration of what you are seeing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNGI8fX71fM&feature=youtu.be
The links that you have provided consist of nothing more than cherry picked confirmation bias from subjective sensationalist self-referencing conspiracy websites, a YouTube conspiracy video a review of geoengineering technologies, and a ten year old paper discussing the viability of stratospheric aerosol injection, which has nothing whatsoever to do with contrails produced by commercial air traffic that conspiracy theorists claim to be evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying. The latter is precisely what Rogan and West are debunking in this video. Your statement that "both of them have zero research behind the things they are saying and are making nonsense statements" - care to substantiate that now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
_"It’s not about rain . It’s about population control."
_
Given that the global population has risen by 2 billion in the past two decades and continues to increase - forecast to have reached 10.8 billion by the end of the century - tell me, how's that coming along?
_"When these trails are up in the sky,you need to stay in the house."
_
By all means do - you'll be doing the world a favour.
_"When I first started noticing these trails.... within a 2 to 3 week period the ER rooms are filled with sick people."
_
And thanks again to Sandy Burkett for sending in this week's logical fallacy. Here, this is for you...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
The trails that you are seeing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied for over 80 years and since the advent of high altitude powered aviation. This image is from a 75 year old meteorology text book...
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
_"The symptoms are so different that the doctors just have to guess how to treat the problem."
_
Because you said so. Your anecdotal incredulity is utterly irrelevant. Present your evidence. Go ahead.
_"Dont just dismiss this as being silly...."
_
How could anyone possibly arrive at that conclusion?
_"I have been on the other end of those trails"
_
No, very simply, you are on the end of an internet connection which you quite clearly have no idea how to use responsibly combined with a failed education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ive seen the sky change in remote places."
Such as?
"Seeding, stratospheric aerosols, etc. IS REAL"
There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity. Cloud seeding is neither secretive and has been in the public domain for years.
SAI exists in the form of hypothetical research and computer modelling. There is not even any agreement upon which materials would best replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. This year the first small scale trial (SCoPEx) involving a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere will release mere kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate dispersal and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Cloud seeding is not widespread and since it is designed to induce rainfall by the introduction of additional nucleation into existing stratoform/cumulus cloud masses - those already conducive to precipitation - it is conducted between altitudes of 500 - 6,500 ft, a fraction of the height of the trails that you are observing.
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. As I said, the purpose of SAI would be to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
What does either cloud seeding or research into SAI have to do with the contrails under discussion in this video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobleclair5665
Geoengineering is a very broad area divided into GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR encompasses strategies such as aforestation, biochar, ocean fertilisation and carbon sequestering. SRM on the other hand, (with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening) is entirely hypothetical. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory originated in the mid 1990s through and article by William Thomas and Art Bell's junk radio show on Coast to Coast AM. It was predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails and the belief that these are of sinister intent ranging from such ludicrous assertions as mind control, depopulation and to screen the return of Nibiru (Planet X). With the advent of the internet and the explosion of online conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Michael J Murphy and Dane Wigington eager to jump on the bandwagon, quickly seized upon SRM geoengineering strategies and in particular the emerging work of David Keith (SAI). This association fallacy was a lame attempt at affording legitimacy to their claims and was a complete watershed in the chemtrail belief. Both attributed aircraft contrails to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. Because the believers in this false claim hang on the every word of the perpetrators, most followers of the chemtrail conspiracy theory now falsely associate the sight of contrails with geoengineering, without even understanding what either actually are.
SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Again, SAI is entirely hypothetical and has yet to graduate to small scale trail. is currently purely the stuff of computer modelling. I suggest that you look into SCoPEx, which is a proposed trail on behalf of Harvard/The Keutsch Group who are at the vanguard of this research. They aim to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere and releases a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation. Subsequent runs may release negligible quantities of calcium carbonate - which is precisely the point, the materials/'chemicals' to best effect this haven't even been determined. This trial has been delayed for five years seeking ethical approval. SAI is a reckless, ludicrous and frankly dangerous folly. Because of this it will never become a reality. Not simply due to the environmental unknowns, the appreciable logistical challenges and the opposition, but the impossibility of international governance. SAI proposes to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns to envelop the entire planet - the legal implications, far less the implications for global security don't bear thinking about which is why it will remain in the realms of fantasy.
Chemtrail believers need to understand what SAI actually is instead of listening to conspiracy theorists. It would take the form of a very fine mist, at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are witnessing and wouldn't even be perceptible to a ground based observer...and right now, it doesn't exist outside of a laboratory. It's likely that the solution to global temperature increase is DAC, but this is a very expensive which even wealthy developed nations are reluctant to pursue.
SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve regular jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. There is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails.
I'd suggest that with respect, if you choose to refer to 'geoengineering' as 'chemtrails' then do not expect to be taken seriously outside of the online echo-chambers that perpetuate this nonsense.
1
-
@bobleclair5665
"is sulfate aerosol a chemical"
You appear to have completely disregarded my response to you. To reiterate, SRM/SAI is entirely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond paper based proposal and computer modelling. The materials that it would employ have not even been agreed upon. Sulphates are naturally and heterogeneously present in the stratosphere. Moreover, volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year.
"agent orange"
A defoliant and nothing to do with the contrails that you are seeing.
"nay Pom"
I think you mean, 'napalm'.
"Dimming the the sun, intensionally manipulating the climate, solar radiation management"
As I explained to you, none of which is happening.
"That’s the kind of talks in geo-engineering that makes a conspiracy theorist, don’t you think?"
Nope. Ignorance of the subject and gullibility makes a conspiracy theory believer.
"There’s also HAARP, heating the upper atmosphere, old news now"
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme is an HF pump and had nothing to do with either weather or climate. It has never been classified, requires no security clearance to visit and can be hired out on contract as an ionospheric research facility which is all that it is.
None of this has anything to do with the chemtrail hoax centred around misidentified aircraft contrails.
Why do you uncritically believe and allow yourself to be duped by online conspiracy theory about subjects you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever? And why do you have no will or desire to discover information independently and objectively at source?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReeferMadman
Firstly, to address your original post, I responded demonstrating your association fallacy, involving either the unwitting or intentional conflation of research into SAI with the chemtrails hoax. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails that have been observed, recorded and studied since the early advent of powered aviation. With the exception of ground based albedo modification, the Solar Radiation Management that you refer to is hypothetical, would not result in a visible trail and would be conducted at double the altitude of the contrails that chemtrail conspiracy theorists are observing.
Secondly, Mick West is irrelevant. Everything that he states is independently verifiable and the science governing the formation of persistent contrails axiomatic and so speaks for itself. With respect, my cat could efforlessly you debunk the chemtrails conspiracy theory but she needn't bother, because it debunks itself by contravening physical laws and being in itself a mathematical impossibility. I would be only too pleased to demonstrate why if you wish me to do so. Moreover, as a believer in online conspiracy you are by nature distrustful of expertise and would more than likely maintain that any specialist has been paid off or coerced by 'the government.' Noteably, Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, has said that logic does not dissuade most chemtrail proponents: "If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, 'Well, you're just part of the conspiracy". What specific 'expertise' do you have justifying the claims that you have made? And since you appeal to authority detail the credentials of your chemtrails proponents together with their fields of expertise and published findings. Do please feel free to refer me to J Marvin Herndon...make my day.
Finally, as the ones alleging that persistent contrails are anything other than the product of hydrocarbon combustion and condensed atmospheric water vapour, the burden of proof is incumbent on them to provide evidence to substantiate their claims. The onus does not lie with another to disprove/prove and absent. Given the two decades that this alleged spraying has supposedly been in progress and the fact that you maintain that the sky is supposedly full of these chemical trails; appreciating that there are hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails and in view of the sophistication and availability of remote sensing and atmospheric monitoring technology worldwide, there should similarly be a multitude of data gathered in respect of your "chemtrails". Just one in-situ spectrographic analytical study at source will suffice. Oddly, none of you seem to be able to produce this data when requested.
In reference to your request however, this is a statement from Harvard in respect of their geoengineering programme and the chemtrails conspiracy theory...
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
And this is the first journal published study, partially initiated by West himself, surveying experts in their field that overwhelmingly rejected the validity of the chemtrails conspiracy theory.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/meta#erlaa34f6s3
https://www.sciencealert.com/first-published-study-on-chemtrails-finds-no-evidence-of-a-cover-up
1
-
@ReeferMadman
"Chemtrails or Persistent Jet Contrails, what ever you want to call them, turn into wavy wispy cirrus clouds that blanket the sky causing global temps to rise due to the trapping of heat and by doing so it raises global temps by a degree or two"
They can - but the extent of radiative forcing effect is the subject of contention.
"and is the "evidence" temps are rising thus using these inflated or artificial numbers to push the global agenda to collect carbon taxes."
Absolute arrant nonsense. Radiative forcing of contrail cirrus, although of anthropogenic origin, has nothing to do with climate change. I can assure you that the melting of the arctic icecap at seven times the rate of that of the 1990s is very real.
"Persistent jet contrails ARE causing global warming and these jets that are leaving "contrails" need to be fixed to stop the persistent jet contrail from polluting the sky."
No, but they are testament to the carbon footprint of the exponential expansion of the global aviation sector. Radiative forcing of contrail cirrus - although more pronounced at nighttime is in fact a trivial concern in comparison.
"Not only are these "persistent jet contrails" blanketing the heat in, it also stops evaporation which is needed to produce rain thus making the lands even hotter and dryer."
Utter rubbish. The presence of contrails is indicative and a product of such humidity not the other way around.
"If you think Im full of crap on the evaporation being affected by these "persistent jet contrails" then I would refer you to a documentary on PBS that showed on 9/11/01 when ALL planes were grounded that evaporation increased for the few days or week they were grounded."
Please do, time stamping the particular sequence that you refer to.
"So, to say that these persistent jet contrails are harmless is a lie"
I have made no such statement. The radiative effects are not fully evaluated and aside from being a nuisance, as I explained they are a reminder of the volume of air traffic in terms of carbon emissions. The actual composition of a persistent contrail however are ice crystals drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget in supersaturated ambient conditions. Moreover, your original contention that they are evidence of an intentional programme of solar radiation management is incorrect.
"and to say they dont exist or even poo poo or call people dorks that believe they are causing global warming, then you are the shills, charlatans, or have been paid large sums of money to hush hush about it."
At what stage has anyone denied the existence of persistent contrails? That would be chemtrail believers you'll find. At no stage have I referred to you as a "dork". Regarding your contention that they are the cause of global warming, you are however entirely incorrect, although saying that, as I mentioned earlier, contrails are an indirect reminder of the damaging presence of carbon emissions due to the growth of the commercial aviation sector.
1
-
1
-
@ReeferMadman
"Harvard is part of the covering up. As if Im gona believe some bullshit from Harvard."
So as I suspected and predicted earlier, you eschew authority whilst appealing to authority and claim to know better. And why should anyone 'believe' you, a random conspiracy believer stoner, named after a spliff, occupying the comments section of a video entertainment platform? As I explained. Science is not about belief. You were the one that referred to research into SRM.
"Dont worry, Im still in the process of reading those three links you provided.
Trust me, I'm not as you say "worried" in the slightest.
"Just by glancing at one, I see a pie chart and says something like 98.3% have found no evidence for a "secret" program. but that would mean that there is 1.3% that HAS found evidence."
No, there was one respondee that dissented. As you requested, the paper surveyed hundreds of experts in contrails in addition to those who study atmospheric deposition (how various chemicals fall to the ground from the air), presenting them with the evidence provided on various chemtrail websites (mostly in the form of photos of plane trails and analyses of water and soil samples), asking them to evaluate it. 77 scientists reported back, unsurprisingly 98.7 per cent (76 out of 77) of the scientists said they had encountered no evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric programme. Everything they saw on the conspiracy websites showed that what they were seeing was the natural consequence of air traffic and contrails. the one scientist who dissented. In that case, it’s hardly a smoking gun: The one participant who answered yes was simply saying they can’t rule a secret large scale programme of spraying out, which is a very different thing from saying it’s real.
"So let me just keep reading your links and see what else bullshit I can find"
What bullshit would that be? All you have done is express subjective opinion. You started with pure association fallacy conflating research into SRM with the chemtrails conspiracy theory. You then requested "someone with a professional background or a "contrail expert" I cited both, with the caveat that you would immediately make the obligatory and predictable allegation of coercion. You then proceeded to ramble on about contrails causing climate change and preventing evaporation - hilariously given the fact that humidity and the reverse process, condensation is responsible for their formation. You propel yourself via circuitous self-defeating logic tangentially into one digression to another through a series of directionless non-sequiturs and self defeating logic. You then have the audacity to not only appeal to authority but to reject it clearly possessing very little in the way of scientific literacy yourself and absolutely no knowledge of atmospheric science. Quite alright for you to denigrate Mick West - what are your own achievements? As I explained, scientists are irrelevant...it is their independently verifiable findings that are significant. Moreover, the chemtrails conspiracy theory debunks itself through a series of mathematical and physical impossibilities.
Once again, you need to understand that the burden of proof lies with you. Instead of simply making claims over the internet you need to substantiate them.
As a believer in the chemtrail conspiracy theory, what evidence are you able to present?
"This wasnt the harvard link one you sent but the iops one."
No, it was the Keith Group - a research programme in conjunction with Harvard University.
"And like i said, i just glanced, meaning scrollled down lookin at pics, havent read any of em yet. But yes FUCK HARVARDs lying propaganda ass. but im still gon read that link just to see what you are referring to."
Don't just say it, demonstrate why - and while you're at it, present your most compelling evidence for the existence of chemtrails. As I explained, there are hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails, given the availability of remote sensing technology, you should have no problem presenting an in-situ analysis of a supposed 'chemtrail' at source. Just one will do.
Go ahead then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You gotta be a fng idiot to believe chemtrails are fake loool"
Argument ad absurdum - a popular and unconscious form of logical fallacy employed by online conspiracy believers in comments sections. Guess what? Chemtrails are fake.
"I ve seen with my own fuckin eyes in 2014 when an idiot pilot flew over the beautiful clear blue sky and as I was watching it, the pilot either forgot or maybe it was an errror but he switched off not once but 3 times the chemtrails leaving clear gaps in between the trails and turning it back on 3 times so nobody in a million years can come up to me with a trillion dollars to say thats not real what i saw!!!"
Why would they? - it's a very common sight. I see it regularly here in the UK. Why wouldn't I. The issue is, you simply don't understand what you are looking at. Are you similarly perplexed by patchy cloud? You need to look closer. You will frequently observe large sections of recently deposited persistent contrails that you deem to be chemtrails randomly fading and vanishing. This is confirmation of the motion of the atmosphere - rising and subsiding parcels of warmer/drier air. Fly an aircraft at speeds up to 500 knots through such air and of course a contrail - which remember is a binary event - will be intermittent and appear to turn on and off abruptly. It's not just exhaust contrails, the same effect can be observed with aerodynamic contrails.
"Chemtrails are fng real stop debating like a bunch of fng blind cretins!!"
No they really aren't. This is one of the dumbest and most scientifically illiterate conspiracy theories out there - which is really saying something. Your alleged chemtrails are nothing more than aircraft contrails, which may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading, or, they may not even necessarily form at all. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Hey dumb ass there is no water in a Jets exhaust the water"
Because a jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, combustion primarily produces H20 and CO2. For every one gallon of jet fuel burned, it produces 3,914.6 grams of water. This is equal to 8.6 pounds of water, which has a volume of 1.033 gallons.
Typical fuels consist mainly of carbon (C) and hydrogen (H). The amount of water that will be produced from combustion is dependent on the ratio of carbon to hydrogen. Taking a general fuel with a hydrogen to carbon atom ratio (H/C ratio) of rr, the combustion looks like
CHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2OCHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2O
For gasoline fuels, the H/C ratio seems is around 1.8; for kerosene fuels, around 1.9. Based on this data, kerosene fuels produce a bit more water than gasoline fuels, in molar quantities.
"the water vapor is in the air you fucking moron and the heat from the engine combining with the cold air causes that moisture in the air to condense into a cloud or con-trail (con for condensation)."
In the case of a persistent and spreading contrails you are absolutely correct and this is what causes them to expand, spread and increase in mass - no different to a cloud. 99% of the trail is drawn from the available atmospheric water vapour. However, it is the moisture present in the exhaust that actually precipitates the trail and upon encountering frigid, humid air at a lower vapour pressure, will also condense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Look up in the sky with your own eyes."
If you must "look up" anything I'd recommend the definition of "gullible" and "hoax".
"The govt and their paid talking heads tell you it's natural and that we've always had those streaks and haziness"
No, atmospheric science tells you that.
"yet old science books never showed these clouds or streaks."
Really?
I can assure you they did. Do you want to look that up too?
Here you go...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/metabunk/sets/72157641669574294/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/metabunk/sets/72157641629656855/
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/1957CloudstudyapictorialguideOCR.pdf
https://www.flickr.com/photos/metabunk/sets/72157642316592915/
And here's Knollenberg's seminal paper from 1972 telling you all you need to know about the science behind contrails..
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"This is geoengineering."
No it isn't - that is something completely different and bears no relation to a contrail.
"Govts have been cloud seeding for at least 100 years."
Localised weather modification in the form of cloud seeding likewise has nothing to do with a contrail or research into geoengineering.
"They now have jets and chemicals that can go higher and aerosol the upper atmosphere to attempt to shield the sun and control weather."
Actually one of the many problems with proposals into SAI is that no aircraft in existence can convey the necessary payload to the desired altitude that such a strategy would be employed...which incidentally is double that of the contrails that you are erroneously identifying as chemtrails.
"Unfortunately for living creatures on earth, basic physics tell us that for every action, there is a equal reaction. Causing rain to fall unnaturally in one area causes moisture to dry up and cause drought in another area. The result is unpredictable weather patterns which affects the ecosystem and plants which adapted to regular natural weather patterns."
Depending upon the strategy employed, geoengineering could indeed wreak environmental damage or have unintended consequences were it ever to become a reality. Again, in the case of SAI, aside from the formidable logistical barriers - geopolitical ramifications, issues of governance and huge opposition both within and beyond the scientific community means that it is very unlikely that it will ever become a reality.
"The TV folks and govt lab coats want u to not believe ur own eyes and trust and have faith in them ... the religion of govt and TV."
Known scientific laws have their own voice and answer to no one.
"I'd rather believe my own eyes."
And therein lies your problem. It helps if you actually understand what you are looking at instead of turning to internet conspiracy theory for an explanation.
"Water vapor does not extend 100+ miles and then turn into a haze that spread across the whole sky. "
Water vapour is invisible. Condensed water vapour however can do precisely that. Here you go...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
...Do feel free to attempt to refute the scientific content.
IYou have just unintentionally debunked your own conspiracy theory. In the paper that I have provided from 1972, researchers from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research flew a small Sabreliner jet at FL290 in air of -38.2 degrees C. The two engines produced 1.73 grams of water vapour per meter as a result of fuel combusted. They then turned around and found that the resultant contrail has expanded to 1km wide and 400 metres deep. The ice crystals that this was composed of had grown to weigh 30,000 grams per meter of contrail. The ice crystal growth of over 10,000 came from ice superstaturation in the immediate environment.
A Sabreliner has a maximum payload of 2000lbs. The resultant persistent contrail was measured at 66,000lbs per square kilometre. It was therefore a physical impossibility for the aircraft to have sprayed this trail and so the persistent contrail was clearly a result of available moisture in the atmosphere. Persistent contrails can be 100s of kilometres long.
Many of the planes captured in chemtrail footage making trails are A320s , Dreamliners and 737s - typically, the operational empty weight is 87000 pounds which is 38.8 tons. Also the maximum take off weight is 150000 pounds which is 67.0 tons. So the maximum payload plus fuel of an A320 is 28.1 tons.
A 10 mile trail contains 29.4 tons of material (I can provide the mathematics if you wish). That is clearly more than the maximum payload total and we have not accounted for any fuel, crew, passengers or their luggage and freight!
In addition to this, now please identify the chemical elements that have been demonstrated under laboratory conditions to form a cloud that does not disperse, much like...no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"Ask yourself this, why does the sky turn hazy after excessive chemtrailing."
It doesn't - chemtrails are a myth. Contrails however...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1
Also, contrails are often a precursor of an approaching frontal system.
"If this was fog, weather report would report it. If it was smog, the news would report it. They dont. Because it isn't fog or smog, it's aerosolized heavy metal."
Aerosolized heavy metal???? You what?
"Can u imagine if govt admitted doing this without our consent and without doing studies on the effects."
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, which in your confusion you appear to believe is chemtrails, has never been hidden from the public and it completely transparent. One of the reasons that it will never progress beyond paper based proposal and small scale trial involving mere kilograms of material is precisely that - the environmental effects are almost impossible to quantify. Incidentally, the irony here being, that SAI is designed to engineer precisely the opposite effect to the radiative forcing that is a known consequence of the contrails that you are observing.
"Therefore, the govt and their paid talking heads would NEVER tell us the truth."
And yet you naively believe that your online conspiracy theory does?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Right, but my vehicles exhaust doesn't sit there for hours & hours."
Very probably because it isn't coming from a a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C and 4 litres per second, emitting a stream of 600°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst travelling at speeds up to and occasionally in excess of 500 knots.
"I have literally watched 2 different Jets pass overhead & 1 Jets exhaust was gone in about 10 minutes & the other hours. They were at very similar altitudes as well"
Vertical separation minima specifies 1,000ft. The conditions that govern the formation of contrails, air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure, can change in a matter of seconds and feet. The atmosphere is continually in motion and is neither isotropic or homogeneous. Also, how did you establish altitude? That is notoriously difficult and inaccurate as a ground based observer.
1
-
@CINO0816
"how did I establish altitude? I'm not a moron. I can tell when one plane is further up then another."
I'm not suggesting that you are a moron, however, discerning vertical separation minima at cruise altitude from the perspective of a ground based observer is virtually impossible. As I said, atmospheric conditions can change within a matter of mere metres and feet.
Your second reply isn't showing, but I can see it in my notifications...
"I mean our government has always been so straight forward with us and has never done anything shady to its people right? "Go check out Operation mockingbird or The MK Ultra program literally right on Joe's channel. I'm not saying it's definitely happening, but don't be so quick to dismiss it like people are crazy for thinking it could be a possibility."
Indeed. Should we trust our government? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that a government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or it then detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
Simply because a "government" has lied, deceived or acted without the consent of the people. it does not logically follow that chemtrails (or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) must be true. To suppose such would be nothing more than a syllogistic fallacy
"Noone ever thought they would allow open borders or try to take away our constitutional rights either. But here we are."
A constitution evolves, it should not be set in stone. Regarding borders, I am in the UK, so you'll need to specify what you mean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RitaBitmore
"lol contrails turn a perfectly clear day into a completely overcast day in two hours?. So weather altering contrails?"
Yep - It can happen quicker than that in fact.
"So weather altering contrails? . If that what it is that I saw, then that's what it is"
Nope, contrails altered by the weather.
"Just seems strange that the excess heat in the form of steam wouldn't be evaporated and disappear. Don't you think?."
Except, that isn't what contrails are. Allow me to explain.
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail which is essentially a cirrus cloud. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture - where the jet engine exhaust is merely the trigger mechanism. As I indicated - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
@JR-iu2mf
"or they’ve done the research on geoengineering and stratospheric aerosol injections "
You sure about that? You missed this...
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
"admitted by cia director Jon brennen"
Firstly, he is the ex-Director of the CIA and secondly it's John Brennan.
You mean his appearance as a guest speaker at the CFN (a think tank) under the them of "Transitional Threats to Global Security"?...
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
An SAI program, if ever implemented, could create disparities, conflicts and global unrest if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological framework. Many of these are novel emergent technologies and research proposals/concepts that may however never be put into practice. For example, he also broached anti-ageing.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"AND reported in HARVARD documents."
You mean their website - y'know, the one which clearly states that SAI isn't in progress?
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/geoengineering
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer simulation, would not form a trail or involve large commercial aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Contrails are a transient phenomenon, are just water vapor (mixed with pollutants from jet engines)"
Incorrect. Water vapour is an invisible gas. Contrails are condensed water in the form of ice crystals. In conditions of high relative humidity and supersaturation they are almost entirely drawn from atmospheric water vapour - the process is no different to the formation of a cloud. Contrails contain very little in the way of 'pollutants', although the exhaust at source will contain soot and sulphur that can serve as additional hygroscopic nuclei/ccns.
"and do not persist but for a few moments"
Could you explain why, detailing the physical laws that determine this?
"Chemtrails disperse slowly until the formerly blue sky becomes grey!"
Nope, they are simply the same persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Perhaps you would be able to identify this mysterious chemical that can expand, increase in mass and cover the sky just like, well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? And in addition to that, the aircraft with the capacity to spray the tens of millions lbs of material that vastly exceeds their MGTOW?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickwilson8429
“Haha you're pulling out all the low-brow fringe theories now I see. Do me a favor and point out anytime you saw me mentioned any of them.”
Once again, you spectacularly miss the point. Government corruption no more adds credibility to those ridiculous notions anymore than it does your chemtrails.
Do me a favour and show me at any point where I have tried to “vigorously to defend a government that is known to be dishonest and corrupt”? Go ahead. And while you’re at it, as I invited you do so, present your “documentary evidence” that you referred to, together with William Casey's full quote in its full and intended context. Again, when you fail to do so, come back to me and we'll discuss it in more detail.
“So, you say that you agree the government is corrupt. Yet, you refuse to even consider the possobility that they could be lying about certain experiments they may or may not be conducting”
Not at all – a clumsily executed strawman even by your standards. To clarify…again: The chemtrails conspiracy theory (and the topic of this video) is predicated upon the misidentification persistent contrails, a phenomena that has been observed, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has nothing to do with these trails, is not currently in progress beyond fully transparent research, has nothing to do with cloud seeding which is a commercial venture, neither leave a trail, and have nothing to do with government secrecy.
“Corrupt governments wouldn't get very far if they openly advertised all their misdeeds, would they?”
Absolutely not – but as I have explained innumerable times now, that does not lend credence or validity to any arbitrarily selected conspiracy theory of your choice or creation.
“Here is another link to an article on the topic, which I'm sure you will dismiss. It's obvious that the more information I provide the more condensed and specific you want to be about the details of the topic. I say they're spraying particulates into the atmosphere,”
Then you need to provide evidence. How have you established this? Have you actually bothered to read your own link that you provided? Y’know – the one that tells you precisely what I have been saying – that this form of geoengineering is “hypothetical”? We have gone over this exhaustively. SAI has not yet graduated beyond computer modelling and research proposal. A small scale trail is scheduled to take place above the Arizona desert involving a steerable balloon launched 20km into the mid stratosphere and releasing mere kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation and distribution. This is the current status of your SAI…
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the trails that you are seeing or the “government”.
“you say "what does this have to do with commerical airlines spraying chemicals at 30,000ft". I point out that i never said anything about commerical planes”
Once again, because comprehension clearly isn’t your strongpoint. As I previously explained - believers in this hoax continually point to footage of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails in the wake of commercial air traffic as supposed evidence of chemtrails. Perpetrators of this hoax, such as Dane Wigington have intentionally conflated geoengineering and cloud seeding with the original chemtrails conspiracy theory. Gullible subscribers to this nonsense such as yourself are caught in a circuitous loop of logical fallacy. You are told that SAI would look like a persistent contrail so when you see a persistent contrail you believe that is in SAI. To reiterate. Even if it was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. Once more, the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. Read your own link…”Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the stratosphere, around 60,000 feet up”.. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower. Once again, please provide footage of this supposed spraying in progress. Go ahead.
“The science is out there, that isn't the only peer-reviewed study on the topic.”
Absolutely. It would help if you understood it before commenting.
“I don't really care what you choose to believe.”
Known science is not about belief.
“Ha and here is another article about Harvard and Yale scientists thoughts on the potential of aerial spraying to curb climate change. Is CBS and CNN too obscure for you? Or do you think the editors just misundertand the ideas being presented?”
Another set of articles that tell you that it is the province of research proposal – and, from your own link yet again, I quote directly...
“The report does, however, acknowledge that the technique is purely hypothetical.”
Seriously, how stupid can this get?
Now answer the question. What does research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection or the practice of cloud seeding have to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
J S
“I also mentioned that you wouldn't disrespect me in person. Yet you addressed everything but that.”
Incorrect again – go back and read my responses.
“What are you afraid of?”
Certainly not a cloud because the internet told me it was a conspiracy theory…or the mysterious “they” that are supposedly coming to get us.
“And what's with the weird spacing between sentences?”
No idea. The You Tube comments section inserts them for some reason. Annoying isn’t it?
“I assure you that my iq is much higher than yours.”
That classic moment when a conspiracy believer fells the need to mention IQ over the internet.
“A true intelligent person speaks so that all others can understand.”
That’s you completely screwed then.
“You my friend, speak the way that you do so that you can feel superior to others.”
You mean calling other people moronic, calling out grammar and boasting about IQ?
“But really, you are trying to compensate for lack of self esteem. Maybe because you can't find a significant other, or the kids at school don't want to hang around with you.”
“Maybe” that’s simply what you want to believe.
“My advice to you, is to leave mom's basement”
No offence intended, but I’m not inclined to take advice from a community of cretinous and credulous conspiracy believers over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
I don’t have a basement. I do have a converted attic though.
“and get out in the real world.”
Squawked the online conspiracy parrot.
“I know you are a pretty awkward person, but you can get through it.”
You assume to “know” quite a lot don’t you?
“But seriously, trying to impress people with an inflated vocabulary impresses no one.”
I suggest that you stop it immediately then.
“I do have time seeing as I am a business owner,”
Earlier you claimed that you didn’t.
“just no more for you.”
Is that a promise this time? Convenient though, since you are yet to address the perceived “appalling grammar” in my replies and the substantive content of my responses on this thread. Like I said…what are you so afraid of?
“Good luck becoming as smart as you think you are.”
Look what you did - looks like you finally went and broke it this time Mr IQ…
https://binged.it/35Olx5Q
1
-
matthew martin
Thanks you for your response Matthew. I assume that your comment is directed at me?
You mean being able to express and articulate oneself in a comments section? Moreover, discussion about atmospheric science is involved. The terminology is complex and the applied science detailed.
The last person that I responded to made an allegation concerning my "appalling grammar", I duly invited him to provide examples of this. I have similarly requested substantiation in respect of many of the claims made on this thread, to be greeted with the usual ad-hominen abuse, irrational indignant responses and accusations that you seem oddly impervious too, instead choosing to take umbrage at my perceived excessive verbiage which you appear to deem more offensive.
Regarding IQ, I have made no mention of this and make no allusions or suggestions to my own; rather the preoccupation is yours and that of the previous respondent. Indeed, intelligence is not measured by the written word and can manifest itself in a broad range of attributes ranging from the emotive to the creative, the artistic and artisanal to the emotional.
Intelligence is a natural trait; a born ability we gain right from the birth. It is to perceive visual, logical, mathematical, linguistic, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intra-personal activities. IQ depends on how well you do this. Education is an external force. A person with no proper resource but with keen intelligence will naturally objectively search for those resources and apply true critical thinking. Online conspiracy theory is the diametric opposite, appealing to illusory superiority, agenda, subjectivity and invariably driven by ignorance, fear and prejudice. This very much explains why it is replete with logical fallacy and the ensuing personal attacks when the flawed reasoning is challenged or in response to any reasoned request to validate claims or present hard data.
1
-
1
-
matthew martin
"Please allow me to clarify something which I mistakenly assumed to be mutually understood."
Do please go ahead...
"I underestimated your naivety."
Said the gullible believer in an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? Ok. Carry on...
"I'm not ''unintentionally amusing myself'' at all."
That's not what I said. Although I appreciate that this could be misconstrued and possibly ambiguous - particularly to one so lacking in self-awareness of their own limitations as you clearly are. When you actually contextualise my remark, that is, the statement in full, you'll see that I was noting that you yourself are unintentionally amusing....largely through the fact that you are so unaware of the continued irony contained in your responses. My actual statement was...
"Coming from a self-proclaimed "conspiracy realist"? You're really quite unintentionally amusing yourself, particularly given your inverted snobbery."
Not difficult to comprehend...even though you failed to comprehend. So in actual fact, "the gift that keeps giving"? - that would be none other than you.
"1) the info is there, if you didn't have some level of confirmation bias you could research it yourself."
A conspiracy believer accusing someone of confirmation bias? - a tad rich that. There, you've done it again. You are utterly oblivious of your own illusory superiority.
Appreciating that "research" does not involve any such cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, an evening in front of baseless You Tube conspiracy videos or regurgitating self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, may I ask precisely how you conducted yours?
As a reminder, you hilariously stated that there are "testimonies of countless experienced aviators (& scientists) who make it very plain that their encounters with these lingering trails were baffling & something very new". I have simply asked you to present just one of these testimonies and I'll take a look. As the one making the claim, the burden of proof is incumbent on you, the onus does not lie with me to attempt to prove an absent. Try again. These "experienced aviators and scientists"...name just one together with their full credentials and their evidence that contradicts established physical laws of contrail formation and duration. Instead of deflecting like a typical conspiracy believer when challenged, go ahead and have the conviction to substantiate your assertions.
"2) The remark about the edit option was really idiotic, considering that it would defeat the purpose of what was intentionally done in a facetious way."
The remark about the edit option was clearly facetious itself...is there anything that doesn't drift over your head? (other than your supposed chemtrails that don't actually exist). You must have been horrified when you discovered that you had conflated idealise and idolise...genuinely, kudos to you though for having the integrity not to delete or amend it.
"3) Carefully go back over your most recent post (the one to which I'm now responding), as well as the previous couple. Then, if you can honestly say that you recognize no grammatical errors at all, no misspellings or mistakes of any kind, I'll indulge you further."
Again, since you are the one making the claim, that you have only touched the "tip of the iceberg" you should have no issues "indulging me" when requested. If you are so sensitive to grammatical and now, evidently spelling errors and typos, can you confidently say that your own comments are similarly error free? Interesting that you choose to conveniently ignore the appalling English - and as I previously pointed out - ad hominem abuse associated with those that share your belief. Today, you gave a 'thumbs up' to a comment that contained three grammatical errors and no punctuation whatsoever which you elected overlook. Have some consistency instead of hypocrisy!
Incidentally, your belief that pilots are impervious to a supposed toxic brew of aviation fuel that is producing these alleged chemical trails is again highly amusing whilst betraying no shred of awareness of your own innate suggestibility and gullibility.
Here, this is for you, although I suspect we've been there before...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Illusory+Superiority
David Dunning, Justin Kruger? - meet Matthew Martin. Matthew Martin, allow me to introduce you to Messrs Dunning/Kruger.
Kisses too!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
matthew martin
"LOL...Dick Van Dyke was (& still is, I'm sure) a comedic genius and a national treasure...well, for me anyway."
Cor blimey Mary Poppins.
"So thanks for the wonderfully humbling complement. I've actually begun to enjoy these utterly pointless exchanges. Hypothetically, I think we'd be mates if you'd let me buy you a pint."
If you're ever in the vicinity of north London I'd definitely take you up on that...although I tend to venture south of the river these days closer to my old haunts....and on account of some of the taps around there.
"Oh well, another life perhaps. Uh-Ooh...Please don't respond back with something about how reincarnation of any sort is bullocks, as I do not intend (seriously) to get into anything spiritual or metaphysical with a whole new thread."
Odd how under hypnotic regression or otherwise these people were almost invariably war heroes, statesmen, navigators, scholars, famous musicians, actors, orators ...never toilet cleaners, prostitutes or petty criminals.
Of course I subscribe to the notion of reincarnation...in fact, in a previous life I was a chimney sweep and one man band in Edwardian London.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WTF_BBQ
First of all - refer back to the OP. You are the one making the claim that contrails can only last for "seconds to minutes". This is demonstrably untrue. As the one making the statement the burden of truth is incumbent upon you to demonstrate otherwise - don't deflect and switch it back. If you had either the will or the critical faculty to actually challenge the online conspiracy theory that you lap up an regurgitate then you wouldn't need me to prove it to you. I am irrelevant to this exchange - however, the physical laws that govern meteorological science and the formation of contrails are axiomatic thereby have a voice of their own. All you need to do is listen as opposed to relying upon junk online conspiracy theory as an explanation for a phenomenon that you clearly have no comprehension of.
I am unable to post links on here due to the spam filter. However, all that you need to do is find meteorological text books from the mid 20th century that have photographed, documented and studied the trails that you are describing.
Chemtrails absolutely "surfaced" in the late 1990s and early 2000s (note, no apostrophe required), - because that's precisely when this hoax originated. As I said, persistent spreading contrails have been observed measured and studied long before then.
In 'Flight to Arras' Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
"If Persistent contrails do exists, A single jet exhaust does not produce enough water to spread across the sky covering entire cities. Next time you see a persistent contrail, watch the spread throughout the morning. You'll see the sky turning milky by mid-day, and ask yourself --- Is that normal ??"
Yep, completely. Refer to the Knollenberg study that I referenced. You are absolutely correct, that a single jet exhaust does not produce enough water to spread across the skies covering entire cities. I completely agree. However, the exhaust is merely the trigger event creating deposition. In conditions of supersaturation, it is the available atmospheric water vapour not the exhaust itself that comprises 99% of the visible trail. Think about it - such coverage contains millions of lbs of material. Compare the weight of this to the MTOW of the aircraft producing them. Also, what chemical can expand and increase in mass, just like - well no shit - condensed atmospheric water vapour? Where do you think clouds come from? All this is very, very basic science. Why is it even necessary to explain it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@curtisbeasley3443
Yes, I understand the pejorative interpretation and use of the term, and that it can be used disparagingly and in a loaded sense by an administration to deflect. However, post 9-11 "trutherism" conspiracy theory has burgeoned over the internet becoming a cynical manufactured business perpetrated by charlatans, hoaxers, snake oil salesmen and con artists. It's a lot easier to hide behind a conspiracy theory than it is to learn the complex history, mathematics or science involved. These people sell illusory superiority - that you can somehow become privy to some arcane knowledge that eludes inferiors or "sheep", simply by an evening on the internet. There is nothing in the way of objective enquiry, critical thinking or logical reasoning behind this - simply confirmation bias, cherry picked factoids, quote mining and self-referencing propagated through deceptive agenda driven alt-media, pseudoscientific websites and vacuous online echo-chambers and internet bubbles as opposed to informed sources and education.
Together with the growth of populism and the post-truth era, you have the likes of the ludicrous Bill Kaysing, Jeff Rense, David Icke and Alex Jones and their ilk to thank for that and the fact that the term is increasingly used to denigrate. Mention conspiracy theory and far from genuine sceptical thinking, the immediate connotations are flat earthers, chemtrail believers, moon landing deniers, 9-11 "truthers", holocaust deniers...Challenge these beliefs through independently verifiable sources or scientific fact and you are almost invariably greeted with "paid government shill". Conspiracy believers appear to get off on pretending that they're one of the small minority too clever to be fooled but can't even demonstrate this supposed intellectual prowess when challenged to do so, which make it transparently obvious that their claims amount to nothing more than empty ego masturbation.
Also, simply because a previous government or administration has lied does it then follow that chemtrails (or any conspiracy theory of one's choice or devising) must be true? A syllogistic fallacy, affirming the consequent, through the undistributed middle.
Question. Why are you "on the fence" about chemtrails?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrwang420
"yeah but again. You are only going by what they admit."
No, I'm "going by" the established laws of physics and atmospheric chemistry, which are axiomatic and have a voice of their own - as opposed to the conspiratorial internet pseudoscience that you gullibly consume and regurgitate over the comments section of a video entertainment platform. Guess which is more reliable option? Here we go, the enigmatic "they" again - who precisely are you referring to? Oh, hold on...
"I am going on the basis that the government lies and uses things for purposes they dont admit to us."
What government in particular? There are now 195 independent sovereign nations in the world. No, you are "going" by junk You Tube videos, confirmation bias (which you have already unwittingly demonstrated), self-referencing pseudoscientific fake news and baseless conspiracy websites.
"And what Ive said is entirely possible."
You sure about that. Which bit? I'd be intrigued to know.
"And You are right. The military did stop using many transmitters but what you disregard is that other groups bought and still use the transmitters for the same purposes."
Incorrect, to reiterate, there were four other such HF pump facilities built - two of which have been decommissioned and dismantled. HAARP was sold to the University of Alaska, Fairbanks and is currently being refurbished. It is used for ionospheric research (the original Gorky-Luxembourg experiment was abandoned) and can be contracted on a pay to use basis. They even host an open event for which no security clearance is required whatsoever. If you really think this is some atmospheric manipulation tool, death ray, seismic weapon, method of mind control, chemtrail conductor (delete as appropriate) - or whatever these lunatics on the internet told you what to think, then perhaps you should visit. They even host a barbecue in the summer.
"Of course they wouldnt save documents about something like this."
What documents? HAARP was never classified. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was conducted during 1992-1993 in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The environmental impact process documents have always been, and are now, a matter of public record.
Face it, if it wasn't for your belief in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, you people wouldn't have even the slightest interest in the HAARP facility....far less know what it was. Firstly, stop believing the baseless garbage that you read on the internet by opportunistic fraudulent perpetrators of conspiracy theory, which if you hadn't noticed, can be quite a lucrative business in the post truth era. Secondly, educate yourself with some actual science and learn about objectivity and the need for independent verification.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crazychrome5811
Thanks for your reply.
Doing what precisely? We are discussing aircraft contrails here.
You are doing that same as all chemtrail believers and using the false equivalence of geoengineering manufactured by the perpetrators of this hoax in an attempt to explain what you are seeing.
Bill Gates has leant support and funding to hypothetical branch of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is part of a 20m research initiative at Harvard University. SAI is intended to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and those heterogeneously produced in the Junge Layer. SAI has yet to graduate beyond mathematical modelling and research proposal. A small scale trail called SCoPEx, involving a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere releasing a few litres of water to evaluate perturbation (and subsequently maybe 2 or 3kgs of calcium carbonate to establish reflectivity) has been postponed multiple times. You can routinely establish all this yourself. Given how close to the tipping point that we are, the only geoengineering strategy that is likely to have any effect so late in the game is DAC (Direct Air Capture) which is hideously expensive and many nations will lack the will or the funding to participate.
Like I said, SAI doesn't exist beyond paper proposals and computer modelling. Even is it was ever be attempted (which it won't be), it would not form a visible or lasting trail or involve commercial jet aircraft and would need to take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. There is currently no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft). More tellingly, in addition to the environmental unknowns, cost and logistical problems, the sheer impossibility of international governance means that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection will never get off the ground - unless you count the SCoPEx project that I referred to.
As I said. SAI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. All you need to do is read up on geoengineering research yourself at source, on behalf of those conducting it, and to understand contrails, the basic rudiments of meteorology and aviation, instead of relying on junk online conspiracy theory for the explanation of the phenomena that you are seeing.
Hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maverick4081
"The Trump Russia connection., it was bought and sold by Hitlary Clinton., it was a hoax."
😆
"As to what the Army sprayed., you need to reread and research the event. It was not as mundane as you state."
I know exactly what was involved in the St.Louis trails and actually, Martino-Taylor's research around this is flawed and inaccurate.
What is far more sinister are the examples of field testing of the effects of biological weapons which was completed covertly using simulants and agents dispersed over wide, open areas. This also occurred in Southern England, again admittedly in trace amounts, to quantify the effects of a biological attack. Indeed, the first American large-scale aerosol vulnerability test occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area in September 1950. Two types of bacteria were deployed, Bacillus globigii and Serratia Marcescens and fluorescent particles. As the articles mention, Bacillus species were chosen in these tests because of their spore-forming abilities, and their similarities to Bacillus Anthracis a causing agent of anthrax. Serratia Marcescens was used because it is easily identifiable from its red pigment. Did you also know that In 1966, the New York Metro was infamously contaminated with Bacillus Globigii in an attempt to simulate the spreading of anthrax in a large urban population? More field tests involving pathogenic species were conducted at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah and anti-animal studies were conducted at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Now you know why Lyndon B Johnson had such a twitchy arse over signing the freedom of information act in 1965. However, what do you think would be the result of deploying any of this at 35,000 feet out of the rear of a large jet aircraft? Think carefully now.
What does any of this have to do with a dumb online conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
1
-
1
-
@MrTodfoulk
Sigh. So in common with your ilk, you predictably completely ignore the topic and resort to the same old obligatory personal attack instead in rabid caps lock. Even then, you can't even parrot the word 'shill' correctly, far less actually understand what it means. As the one posting ill informed nonsense, unsubstantiated claims, junk conspiracy theory and personal abuse in the comments section of this video, by virtue of its very definition, the troll would be none other than yourself. Moreover, you are shilling conspiracy theory, which if you hadn't noticed (of course you haven't), is highly lucrative form of exploitation for those that peddle it. And to cap it all, you exhort me to 'wake up' - are you really you're 60, not 6? The only one's still sad enough to be using this cretinous conspiratorial cliché are the ones that slept through science classes.
I simply challenged your claims - and how you people absolutely detest that.
Yes persistent spreading contrails did exist before the 1990s, a fact that you can routinely independently verify for yourself if you had either the integrity, the honesty, the will and the critical capability to do so. Nothing whatsoever to do with me.
1
-
1
-
Ha! Kucinich...again? Really? Seriously, how many times?
HR 2977??? Are you serious? This is Dennis Kucinich's Space Preservation Act, which effectively ruined not only his bid to run as a presidential candidate but arguably his political career. Have you actually bothered to read this nonsense? Of course you haven't and neither did he.
Had he taken a look at the draft - which he had he nothing to do with writing - and perhaps not entrusted it to UFO enthusiasts Carol Rosin and Alfred Weber, he would have discovered that it contained all manner of fanciful conspiratorial nonsense from extraterrestrial technology to pyschotronic mind control weapons. So it really wasn't that surprising that they flung in "chemtrails" as well.
When this horseshit was discovered it was hastily redrafted and prompted Kucinich to say "“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.'” Ultimately it was never passed, because of its lack of substance and fizzled out under committee. it was a huge embarrassment for Rep. Kucinich, not because of any alleged "secret revelations", but because certain members of his staff acted without his direct consent.
I can't believe that after all these years this is still being batted about your vacuous echo-chamber as supposed proof of your chemtrails. What next? The hilarious "What In the World Are They Spraying', Kristen Meghan? Rosalind Peterson? The ludicrous 'Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell the truth about Chemtrails' video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Uh.... politicans are AT THE VERY LEAST-- CRIMINAL. Why, on God's green earth , should we trust them"
We shouldn't. But why not trust baseless online junk conspiracy theorists instead, who are of course unerringly scientifically accurate, historically faithful, truthful, completely devoid of deception or disingenuity, entirely honest and completely free of agenda.
What do the persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century have to do with trusting politicians?
"Anyone familiar with H.A.A.R.P.? It's in Alaska... "
Since you ask, yes - and given that my background is the atmospheric sciences, I can discuss the origin, purpose, instrumentation, capabilities and applied physics associated with the facility in great detail should you wish to do so.
"weather control is not a conspiracy."
No, it's a conspiracy theory - and a particularly ludicrous one at that. Again, want to discuss why?
"Do your research folks..."
Thanks for that, it's my job.
That obligatory and excruciatingly cringeworthy moment when a book burning online conspiracy believer armed with a search engine mentions 'research'. Appreciating that "research" does not involve squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, mindless quote mining or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites, tell me, how did you do yours?
1
-
@lauranorth1234
"While YouTube is a wonderful platform, it is by my own thinking coupled with a strong faith in Jesus Christ, that I am able to see. Real eyes realize real lies!"
....Only, this 'research' you referred to? Did Jesus do it then?
"My senses tell me that Big Bang is a lie. Humans were never apes. NASA is merely a branch of Disney World and artists create "space" ie. "Science FICTION". No one has landed on the moon. Our sun is CLOSE to earth. And we are not dwelling on a spinning ball."
Actually no. Junk online conspiracy theory told you that.
"Arizona has the highest rate of Alzheimers. Isn't it interesting that the chem trails are VERY prevalent in the skies of Arizona?"
And thanks to our last caller Laura North for sending in our featured logical fallacy of the week.
"I don't need proof from anyone outside because my senses and the Holy Spirit lead me to obvious truths."
You won't be needing this internet connection that you don't know how to use either then.
"There is a war waged against humanity. On the satanists' side is-- Big Pharma, Central Banking systems, Poisoned food, tainted water, cloud seeded skies and viruses unleashed (Lyme disease from Plum Island, for instance. )"
Because your "senses" said so.
"Pride keeps people from the Truth. Pride keeps people asleep at the wheel"
Really? Could you, armed with your senses and the Lord Jesus Christ in an advisory capacity, explain precisely how the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme is a weather weapon? I must be missing something. Thanks ever so much.
1
-
1
-
"just spouting his script without a debate … just promoting their narrative"
The irony, was it intentional?
"Dr David Keith had purposed a high altitude aerosol injection using sulfur like a volcano eruption . Their game is weather control by a shadow canopy of sulfur"
Stratospheric Aerosol injection. They know this, it simply isn't relevant to the debate.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
It's likely that sulphates (that are already produced heterogeneously in the Junge layer) would be employed, but suggestions that calcium carbonate may have better reflective properties have yet to be explored. The ill fated SCoPEx project that was to send a steerable balloon 20km in altitude to release a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation has been awaiting ethical approval for years. SAI will never become a reality - not simply due to the logistical difficulties that you mentioned, or the environmental unknowns, but the impossibility of international governance.
"The problem is they estimate a outrageous number of deaths that they will be no responsible for."
No they don't. No such estimations exist. Last month's VEI 5/6 monstrous eruption of Shiveluch on the Kamchatka peninsula that I guarantee, you are completely oblivious to, caused huge stratospheric injection - alone lofting some 768Gg of sulphate mass up to 12 miles into the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year. The amount of annual sulphur deployed by SAI that have been proposed, 5–10 Tg, is trivial compared to the annual volcanic SO2 emissions into the troposphere, about 13 Tg, not to mention annual human emission of SO2 which is far in excess of either.
"The problem with this is it’s like taxes and wars . They never end once they start . Too much money is on the line for those investors in it"
The amount of grants that SAI research receives is trivial and there is virtually no 'investment' because there are no tangible returns. This is why the proponents of this branch of SAI are so keen to publicise their work, to attract support and funding.
"Look up former FBI director Gundreson , he was early pointing these planes out with a case built on the people operating them"
Just as he was 'pointing out' the stockpile of 30.000 guillotines stored in FEMA camps, or became the main perpetrator of the ludicrous 'satanic panic'? Gunderson was an off the charts far right conspiracy nut job that even the most deranged online conspiracy believers now approach with caution. There wasn't a conspiracy theory that was out of bounds or too ludicrous for him - he subscribed to the entire gamut and like all CTs, had books and products to sell to his target audience. Of course he bought into a dumb conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails.
Again, what does any of this have to do with SAI?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GLRAIRSOFT
??? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which has nothing to do with 'government' - and no, it was never cancelled because it was never happening - nor was it ever concealed from the public. SAI has always been transparent and well publicised, which is precisely how the public heard about it in the first place - as opposed to 'finding out' or exposing it. The proponents of such strategies are very eager to publicise their work to attract funding and support. How do you 'admit' to something that has never been denied? The reason that you know about it is because of idiot chemtrail believers on the internet that have intentionally conflated their hoax with hypothetical proposals into solar radiation management - the believers in this nonsense are too uninformed to recognise such association fallacy. They attempt the same false equivalence with cloud seeding.
Aside from the SPICE initiative - which involved a small scale trial...(I suggest you read about it), there has been no similar trial conducted since. SAI is solely the preserve of research proposal and computer based modelling. The SCoPEx project intended to launch a series of small balloons last year 20 kms above the Arizona desert to evaluate, perturbation and dispersal releasing mere kilos of water and subsequently calcium carbonate from a steerable balloon, but this has yet to take place...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Universities are dependent upon state support, what is known as QR funding (Quality Related funding), the bedrock of research revenue, which in the UK has fallen in real terms by 12.8% since 2010 - but geoengineering is largely dependent upon private benefactors and other sources. Of course the government are aware of it. There have been several impact statements largely evaluating potential problems concerning governance and policy issues should any form of geoengineering become a reality. To reiterate, this has never been secretive in any way.
"Chemtrail info is easier to find if you look at Solar Radiation Management?" That completely confirms the sort of association fallacy that I am referring to. Of course it is. You are trying to legitimise and vindicate a baseless hoax. It strikes me, that your chemtrails can be whatever you want them to be, from contrails, to skywriting, to weather modification to perfectly natural meteorological phenomena.
To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentificaiton of persistent contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, documented, recorded measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century. The notion of chemtrails can largely be traced to the late 1990s and the junk late night shows of Art Bell on America's Coat to Coast AM...a sensationalist commercial radio station that manufactured this hoax to boost ratings and advertising revenue. The subsequent conflation with geoengineering/solar radiation management was predominately the intentional work of conmen such as Russ Tanner and Dane Wigington as the growth in internet access and popularity of conspiracy theory became lucrative big business...something that YT in particular has come under flack for encouraging. Precisely why you now see these disclaimers inserted at the top of conspiracy videos and fake news due to the imminent threat of brand damage.
Given that SAI has never been secretive, doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
@GLRAIRSOFT
"i suppose if you have a back ground in this field then a copy and paste wouldn't be needed but your post looks suspiciously copy and posted from some www.im a debunker. Douche website."
Because conspiracy websites are entirely honest, accurate, truthful, not in any way driven by agenda or deceitful, and are never gullibly regurgitated by their believers?
"My major concerns is with your logic and semantics."
My main concern is with your unintentional irony.
"For starters if SAI is going on with federal funding then the government knows about it by default. They don't have to do it personally to be tied to it."
Of course your government is aware of research into SAI - it is one of many branches of hypothetical geoengineering and as I said, there is no secrecy surrounding it - there never has been. And to reiterate, it isn't as you say 'going on' beyond research paper and computer modelling.
"Think mercenary armies, they aren't government operatives but do get "approval" from the government to do what they do."
Mercenaries and militia are often directly endorsed by government as a way of avoiding mobilisation of their own armies or placing their own troops on the ground. A very good recent example is Russia's involvement in the Ukraine. What on earth does this have to do with research into SAI? One of the main concerns amongst the proponents of this work is the indifference from the government and lack of funding and support. Geoengineering is still very marginalised and largely ignored by the state.
The $20 million launch of the recent Harvard Research programme is a drop in the ocean though. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world to step up the research, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to understand the economic, environmental and practical challenges of geoengineering. The systematic dominance of physical science and engineering perspectives in geoengineering research encourages a neglect of social and environmental impacts. This negligence is characteristic of an approach that addresses symptoms but aims to leave the underlying conditions that spawned the problem in place. Yet the socio-political and socio-economic implications of large-scale technological schemes to “fix” the climate are profound: under existing global power relations, geoengineering is bound to be exploited for corporate and strategic interest.
"To say they never denied it I think is disingenuous."
???? How precisely do you deny something that has never been secretive?
"If they are spraying chemicals into the air to combate anything I don't care the excuse"
No one is 'spraying' anything from aircraft beyond crop dusters, pesticides and skywriters.
"but at the same time calling anyone also through proxy a conspiracy theorist for thinking they would do so is illogical. Seems to me as they deny chemtrails and say they don't exist but fail to mention that they are doing these other experiments that sound alot like chemtrails and geoengineering."
Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory. To reiterate, this is based upon the misidentification of persistent contrails which have been recorded, photographed, documented, measured and studied since the dawn of powered flight. The main perpetrators of this hoax use false equivalence and association fallacy intentionally conflating everything from geoengineering, weather modification, skywriting, military chaff to sounding rockets to validate their claims. If you wish to refer to research into Solar Radiation Management as 'chemtrails' then you are at perfect liberty to do so, but don't be at all surprised if you are branded a 'conspiracy theorist' for doing so.
"I also think saying the spraying is going on at a different altitude and not what your seeing is more semantically idiotic retoric."
I suggest that you read the comments from chemtrail believers and frequent some of their 'idiotic' websites, which are clearly misidentifying contrails and natural perfectly identifiable meteorological phemomena. Incidentally, its 'rhetoric'.
Regarding altitude, the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
In order to achieve SAI, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that chemtrail believers are observing and under discussion in this video occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
Additionally, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing contrails can actually trap heat which is precisely the opposite effect that the proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
"They obviously are doing this but don't want attention on it."
Doing what precisely? And why is it obvious?
"I heard about chemtrails over ten years ago and only heard about geoengineering and cloud seeding a few years ago even though they were going on for far longer. That's odd. Considering how deep I get into any subject I would have assumed I would have run into it. I guess the truth was hidden in the wording"
There you go, that says it all - and therein lies the problem. You approached this subject, not on an impartial basis, or through an understanding of or interest in aviation, atmospheric science or meteorology but via the 'chemtrails' hoax. Many people that hear about goengineering do so through conspiracy theory, but cloud seeding is well known. Your lack of awareness, incredulity and consequential misinformation is irrelevant to the real world and true objective inquiry.
1
-
@GLRAIRSOFT
Thank you for your reply.
I am irrelevant, your dispute lies with the physical laws governing the formation of contrails and the mathematics that renders them an impossibility. I am simply familiar with the latter.
Regarding the aircraft landing with the "payload dumping mechanism stuck on open" every video that I have seen claiming such involves dishonestly appropriated footage of aerodynamic contrails. Barium is a naturally occurring element that has a myriad of natural and anthropogenic pathways into our soils, air and water. There are no 'ground samples that show elevated levels without an explanation pertaining to the latter and no causality with aerial spraying has ever been established beyond this. There are no "spraying runs" - these are simply aircraft producing contrails. A persistent contrail weighs millions of lbs - far in excess of the MTOW of any aircraft in existence. Moreover, there is no chemical that can expand and grow in mass in the same way as condensed atmospheric water vapour.
A contrail is merely a form of artificially induced cirrus. The governing factors are the interplay between temperature, humidity and pressure and since the atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogeneous, this is continually in flux. Therefore, a contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is very cold and frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from being drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why as I mentioned, a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
The science of contrail cirrus is explained here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Are you sure that this is a conspiracy theory"?
Yes.
The chemtrails hoax based upon the misidentification of persistent contrails, originated in the late nineties largely through Coast to Coast AM and the late night shows of Art Bell. As a commercial radio station the manufacture of conspiracy theory (which they still do to order), not only boosted ratings, but in so doing, advertising revenue. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has burgeoned and is now lucrative big business. The perceived relationship with "geoengineering" is purely as a result of the efforts of the perpetrators of the chemtrails hoax to intentionally conflate the two in a desperate bid to afford credence and legitimacy to their ludicrous claims.
"Google and read Geoengineering for decision makers 2011"
I already have read it. What's your point? Chemtrials are an online hoax claiming that aircraft contrails are evidence of an intentional global programme of chemical spraying. Geoengineering meanwhile is a very broad term and can be divided into two main headings - GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR involves such strategies such as aforestation, carbon sequestering, ambient air capture, and biochar, whilst most funding and interest is channelled into ocean fertilisation. As we've just discussed, SRM exists in the realm of paper based proposal and would involve methods such as marine cloud brightening, albedo enhancement and space reflectors. As I said, one of these, Stratospheric Aerosol injection, has not even progressed beyond the status of isolated small scale trial.
At what point in this document does it tell you that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is anything beyond paper based research? This paper discusses the possible implications of these strategies. SRM is analysed throughout this document in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a geo-political, socio-economic and technological framework. It broaches a range of research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice.
"Concerns about the potential negative consequences of geoengineering are justified, particularly for SRM technologies. Even early-stage research on geoengineering raises valid concerns, such as the possibility that it could create a community of researchers that functions as a self-interested lobby promoting the use of the technology."
Here's the PDF - what's your point and what does this have to do with an online conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of contrails?
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Geoengineering_for_Decision_Makers_0.pdf
"Also Google stratospheric aerosol injection lofter."
You mean research proposals such as this?...
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/meta
"Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) would require lofting hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of material each year to altitudes up to ~20 km."
What's your point? and once more what does this have to do with a conspiracy theory based upon the occurrence of persistent contrails in the wake of commercial air traffic at half the altitude. Why do you think that such a strategy should it ever deployed would resemble a contrail at half the altitude?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMexikin
"look up "CIA promoting chemtrails"
I think you may well be referring to former Director, John Brennan.
Did you actually listen to what he said? As a guest speaker, the theme of his address to The Council on Foreign Relations (a thinktank) was "Transitional Threats to Global Security" during which he also addressed possible future technologies that don't even exist yet. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, in the unlikely event that it would ever be deployed as a last ditch solution to combat climate change, would have geo-political ramifications and pose significant implications for governance.
Brennan discussed future issues that may result in worldwide instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could create international conflict and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to identify a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political, Environmental Sociological and Technological framework. He explored research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice, even broaching the philosophical ramifications of anti-ageing technologies should they ever be realised.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"chemtrails are a type of cloud seeding is what I'm saying."
What you are saying is baseless. You are using a conspiratorial term which has no basis in reality. Strikes me that chemtrails are whatever you want them to be...you may as well include domestic fireworks and crop spraying. Once again, chemtrails are a delusional hoax, based upon persistent contrails in the tropopause and lower stratosphere. Cloud seeding does not create a cloud or trail, and is deployed at a fraction of the altitude of the contrails that gullible conspiracy believers construe to be chemical spraying.
"They put metals into the jet fuel to add substance for moisture to hold on to and form clouds."
What?????? Do the same next time you fuel your car - let me know how your engine responds. Jet exhaust naturally contains trace elements and introduces limited additional CCN primarily due to soot, but any additive for such a purpose would trash an engine in seconds.
"I'm aware of other types of cloud seeding too, allicin saying is when people talk about chemtrails this is what they are talking about."
The "people that talk about chemtrails" are lay, scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists invariably over the comments section of an entertainment platform such as this, through social media and garbage pseudoscientific gatherings and websites...and they have no clue what they are talking about. Genuinely I suggest that you refer to legitimate meteorological science and aerospace engineering instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulsunderseige4946
"The spraying of our skies was admitted as geoengineering."
Once again, research into SAI has never been secretive and has always been in the public domain. How precisely do you admit to something that has never been denied?
"I will search for the source. This kind of shit is not out of the realm of possibility when it comes to government."
It as nothing whatsoever to do with the "government" - and you don't need to search for any source, since I fully understand what this strategy proposes and you clearly do not.
Given the desperate attempts by the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory to conflate geoengineering with this online hoax, you are clearly referring to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.
Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. As I said, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - yeah, that's right, chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with any "government" or the persistent contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smallscreentv1204
"Because it’s proof that they’ve been thinking about this for a while now"
??? Proof? Geoengineering has never been secretive. Research proposals and strategies have always been fully transparent and in the public domain which is how you know about it - in addition to the ridiculous attempts on behalf of the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax to intentionally conflate their conspiracy theory with solar radiation management - false equivalence which is uncritically accommodated by its believers.
"One way to inject the chemicals is via aircraft, the other is via balloons...."
To summarise, Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar, aforestation and ocean fertilisation where a large amount of the funding goes. Then you have SRM, which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is all entirely hypothetical with the exception of ground based albedo modification schemes.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which you appear to be referring to, would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. The formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. This year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MichaelForrestChnl
I have. Kirsten Meghan is an ex air force employee who served as a technical consultant on industrial hygiene evaluations of work equipment. Her 'whistle blowing' concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly: "My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonise me in case I spoke out." Kirsten Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate issue, I believe originally stemming from her brother, but as a former USAF employee it was easy to aspire to be a career conspiracy theorist and the poster child for chemtrails, paraded around by the perpetrators of in a desperate bid to gain some credibility and meaningless appeal to authority.
She claimed to have "tests", but hasn't shown results. Furthermore, the carcinogens she reported on (Chromium Oxide and Strontium 90) have a perfectly innocent reason for being on the base. They're used in the repair of airframes, which is a very common thing at Tinker AFB. Is it so strange that an Air Force base would have aircraft repair supplies?
Kristen Meghan now enjoys domestic life in staid Chicago suburbia raising a family - although still has similar pretensions and as her farcical facebook account is testimony to, clearly wishes to remain relevant in the lucrative big business of online conspiracy theory.
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
If a chemtrailing programme were a reality, there would be thousands upon thousands of whistleblowers across the aviation sector, within government, the military...and yet all you people repeatedly produce is Kristen Meghan, the farcical Shasta Town Hall rally or a decade old video of a supposed UN meeting featuring Rosalind Peterson.
Something new perhaps?
1
-
1
-
@MichaelForrestChnl
"Your version of Kristens story is very twisted and far from what she says in her videos."
OF course it is. What do you expect a perpetrator of this hoax to say in their videos?
"And your exclusion of anything Herndon has to say is only evidence of your bias."
Present what you regard to be the best analytical study determining the existence of these supposed chemtrails produced by J Marin Herndon...I'll willingly show you why its flawed
"As I already said there are relatively few whistle blowers because people dont want to be punished (including CIA execution) or lose their jobs or their pension."
Executed by the CIA????? but at the same time powerless to remove a facebook page...
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
It's the same collection of individuals every time- the career conspiracy theorists, quacktitioners, frauds, charlatans, montebanks, snake oil salesmen. Wigington, Murphy, Carnicom, Herndon...I've heard it all before. Russell Blaylock??? This is utterly farcical.Perhaps you would benefit from his brain repair formula that he sells over the internet?
https://www.overvoedingengezondheid.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/O3-Blaylock.pdf
It's nothing more than endlessly recycled bunk by those unable to think for themselves, exercise even a modicum of critical thinking, recognise cherry picked confirmation bias and objectively appraise the veracity of their sources. Very simply, in the absence of any knowledge about the atmosphere, meteorology and aviation, you mindlessly buy into online conspiracy theory and by nature, you are the target audience. And since this is an investment - you hate to be challenged. To those that perpetrate this nonsense at the top of the tree you are simply the low hanging fruit, ripe for the plucking. They sell you the illusion of "knowledge" insight and empowerment whilst the rational and informed who see straight through this nonsense are branded "sheep" or "shills". Precisely why, it never graduates beyond social media and online ehco-chambers that you people inhabit.
Your Project Cloverleaf nonsense is plucked purely from the province of the latter and nothing but baseless conspiratorial crap.
Now let's address Herndon's claimed science in more detail shall we? Which of his papers would you like to discuss in detail?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are simply seeing the same aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied for the best part of a century and since the advent of high altitude powered flight.
Yes, weather modification is a thing, in fact it is the technical term for cloud seeding, but this is not secretive or actually, widespread, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists term as 'chemtrails'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@innerbliss108 .
"haha wow are you going to this much extent giving zero evidence as to how I’m wrong about chem trails?"
Burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim - the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to establish an absent or negative based upon your behest, confusion and personal incredulity.
"They are fact just do some more research."
Err, right. Given that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
I absolutely guarantee that I am infinitely more familiar with the origins, background and perpetrators of your dumb conspiracy theory, in addition to all branches of geoengineering (which have absolutely nothing to do with the latter despite the desperate lame attempts of chemtrails theorists and believers to conflate the two). In addition to which, my background is atmospheric science and amusingly, I now work in research capability for a living. Tell me about it...I'm all ears.
"They spray aluminum as well as other toxins in the air to control the weather as well as poison the earth."
I suspect that you are loosely referring to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would attempt to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols in a last ditch attempt to arrest global temperature rise? Typical online conspiracy believer - attempting to sound clever about subjects you have absolutely no clue about.
There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. Calcium Carbonate is one possibility where early research suggests that it has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulphate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. It is also non-toxic and earth abundant. However, it does not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate.
In 2019 an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
"I know the difference between chem trails and normal trails."
Of course you do. Finally! a chemtrail believer that can actually detail the methodology to differentiate between their supposed 'chemtrails' and persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered flight and the best part of a century. Go ahead then.
"What “science” are you referring to. The fake widely accepted versions?"
In order for something in science to be accepted it has to be proven. So that'll be the ineluctable physical laws that govern known mathematics, atmospheric chemistry/microphysics and aviation which being axiomatic are demonstrable and have a voice of their own. Y'know, the stuff that chemtrail believers have no knowledge of whatsoever.
"I’m not going to waste my time explaining anything else."
If you actually think that parroting a series of baseless and inaccurate claims and falsehoods over the comments section of a video entertainment platform has explanatory value, then that would very much explain why you gullibly fell for this nonsense in the first place. Regarding "wasting time" - remind me, you subscribe to a dumb online hoax, that has managed to convince you that a cloud is a conspiracy theory...correct?
"You probably get your facts from google"
Said the chemtrail believer.
Before you go, a quick question for you - do try to answer it, there's a good lad. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would need to take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails and the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mchavez4532
"No,not all of them. Just: The ones that spend 40-60+ minutes dissipating into the breeze"
Persistent spreading contrails then.
"The ones that are clearly laid out in a grid or that intersect and merge together"
Perfectly normal air traffic producing persistent spreading contrails then.
"The ones that have clear spray patterns that repeat at regular intervals reminiscent of the spray patterns you see in aerosol applications of pesticides from crop dusters"
Intermittent contrails then.
"The ones that repeat in the same area week after week as if on a regular schedule"
Commercial air traffic operating on a planned 'regular schedule; then. Who'd have thought?
"The ones that pierce through natural clouds"
Differential air pressure then.
"The ones that they spray at night"
You mean civil aircraft producing contrails at night time then.
"Natural contrails generally dissolve within a minute or two"
Contrails don't 'dissolve', they sublimate. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Its length and duration is governed by the ambient conditions and the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. If the air is saturated in respect to ice, the water vapour in the exhaust is merely the trigger event, where 99% of the trail you see is drawn from available atmospheric moisture. Think about it man, how else can you explain the fact that they can expand and increase in mass - just like, well no shit, a cloud - which is all a contrail is. As they expand, often fanned by high altitude wind shear, they can merge and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. All very basic meteorological science.
"I have pictures videos and time lapse footage of these things going back to as early as 2004"
No - you have videos and footage of aircraft contrails, that's all. And they go back far further than that. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"So you can go ahead and say whatever you want to sound like you know something"
I am irrelevant. All you have to do is learn some basic facts about atmospheric chemistry, meteorology and aviation - three things that you are clearly wholly ignorant about.
"but quite frankly, none of your regurgitations"
The irony - was it intentional?
" are going to convince me of anything other than what I can see with my own eyes."
No one is disputing what you "see with your own eyes". I see the same, as does the rational world - the fact that you don't understand it is the problem. Of course I'm not going to "convince you". You are a conspiracy believer which means you have already naively been convinced and you belong to one of the most closed minded and emotionally invested communities on the internet next to religious extremists and cult members. You have been duped by an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory - what a sad, tragic and colossal waste time, energy and your life. Imagine if you had real daily concerns and threats to you and your loved ones, such as occupying a war zone?
It's pathetic really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shleepydragyn8940
I don't need to look anything up nor do I need to search for information - I know more than any online chemtrail believer about the origins, perpetrators and false equivalence associated with their beliefs.
Sigh, you are referring to research into a branch of geoengineering called Solar Radiation Management - specifically 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' which was first proposed almost two decades ago and has never been secretive, so how precisely do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied? A few years ago, chemtrail believers had never even heard of SAI until the conspiracy believers responsible for this fraud started to use such association fallacy in a lame attempt to vindicate their claims. They now post uniformed nonsense such as you did that 'chemtrails have been admitted to'. It is in the interest of the proponents of SAI to publicise their work in order to generate funding and support - it has never been concealed.
SAI is a hypothetical method aimed at combatting global temperature increase through replicating the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. As it stands it has not graduated beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. I suggest that you yourself search for SCoPEx, which is a planned small scale trial involving a steerable balloon to be launched 20kms into the stratosphere and release a few kilos of water and possibly during subsequent flights, a similarly negligible quantity of CaCo3 by which to test perturbation. This test has been cancelled innumerable times due to ethical approval. Irrespective of whether it ever takes place or not, SAI will never be conducted due to the impossibility of international governance, (not to mention the logistical barriers and environmental unknowns). If you wish to term research into SAI as 'chemtrails' then more fool you.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
@thesajeguy
The High Frequency Active Auroral Programme, what about it? I don't need to 'google HAARP' - but assuming that I did, I certainly wouldn't be doing so through confirmation bias seeking out the ludicrous junk conspiracy theories associated with it. Would you like me to explain to you technically what the HAARP facility consists of and precisely what it was actually designed to do and is capable of? Of course you wouldn't.
Sigh! Cloud seeding does not create clouds or leave a trail. It is designed to introduce addition nuclei into existing stratiform and cumulus rain bearing masses to prematurely induce precipitation. This is why it is conducted at altitudes that are a fraction of the trails that you are observing - typically 2,000 - 6,500 feet. It doesn't tend to 'spray' either (although liquid propane and saline solutions have been known to be used, these do not form a lasting or lingering trail) - more commonly it is deployed by light aircraft retrofitted with flare racks burning small quantities of silver iodide. Again, nothing to do with the large jet aircraft that you witness producing these trails. Moreover, cloud seeding has nothing to do with arresting global warming and despite the fact that there are high profile state sponsored schemes such as in China and the UAE, it really isn't that widespread a practice and its results and very efficacy are questionable.
B2 bombers??? Then why do chemtrail clowns insist on posting footage of commercial aircraft as supposed evidence? As I explained, a persistent spreading contrail is a product of atmospheric supersaturation - available atmospheric moisture, no different to the growth of a cloud which is precisely the reason that they can expand and spread weighing millions of lbs and often be in excess of hundreds of kilometres long. You now need to explain how a B2 bomber with a MTOW of 480,000lbs can convey the necessary material to deposit the millions of lbs that these trails weigh and stretch from horizon to horizon in addition to identifying the precise chemical that can grow in mass, just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewarmstrong9194
Thanks for your reply.
Firstly, should we trust our governments? Of course not - patriotism as far as I am concerned involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our governments are always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
Simply because a government (past or present), has acted in secrecy, lied or deceived the people, that does not however automatically afford legitimacy to 'chemtrails' of any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising.
Chemtrails are simply misidentified aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Contrails last for a few moments, chemtrails last for minutes to an hour "
Could you explain why detailing the physical laws that determine this? Also, what is your methodology then to differentiate your supposed chemtrails from the persistent contrails that have observed, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century?
" John Brennan CIA director came out and admitted they are spraying chemtrails to control global warming "
???? Research into SAI has never been secretive, hidden or out of the public domain. How do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied? You are referring to the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan and his voluntary address as a guest speaker to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous chemtrail conspiracy video titles that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed a range of future technological developments that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan wasn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is in progress, on the contrary, he was warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently underway. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
" But we know exactly why they are doing it... look it up "
Absolutely. Let's do that...
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/publications/stratospheric-aerosol-injection-tactics-and-costs-first-15-years-deployment
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing, there is no aircraft in existence that would be able to loft the requisite materials to altitudes of 65,000-70,000ft, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
Sure. It couldn't possibly be anything whatsoever to do with that f**k off 50,000 m2 wet market and second largest seafood market in China located right next to it, half a mile from the station and directly in the middle of one of the city's largest residential areas? A place in which stalls are practically on top of each other, the aisles are narrow and close proximity, livestock brought in from the surrounding province were kept alongside wild animals and dead produce, and slaughtered and their carcasses skinned.
The consilience of the scientific community i addition to the specialist disciplines of virology, immunology and epidemiology is that it resulted from a natural spillover, but it could equally be the result of research-related activity, such as a lab leak or even a fieldwork incident - we simply don't know. That is also accepted as a possibility However, there is no equivocal evidence either way, just largely historical precedent and circumstantial evidence. Most, human infectious diseases (60-75%) are derived from pathogens that originally circulated in non-human animal species. There have been a multitude of studies which indicate a natural origin for Sars-CoV-2 and this data/literature has steadily grown in volume since the outbreak. Last year a published study examined samples taken from raccoon dogs, bamboo rats, palm civets: (these are just some of the animals whose DNA has been found in swabs taken from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China,) The swabs also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease. The analysis, provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over from animals to humans at the market. Conversely, there is not one paper offering evidence that a lab leak was responsible to have passed peer review because the is no substantive data to support it. Additionally, although the DOE have backed the recent FBI intelligence assessment indicating a lab leak, they have a 'low confidence level. According to guidance from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “A low confidence level generally indicates that the information used in the analysis is scant, questionable, fragmented, or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from the information, or that the IC has significant concerns or problems with the information sources.” Again, this does not mean that the possibility of a lab leak should be ruled out. In my view, it's a very strong possibility that we won't ever determine the source. Pinpointing the site of a spillover is tricky and becomes increasingly challenging with time. Also, matching the genetics of those initially infected by Alpha with sequences derived from animals to isolate the host is a very difficult task. In terms of the lab leak possibility, as relationships between China and the West continue to deteriorate, the situation continues to be so politicised, and whilst Beijing refuses to cooperate the necessary transparency to allow an independent forensic investigation into research activities at WIV, we have nothing more than circumstantial supposition.
Incidentally, the word you were looking for is "pangolin".
Anyway, what's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barrygoldwater9450
"chemtrails= chemicals being released from aircraft, for weather modification or any other reason."
So, that'll be sky writing, crop spraying and fumigation, military chaff, fuel dumping, air displays, target marking...strikes me that chemtrails are whatever you want them to be.
"A visible trail of chemicals."
That rules out cloud seeding then, which employs dry ice or flares consisting of dry silver iodide.
"Contrails exist. Clouds are real."
Absolutely. But they aren't chemtrails, The chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of the latter - which is precisely the subject under discussion in this video.
"Chemtrails can be dropped at any altitude, maybe not for weather modification"
Precisely why I asked you what does cloud seeding have to do with a contrail?
"I've personally seen multiple aircraft at ultra low altitude spraying some type of shit all over the highway, large white plume clouds, don't know what or why, just know for a fact it happened. Large u shape cloud directly over the highway two aircraft under 1000 feet."
What sort of aircraft? Where? Was it near an airport?
1
-
@barrygoldwater9450
"cloud seeding can be done from a plane!"
Yes indeed it can. But as I explained, it doesn't create clouds, produce a long white opaque trail, or involve commercial aircraft cruising in the tropopause or lower stratosphere.
"Yes a crop duster is a good example of a chemtrail."
In which case, so it a skywriter ... or a domestic firework - (aluminium, barium strontium, and a trail, Illuminati confirmed.)
"Not it wasn't near an airport. Why would the location matter if the planes are crop dusting a highway? Does that happen at airports a lot?"
Because online conspiracy theorists regularly upload footage of aircraft landing producing aerodynamic contrails. I assure you that planes were not "crop dusting the highway". However on Thursday (September 14), U.S. Air Force Reserve cargo planes took to the skies over Harris County, Texas, to spray about 600,000 acres around Houston with a potent mosquito-killing insecticide, complementing similar efforts across other counties in Texas affected by Tropical Storm Harvey which is quite common after a large storm or flood.
"If you know cloud seeding occurs and you know it can be done from a plane and you know it has been done without the knowledge of the populace it was being used on we have nothing to argue about."
Cloud seeding is not secretive, it is a commercially advertised enterprise. What does cloud seeding have to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory - to clarify, the belief that a persistent contrail is evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying...the topic under discussion in this video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eurobrowarriormonk7182
"well people are obviously noticing."
You mean a community of scientific illiterates that have fallen for an online hoax that has managed to convince them that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
"These planes burn up to 12 tons an hour of jet fuel they do not need to spray anything. Its coming from the exhaust. The chemicals in the jet fuel"
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. The amount of water that will be produced from combustion is dependent on the ratio of carbon to hydrogen. Taking a general fuel with a hydrogen to carbon atom ratio (H/C ratio) of rr, the combustion looks like
CHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2OCHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2O
For gasoline fuels, the H/C ratio is around 1.8; for kerosene fuels, 1.9. Based on this data, kerosene fuels produce a bit more water than gasoline fuels, in molar quantities.
In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture where the water in the jet exhaust is merely the trigger. As I indicated - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YouthfulSage
"Sorry to burst your bubble, "Yassassin" (or whoever you are). SAI is a known fact."
It is indeed - and it's a shame that you clearly 'know' nothing about it.
Because, let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of SAI were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which Harvard's David Keith is the main proponent of would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
Last year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
So a few kilos of water which were never released, compared to the VEI 5/6 monstrous eruption of Shiveluch on the Kamchatka peninsula that you are doubtless unaware of, which caused huge stratospheric injection - alone lofting some 768Gg of sulphate mass up to 12 miles into the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year. We can discuss SAI in far more detail if you wish. Of course you don't.
Question for you. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing in addition to the fact that there is no aircraft currently in existence that could loft the requisite materials into the mid stratosphere, would not even be visible to a ground based observed and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this video which concerns misidentified contrails - may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Game over for you trolls."
Hardly - your parroted association fallacy is utterly hilarious and confirms your haven't the first clue about what you are talking about. Why don't you bring up Kristen Meghan again?
Also, why is it that you people consistently fail to understand the meaning of trolling? I am in full agreement with this video. This is a comments section and challenging someone to substantiate their claims - something you people absolutely loath - is not trolling. As the one mindlessly regurgitating uninformed disinformation, outright lies, junk conspiracy theory and making unsubstantiated allegations, then by definition the troll would be none other than yourself - a simple notion that even you could surely comprehend. You've been relentlessly posting your scripted drivel all over chemtrail debunking videos all week and making a fool of yourself in the process. Don't you just despise it when you get called out? Grow up child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Source? And even it that were the case, the sole explanation could only be those long white trails six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand?
2. No it hasn't. You are referring to 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' which would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols in an attempt to arrest global temperature increase. SAI is entirely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond research paper, laboratory experimentation and mathematical modelling. It will never be employed due to the sheer impossibility of international governance. What does any of this have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory surrounding the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
3. Are you serious? You can do in seconds. There are hundreds of examples from meteorology text books dating back to the 1930s and 40s. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Would you like some help on this? I can provide sources for you.
4. Absolute utter nonsense. Contrails are no more than artificially formed cirrus clouds. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. As I indicated - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
5. Then why do you goons keep offering footage of civil aircraft as supposed evidence of these 'chemtrails' then?
6. Nope - wrong again. There are no examples of this other than military aircraft producing regular contrails. You can use flight tracking software to establish the validity of commercial aircraft routes. Simply saying that something is a fact in caps lock over the internet does not make it true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly, contrary to your claim, Brennan doesn't "admit" to anything of the sort. That is an outright lie. To clarify, this is the ex-Director of the CIA in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance and the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM/SAI in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti-ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admitted they are spraying" or that SAI is currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Research into SAI has never been secretive - who precisely do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied.
SAI has very little to do with "the government" bar some hearings in Senate involving impact statements of geoengineering technologies and what would be one of the major challenges associated with any SAI programme, international policy and governance.
To clarify, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, is a purely hypothetical proposal which would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would need to be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damonbilling7746
"Aircraft contrails do not last for 12 hours."
Actually, they can last much longer than that. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. The duration and length of a contrail is governed by the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Are you equally as perplexed by cloud cover?
"SRM 'proposed' chemical aersolizung is supposed to be stratospheric but like cloud seeding, that altitude is not necessary for weather modification."
SRM is not weather modification. It is a hypothetical branch of geoengineering spearheaded by Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which proposes replicating the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. It has not progressed beyond research proposal or mathematical modelling, would not result in a trail and would be designated for double the altitude of the aircraft contrails that you term 'chemtrails'. Marine cloud brightening and albedo modification are also areas of SRM which obviously would be conducted at ground level or in the troposphere.
Cloud seeding takes place at a fraction of the altitude of the contrails that you are misidentifying - not in the stratosphere where contrails are formed and there are no rain bearing clouds. Aerial deployment of cloud seeding typically involves light aircraft retrofitted with wing mounted flare racks burning very small quantities of silver iodide. The objective is to introduce additional nucleation into existing stratiform and cumulus masses that are conducive to precipitation in order to induce rainfall. Again, it does not result in a trail and being conducted at altitudes between 2,000 - 6,500 feet, and has nothing to do with either SRM or aircraft contrails.
"Contrails also do not form clouds, but that is what is being witnessed of your identification of 'contrails'."
That's precisely what they are - and in conditions of supersaturation they will expand and spread.
"You don't need video footage, or a theory to prove what is happening above your head."
Indeed - you simply need a basic knowledge of atmospheric physics and chemistry, meteorology and aviation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianfp8081
"Ummmm NOooo"
How old are you? - Serious question.
"manipulation implies exerting mere INFLUENCE; not total control. Let's look at a couple of other examples. A husband manipulates his wife... Is he in TOTAL CONTROL OF HER as though she were a computer program; or is he merely exerting persuasive INFLUENCE? A government manipulates the public to support a WAR effort in a foreign country... Is the government in TOTAL CONTROL OF the consciousness of the populace? Or is it merely propagandistically framing the scenario in a way that maximises INFLUENCE?!? (Again; key word is INFLUENCE). So NO; manipulation does NOT imply TOTAL CONTROL"
Semantics. Technically, and in a mechanistic sense, manipulation means to manage or skillfully utilise a process. The personal connotation that you are referring to implies control. As I explained to you the term "weather manipulation" is a misnomer and no, it is not possible to "influence" the weather above the micro level aside from unintentional, inadvertent anthropogenic climate change which is affecting weather patterns.
Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.
"AS I SAID BEFORE; NO ONE (other than yourself. IS SUGGESTING WEATHER OMNISCIENCE!!!"
At no stage did I suggest that you were - whatever that means. However, if you are referring to control over the weather, which you were, you are again incorrect, because that is also precisely what chemtrail conspiracy theorists allege - and since chemtrails is subject of this video, then yes I did indeed mention it...because so did you.
"(Again; key word is INFLUENCE). So NO; manipulation does NOT imply TOTAL CONTROL"
And again, we can only modify the weather at the micro scale. manipulation implies a degree of control and this is impossible.
Returning to your OP, to remind you, you claimed the following...
"Oooooooooooh, this did NOT age well..."
- Subsequently amusingly posting a link to an abandoned project to seed hurricanes from 74 years ago. You have a very poor memory because when questioned as to why, you replied with this...
"Joes talking about how "Obviously we can't control the weather...)"
You're not very good at this are you?
1
-
@brianfp8081
"My caps isn't malfunctioning, I use BOLD to denote EMPHASIS, the way a human beings voice fluctuates during speech"
Indeed - you clearly struggle with sarcasm in addition to logical discourse.
"Secondly, I just demonstrated with MULTIPLE EXAMPLES that the term "manipulate" Is CLEARLY at the very least NOWHERE NEAR as narrow a term as you are pretending; or at WORST; simply doesn't mean that which you claim."
No - you responded with your own subjective interpretation, I furnished you with a summary of the dictionary definition.
"You say I m not very good at This? That's pretty amusing; considering your ONLY ARGUMENT boils down to "Manipulation means weather omniscience; which isn't possible. Since weather omniscience isn't possible; therefore weather manipulation isn't happening..."
At no stage have I used the phrase "omniscience" - that would be you. And your point about strawman?
"It doesn't matter how old I am, since your the one with the rhetorical and literacy capacity of a fourth grader..."
Quick tip. If you really feel the need to comment on another's literacy, perhaps learn some rudiments of written English and at least comprehend the difference between a determiner and a contraction. You're as opposed to "your"
"I live how you can type multiple paragraphs; all while managing to simply state and RESTATE the ONE ARGUMENT THAT I have already dismantled and demolished."
Have you? How so?
"Every post you reply just digs you deeper into the hole; and yet you just REFUSE to put down the shovel"
And if irony were a raw material, you'd be sitting on quite the stash there mate.
"how do you not see that YOU are the one debating semantics; my other examples show that the term.manipulation can be consistently used in the context of merely implying exerting calculated influence. You can debate the semantics all YOU want; saying "That's not what manipulation means"; but it just means that you are the one with the overly narrow interpretation of the term...i.e. you are getting bogged down in semantics"
You used the word "influence". It is not possible to "influence" the weather above the local scale.
To return to the point - a reminder of your OP...
"Oooooooooooh, this did NOT age well..."
- Subsequently hilariously posting a link to an abandoned project to seed hurricanes from 74 years ago. When asked as to why, you replied with this...
"Joes talking about how "Obviously we can't control the weather...)"
So your original point by your own admission is that contrary to Rogan's claim, "control" is possible. That "shovel" you mentioned...
Incidentally, you needed an apostrophe - Joe's - the contraction for "Joe is". Clear now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KalvinMauveMusic
"around 8 seconds maybe 12"
Fascinating. You are evidently unaware that condensed water vapour and the physical laws of the atmosphere are neither obliged nor duty bound to conform to the arbitrary expectations and time limits imposed by a cretinous and credulous community of scientifically illiterate dullards that subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to reduce a cloud to a conspiracy theory.
The following paper tracked contrail‐induced cirrus using a number of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, and at its peak, covering over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
"They dont expand and form clouds that block out the sun."
You sure about that are you?
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/~BerndKaercher/JAS57_464-480_2000.pdf
"Ice crystals melt that's the physics"
Ha! You're going to have an awkward time explaining a cirrus cloud then.
"and I have been studying them for over 30 years"
Really? You should have mentioned earlier. So have I. Having obtained a post-graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two decades ago, after previously working as a mountain guide across four continents, subsequently specialising in ground based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) I have collaborated on studies into the microphysical properties of contrails and the extent of radiative forcing associated with the phenomena. I now work in research capability. We can discuss it in more detail if you wish. And yourself?
"and they never existed 30 years ago"
Persistent contrails have been observed, recorded, measured and quantified since the early advent of powered aviation. You have been "studying" them for over 30 years? The entire fields of meteorology, aviation and atmospheric science have been doing so for almost a century. Can you guess who I'd sooner give credence to? Then of course there's these guys - the following paper is almost five decades old.
" Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
Feel free to falsify the applied mathematics in either paper.
I suggest that instead of trying to bluff your way parroting junk conspiracy theory which may work over the comments section of a video entertainment platform, you actually dedicate some time to actually learning basic rudiments of meteorological science, aerospace engineering and atmospheric physics. Start with dew points, DALR and SALR, relative humidity and ice supersaturation.
"WHY do you think that is ?"
Because you weren't even looking until you were hoodwinked by a crap internet conspiracy theory which told you what to think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This is my question, because if an aircraft flying through can change a vast portion of the atmosphere, then we are dealing with a much more sensitive system than previously thought"
And it's a legitimate question. Contrail cirrus is the cumulative result of localised effects - chiefly due to the exponential increase in commercial air traffic and routes flown.
"but, .. if the airplanes have this effect, then you can bet someone is staggering and staging the flights, for the purpose of mitigation or causation."
To be fair to you, smart routing has indeed been suggested in spite of the logistical difficulties.
"We do have weather weapons, we the public do not know where they are located or how they operate. but we do know we have them."
Then how have you established this? Although the radiative forcing of contrails can as you noticed have a significant impact, manipulation of the weather is technologically limited and exists predominately in the realm of cloud seeding. Control at the macro or synoptic level is beyond the capability of man...although ironically unintentional anthropogenic influence is altering weather patterns across the world. Contrail cirrus is one such example.
"And I would think weather control is used for both mitigation and causation"
Agree, although as I said, this is localised. A large amount of research into averting the formation of hurricanes and cyclones is in progress.
"And with 27,000 commercial flights daily in the US, this RF effect could be deemed useful in perhaps a myriad of ways"
I can't see how.
"It would seem, mitigation or causation would entail decisions of flight paths, timing and altitudes ,.. and then there are so many other factors, such as loss of wetlands, damming rivers, deforestation etc etc... many agendas to consider..."
Yes, the variables are highly involved and complex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buttafan4010
"Al oxide and Barium Oxide are the chemical names of reflective nano particles used to increase the amounted of sunlight reflected away from Earth and back into outer space."
Absolute nonsense. Firstly you are referring to the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which aims to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Although aluminium oxide has been suggested, there isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Barium oxide? Where do you even get that from? Moreover, it isn't even flammable. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Al-Oxide is also one of the main ingredients of a certain type of solid rocket fuel - very flammable"
Solid rocket propellant uses aluminum powder as the fuel and a mineral salt, ammonium perchlorate, the oxidizer. Contrary to your claim, aluminium powder is used because it has a high volumetric energy density and is difficult to ignite accidentally.
"as evidenced by the Al-Oxide outer reflective coating of the Hindenburg that was the first thing to catch fire do to a static electricity spark that occurred when the airship was rushed through stormy conditions that caused the static elec. build up (speed + stormy air conditions = static electricity like shuffling feet on a rug.) ...all in order to make it to a scheduled welcome ceremony that the Hindenburg was running a little late for"
Again, absolute rubbish. The build up of static was indeed caused by the framework of the Hindenburg which was constructed from duralumen - an aluminium alloy. but the first thing to ignite was the leaking hydrogen.
"Like Reagan ordering the launch of the Challenger in sub freezing weather conditions that caused the O rings to not seat properly ... so Reagan could boast of it's launch at the State of the Union address the next day."
Nonsense. The final authorisation to launch came from head of the programme Jesse W More. The Rogers Commission found that there was a serious flaw in the decision-making process leading up to the launch of flight 51-L. A well-structured and managed system emphasising safety would have flagged the rising doubts about the solid rocket booster joint seal. Particularly in the light of Roger Boisjoly's warnings who correctly predicted, based on earlier flight data, that the O-rings on the rocket boosters would fail if the shuttle launched in cold weather. Morton Thiokol's managers decided to approve the launch the shuttle despite his dire warnings.
Incidentally, The blow-by/O-ring failure on the right hand SRB caused a breach in the joint that it was designed to seal then allowing pressurised hot gas to exit the SRB motor and burning through the adjacent aft SRB strut and the ET - both of which then separated. As a consequence the entire launch vehicle was promptly torn apart by aerodynamic forces. The cloud that you see is a consequence of 1.6 million lbs of vapourising liquid hydrogen and oxygen - some of which subsequently ignited - hence the orange glow. The tragedy is therefore often incorrectly referred to as the Challenger explosion. Footage of the event shows the cabin exiting the cloud more-or-less intact. Contrary to popular belief, Challenger was destroyed by aerodynamic stresses far beyond its design tolerance, not an explosion.
"Cabin voice and telemetry recorders show that the 7 astronauts were alive until the intact crew cabin hit the water at 25 Gs. They had water in their lungs."
Again, absolute rubbish. Where the hell are you getting this from? After vehicle breakup, the crew compartment continued its upward trajectory, peaking at an altitude of 65,000 feet approximately 25 seconds after breakup. It then descended striking the ocean surface about two minutes and forty-five seconds after breakup at a velocity of about 207 miles per hour. The forces imposed by this impact approximated 200 G's not 25, far in excess of the structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels. The separation of the crew compartment deprived the crew of Orbiter-supplied oxygen, except for a few seconds supply in the lines. Each crew member's helmet was also connected to a personal egress air pack (PEAP) containing an emergency supply of breathing air (not oxygen) for ground egress emergencies, which must be manually activated to be available. Four PEAP's were recovered, and there is evidence that three had been activated. The nonactivated PEAP was identified as the Commander's, one of the others as the Pilot's, and the remaining ones could not be associated with any crew member. The evidence indicates that the PEAP's were not activated due to water impact. It is possible, but not certain, that the crew lost consciousness due to an in-flight loss of crew module pressure. Data to support this is: The accident happened at 48,000 feet, and the crew cabin was at that altitude or higher for almost a minute. At that altitude, without an oxygen supply, loss of cabin pressure would have caused rapid loss of consciousness and it would not have been regained before water impact. PEAP activation could have been an instinctive response to unexpected loss of cabin pressure.If a leak developed in the crew compartment as a result of structural damage during or after breakup (even if the PEAP's had been activated), the breathing air available would not have prevented rapid loss of consciousness.The crew seats and restraint harnesses showed patterns of failure which demonstrates that all the seats were in place and occupied at water impact with all harnesses locked. This would likely be the case had rapid loss of consciousness occurred, but it does not constitute proof. Impact damage was so severe that no positive evidence for or against in-flight pressure loss could be found. Finally, the skilled efforts of the team from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the expertise of the associated consultants, could not determine whether in-flight lack of oxygen occurred, nor could they determine the cause of death.
"We were not told the truth about that either, nor WMD in Iraq, or the Truth about the Gulf of Tonkin, nor about medical cannabis, incubators in Kuwait, etc etc. All governments lie to their people and all national leaders are merely our managers."
Simply because a government of previous administration has lied or deceived its people, and you are correct, history is rife with examples, it does not however automatically afford legitimacy or credence to "chemtrails" or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice of devising. Surely, surely you are able to comprehend that.
What does any of this have to do with your OP about aluminium oxide accelerants and again, the subject of this video which is misidentified aircraft contrails?
1
-
@buttafan4010
Likewise, thank you for your civil and considered response. As you say, the avoidance of ad-hominem abuse in favour of constructive discourse is so refreshing - particularly in this era of populism and increasing polarisation in which the dialectic has been lost.
Yes, of course I question official narratives. Should we trust our government? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that a government is always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or that suspicion detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
To reiterate, simply because a previous government has lied and deceived, it does not then follow that chemtrails (or any conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) must be true. To believe so would be a syllogistic fallacy, affirming the consequent, through the undistributed middle.
"So... Alan Specker's magic bullet hypothesis and the top 20 or so floors of the twin towers crushing 80 or so floors underneath, are not violations of conservation of momentum?"
You mean Arlen Specter? What many fail to appreciate, that the single bullet theory doesn't exclude additional shots, or additional bullets hitting the president. Most witnesses and analysts believe that a total of three shots were fired. Whether those additional shots were fired by Oswald or by a second gunman — perhaps from a nearby hill now referred to as "the grassy knoll" — remains a subject of intense debate. Subsequent forensic analyses and NAA analyses found that a single bullet duplicated almost exactly the path of travel postulated. What is in no doubt however, is that the Warren Commission was shoddy and poorly conducted.
You claim to be a man of science. The collapse of the Word Trade Centre does not contravene or contradict know physical laws. The intense heat softened or melted the structural elements floor trusses and columns which was sufficient to trigger the collapse. The floor trusses were the first to sag and fail. As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way, starting an unstoppable sequence. In such a scenario, the dynamic forces are so large that the downward motion became unstoppable.
It's important to understand that the gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, this equated to a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours) - that's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb!!
Approximately 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass.
Thanks again for your courteous response, but I fail to see what any of this has to do with your OP or the subject of this video? - a ludicrous conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Lots of people in these comments obviously never look up! "
Well, I was introduced to alpine climbing at the age of 11, obtained a post graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two decades ago upon which my subsequent background was atmospheric science, specialising in ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) and have a keen interest in astronomy. Will that do? And yourself?
"Wake up to a clear sky, PLANE TRAILS fill the sky during late morning/mid day, you SEE them spread out, and by late afternoon it's completely overcast."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Contrails are often the precursor of an approaching frontal system and unstable atmospheric conditions.
"I understand it's hard to go against what you believe"
Known science is not about "belief"
"I myself always struggle with researching opposing views to my beliefs"
Precisely what have you done to critically appraise and question the veracity and validity of this online hoax or the probity of its perpetrators?
"but for fuck sake you can SEE it happening."
And even better you can actually understand what you are looking at given a rudimentary knowledge of meteorology and aviation.
"As children do you remember those trails lingering for any longer than 30 seconds?"
Yes I most certainly do. Why shouldn't that be the case?
"Top comments are all bashing people who question this stuff and its sickening."
But you don't "question this stuff". Questioning involves objectivity, independent verification, a critical faculty and a knowledge of the subject domain.
"NASA has a cloud making machine lol they showed the thing on national TV. "
Sigh, no - the stapline of your dishonestly appropriated You Tube conspiracy videos simply told you that. That'll be the Stennis rocket engine test facility in Mississippi. As I recall the clips capture the test-firing of an RS-25, an engine that was used on the Space Shuttle and will be used to power NASA’s SLS. There is further footage of the an RS-68, an engine used in the Delta IV family of rockets made by the United Launch Alliance. However, the engines can’t be seen in the video; they’re hidden by the test stands. These rocket motors burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The by-product of this combustion is water vapor.. That stuff you are seeing is just super-hot steam rising into the sky and condensing to form a cloud which may then precipitate. Do feel free to produce the footage though. Of note, there are also military smoke generating machines such as the Russian TMC-65
"I guess they didnt change the weather during Vietnam? That's a conspiracy too I bet, anyone know how long ago that was?"
Operation Popeye. Actually the science of cloud seeding is dubious and its deployment during the Vietnam War primarily to deluge the Ho-Chi-Mihn was of debatable success due to the fact that it tended to coincide with heavy monsoons. Cloud seeding does not produce or create clouds. It is intended to introduce additional nucleation typically via silver iodide flares rack mounted to the wings of light aircraft to be released into extant cumulus clouds - those already conducive to precipitation - and thereby induce rainfall.
It is typically conducted between 2 - 6 thousand feet. There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity. Cloud seeding is neither secretive and has been in the public domain for years. It does not spray, produce clouds nor does it make trails and the environmental impact of the negligible quantities of silver iodide used is zero. What does this have to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory under discussion in this video?
1
-
@edwardvanvlack6368
"My comment wasnt a finger pointed in your direction."
I understand that Edward.
"I appreciate your response."
Thank you - and I appreciate your civil reply.
"We must have lived in different areas as children because growing up my sky wasnt filled with checker boards."
Not to the extent of today - but persistent contrails are nothing new. This phenomena was first observed in the early years of aviation and has been recorded, documented, photographed and researched since. The unprecedented expansion of commercial aviation sector has resulted in the increased prevalence of contrails. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
"Atmospheric aerosol injections, or, weather engineering is nothing new either."
What does either have to do with a contrail in the wake of a commercial aircraft?
"A lot of science actually is based upon belief due to so much being built upon theory."
Known science is reproducible, testable and informed by physical laws which are both ineluctable and axiomatic. It is also subject to the scrutiny of the scientific method. I'm a meteorologist - would you like to discuss it in more detail?
"You cant have facts that are built upon an unproven theory"
The formation of persistent contrails are not an "unproven theory". Perhaps you should heed that during the next chemtrails conspiracy video that you watch.
"Harvard University plans to use chemtrails to "dim" the sun. That's probably fake news too."
Actually they want to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols thereby reduce incoming insolation. Here's what they have to say about it...
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/about#tracks
Here is the first proposed small scale trial scheduled for this summer to measure dispersion and perturbation involving mere kilograms of material - initially calcium carbonate (chalk). I suggest that you read it.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
You mean conducting research into the viability of stratospheric aerosol injection? What does this have to do with either a contrail or the subject matter of this video which is debunking the chemtrail hoax - the erroneous belief that contrails in the wake of predominately commercial air traffic cruising in the tropopause and lower stratosphere are evidence of some intentional programme of global spraying.
"John Brennan also refers to aerosol injections in relation to climate."
Did you actually listen to what he said? As a guest speaker, the theme of his address to The Council on Foreign Relations (a thinktank) was "Transitional Threats to Global Security" during which he also addressed possible future technologies that don't even exist yet. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, in the unlikely event that it would ever be deployed as a last ditch solution to combat climate change, would have geo-political ramifications and pose significant implications for governance. Brennan also broached anti-ageing technology.
Here's the full transcript to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"There are plenty of articles out showing the sun dimming chem trail technique. If you inject chemicals into the sky, behind your plane...that'll be a chemtrail."
If you say so. Strikes me that chemtrails are whatever you want them to be. Sounding rockets deposit a trace trail of lithium, even fireworks contain your aluminium, barium and strontium. There were some 30,000 tons detonated last year in America alone - Illuminati confirmed!!!!
Geoengineering in the form of SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory other than the desperate attempts of the perpetrators and believers in this nonsense to conflate the two in a bid to gain credibility and vindicate their ill informed claims. The chemtrails hoax alleges that persistent contrails in the wake of commercial aircraft cruising in the troposphere and lower stratosphere are evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying. SIA exists solely in the form of paper based proposal and computer modelling, hasn't even reached the stage of small scale trial, wouldn't be visible as a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the contrails under discussion in this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@souljahroch2519
"...keep laughing, dumbass. Your jokes are killing US All"
Hilarious isn't it that you people accommodate and parrot any random confirmation bias on the internet without actually verifying it first? Have you actually bothered read this? When you actually get round to reading CIA Document 1035-960, "Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report" instead of the misleading blog post surrounding the link you provided, you'll find that there is nothing in there about using the term "Conspiracy Theory" to discredit people. Instead it focuses on addressing the claims directly, and suggesting those making the claims are communists.
You said this, remember.
"Conspiracy Theorist is a term created by The CIA in order to disparrage ' (sic) critical thinkers' during the JFK Assassination 'Cover Up' which is arrant nonsense - (Incidentally, if you must regurgitate this stuff, at least spell it correctly).The CIA didn't "invent the term conspiracy theorist" you fool. A cursory search of the Oxford Dictionary reveals that the phrase was used in 1964 - three years before Dispatch 1035-960 appeared citing the following -
"Conspiracy theorists will be disappointed by the absence of a dogmatic introduction."
New Statesman 1 May 694/2
You may also wish to find "The Conspiracy Theory of Politics of the Radical Right in the United States by William C. Baum"
https://www.worldcat.org/title/conspiracy-theory-of-politics-of-the-radical-right-in-the-united-states/oclc/18821548
Or Karl Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies", 1950. In which he writes:
"what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of the social sciences; I call it the ''conspiracy theory of society'."
Academic though, since the earliest appearance of “conspiracy theory’ in the OED goes as far back as 1909 to an article from the American Historical Review:
"The claim that Atchison was the originator of the repeal may be termed a recrudescence of the conspiracy theory first asserted by Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia in 1880." Amer. Hist. Rev. 14 836 T
We can go back further than that. How about The Journal of Medical Science 1871?
"It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Beade"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VsRMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1g7IT8eEBKSi2gW2_ejmDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theory%22&f=false
In 1881, the phrase appears in Rhodes’ Journal of Banking: “As evidence of a conspiracy this showing is pitiful, and in any view, the charge is ridiculous, as no conspiracy theory is needed to account for the facts.”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AtcuAQAAIAAJ&q=%22conspiracy+theory%22&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7ob8UZL2PM6EygHNrYDoAQ&redir_esc=y
Perhaps form 1890, "Some Kind of Political Conspiracy Mainly Ridiculed"
"The conspiracy theory may be well founded, but then again it may not."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ziIgAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&pg=PA608-IA7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theory%22&f=false
Also on the same topic 1895"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GkIxAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&pg=RA16-PA27&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theory%22&f=false
1899, from an article discussing various conspiracy theories regarding South Africa. And an early debunking:
"Mr. Balfour proceeded to discuss one theory of conspiracy and to dismiss another."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cHdNAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&pg=PA227&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theory%22&f=false
If you are purely referring to the use of the term in the pejorative sense, then this can be traced back to historian and political commentator Richard Hofstader.
And your point about "dumbass" was precisely what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeyjones9041
"Moron"
Why the need for abuse.
-"Bill Gates funded the research on a process where hurricane intensity can be manipulated. Just one simple Google search."_
Fascinating - then you'll have no problem producing the link at source will you? Obviously, you'll have the good sense to avoid cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites. Go ahead then.
"Weather modification has been going on for decades by various militaries, civilian entities, and other government backed research. Plenty of info out there about it."
See above. Weather modification is the technical term for cloud seeding which is practiced on the micro scale.
None of this has anything whatsoever to misidentified aircraft contrails discussed i this video that have been have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"They have admitted to using cloud seeding all over durijg droughts there are videos on youtube of pilots cloud seeding in texas"
Cloud seeding isn't secretive. There are organisations that freely advertise their services and contracts over the internet for private hire. How do you admit to something that isn't denied? Cloud seeding isn't actually all that widespread, the materials used are negligible in quantity and the environmental impact is zero. Also its efficacy is questionable and the results, inconclusive and erratic.
"the military uses chaff"
Yes a radar countermeasure.
"and the barium strontium aluminum NANOparticels so it is a vapor to bounce or help radar"
No, chaff is not nano sized, it does not involve barium or strontium and it is not a vapour.
"And watch a weather map where a westher doppler.radar is used the could systems will literally for a bubble around the radars proximity"
??? If a weather system is close by then doppler radar will detect it usingvelocity data. Most modern weather radars employ the pulse-Doppler technique to examine the motion of precipitation, but it is only one aspect of their capability in processing of the data. So, while these radars use a highly specialised form of Doppler radar, the term is much broader in its meaning and its applications. In Clear air mode, the radar sensitivity is increased and it can detect dust, fog, temperature inversions and other atmospheric disturbances that are not precipitation related. When the radar detects precipitation again, it automatically switches back to precipitation mode.
"there not hiding it they have ised it to cause drought in forwign cou troes before invasion2
Such as?
"there are many patents on it"
On what precisely?
"i dojt think its nefarious there trying to help areas of low rainfall or shift climates, its a natural progression in tech... "
As I said, cloud seeding really isn't very effective.
"As a farmer im.sure.you woukd.love for them.to cloud seed above your property so your crop.that your family.depends on doesnt fail,.. "
Again, it actually isn't particularly useful.
"All my.table water here in conroe texas has traces of baruim strontium.and aluminum ... "
It will do, since all are naturally occurring in nature and can also originate through anthropogenic activity. None of these are used in cloud seeding and the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails under discussion in this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neverlostforwords
That contrails are condensed atmospheric water vapour in the form of billions of ice crystals as a product of combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel at altitude is understood. Contrails have been documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation.
"So: why should anyone believe assurances that all aircraft trails are merely traditional contrails, and that the patterns and clouds we observe are formed from contrails, when the top scientists in the field admit that they don’t yet fully understand contrails?"
Because "top scientists" aren't casting aspersions upon their existence, like any specialist field, they identify that there is still much more to be understood about the process that governs their formation and expansion.
Marine biologists don't fully understand the process of coral bleaching and die off; seismologists don't yet have a predictive methodology for earthquakes, cetologists have yet to account for the behaviour patterns behind observed supergroups formed by humpback whales, geneticists are continually refining their understanding of the human genome, theoretical physicists are developing mathematical models that better describe quantum gravity - we may enhance our knowledge and understanding but that doesn't invalidate what has already been established in terms of known physical laws.
Anyone questioning that plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic are anything other than contrails is perfectly at liberty to obtain analytical data in order to prove otherwise - yet none of you have. There are no such legitimate studies, no data gathered and no credible scientists that claim that aircraft trails are anything other than contrails. Why? because the rational world understands what contrails are. - That they are formed by the process of burning a hydrocarbon fuel in cold humid air is not in question, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more to be understood about their microphysical and optical properties in relation to their life cycle. Thats precisely what the scientific method aims to do.
"However, according to top atmospheric scientists such as Chauvigne et al (2018), contrails are not well understood."
You have yet again employed your usual tactic of cherry picking, albeit very badly and this time from an abstract that you clearly don't understand. Had you have read the entire paper you would have learnt that the study recommends a statistical method based upon in-situ optical measurements and through the application of Principal Component Analysis demonstrates that studying contrail optical properties is an apposite model and approach by which to identify and discriminate between the different contrail growth stages and to better characterise the evolution of contrail properties.
What is your point?
These are all methods fully at our disposal - odd that remote sensing has never been employed to enable similar analysis of your supposed chemtrails or that such sophisticated atmospheric modelling the world over has failed to detect them. Must be those "principles of compartmentalisation and access control based on need-to-know, that can be adopted."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neverlostforwords
"Reiterating, my impression from reviewing research on the subject of contrails is that the field is fairly nascent."
Not really - more continually evolving, particularly in terms of the microphysical stages in their evolution. It is by no means a large body of work but there is certainly renewed interest die to contention over the extent of contrails as a radiative forcing agent.
"I don't think I would cherry-pick (one of your favourite phrases) any single phase or step of the contrail life cycle (such as ice crystallisation) and call it settled when paper after paper identifies significant uncertainties about contrail properties, formation, the contrail cirrus cloud formation lifecycle, consequent climate forcing, and so on."
One of my favourite phrases? If you weren't so prone to it, I wouldn't have need to say it would I?
Once again did you read the paper in its entirety? It recommends an enhanced methodology by which to facilitate greater understanding in the evolution of contrails. That they are anything other than billions of ice crystals formed in frigid, humid conditions is not in contention.
"My research background is in another field (confidential)"
Well it certainly isn't within science. Why "confidential"? - I have been completely transparent wth you.
"however I am very used to stepping outside my field for cross-disciplinary research."
Are you sure about that? Because you're not evidencing anything of the sort. Here is some more of your confirmation bias that you have uncritically accommodated from another thread that demonstrates a complete lack of critical appraisal. This nonsense is so farcical that it can be routinely debunked at a cursory glance with only a modicum of scientific knowledge and sceptical thought process.
"1. Scientist: PhD graduate in biochemistry claiming to have developed chemical mixtures in chemtrails for a lab which was contracted for various chemtrail-based projects, answers a wide range of questions starting at:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1744569/pg1
2. Pilot: Pilot admits that chemtrails are "a necessary evil"
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7126#.WnWwVKiWYdU
3. German aircraft mechanic admits that he fitted planes for spraying chemicals and that he had to wear a mask when fuelling the tanks as the chemicals were toxic : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Phln_z7-E&t=5s
4. Doctor who treated the pilots who sprayed chemtrails: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFG2y_Mxl3Q
5. USAF Whistleblower talks Chemtrails / Geoengineering,
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnML02C7AXc
6.
http://blog.livedoor.jp/discoverthetruth/archives/4018363.html
7. Weatherman, ex-military, discussing so-called clouds, admits they are military planes spraying chaff: “Then you see these bands of very distinct cloud cover “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfpnaohx-kE
8. German pilot does not deny spraying has been occurring, when confronted by a passenger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcjbuPXElQc
9. Senator Herbert Kohl, US Senate “The government has created weather-tampering techniques so that the ‘new world order’ will be able to starve millions of Americans and control the rest. “This is followed by supportive comments from Senator Robert Fletcher.
(C-span, accessible in part at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9mN7hek5nw )
10. NASA scientist Dr Douglas E. Rowland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z2iRormxkw
11. Airport employee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLbQT_uR7So"
Just our of interest and as a "cross-disciplinary researcher" - do you still regard the above as legitimate? Because if you do, I find that quite concerning given your purported professional capacity.
"Finally, regarding responsiveness in discussions, I certainly cannot match your astonishing record. One might suspect that you were being paid per response. "
In responding, my post count would therefore to be equivalent to yours. You posts are littering chemtrail debunking videos of which there are principally about a dozen - many of which I have not replied to.
"One might suspect that you were being paid per response. (smile)"
At least can you accept that such an assertion is laughable.
"Yes, East Coast. I am in Melbourne."
Beautiful. I lived in Auckland for some years and visited NSW quite a lot whilst my Father was on sabbatical at the University of Sydney. Only been to Victoria once though.
1
-
"I'm 71 years old and when jets would fly overhead the contrail left behind would dissipate rather quickly just behind the aircraft."
That isn't true though. The persistent contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"For years now when jets fly over the CHEMTRAIL stretches back as far as you can see then leaves a haze all over the sky."
A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, low air temperature and at a given vapour pressure, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture.
Think about it. Any idea of the weight of material contained in one of these horizon to horizon trails that you are seeing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
"I've always live near DTW and the sky is full of all these crisscrossed trails that seem to last forever."
The skies are full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, then of course you would expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace.
"All engine combustion byproducts (that you see) are mainly water vapor and this doesn't linger"
Water vapour is an invisible gas - you don't see it. However, as I explained, if the ambient air temperature is suitably low, relative humidity high and at a certain vapour pressure then a contrail will form. In conditions of supersaturation in respect to ice, then this will draw upon available atmospheric moisture - the jet exhaust is merely the trigger event and 99% of the visible trail is coming from the the atmosphere. This is precisely why contrails are able to linger, expand and increase in mass - no different to the formation of a cloud other than the artificial trigger event. Also, jet engine exhaust contains soot and sulphides which act as hygroscopic nuclei that may increase the formation of ice crystals.
"look at automotive exhaust, even in the bitter cold the exhaust dissipates quickly but when the vehicle is burning oil the exhaust lingers, something other than water vapor. This guest is full of shit."
Your automobile is not equivalent or analogous to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C and 4 litres per second, emitting a stream of 600°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst travelling at speeds up to and occasionally in excess of 500 knots.
1
-
@trueamerican7034
"What I stated were my observations"
Anecdotal over empirical then.
"I assure you that what the contrails of my yesteryear are different from so called recorded history of 80 years ago."
And I assure that they aren't. There are simply more of them.
"As for the atmosphere it's hazier today than when I was young, the crystal clear skies were baby to darker medium blue and clouds well defined, this doesn't really exist today."
I was in the western Sahara two months ago where the air was very dry and that's simply not true.
However, globally, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere because warmer air can hold more moisture. This is very concerning because as a greenhouse gas this water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space.
"You'd be out late and on a clear night the skies were full of stars, you don't see this today."
Yes you do - that's not true either. Also, the percentage of cloud cover during the year will vary with geographical location.
"While I don't dispute what you say, I don't have the qualifications to, but yesteryear is different as recorded for different possible reasons. This would take a lengthy discussion. If you think I'm lying, mistakenly remembering or embellishing the past were definitely at an impasse. I assure you my memory is nowhere as cloudy as today's skies."
I don't think that your lying but I do think that you fail to appreciate that contrail coverage is far more prevalent than when you were young. Moreover, in your first post you claimed that contrails cannot stretch across the sky or expand and increase in mass.
In 'Flight to Arras' the legendary French pilot and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942) ...precisely what you are describing then.
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 50 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
Thank you for your civil reply - much appreciated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Naturally found aluminium. get out pal."
Interesting. You said this...
"Aluminium is a man made metal. Doesn't exist naturally in its metal form"
Then you said this...
"And as a "metal" it's the most abundant within the earths crust"
Actually, the upper layer of the earth's crust, called SIAL because it is composed of rocks rich in silicate and aluminium minerals. Aluminum occurs most frequently as a compound called alum (potassium aluminum sulfate).
What's your point? - When has what you refer to "pure aluminium" been found in nature.
Regarding poison, the most toxic heavy metals are Lead, Mercury., Iron.
Cadmium, Thallium, Bismuth and as a semi metal - Arsenic. Again, these are abundant and all around us in our daily lives. The metals may enter the body by ingestion, inhalation or absorption through the skin or mucous membranes. They are then stored in the soft tissues of the body. The heavy metals once absorbed, compete with other ions and bind to proteins, leading to impaired enzymatic activity resulting in damage to many organs throughout the body. Saying that, heavy metal poisoning is rare, even in industries where there is an increased risk of exposure.
However, in micro quantities our body is composed of almost every natural element found in nature. This is as true for metals as it is for water or carbon - a “metal” is any element other than hydrogen or helium. Iron for example is contained in hemoglobin and myoglobin which are required for oxygen transport in the body. Anemia is the primary consequence of iron deficiency. High iron levels on the other hand can enlarge the liver, may provoke diabetes and cardiac failure. The genetic disease hemochromatosis results from excess iron absorption.
Returning to aluminium - what's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JAFTW
Yes, because that's what the perpetrators of this CT have lead them to believe in a desperate attempt to gain credence to their ridiculous hoax - where in reality, nothing that you mention has anything to with the trails that these people are misidentifying. Solar radiation management is not known as 'Strategic Aerosol Injection', that is simply one branch of it. Incidentally, that would be 'Stratospehric Aerosol Injection'. Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails...what precisely is your point?
Marine cloud brightening has been confined to isolated experiment whilst cirrus cloud thinning is precisely the opposite of the contrails that all these claims were based upon. Neither would result in a trail.
As is the case with SAI, CCT is purely the province of mathematical modelling. The basis of your claim was this:
"The U.S. gvmnt. has been openly using geoengineering practices for ten plus years."
Not in the case of Solar Radiation Management they haven't which as explained to you, with the exception of ground based albedo modification and a couple of experiments into marine cloud brightening is entirely hypothetical.
Cloud seeding meanwhile has nothing to do with geoengineering and neither are related to the persistent trails in the wake of jet aircraft.
1
-
"why are the bugs dying? Butterflies, bees, trees?"
Because the only possible cause is those thin white trails six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand. There is no other conceivable explanation, no ground pollution, no varied causes of environmental stress, no contamination, no encroachment of habitat - nothing, just "chemtrails".
"Please see the lady who was a California crops claims adjuster for the State of California. She lays out the whole story"
Oh jeez, you mean Rosalind Peterson. Ok, let's do this if we really must. As you correctly said, this is Rosalind Peterson a crops loss claims adjuster. Think of her as a sort of agricultural insurance broker. You may also have discovered the related footage of her purported testimony to the UN. It wasn't. It was an annual climate conference held at the UN. Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC is simply the name of her website.
In 2012 Peterson concluded that there she did not think there was any good evidence to show the trails were anything other than normal contrails. Here's the full quote...
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate.And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft."
She is talking about her decision not to get involved in a lawsuit against "chemtrails". She refused because she is also "smart enough" to realise that there is a complete lack of substantive empirical evidence and that the claimed 'science' is total garbage.
What her partners Forgette and Dicicco failed to understand themselves is that they had become embroiled in a money spinning shameful scaremongering hoax originally perpetrated by Coast to Coast AM, since exploited by charlatans such as Clifford Carnicom and A.C. Griffith, who similarly infiltrated the Mt. Shasta movement, who then, abetted by Michael J. Murphy, spread the hoax even wider. Unsurprisingly, the supposed court case never materialised.
What the proponents of this or any 'lawsuit' need to understand themselves is that all of these connections will be scrutinised by the judicial system and will be examined and once known, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. Everyone involved will be screwed, their questionable credibility shot. This is precisely why this so called 'mountain of evidence' never progresses beyond the fringe sections of YouTube, fake news sites and biased subjective conspiracy sites. It is also why this theory has not been independently subjected to the scientific method and no legitimate studies have been published.
That is where this "lawsuit" was heading, and Rosalind Peterson was shrewd enough to jump ship. She has since distanced herself from the chemtrails hoax entirely. What's your point?
"Pilots have lawsuites because they are getting ill from breathing all this shit in."
I'm aware of the case of Matt Bass - likely cause, organophosphate poisoning although in the case of Bass, the results from the post-mortem were inconclusive. Aerotoxic syndrome is caused by the “bleed air” system to filter air through cabins. Air is sucked into the engine compressor (the cold part of the engine) before it is siphoned off into the air-conditioning units, where it mixes with the recirculated cabin air. Problems occur when the oil used to lubricate the combustion parts of the engine heat up and chemicals leak back through damaged or inefficient seals into the compressor – and from there into cabin air. Filters in the air-conditioning units are designed to remove bacteria, viruses and dust. Obvious leaks, identified by smoke or are known as fume events and can cause acute toxicity, with symptoms ranging from runny nose to memory loss, severe headaches, loss of balance and muscle weakness. But the constant low-level, stealth seepages are, crew and pilots claim, just as much of a problem. Here you go...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/world-health-organisation-report-toxic-cabin-air/
1
-
1
-
"GEOENGINEERING TRAILS ARE REAL.and its true, its not necessarily dangerous.. It's being done to block the sun et cetera"
The branch of geoengineering that you are referring to is called Solar Radiation Management and aside from ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening - is entirely hypothetical. It does not aim to block the sun per se, rather seeks to reduce incoming insolation. The Main thrust of this is a principle called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is intended to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Again, SAI is a hypothetical concept, has not progressed beyond research proposal and computer model, would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails you are seeing, and would not even result in one. You are simply describing aircraft contrails.
"I'm not gonna sit here and listen to this guy try to tell me that something I'm seeing with my own eyes ,that I'm not seeing."
No one disputes what you are seeing, as I said, those are contrails. SAI doesn't exist and beyond the planned SCoPEx trail involving a balloon and a few kilos of still to be determined material, it's unlikely that it ever will due to the sheer impossibility of international governance.
"Trails from the back of planes with spaced propellents that propel the trail in one direction or the other"
What?
"Exactly spaced rivulets that vaporize outward"
I think you're describing fallstreaks and pendules here from the sound of it. Also, contrails don't vapourise as such, they sublimate.
"And you're telling me that that is vapor from from temperature difference from a plane going through a cloud ???"
No one is telling you that.
"et cetera or meeting the cold atmosphere??"
Ambient air temperature is one factor, yes.
"Since when does vapor stay in the sky for the 20 minutes that it's spreading, but for hours later?"
The air is constantly full of water vapour. Water vapour is an invisible gas. Respectfully, please let me explain this to you, because your knowledge of meteorology and aviation seems to be somewhat limited and it is simply a case of understanding what you are looking at. And please, don't get indignant as a result. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of the combustion process are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. The aircraft exhaust was merely the trigger event where 99% of the ice is from atmospheric origin. Exactly the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
"And it seems to me that it's always people being smug about it ..they can never just say their side of the argument ..the people who stand against the theories always come at it like the people who believe it are crazy and that in itself says a lot...I mean either you don't care that you look stupid or someone's either paying you to keep your mouth shut ..maybe it's the media outlet that you're on.. Who knows what your motivations are.. But people who can't discuss with facts and immediately start calling someone crazy because they disagree with them.. Even if they're claiming it's just an observation...is a red flag"
The trails that you are describing, persistent spreading contrails, have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.The science behind this is supported by physical laws and mathematical axioms meaning that is self-evident, ineluctable and has a voice of its own. Nothing to do with differing 'arguments' or opinions. I am perfectly happy to discuss this or the unrelated field of geoengineering research with you further in a civil an courteous manner.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The_Not_So_Great_Cornholio
They aren't. Not sure why you think that they are.
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
The expansion that you refer to tells you that all you are seeing is condensed atmospheric water vapour. What chemical can similarly linger and increase in mass? Also, the weight of material in these trails are measured at millions of lbs - vastly exceeding the MTOW of the aircraft producing them.
Contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or, they may not necessarily form at all. This is dependent upon the prevailing atmospheric conditions and the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. At the altitude that aircraft cruise, the temperatures are very low. In cases of high RHi and sufficiently low vapour pressure, a contrail will endure because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible gaseous phase - water vapour. If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will not only persist, but will grow and increase in mass. The water in the jet engine exhaust has merely precipitated the trail, where 99% of the ice budget is being drawn from the available moisture in the atmosphere. This is precisely why contrails can be over 100 miles in length and weigh millions of lbs. No different to a cloud - which is ultimately all that they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
Why do you people take such exception to being challenged?
"So, in a round about way, you are saying that they did manipulate the weather. And that they did it 50 years ago."
I didn't say anything of the sort. Experimentation into cloud seeding dates back seventy years. It depends what you mean by 'manipulate the weather'. As I explained cloud seeding is an attempt to modify it on a local scale and it certainly isn't anything remotely close to controlling it.
"So, why does it sound like you are saying the opposite?"
No idea - seems to be a lot to do with your own lack of comprehension.
"I didnt mention the potential effects beyond the fact the US Gov had promised not to do it anymore, because the actual impact could not be determined."
The US government did not pledge that at all. There are county and state sponsored cloud seeding schemes all across the USA in addition to private businesses that specialise in it. You are referring to 'The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (Geneva: May 18, 1977, which prohibits "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury".This includes the deployment of cloud seeding on the battlefield.
"To say it is a 'technical impossibility' says to me that you know about as much as the person i was saying was an inept expert. That or you need a refresher course on the English language."
I said that "controlling the weather" is a technical impossibility, which it is. Cloud seeding is not "controlling the weather" it is an attempt to modify it on the local/micro scale with very unpredictable and erratic results.
"How would you know it is impossible? What was done 50 years ago remains our capabilities?"
To repeat - what was done 50 years ago was not "controlling the weather".
"These sound like the ramblings of an utterly unscientific mind. And one that is naïve to how newly developed technologies are created and controlled/utilised."
There is no emergent or nascent technology that can control the weather. As I said, it is a physical impossibility. Science itself and the physical laws that it answers to tells you that - and since the latter are axiomatic, they have a voice of their own.
We can discuss the science in detail if you wish - your choice.
"Go back to bed buddy. If anything untoward is going on, you cant help us solve it...."
What precisely do you mean by "anything untoward"? There is nothing secretive or mysterious surrounding the principles of cloud seeding and the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified contrails that naive conspiracy believers term 'chemtrails?.
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
Oh Jeez, you were almost there until you disappeared arse end up into the conspiratorial rabbit hole talking about testosterone and fluoride.
You are a tad confused about cloud seeding. The practice aims to introduce additional nucleation into existing clouds that are already conducive to precipitation to prematurely induce or intensify rainfall. This is why, from aircraft, it is usually conducted at comparatively low altitudes, typically in the region of 2,000 - 6,500ft, in order to target existing stratiform/cumulus masses.
Cloud seeding is dispersed via at least four methods--[1] Aircraft, most commonly light aricraft retrofitted with flares containing 16.5 grams of silver iodide. A typical run lasting 90 minutes will dispense around 150grams of AgI into the cloud mass. [2] Burn sticks containing silver iodide, placed in desirable spots on the ground. [3] Rockets, often also fired in order to prevent the formation of crop-damaging hail (some tea growers also use them], sometimes with radar-reflecting "needle" wire dipoles scattered through the silver iodide, to enable tracking of the release points; some hail rockets are at least partially reusable. [4] Surplus AA (antiaircraft) guns, whose shells contain silver iodide instead of high explosive. The Chinese make extensive use of cloud-seeding AA guns, - the shells' fuses can be set to burst at any desired altitude within the guns altitude capabilities.
The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant by peer-reviewed research. Moreover, cloud seeding does not leave a lasting trail and is not conducted in the stratosphere where contrails are formed and there are no rain bearing clouds.
I'm sorry, to reiterate, cloud seeding is not controlling the weather. It is an attempt to modify it on the micro scale and actually very unreliable. It does not create rain clouds and it is very hard to quantify. Controlling the weather is a technical impossibility.
If yo wish to term cloud seeding as 'chemtrails' then more fool you - your choice, but don't expect to be taken seriously in the real world or rational circles outside of the internet.
To clarify again. Cloud seeding may prematurely induce rainfall and that may mean that it happens in an area that it would not, but this is very hit and miss and hardly the definition of control. Cloud seeding is an attempt to influence the weather on the micro scale. Control of the weather at the local, macro or synoptic scale is a technical impossibility.
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
"Its a bad start for you"
Why? - by your decree? You need to understand that simply saying something over the internet does not make it true.
"Fluoride in our water supplies, and micro plastics in our water due to our use of plastics have both been proven to significantly drop testosterone levels. And it is also factual that levels have dropped on average in males by 40% since 1970. I didnt say there was a nefarious plan in place to lower testosterone, simply the fact that this mess, thanks to fluoride and micro plastics, has unfolded."
Firstly, you clearly need to comprehend that fluoride is not added by all water authorities. Because it can strengthen and re-mineralise damaged enamel, making it more resistant to decay, it may be added to public drinking water and also toothpaste and mouthwash. Fluoride is a mineral that occurs in nature and is also naturally present in water, including our food. Where additions are made it is less than 0.1 ppm. Long term, fluorine/fluoride may affect serum SHBG and testosterone level in adult males but no direct causality has been established and test subjects and studies have focussed upon excess fluoride intake. You'll find a lot of scaremongering on the internet that has leapt on several pivotal publications/papers but omits to mention that these are still inconclusive in addition to the high levels of concentration of the test subjects.
In respect of microplastics, they are not only present in our food and water, but in the air we breath. Our households alone are full of them. It has been demonstrated that chronic exposure to microplastics induced male reproductive toxicity and decreased testosterone levels.
There are a multitude of potential causes for the decline in testosterone that you mention and as is usually the case cannot be attributed to a sole factor in isolation. It could be increased obesity/BMI, assay variations, diet/phytoestrogens, declined exercise and physical activity, fat percentage, drug use, and as you suggest, environmental toxins.
"You can waffle technicalities of cloud seeding until the cows come home. I understand the official stance on it."
There's no waffle in my reply whatsoever. And that clearly isn't the case as you have demonstrated from your previous comments.
"What i wont countenance is the assumption by you that nefarious plots could not be underway, using some of the techniques we actually know about. I am not arguing for the reality that they are or are not being undertaken, but that the possibility for it to occur through insidious measures exists"
That entirely depends upon what you are referring to. If you are now shifting the goalposts away from the known principles of cloud seeding, of course a government or authority may be deceiving or acting covertly without the knowledge of the public. Governments are often self-serving and may act without the people's consent. Should we trust them? Of course not, but that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that your government is always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.Simply because a government has lied historically it does not then follow that chemtrails (or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) or one's paranoia or suspicions must therefore be true. - A syllogistic logical fallacy.
"If I wanted to poison certain areas of the planet, and I had the resources and institutions in place to enact it, I could do it using much of the technology used to perform cloudseeding currently."
🤣Good luck with that. I can't think of anything more ineffectual and blatant.
You clearly didn't read my response to you that you branded 'waffle' - and yet again, you demonstrate that you have zero understanding of the practice of cloud seeding.
"Unless you are telling me that no potential toxins fit the bill as a compound for water molecules to gravitate towards and bind to, allowing the 'rain' to fall where i wanted it to mostly?"
You seem to have absolutely no understanding of the factors affecting toxicity.
"Anyway, it would be entirely feasible for these chemtrails, which dont seem to act like normal water vapour, to be a form of cloudseeding."
What 'chemtrails'? Chemtrails are simply misidentified contrails. What the hell are you talking about? Water vapour is an invisible gas. As I explained to you - at the altitude that contrails are formed, there are no rain bearing clouds to seed, which is why it needs to be conducted at a comparatively low altitude - stratiform and cumulus masses. Contrails are simply condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals. their duration and length are governed by ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Contrails expand and spread due to supersaturation and when the latter prevent sublimation. In such cases water vapour in the jet exhaust is merely the trigger, 99% of the trail is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture which is why they can contain millions of lbs of ice.
I dont think you have the first idea how our major political and financial institutions were formed, why they were formed, or the agenda they operate within. Would you like a history lesson? I can make time for you buddy :)"
If it's anything remotely approaching your tenuous grasp of science and nature, I think I'll pass on that if it's all the same to you.
"Our definition of 'control weather' may differ slightly, but otherwise, i am talking hypothetical possibility, and you may be talking purely about cloudseeding in relation to the semantics of the word 'control'."
And you would be wrong again. To clarify, control of the weather is a technical impossibility. We can attempt to modify it in the micro scale - and cloud seeding is one such example of that, but outright control is impossible. Clear now?
"Cloudseeding is not my area of expertise2
Y'don't say.
"but history, world politics and political subversion are. To make the leap of faith that all these areas are controlled by well intentioned people, who's mistakes are incompetent rather than complicit by design is a foolish stance to take."
'Hanlon's Razor'. As I have already said, it is an unfortunate fact, however, that a minority of conspiracies do in fact exist and some folks seem to treat them as justification rather than exceptions that prove the rule
"I started this thread, unable to accept the use of the world impossible, to describe theories about nefarious plans surrounding cloudseeding. I never said anyone was doing it, only that it was possible."
And my response was simply that control of the weather is a technical impossibility - which it is.
"If you were saying people wouldnt do that stuff nefariously, then i would at least see where you are coming from. Are you saying cloudseeding could not be used to poison parts of the planet using toxic rain fall, enabled by cloudseeding technologies?"
Using the practices that I outlined to you - no it would not be possible due to the negligible quantities of the materials that it allows you to deploy. If you are then suggesting that a tanker could be filled with chemicals which are then released into the atmosphere, that would no longer be under the guise of cloud seeding would it? There was a from memory a technique employed in Malaysia I think, using large vats of saline solution deployed from the back of Hercules aircraft, but if you wanted to 'poison the population' it's hard to think of a more ineffectual method. Which makes the notion of contrails being 'chemtrails' at six to eight miles above your head even the more comical.
"Im not asking if you think it is being done, only if you think it is possible"
It's not just that it isn't possible, it's more a question of why would you? It would be utterly ineffectual, impossible to conceal at the quantities of material you would need to even make the slightest impression in which case, you may as well launch an outright chemical attack. There's a reason why Assad drops barrel bombs on his own civilians as opposed to dressing it up as a cloud seeding operation.
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
My reply is split into two posts due to the length.
"And now i know what kind of mind I am dealing with :)"
So a self-proclaimed armchair psychologist in addition to historian and scientist then?
"You have made your mind up clearly - We both recognise the symptoms of the last 50 years upon humanity - I simply suggest that it may not be accidental. You say it cant be proved - That does not mean it is not happening, just because you didnt receive a report on it."
If you are referring to falling testosterone, I pointed out that there are a myriad of variables that are likely to be responsible as opposed to one single factor. I also said that science has not established causality between this decline and exposure to fluoride. There is correlation demonstrated, but only in cases of high concentrations.
"What kind of vegetable would provide reports on nefarious actions, so you could easily uncover it?"
What on earth are you talking about? If there is a clear link then independent scientific enquiry will identify it. As I said, where additions are made to water (and not all water authorities do) it is less than 0.1 ppm.
"What you are aware of, and the depths to which certain people may sink, is covered by a largely bought and paid for set of communication channels."
The absolute default claim of the conspiratorial mindset. As I said, it's no use alleging something if you can't qualify it or are able to offer zero in the way of empirical evidence. I have no regard for "bought for or paid for set of communication channels". We are talking about the scientific method and independent enquiry. I also share the indictment on private sector involvement in the peer review process - particularly in respect of the proliferation of low quality journals and the institutional pressure to publish marginal or trivial findings, but it is easy to exaggerate the extent to which this impedes discovery. Scrutiny through peer review is still rigorous and although far from flawless, this independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee. Moreover, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or institutional interest. Irrespective of any views upon the power wielded by either peer pressure or private industry or mainstream communication channels, fraud and malpractice in science is no more common - and harder to get away with than other professions. This is quite simply because we have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method - which if correctly employed would not only validate any findings, but act as a leveller. Also, being governed by laws and axioms, science has a voice of its own.
To remind you - it was you that stated that it had been proven that fluoride is causing a drop in testosterone levels. This is demonstrably false.
"Shame you are not interested in a history lesson - That is my forte"
I actually wonder whether you manage to keep a straight face when writing this nonsense. ou probably do since you seem to have zero in the way of self-awareness, irony and a rather over inflated view of your own self-worth. No thanks, I prefer to listen to historians and heed history itself as opposed to a Dunning-Kruger afflicted pseudo-intellectual over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
"Population control has always been a barometer to which they aspire. You might call it coincidental and multi variant in its causation, but that does not in any way means it is unintentional."
Ah, the mysterious "they". That old chestnut. Tell me, how's that coming along?
"You probably think Putin is a monster, but he is simply one side of the same coin. I agree he is a monster, but i know that he is aligned with many more monsters, many of whom drape your national flag around their shoulders."
What national flag would that be?
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
"Where you simply trust, like a naïve child, i have serious reservations about those who govern us. Based on the many lies, murders and multiple sources of 'human devolution' occurring, coupled with the structure of world governance we have in place, I have little faith in the humanity of those that lead us."
At no stage have I mentioned "trust"? - quite the reverse. To reiterate, Governments are often self-serving and may act without the people's consent. Should we trust them? Of course not, but that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that your government is always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.Simply because a government has lied historically it does not then follow that chemtrails (or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) or one's paranoia or suspicions must therefore be true. - A syllogistic logical fallacy.
"You say it wouldnt be possible to feasibly poison people without having that truth uncovered. But, you are not cutting edge on these principles. The truth is you and me have no idea what is concocted behind closed doors."
Do you have an army of straw men at your disposal? I said nothing of the sort. I said that controlling the weather was impossible and that using cloud seeding - or alleged 'chemtrails' as a method of "poisoning people" would be laughably ineffective and utterly pointless.
"However, the facts on the ground tell their own story, while you say you can attribute it to multiple possibilities and refuse to countenance the possibility of intent, it does nothing to either confirm or dispel that reality."
Yes they do - and we know the factors that are responsible. Aircraft contrails and cloud seeding are not amongst them.
"My concern is that I no longer doubt that we have been systematically and subversively attacked for generations. The systems and institutions in place currently, have continually lied to us for generations too. A real history lesson would at least inform you that the elements who sit atop our pillars of society are nefarious individuals with no moral compass among them. From the League of Nations, to the CFR, to the UN, and the soon be be concocted Global UN 2.0, the power structure that governs us is now moving away from national sovereignty and into global control. Your ability to make decisions, which your elected leaders are supposed to enact, is being stolen from you right now. Again, this is not a response to the unfolding political landscape. The unfolding landscape is the catalyst for this change in global power. You are stuck where you are - Your health has deteriorated, reproductively and physically, your energy supplies are on the ropes, you are fearful of nuclear war, your economy is being collapsed right now. If you dont believe it is a concocted plan, then you must be utterly terrified by the apparent incompetence that is leading us down this path. Either way, you are soon going to cry out for a newly formed governing body, to help ease your multi-faceted burdens."
As I said, governments will always betray their people - but if you can't identify where and when and how, then your supposition is utterly worthless. Everything that you detail here is an inevitable consequence of technological acceleration outpacing ethics, mass consumerism, the resurgence of nationalism and systems which are unsustainable. And yes - political incompetence is rife. Again, Hanlon's Razor - It is an unfortunate fact that a minority of conspiracies do in fact exist and some folks seem to treat them as justification rather than exceptions that prove the rule.
"Where you see chaos, i see design. I stressed clearly that i have no idea if these type of atmospheric technologies are being used to poison. To me, it is simply one more area where they could."
I don't see chaos - I see science. Nature is inherently chaotic and ultimately the greatest leveller. What atmospheric technologies? As I said, cloud seeding which you referred to would be a comically useless way to attempt mass poisoning of populations - and if it were occurring through atmospheric deployment, it would be detectable. We are poisoning ourselves and the planet through industrial and urban pollution and choking on our own consumption.
"That is all this is about - Transferring power from independently elected representatives, to unelected global governing bodies. Granted, back in 2001, i estimated that Syria and Iran would be used as the catalyst for this change - 20 years ago. However, the ends are the same, however it is sold to us on the ground. There is an inescapable march happening, and it happens right under your nose. And once more I state with absolute certainty, whatever is unfolding, you have no ability to help society at all. Soon, your rational and not intellectually devoid mind will cry out for that dystopian structure. You will do that because you are always playing catch up. We all got too comfortable, we all got too far from the power structure we need to enact our wishes."
"Dystopian structure" - nice oxymoron. I like that.
"You and me are equally screwed. So, dont tell me that the drop in male testosterone is not by design. Dont tell me that Covid was a natural outbreak, governed by well intentioned idiots."
It certainly isn't by design. It is a consequence of a range of factors. All the evidence points to the fact that SARS-CoV-19 was due to a zoonotic leap. I am not telling you anything - science tells us that. If you wish to contend otherwise you need to present your data as opposed to your beliefs.
"You are not stupid clearly. But, you are so far behind the curve, that you simply dont even begin to look with objectivity."
Objectivity? Jesus, is unintentional irony a national sport in your country? I suggest that you read your own posts back as cringeworthy an exercise as that will be for you (assuming that you had even a modicum of self awareness).
"You see chaos - I see clear design. I am no Nostradamus, but amazing how predictable every step has been over the last 25 years that I have been paying proper attention."
No - I look for independent verification and evidence through proven causal relationships as opposed to assumption, supposition and conjecture over subjects and topics of which there is clearly an significant absence of knowledge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Pilots have nothing to do with fueling the plane, nor do the ground crew have anything to do with checking the chemical makeup of the fuel for extra additives."
Fuel storage facilities are normally located on the periphery of the airport, far from where the aircraft receive their fuel. Transfer fuel lines often pass under aircraft runways or taxiways or tankers will convey it to the aprons. Fuel is tested upon delivery. An engine failing in flight, because of fuel starvation, is a situation all pilots and airlines would like to avoid. In order to do so, and to ensure the continuing accuracy of the FQI, performing thorough fuel checks before start, throughout the flight and after arrival at the parking stand is essential
You appear to be suggesting that it would be a routine endeavour for the mysterious "they" to impregnate jet fuel with some additive that you are unable to specify which creates the trails that you are seeing.
"There are innumerable scenarios whereby nobody in the airline industry would even have a clue they are aiding in the process, so no need to worry about them blowing the coverup."
Nobody in the airline industry? So, you are therefore suggesting that the petrochemical organisations that produce and refine jet fuel have been collectively co opted, coerced and controlled by some secretive initiative intent on impregnating the fuel that they supply for two decades whilst the entire aviation sector worldwide and jet engine manufacturers remain completely ignorant to this. Ok then.
"Not once when i was a kid did a plane fly over and the trails stayed and then filled the sky"
Then you weren't looking very hard then. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. The following image from a meteorology text book is 75 years old:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
Since the 1970s commercial aviation worldwide has undergone huge unregulated growth. The amount of air traffic and routes flown have soared so the phenomena you refer to is far more prevalent.
"from a single plane not increased traffic."
A single plane "filling the sky"?? No you haven't - and if you had, you'd need to explain how. Any idea of the weight of material contained in these persistent spreading contrails and the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't. You also need to actually name these mysterious chemicals that when released are not only able to linger, but expand and increase in mass just like - well no shit - condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"Same with crosshatching and looping patterns."
You mean course changes and holding patterns?
Crosshatching? - The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"Maybe it's just like those old garbage cars, spewing smoke as they pass...maybe the planes just need a tune-up."
Condensation? No not really. Are you equally perplexed by a cloud?
"Maybe we need to look into it a little more than just calling folks "Conspiracy Theorists", because they ask a question you don't like."
Maybe we just need to learn some very rudimentary aviation and meteorological science before gullibly consuming and regurgitating a dumb online hoax derived from the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
1
-
@ancientclown
"What area of the world am i speaking of when i refer to observations in the sky?"
You didn't specify. Where are you located?
"There are a great many places that don't see a high degree of airline traffic...being off the beaten path and all....there are also areas Commercial travel is just not allowed to fly over."
That do see these supposed contrails? Such as? - that are relevant to this discussion?
"And yes, i have seen a single trail stay from one side of the horizon to the other"
So have I - very common...a persistent contrail well in excess of 100 miles long. Like I said, have you any idea of the weight of material contained in one of these trails and the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
"Don't tell me what i have and haven't seen, deal with the data as you get it"
You post intimated that one aircraft had filled an entire sky. Read it back. Data? I invite you to actually provide some, you could be the first chemtrail believer to do so. What you actually gave was anecdotal personal incredulity. Given that you claim that the sky is full of these alleged 'chemtrails', there should be thousands of in-situ analyses at source to choose from using optical array spectrometry. Just one will do. In your own time.
"continually expand until the sky was completely overcast, it took less than an hour"
You surely realise that the atmospheric processes that produce persistent spreading contrails will also produce cloud cover - because after all, they are one and the same. As requested, could you identify these strange chemicals that are able to linger and increase in mass? - just like, well what d'ya know? - condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"and they DON'T look like clouds"
How convenient for you to say so...and why would that be? (Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning).
"I have absolutely no idea how or why"
That much is abundantly clear.
"but i do know that's not normal"
I assure you it is - as I said, it's called condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"Trust me, i know what con trails look like, i know sometimes they can be short, sometimes long and sometimes you can't even see them at all and all that without any degree....just by a lifetime of observing. (Which has also made me familiar with cloud formations)"
Then why do you subscribe to the chemtrail hoax? - because aircraft contrails and meteorological phenomena are precisely what you are seeing.
1
-
@ancientclown
"Let me start where you finished off. Not once did i say anything about chem trails."
This is a video about "chemtrails" You said that the trails that you are seeing are "not normal". You questioned horizon to horizon trails and the fact that they expand which by your own admission you do not understand. You also cast aspersions upon the chemical additives in jet fuel, whilst referring to a "coverup". So what precisely are you saying?
"I only pointed out Pilots don't need to be in on it, IF something nefarious were occurring."
In on what? What do you mean by something nefarious? And actually, no you didn't. Ludicrously, you also suggested that there are "innumerable ways" that this "nefarious" activity could be concealed from the airline industry.
"it could be a terrorist plot"
What could be? the persistent contrails that you are describing? A "terrorist plot" that occurs daily around the world? and what does this have to do with your insistence that: "not once when i was a kid did a plane fly over and the trails stayed and then filled the sky."?
"It's funny, that though i didn't specify any locations, you were already telling me how air traffic can cause all these things...but you didn't have any of the data about traffic frequency or altitudes, nor did you ask before shaming me for not knowing the obvious....is that sound science making conclusions without seeking any data?"
I have asked you your location and I have requested data - yes? All that I can go on is your anecdotal claims and form your descriptions, the fact that you clearly don't understand what you are seeing. Horizon to horizon contrails and persistent spreading contrails in addition to the flight patterns and grids that you observe are perfectly normal, as are the accompanying phenomena that produce them.
"Perhaps if you folks stop being so condescending and judgmental, you might learn even more stuff than everything you think you already know."
Said the one making ill-informed statements and unsubstantiated allegations. Atmospheric science is my background, however, I am irrelevant. Your dispute appears to be with civil aviation regulations and the physical laws that govern atmospheric science - both of which have a voice of their own and both of which are independently verifiable.
"You sound like the guy that told Jocelyn Bell she was only observing interference when she really discovered Pulsars."
Difference being Jocelyn Bell is an astrophysicist and an expert in her field who abides by empiricism, is able to substantiate he claims and adheres to the scientific method - as opposed to random You Tube user that defends a baseless scientifically illiterate hoax predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails and lacks even the remotest understanding of aviation or basic meteorology.
"If she'd of listened to him and ignored it, then we'd still be in the dark."
Instead she was able to qualify her hypothesis. In the 25 years of this hoax, there is not a shred of evidence in support of the chemtrail theory.
"When i say the trail filled the sky, i don't just mean from one side to the other, i mean as in, no more sun or blue stuff behind it. It looks more like a high level fog or weird haze than clouds, which seems unusual on a clear day, when there's not a cloud in the sky."
Yes, a persistent spreading contrail. Would you like me to explain the physical process behind this?
"I've travelled alot in my days, coast to coast Canada and across the States, and i've been well off the beaten path many a time, places you are lucky if you see or hear a plane at all in the day, let alone any high traffic."
And I have done the same. both in your own North American continent and across the world. What's your point?
"I don't have enough data to come up with any answers or theories...all i have are questions as to why that would occur when the data at hand doesn't seem to say it should?"
What data at hand doesn't say it should? The physical laws that govern contrail growth are known and understood. And as I said, persistent contrails have been measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered flight. There are hundreds upon hundreds of analytical studies into their formation and evolution.
This particular paper from 1972 uses optical array spectrometry to measure the growth in the ice budget of a persistent contrail. Precisely what you are witnessing. At the very least read the introduction.
http://cires1.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf
You have still yet to answer my question. Do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in the persistent spreading trails that you are witnessing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them?
1
-
@ancientclown
"again, at no point do i say chem trails, and only describe ABNORMAL events. My point being, you were the one that stuck me in the chem trail conspiracy group when i was just asking questions....i increase my knowledge."
And to reiterate, on a video about "chemtrails" you said that the trails that you are seeing are "not normal". You questioned horizon to horizon trails and the fact that they expand which by your own admission you do not understand. You also cast aspersions upon the chemical additives in jet fuel, whilst referring to a "coverup". So that'll be 'trails' and alleged 'chemicals' then. Moreover, you did not "ask questions", rather made a series of rather arrogant, ill-informed statements.
"Think you need to read this again; ""I only pointed out Pilots don't need to be in on it, IF something nefarious were occurring." because though you think you know what it says, you obviously don't understand what it means."
That was not what you said in your OP - that was you furiously backtracking later. Also, "in on what" precisely?
"You're also lacking in humour"
On the contrary, I found this hilarious..."There are innumerable scenarios whereby nobody in the airline industry would even have a clue they are aiding in the process, so no need to worry about them blowing the coverup."
And again, I'll ask you, what "coverup" are you referring to?
"No...you didn't ask where, time of year, weather, altitude, or anything until AFTER i pointed that out. Yet you were already throwing your science all over the place, showing off all these grand deductions without any of the data...."
The burden of proof is upon you to provide that data - the onus does no lie with me to establish an absent or negative based upon your personal incredulity. All you offered was anecdote - and from what you described which is all I had to go on, there is nothing abnormal about your observations.
"and NO, contrails that remain and expand covering the entire sky on a clear and sunny afternoon is not normal...."
Could you explain why? I take it that you're also perplexed by the emergence of cirrus clouds?
"The data at hand would not suggest that a contrail should completely cover the sky"
"A contrail" would not have "covered the sky". However if the conditions were conducive to the formation of a persistent spreading contrail then it is entirely likely that they would support the growth of cirrus clouds too, which is all that a contrail is.
"Again, i've never said they were chemtrails"
I'll ask you again - what actually are you saying then?
"...You again fail to understand what was said and instead start making baseless claims against me.
Jocelyn Bell was a student at the time and the scientist used her work to claim the Nobel prize..the same scientist that said: "Nothing to see here", gotta love the strong morals of scientists. He claimed there was a difference between the Captain of the ship and the crew saying; "land ho", yet his ego failed to recognize there is also a difference between the owner of the ship and the captain that charts a course through the waters of discovery, when the owner is saying it's just turbulence go around it."
And you with your appalling analogy fail to understand that you are not Jocelyn Bell, who actually understood what she was observing and was able to produce evidence to substantiate it. All that you have offered is baseless anecdote based upon your flawed observations and misunderstanding of aviation and atmospheric science. I urge you to read your OP once more.
"When i'm talking about being off the beaten path and you say (and notice how i actually take what you say and not make up what you say), "And I have done the same. both in your own North American continent and across the world. What's your point?" When you fail to recognize the point of that, how do you hope to understand any of the rest?"
But you didn't make one. You have travelled North America off the beaten track where you don't see an aircraft...that's all you said. So what? Again, what's your point? To remind you, this is what you said...
"I've travelled alot in my days, coast to coast Canada and across the States, and i've been well off the beaten path many a time, places you are lucky if you see or hear a plane at all in the day, let alone any high traffic."
So have I. What's your point? If you are contending that you then witnessed these trails, then clearly, contrary to your belief, you actually were in an area traversed by air traffic.
"You're not being scientific when you make claims like .
"This particular paper from 1972 uses optical array spectrometry to measure the growth in the ice budget of a persistent contrail. Precisely what you are witnessing." Reaching conclusions without any data, because you are smarter than everyone else, and you don't need it.
You queried how a contrail was able to expand. You have not provided any data - simply anecdote. As the one contending that your observations were abnormal, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why. All I can do is go by what you are saying and such anecdote is worthless.
"When you are in areas that don't receive alot of air traffic and suddenly have planes flying overhead crosshatching the sky....that's not normal."
Again, it suggests merely that contrary to your misconception, the area in question does indeed receive air traffic. But again, this is simply your own anecdotal insistence again.
"When you have a perfectly clear summer afternoon and a plane flies over and the contrail fills the sky and blots out the sun....that's not normal."
Could you explain why?
"If it was, with all the air traffic we would never see the sun"
A contrail may be short lived, persistent or persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Whether it does or not is governed by the interrelationship between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Are you equally perplexed by daily variations in cloud cover?
"Now i'd reach up and grab some samples, but i'm still a little short and not having all kinds of fancy equipment only leaves me with questions, not jumping to conclusions."
As I have explained to you - there are thousands of in-situ analytical studies of contrails using ground based remote sensing...yet none of your supposed abnormal trails. Odd don't you think that the entire branch of atmospheric science and environmental monitoring worldwide remain oblivious to these supposed abnormalities. Perhaps they're as in the dark as the global aviation sector? You know better though.
I'll ask you again; could you identify the precise chemical that can not only linger, but expand and increase in mass...wait for it....just like condensed atmospheric water vapour. Also, do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in a horizon to horizon trail versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
Thought not.
1
-
@ancientclown
"It was only after that i shared what i thought was abnormal from my own experiences, because that's how science works."
No, science works through empiricism and substantiation not worthless anecdote and insistence.
As I said, all that you provided was a series of preconceptions based upon your personal incredulity, stating what you decree to be not normal.
"I was hoping there might be some intelligent people here and the discussion might shift to air quality, etc."
Then actually start by saying something intelligent why don't you? Instead of this for example...
"Pilots have nothing to do with fueling the plane, nor do the ground crew have anything to do with checking the chemical makeup of the fuel for extra additives.There are innumerable scenarios whereby nobody in the airline industry would even have a clue they are aiding in the process, so no need to worry about them blowing the coverup."
and this...
"Not once when i was a kid did a plane fly over and the trails stayed and then filled the sky"
and this...
"I have absolutely no idea how or why, but i do know that's not normal."
and this...
"It looks more like a high level fog or weird haze than clouds, which seems unusual on a clear day, when there's not a cloud in the sky."
and this...
"contrails that remain and expand covering the entire sky on a clear and sunny afternoon is not normal"
and this...
"The data at hand would not suggest that a contrail should completely cover the sky"
and this...
"When you have a perfectly clear summer afternoon and a plane flies over and the contrail fills the sky and blots out the sun....that's not normal. (If it was, with all the air traffic we would never see the sun)"
Perhaps spend some time humbly looking at and reading the links that I provided then exercise a degree of self-appraisal and introspection.
"But i have trouble hearing anything you say with your head so far up your ass."
The irony...was it intentional?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ancientclown
"Did you even watch it, because no he's not saying the same thing and even provided a couple of conspiracy theories proven to be true."
Such as?
"but i can provide many more...numerous black ops to pull from where Government lies to the people.."
Indeed - so can I - but to repeat again because you seem to be struggling here,
that does not automatically afford legitimacy, validity or license to believe in any random conspiracy theory of our arbitrary choice or of one's devising. To conclude such would be a syllogistic logical fallacy, affirming the consequent, through the undistributed middle. Surely you are able to understand that? A simple yes or no will suffice.
"If someone puts forward an argument, in support of a conspiracy theory, we should consider that argument. To simply dismiss an argument because it is a conspiracy theory is a mistake, one with potentially tragic consequence's."
Were you not able to comprehend that?"
Absolutely - but in order to advance that 'theory' for it to gain credence, you would need to substantiate it. There is not one shred of evidence in support of the chemtrails conspiracy theory or the suggestion that your comical claims are anything other than the result of commercial aviation.
"Because there HAVE been many seemingly implausible conspiracy theories that turned out to be true...like the CIA slipping people LSD or bringing and selling Crack in LA."
When was that theorised?
I notice that you have completely disregarded the links that I furnished you with in response to your claims. You are also desperately avoiding my questions. Here they are again:
For the sixth time of asking now. Could you identify these mysterious chemicals that when supposedly secretly added to jet fuel can linger, persist and increase in mass? - just as we would expect condensed atmospheric water vapour to do anyway. Do you have any idea of the weight of material contained in one of those horizon to horizon trails that you identified versus the MTOW of the aircraft that produced it? These trails are in excess of 100 miles long - where could the material possibly be coming from. Again, perhaps look at the Knollenberg study that I provided you with. Then see if you can answer the question this time.
1
-
You are referring to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is entirely hypothetical and has not graduated beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. And it wouldn't use "industrial waste" either, likely sulphates to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols.
The "debris on the top of mountains" that you refer to is nothing more than Dane Wigington (one of the main perpetrators of this fraud) and his attempts to dupe the feeble minded, gullible and scientifically illiterate. He took snow pack samples from the lower slopes of Mount Shasta and had them tested by an analytical laboratory. The international standard test method used is a technique called ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry). This works is by turning the sample into a plasma (essentially a very hot ionised gas, up to about 10,000 degrees C). This breaks down all the substances in the sample into their constituent atoms (ions, to be precise) and then analyses them according to their individual mass. So any substance containing aluminium, whether that is aluminium oxide, or clay, or granite rock, or whatever, will be broken down and give a signal for aluminium ions. This should only be used for (relatively clean) water samples. It is obviously not designed for such samples containing large amounts of solids and sludge. This is why it is impossible to differentiate his supposed sprayed contaminates from existing sources of natural and anthropogenic origin. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eo3064 And you sound like a gullible, naive conspiracy believer that was born yesterday. Aircraft have produced persistent and spreading contrails since the early advent of high altitude powered flight and for the best part of a century. These have been documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied. Your caps lock doesn't make your statement any truer.
In 'Flight to Arras', the legendary French pilot and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 50 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Azmalik786
"what evidence do i have? How about a video taken from my 20 min walk yesterday which clearly shows 5-6 aircraft releasing these so called ‘contrails’?"
That's not evidence - that's simply your own flawed grasp of reality and insistence based upon personal incredulity. Because you have zero understanding of aviation and atmospheric science, you see a contrail and you have gullibly allowed internet conspiracy theorists to provide your explanation as opposed to independent verification through known meteorology. You then think that this substitutes for an education and makes you sound clever and informed over the internet. I have yet to meet one conspiracy believer that actually has even the most rudimentary understanding of the subject or topic that they arrogantly claim authority over.
You said that they are the "same 5-6 'aircrafts [sic] flying round again and again" - prove it. Regarding your video - let's see it then.
"Not only that but 3 weeks in a row everytime these aircraft go around spraying their ‘contrails’ in the sky, the flu, the common cold, COVID, all become rife in the area."
Because of course the sole possible explanation can only be those white trails six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand.
"Is your science the same science which you have been taught from school? The one which believes in the Theory of Evolution and how the sun is bad for us?"
It's not my science and science is not a question of belief. No, it is the same known science that you are ignorant of and is axiomatic and therefore demonstrable and has an independent voice of its own. Science that requires evidence and verification as opposed to ignorant anecdotal claims by a bunch of cretinous gullible clowns over the the comments section of a video entertainment platform. And of course forget science - because online conspiracy theory is entirely consistent, reliable, accurate, informed, not in the least bit deceptive, manipulative or exploitative and being entirely free of agenda, has your best interests at heart. Righto then.
What on earth are you rambling about now? Sunlight is essential as a source of beneficial hormones and vitamins and a boost of serotonin. It can however be very dangerous through exposure to UV radiation which causes premature aging of the skin and damage that can lead to skin cancer. People of all ages and skin tones should limit the amount of time they spend in the sun, especially between mid-morning and late afternoon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes they really did.
Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture.
1
-
@LuisHernandez-of8ho
"no they didn’t"
Yes I assure you that they did. Commercial aviation has seen decades of unregulated growth. There are simply more aircraft in the sky and more routes flown so persistent contrails are more prevalent.
Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of aviation. In 'Flight to Arras' Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
"Myself all my friends and family talk about this all the time when I was younger we would see the trails condensation trails is what they’re called and they would disappear within minutes now they turn into big puffy clouds"
As I said a contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not form at all. In cases in which they linger, conspiracy theorists/believers brand them as chemtrails.
"Stop the bullshit they never turns into clouds when I was a kid everybody my age knows that"
The following image is taken from the pages of a 75 year old meteorology textbook:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
"How old are you anyway how long have you been in the United States"
I am 54 and resident in the UK. However, I have also lived in California and NYC USA and Ontario Canada - and yes, I've observed persistent spreading contrails all of my life. However, I am irrelevant to this conversation. The physical laws that govern contrail formation and persistence are axiomatic and thereby have a voice of their own.
"will you can say that in the 70s and 80s condensation trails turned into giant cloud because that’s fucking bullshit"
No, it's supersaturation and wind shear - basic meteorological science. And why the unnecessary unwarranted abuse?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Where do you think chemtrails started"
I can answer that precisely. In 1996 a paper was published by the Air Force entitled "Weather as a Force Multiplier," in which a group of college researchers speculated about how they could use weather manipulation as a form of combat. The paper was explicitly presented as a work of speculative futurism about what could happen in the year 2023, but it raised suspicions in the civilian community. Allied to this, A poorly researched piece of environmental journalism by William Thomas in 1999 appropriated and misinterpreted the 1991 patent for Welsbach seeding and in 2001, HR 2977, the ludicrous "Space Preservation Act" was accidentally presented to Congress ruining the career of Dennis Kucinich. Astonishingly, all this is still batted about over twenty years later as supposed evidence of the chemtrails hoax.
Against all of this during the late 1990s, shock radio host Art Bell was spreading the notion to his gullible late night audience that contrails were evidence of a government programme of regular chemical spraying. Coast to Coast AM is a commercial radio station and still manufactures sensationalism and conspiracy to order thereby boosting ratings and selling more advertising space. With the advent of the internet, the conspiracy theory industry has burgeoned and through social media and lucrative lunatic enabling platforms such as You Tube suddenly everyone had a voice. On the back of the nonsensical Michael J Murphy movies, homemade footage of regular contrails from commercial aircraft and regular meteorological phenomena began to be captured and uploaded with a clickbait strapline and some "scary" music. Meanwhile at the top of the tree, to those perpetrating this racket, Chemtrails became part of every self proclaimed "truther's" product line with several protagonists now intentionally conflating the hoax with a branch of geoengineering research known as albedo modification - or Solar Radiation Management, which they envisaged would legitimise and afford credence to the scam.
So in response to your question, it was the late night radio shows of Art Bell that originally sold the idea that conventional contrails were evidence of everything from mind control to depopulation. The notion that it was connected to geoengineering (SIA/SRM) s largely attributed to Dane Wigington and his fraudulent geoengineeringwatch website.
Chemtrails are simply a monetised hoax perpetuated through vacuous self-referencing internet echochambers and clickbait confirmation bias. There is not one shred of objective or independent evidence in favour of their existence nor is the theory supported by the physical laws of aviation or atmospheric science.
To return to your original point, what does Operation Popeye have to do with a contrail in the wake of a commercial aircraft?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronlenore6418
You're really not that bright are you? There, you said it again...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research
And as I said, appreciating that 'research' does not involve mindlessly gorging on junk You Tube videos, cherry picked clickbait confirmation bias, quote mining, association fallacy and self-referencing chemtrail conspiracy websites - how precisely did you do yours?
To reiterate, you are the one making the claim therefore the burden of proof is incumbent upon you - the onus does not lie with me to search for something that doesn't exist. You wouldn't bring a case to court as the prosecution and expect the defendant to "do their own research" instead of presenting your evidence. There is no such 'declassified' document - so how can I possibly look for it? You are talking horseshit and you've been called out on it.
'Chemtrails' are a baseless conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentional conflation on behalf of the perpetrators of this hoax in a lame attempt to add legitimacy to their claims. Gullible chemtrail believers then uncritically lap up this false equivalence and regurgitate it over the internet without knowing the first thing about the subjects that they claim authority over - far less, basic meteorology, aviation, or atmospheric science. Odd don't you think that the entire fields of atmospheric science, meteorology, environmental monitoring and aerospace engineering worldwide - y'know, the people that actually understand the physics of the atmosphere - remain completely oblivious to these supposed 'chemtrails' yet a community of online armchair conspiracy theorists and self-appointed overnight 'experts' think that they know better because the internet told them so and they don't understand what they are looking at?
I absolutely guarantee that you are referring to sounding rockets, but you are too cowardly to back up your claims knowing that you haven't actually got the first clue what you are talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@khandneter463
"Now instead of you asking me without the rude attachment I wrote from your comment above, maybe I would of gave you the information."
As I said, I haven't been in the slightest bit rude. I simply asked you to substantiate your statement that "the government has admitted to using chemtrails" - and don't you people just loath that? To reiterate, you made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. The onus does not lie with myself or another party to search for a negative based upon your personal incredulity and your regurgitated false equivalence. If you are unable or unwilling to qualify your claim, then it is utterly worthless.
"I shared some information that I have researched and you come along talking shit."
Parroting junk online conspiracy websites is not "research". If you think that I have 'talked shit" then go ahead and demonstrate how. No use in simply saying it. And your point about rudeness was?
"Now you a grown man, I hope, go find the information yourself, RESEARCH, instead of constantly asking me to give you information and then right behind that claiming I don't have such information, who does that? That's weird!"
Asking you to substantiate your claim is weird? That you are wholly ignorant of science and the scientific method is manifest, but pray that you don't ever end up in court as the prosecution.
"Obviously you want to play this back and forth game with me because maybe you don't have anything else to do, well I do."
If you were capable of supporting your statements then it wouldn't be back and forth would it?
"If you feel that I don't have such information on Chemtrails that the government admittingly said that they are spraying chemicals under the guise of Global warming treatment, then go on about your business. Common sense should tell YOU that instead of you telling someone you don't know what they know or don't know, what they have or don't have, then go on about your business and have a nice day."
You appear to be referring to hypothetical research into Solar Radiation management which has nothing to do with "the government" nor the misidentified contrails discussed in this video upon which the chemtrails hoax is predicated. If you wish to term such theoretical research as "chemtrails" then more fool you, but don't expect such association fallacy to be taken seriously in the real world outside of your vacuous internet echo-chamber should you ever choose to interact with it.
"You don't know what I know"
In common with your conspiratorial ilk, very little - that much is demonstrable. Because let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
"and you don't know what I have and you never will."
I am inviting you to present it. We both know full well why you can't. As I said. I can absolutely guarantee what you'd come back with.
"So if you don't believe it, dismiss it, no harm done"
Known science is not a question of 'belief'. Moreover, research into SRM has never been denied. What does that have to do with persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and the best part of a century?
"Again, you are a grown man, go research it for yourself if you need to know, instead of you trying convince yourself and I that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about."
Atmospheric science is my background. Furthermore, I guarantee that I am vastly more knowledgeable about the origins, content, background and main perpetrators of your junk conspiracy theory than yourself. The responsibility lies with you to demonstrate that you "know what you are talking about" - and up to now you are failing dismally. That you delude yourself otherwise is to be expected.
"You have a nice day, I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you on this issue and I'm not opening and reading your rebuttal, it will be deleted on sight."
Of course you're not - because you people are incapable of debate, utterly unable to critically appraise your own pre-conceptions and without exception, fail to evidence your claims. As conspiracy believers you are also without exception together with religious fundamentalists, the most closed minded people on this farcical farrago that we call the internet.
"Again, RESEARCH."
Appreciating that "research" does not involve declaring overnight armchair 'expertise' following squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, out of context quote mining or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites...do feel free to share, how did you undertake yours?
To remind you. You stated the following:
"There is information of the government admitting to using Chemtrails."
Do you think you could possibly get around to presenting it at some point? Thanks in advance.
1
-
1
-
@ThaTurdBurglar
"you simply have not looked."
I can assure you that I have. I have been alpine climbing since the age of nine, worked as a mountain guide across four continents, obtained post graduate qualifications in Applied Meteorology and Climatology a quarter of a century ago and since specialised in remote sensing now working in research capability. Understanding the skies had been essential to my livelihood and the lives of those in my duty of care. So yeah, you could say that I've had more than the occasional glance over the years.
"Spraying chemicals from planes is as old as planes themselves... documented history my friend."
So are the contrails that you are witnessing and misidentifying which have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Here you go, this is a 75 year old image from a meteorology text book, look familiar?...
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
1
-
1
-
"Look up Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and learn something"
SAI is a hypothetical branch of geoengineering that has yet to graduate beyond research paper, mathematical modelling and even reach the early stages of small scale trial. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"The only people getting sucked into lies are people who don’t know how to do research"
The irony - was it intentional?
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
1
-
@kevinbford20
Eh? - these weren't conspiracy theories though.
The claims of collusion with Russia were allegations not a conspiracy theory. With over 200 witness interviews and roughly 1 million documents reviewed, the comprehensive campaign conducted by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies to seek influence within President Donald Trump's campaign is exposed, helping Trump win the 2016 presidential election and amplify polarisation and division within American society. Far from a hoax, as the president so often claimed, the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort. The timing of the Durham Report that concluded that the FBI acted hastily and in the absence of corroborating evidence stoked Trump’s narrative that he has been repeatedly targeted by officials in a political “witch hunt”.
Let's take the covid lab leak claims. The consilience of the scientific community (virology) is that it resulted from a natural spillover, but it could equally be the result of research-related activity, such as a lab leak or even a fieldwork incident - we simply don't know. That is also accepted as a possibility However, there is no equivocal evidence either way, just largely historical precedent and circumstantial evidence. There have however been a multitude of studies which indicate a natural origin for Sars-CoV-2 and this data/literature has steadily grown in volume since the outbreak. This year a published study examined samples taken from raccoon dogs, bamboo rats, palm civets: (these are just some of the animals whose DNA has been found in swabs taken from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China,) The swabs also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease. The analysis, provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over from animals to humans at the market. Conversely, there is not one paper offering evidence that a lab leak was responsible to have passed peer review because the is no substantive data to support it. Additionally, although the DOE have backed the recent FBI intelligence assessment indicating a lab leak, they have a 'low confidence level. According to guidance from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “A low confidence level generally indicates that the information used in the analysis is scant, questionable, fragmented, or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from the information, or that the IC has significant concerns or problems with the information sources.” Again, this does not mean that the possibility of a lab leak should be ruled out. In my view, it's a very strong possibility that we won't ever determine the source. Pinpointing the site of a spillover is tricky and becomes increasingly challenging with time. Also, matching the genetics of those initially infected by Alpha with sequences derived from animals to isolate the host is a very difficult task. In terms of the lab leak possibility, as relationships between China and the West continue to deteriorate, the situation continues to be so politicised, and whilst Beijing refuses to cooperate the necessary transparency to allow an independent forensic investigation into research activities at WIV, we have nothing more than circumstantial supposition.
Regarding Covid vaccinations, they prevented 14·4 million 95% credible interval deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8 2021. Of these, 0.053% had an adverse reaction. In the EU alone, those that suffered a fatal reaction to vaccination represents 0.52% of the 2,169,191that died of coronavirus.
Death has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered. This includes cases of anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction that can occur after any kind of vaccination. To put this into perspective, there are 120 deaths per million in road accidents per year in the USA. Presumably, you don't drive or allow yourself to be driven?
No, the attempted insurrection of January 6th 2021 was not proven to be an "inside job" at all. That is completely false.
What about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal? - it was never a conspiracy theory.
"would you like more?"
Yes - by all means, go ahead. You're clearly struggling so far.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaredprince4772
"Your appeal to authority fallacy is duly noted and rejected as the bullshit it must be in an argument of facts."
And is your ad hominem abuse.
As I said, this is my background, which simply makes me familiar with the scientific literature which is the subject of your contention. I myself am irrelevant.
"Even with radiative forcing, the resulting cover is minuscule in our vast skies."
Actually that isn't the case - and my original reply to you concerned the extent of radiative forcing. These calculations emphasise the importance of
obtaining a reliable estimate of the global role of contrail induced cirrus and of understanding the extent to which they add to natural cirrus cover which is heavily dependent on reducing
the uncertainty in the magnitude of contrail-induced radiative forcing.
"The articles themselves that you linked indicate that there is a higher error than previously thought."
See above.
They are papers not articles. And you've read them all since I have posted them have you?
"They also indicate that the nighttime and daytime effects cancel, more or less."
Were you incapable of comprehending my last reply? Because contrails cool the surface radiatively during the
day and heat the surface during the night, as I pointed out, this can reduce the daily temperature amplitude. The net effect however, depends strongly on the daily variation of contrail cloud cover however. Also, aircraft emissions may cause indirect climate forcing by changing the particle size of natural cirrus clouds. This indirect forcing may be comparable to the direct forcing due to additional contrail cloud cover.
In point of fact, I am of the same opinion as you, that overall the effects are over-exaggerated. However, science is not about 'opinion' which is why further work and research is needed.
I welcome your replies, but could you please try and respond in an dignified and civil manner and minus the condescension? Much appreciated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The mixing, compressing and burning of kerosene produces oily, hot Carbon Monoxide (CO) which attracts moisture inthe freezing high altitude where jets fly. The condensation evaporates quickly behind the aircraft, leaving no trace."
Absolute nonsense. A contrail is formed by water vapour in aircraft exhaust condensing into ice. Yes, this may be aided by the presence of hygroscopic nuclei in the exhaust, but this effect is negligible. In conditions of low ambient air temperature, high relative humidity and at a sufficient vapour pressure a contrail will form. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture which forms 99% of the visible trail (the exhaust being only the trigger mechanism) - The same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
"Chemtrails, however, are usually formed like a thick, braided rope, and linger and stay aloft, slowly opening into a feather shape, then slowly drifting, sometimes for hundreds of miles before complete dissipation."
You mean just like those persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of aviation? In 'Flight to Arras' the legendary French aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
The following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
So precisely what you have been describing then.
"Some people have captured samples"
No they haven't.
"and they are strangely Aluminum and Barium."
What would be strange about that? Do you understand what ICP-MS is?
*_"There's that phrase again (Conspiracy Theory) used to "debunk" and take
attention away from any outside research or questioning the set narrative,
spoon fed to GQ Public."_*
No, it's used to describe a conspiracy theory, which is all that your chemtrails are. Independent research??? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Eddie Bravo, 'What in the World Are They Spraying' and Judy Wood??? Are you serious? I think you just answered that question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mccari09
"when I say coming in to land and taking off I do not mean when they are actually landing or taking off... I mean whilst they are still at high altitude."
So when you say landing and taking off, you do not mean landing or taking off? Impeccable logic there.
"The only time a contrail should persist is when the airplane is low enough so that on a cold day the water vapour stays frozen or by high altitude atmospheric temperatures causing the same freezing."
A contrail is the product of the interplay of temperature, pressure and humidity. In conditions of high RHi the contrail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state. Where the ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, most of the moisture is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget.
"You and I both know that the contrails consist of water vapour and particulates from the exhaust."
Incorrect. Water vapour is a gas and therefore invisible. A contrail is composed of condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals. The particulates from the exhaust are largely trace, but sulphates and soot will increase scavenging and can also act as CCNs in the formation of contrails.
"I understand that persistent contrails are in fact possible but what I am seeing does not make sense!
How can a planes exhaust cause a beautiful sunny day to turn into a dull haze?"
Supersaturation. As I explained, the contrail draws upon available atmospheric moisture budget. In these conditions, they will not only endure but expand and merge, becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus. The process is explained here.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"They never used to do this... in the 33 years I’ve been on this world I have never seen planes do what I see now."
the following paper - one amongst many - is almost five decades old.
" Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
"I don’t need to be a aeronautical engineer or whatever just to notice some thing different."
To understand what you are looking at or make an informed judgement, then you simply need a rudimentary knowledge of independently verifiable and objective aviation and meteorological science instead of baseless online conspiracy theory as your explanation. Try it.
"Where I live one can drive about 30 miles into the Yorkshire dales of the uk and get above the haze. From there you can see the flight paths of the planes easily yet none of them seem to match up with the trails i observe"
How have you established this?
The UK is beneath the North Atlantic tracks. What are you contending is abnormal?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sydtodd495
"there is no way normal exaughst could fill the entire sky from anyone's point of view."
Then perhaps that you should understand that persistent spreading contrails are a consequence of supersaturation. In such atmospheric conditions, the aircraft exhaust merely precipitates the trail, the atmosphere does the rest.
Combust a hydrocarbon fuel and the two main products will be CO2 and H2O. One gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water due to the oxygen adding to the mass - and a jet engine will burn litres of fuel a second. However, clearly as you say, that does not account for lasting expanding contrails. In the regions that aircraft cruise, the air temperature is very low. Combine this with humidity and a lower vapour pressure and the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice crystals. A contrail may be short lived, persistent or persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all. It depends on the ambient conditions. If the air is of a high relative humidity, then the trail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase which is invisible water vapour. If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will not only linger, but increase in mass drawing almost entirely on available atmospheric moisture. This is the reason that the trails that you are seeing can weigh millions of lbs - way beyond the capacity of any aircraft producing them. These trails may also be fanned out by high altitude wind shear becoming indistinguishable from cirrus cloud - which is essentially all they are. Are you equally as perplexed by the formation of clouds? (Incidentally, I think you meant to say 'exhaust').
"not to mention particles floating around."
The atmosphere is full of airborne dust, particulate and aerosols of both natural and anthropogenic origin.
"why is is illegal to gather rain Water?"
Do you mean sample it? It isn't. Gathering or collecting rainwater has been subject to some laws passed in certain states of the USA due to implications for drainage or diversion of water sources.
"why are heavy metals found all over the ground?"
What heavy metals falling to the ground are you referring to?
"Dont believe anything they tell ya when they say your safe"
Instead believe baseless online conspiracy theory which of course is unfailingly accurate, honest, not in the least bit scaremongering, manipulative or exploitative, is entirely free of agenda and has your best interests at heart. Ok then.
Incidentally, known science is not about "belief".
"they do not care about the people, this will become more and more obvious over the next ten months."
Who precisely are "they"?
1
-
@boykush3732
Sigh.
Oh Jesus wept, you just posted a link to the ludicrous Mount Shasta chemtrails rally organised by Dane Wigington. Seriously - how many times. Do you really want to go there again?
Thanks for your reply - as I said, I guaranteed what you'd come back with. It's so, so predictable.
Geoengineering is a very broad term. GGR strategies and Negative Emissions Technology are actively pursued - in particular, biochar, aforestation carbon capture/sequestering and currently, research into ocean fertilisation attracts a high level of funding. The Solar Radiation Management that you are referring to meanwhile is with the exception of ground based albedo modification entirely hypothetical. As the current SCoPEx project demonstrates, SAI has not yet even reached the stages of small scale trail. There is no 'testimony in front of congress' no 'admission' that this is in progress - research into SRM has never been secretive, how do you admit to something that isn't denied?
Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Of course jet exhaust contains nano particulate - so does your car exhaust. The prefix "nano" means one-billionth, or 10-9; therefore one nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. The term nanoscale is used to refer to objects with dimensions on the order of 1-100 nanometers (nm). The atmosphere is full of such particles and aerosols - both naturally occurring and of anthropogenic origin. You are surrounded by them and you breath them in every day. Aluminium particles in the exhaust??? There are many particles in aircraft exhaust: Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, Ti and Zr. These are are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in diesel and petroleum.
"They didnt hang around in the sky for hours"
To reiterate, persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Here again is the following image taken from the pages of a 75 year old meteorological textbook...
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
"and i still c the odd plane with a contrail and it dissipates shortly behind the plane"
A contrail is simply a form of cirrus, it may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or may not necessarily form at all - it is entirely dependent upon the prevailing atmospheric conditions in relation to temperature, humidity and vapour pressure.
"Its called geoengineering and its happening bra"
To reiterate, GGR strategies/Negative Emissions Technology certainly are underway, but excluding ground based albedo modification - SRM is entirely hypothetical and even in the unlikely scenario that it was ever deployed would have nothing remotely to do with the contrails that you are witnessing either in appearance, form or deployment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"a year maybe two years ago was on a program (some talk show type) a skinny young guy was explaining that we have been doing this for a while. He also said that 1% of the population would die, the host worked out that is a lot of people and said out a number. The scientist mocked him and said "oh so you can do math" the host was trying to make the audience gasp but they didn't. Strange interview...i did post it onto social media but sheep said i was a conspiracy nut????"
You are referring to David Keith tallking about the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection on the Colbert Report - and that is not what he said.
"Any how this guy with Joe is getting info from nasa, the same people who say they have lost and forgotten how to get to the moon"
NASA have said nothing of the sort. When Apollo was abandoned due to budget cuts, the technology was left to lie fallow and the expertise went elsewhere. Furthermore, this was based upon 1960s technology that has been outmoded and superseded. See Project Artemis.
"same people who said "here you go heres a moon rock" when really it was just a stone from somewhere in america"
Link? Evidence?
"The same people who took nazi scientist and made nasa what it is today?"
Operation Paperclip involved the assimilation of the rocketry expertise from Nazi Germany into NASAs expanding space programme. Without that, it is questionable whether the moon landings would have taken place during the 1960s as planned. Furthermore, had this not have happened they would have fallen into the hands of the Soviet Union.
"Living rite next to an airport i can confirm some aircraft let of trails and some do not even when at same height"
What does proximity to an airport have to do with anything? Contrails are largely produced at cruise altitudes. How have you established altitude given flight separation minima? Also, the fact that the atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogeneous in terms of temperature, humidity and pressure means that can change within mere seconds and feet.
"i film a lot of stuff"
So do other chemtrail believers. Makes for a whole load of tedious and underwhelming videos compiled from dodgy phone footage of contrails and general meteorological that they don't understand either.
"When the sun rises on a clear day see the amount of aircraft frying across the suns path with trails and just see what happens to the clouds and clear sky"
Yeah, it's called commercial air traffic and there's a lot of it up there.
"Contrails disappear but chemtrails do not"
A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Are you equally as perplexed by variations in cloud cover?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Absolute nonsense.
Under freedom of information detailed accounts have been made public on the website of the Department of Energy, which has posted the 36-volume, official history of the Manhattan Project, which had been commissioned by General Leslie Groves in late 1944. Among the most intriguing set of documents is the volume about intelligence and security, which reveals:
"Since September 1943, investigations were conducted of more than 1,500 'loose talk' or leakage of information cases and corrective action was taken in more than 1,200 violations of procedures for handling classified material…. Complete security of information could be achieved only by following all leaks to their source."
A lot of informal sharing of information went on between British and American scientists and the Canadians and Belgians government was also privy. The Manhattan Project was a cross between an academic research project and a top secret military project. The scientists were apt to share ideas and results with other scientists without too much regard for security protocols. General Lesley R. Groves did his best to run the Manhattan Project with appropriate military security but with mixed success. Some Manhattan Project scientists had dubious backgrounds, with leftist sympathies all the way up to Communist Party membership, or even worse for America, were foreigners with leftist sympathies. Groves tried to freeze out British participation in the Manhattan Project, in spite of an agreement struck by FDR and Churchill. Groves was mostly successful in limiting information and British participation until 1943 when British complaints reached higher levels. Groves was forced to accept a British delegation at Los Alamos.
The Soviet Union was an ally, of course, but not as close as an ally as Britain. The USSR had spies in the scientific team at Los Alamos, in the engineering teams in OakRidge, and in the theoretical and atomic energy teams around America. Of the atomic spies, Klaus Fuchs, a German emigré physicist who came to the Manhattan Project by way of Britain and worked at Los Alamos did the most damage. He passed details of the gaseous diffusion method for uranium isotope separation, a detailed description of the Fat Man plutonium bomb design, details on the explosive lens in the Fat Man design, details on the neutron initiator of the Fat Man design, early discussions about the feasibility of a fusion bomb and a huge amount of data gleaned from the results of physical measurements of uranium and plutonium.
Theodore Hall an American physicist was privy to details of the Fat Man design and passed them to the Soviets.
George Koval passed on some details of the neutron initiator of the Fat Man bomb to the Soviets.
Alan Nunn May passed samples of uranium 235 and uranium 233 to the Soviets and may have passed some information on reactor design as well.
David Greenglass was a machinist working at Los Alamos and was recruited into the Rosenberg spy ring by his sister, Ethel Rosenberg. Greenglass worked in shop manufacturing the explosive lens for the Fat Man bomb and provided very rough sketches of them to the Soviets. Rudolf Abel was the Soviet master spy in America during the Cold War. He operated under the name of William Fischer. He entered the United States in 1948 and set up an effective ring of agents. His primary assignment was nuclear weapons. He worked with both the Cohens and the Rosenbergs.
None of the above were recruited by the Soviets but contacted Soviet intelligence agents through their own volition and because of their ideological convictions. The Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic bomb during World War II was among the most highly classified and tightly secured programs ever undertaken by the U.S. government. Nevertheless, it generated more than 1,500 leak investigations involving unauthorized disclosures of classified Project information.
There were sporadic inconsequential rumours that made it to the public but overall the public was kept in the dark, except once. Here is a link that describes a serious leak:
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-project-leaks/
Actually there was enough information available to the public prewar on how an atomic bomb would work that a science fiction writer earned a visit from the FBI after he published a short story in a science fiction magazine, 'Astounding Science Fiction', describing the bomb in 1944. The author had already figured figured out there was secret project taking place.
Meanwhile based upon your entirely false premise, chemtrail conspiracy believers would have us believe that the global aviation sector, its ancillaries, every governing body on the planet, every military power together with the entire fields of aerospace engineering, meteorology, atmospheric science and environmental monitoring worldwide have been collectively coerced, coopted and silenced by a single unified programme of international spraying. Meanwhile, they remain completely oblivious to the nonsense strewn across the internet that we can all access but only conspiracy believers are suitably intelligent or 'awake' to understand? - But "compartmentalisation".
Ok then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There's no such thing as Chemtrails they're called SRM Trails solar radiation management"
Incorrect. SRM is entirely hypothetical, with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening and has nothing to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and believers term 'chemtrails'.
"let's take this to a scientific level instead of a conspiracy level"
Yes, lets. Atmospheric science is my background, I'd be delighted to discuss it with you.
"let's look at it scientifically the patent say that spraying aerosol in the stratosphere will cool down the planet there are scientists working on this"
You don't need to look at a patent - patents are not proof of the existence of something, merely the registration of an idea, irrespective of how outlandish that may be. All this research is out in the open anyway - there's nothing secretive - that's how idiotic chemtrail believers that claim to understand it have heard about it, because profiteering fearmongering grifters such as Dane Wigington told them what to think. You are referring to a branch of SRM called SAI, which has not progressed beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. Harvard/Keutsch, who are the chief proponents of this have been waiting five years to have their SCoPEx project ethically approved - and as I understand, this has now been abandoned. This was to consist of a small steerable balloon, launched 20km into the stratosphere in order to release a few kilos of water (and possibly CaCO3, by which to evaluate perturbation. SAI is intended as a last ditch strategy to arrest global temperature rise when all other options have been exhausted. It will never become a reality, not simply due to the logistical challenges, the environmental unknowns and the opposition, but the sheer impossibility of international governance and the issues of legal liability.
"we see plane spraying Over Us in patterns they are spraying aerosols condensacion out of an engine of a plane disappears as fast as the plane is moving"
Does it? Explain why detailing the physical laws that determine this. I won't hold my breath, since you can't even spell 'condensation'.
"what you see lingering are metal sulfate"
Are you equally perplexed by the formation and duration of a cloud?
"Joe look at this scientifically look up speak up I tell you what why don't you debate Dane wigington on this on geoengineering watch you need to give the conspiracy people a good voice and Dane wigington has all his ducks in a row and will shut this guy down come on Joe don't be a p* have Dane wigington on your show"*
Say's that, said this - "let's take this to a scientific level".
Precisely the reason that you think a contrail can't persist is that you choose to allowthe likes of Dane Wigington to supplant for the education that you lack and turn to conspiracy theory as opposed to genuine scientific explanation. Wigington is just another online con artist that has monetised conspiracy theory and career fearmongering. These opportunistic charlatans detract from genuine environmental concerns and global problems.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonsensicaltimes780
Thanks for your reply.
"funny. I don't remember it happening in the 90's or try he 2000's."
I do. Which is precisely why contrary to your beliefs and flawed anecdotal recollections, persistent contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"So did the add something to the fuel to allow the water to stay in vapor form?"
Water vapour is an invisible gas. Contrails are condensed water vapour.
"They should not be able to maintain that shape for hour. 8ts water correct? Guess the the Sun doesn't evaporate only certain planes."
You're going to have an awkward time explaining a cirrus could then.
Contrails do not evaporate - they sublimate back into water vapour but are unable to do so in conditions of high Rhi or supersaturation.
"Patents are very hard to find unless you know the number. It takes hardly any effort to see that we have researched the technology, used it in foreign countries and domestically."
What technology?
"If the mixture of the fuel is different, why not mention that. The engines haven't changed."
Actually, yes they have. Modern high bypass turbofan engines are far more efficient than their turbojet predecessors and have a higher contrail factor.
"Our atmosphere has become thinner so there will be less density as well."
What??????
"It's not a crazy idea. We are about release a interface to use our thoughts to communicate with computers. But we couldn't add salts to the air to aid in blocking sunlight? It's been a talking point for over a decade now."_*
Absolutely not, there is currently a large volume of research into this, but Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is purely hypothetical and would likely deploy similar sulphates to those volcanic aerosols that it seeks to emulate.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
@nonsensicaltimes780
No, it's the basic physics of cloud formation - and to reiterate, a contrail does not evaporate, it sublimates, back into water vapour which is an invisible gas. And even so, how can a vapour as you claim evaporate?
To clarify again, contrails are condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals. The fact that they can expand, increase in mass and merge has been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation. Seriously, if you don't know any of this, then genuinely, why are you commenting?
In 'Flight to Arras' the legendary French aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's widely available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old:
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an actual in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
The science is explained for you here...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kyplummer3657
"So you think that since you’re calling Geo engineering technology that only possess knowledge of that you’re I know youll love this Wikedpedia link and you can make fun of it all you want"
Why would I make fun of it? Did you actually read this? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is simply one branch of geoengineering and as a purely hypothetical concept existing solely in the province of research proposal and computer modelling. Since it is intended to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and must also utilise planetary circulation systems it must there for be deployed in equatorial locations due to the BDC and meridional cells in the tropics. For these injections to remain in the atmosphere and not be disrupted by the troposphere this means an altitude of 20km, double that of the trails that you are observing. To clarify again, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of the latter
So, given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and for that reason there is not aircraft in existence with the capability to loft the requisite materials (of which there is no agreement upon) to the designated altitudes (65,000 - 75,000ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"I’m not going do research for you dude"
At what point did you ever presume that I would want you to? As we have amply established, you don't even know the meaning of the word.
"I’ve already agreed in the first video you’re trying to make something out of nothing bc you think it makes you have a sense of humor or something"
Incorrect. I challenged your erroneous and ill informed comment which to remind you was this...
"There has been some evidence and admission of this taking place"
- Referring to a video featuring misidentified contrails. Oh, hang on...
"I already agreed with you the conspiracy is based on miss identification but I said it does happen"
What "does happen". All that you have provided is the usual false equivalence.
"so are you denying that it does or not because you’ve never answered"
What does? I have made my position abundantly clear. If you wish to term such activities such as research into SRM or cloud seeding operations as 'chemtrails' then more fool you. To reiterate, we are discussing misidentified contrails.
"why don’t you post your amazing credentials since you’re out here trying to save the Internet."
I'm not "trying" to do anything of the sort - simply correcting you on your misconceptions, that's all. Hardly a challenging undertaking.
"Why don’t you explain some of these advanced technologies that only you can understand. They spray the shit from planes don’t they? Just not commercial airliners correct?"
What technologies are you referring to? - what 'shit' are you referring to? Who precisely are "they"?
"Contrails have been Understood for many years long before you figured them out all on your own."
As I explained to you on the other thread. Contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, filmed, photographed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and the best part of 80 years. I am irrelevant. The science has a voice of its own and speaks for itself. Why don't you listen?
So your "samples from many different sources" - what are you referring to? Present one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sigh. This again. Really? It strikes me that your supposed 'chemtrails' are whatever you want them to be.
You are referring to ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security". Why? Because chemtrail conspiracy theorists appropriated the footage and stuck the word 'chemtrails' in the title and you are clearly too gullible and dim to question it.
Had you have actually listened to the speech you'd understand that Brennan was discussing future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan wasn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of potential the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can provide you with a transcription if you wish. Research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has never been secretive or denied. It is in the interest of those conducting it to publicise their work in order to generate funding and support and it's the reason you know about it in the first place (albeit through dumb chemtrail conspiracy videos). How precisely do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied?
SAI is a hypothetical concept which has yet to progress beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. It will never become a reality because in addition to the environmental unknowns, international governance would be an impossibility. It also has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that dim witted scientific illiterates term 'chemtrails'. It would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and wouldn't leave a trail in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skyejacques
"Someone I met did freedom of information requests from hospitals days after he would record the chem trails in sky. The respiratory admissions numbers increased considerably to make a pattern."
Are you seriously unable to see the multiple logical fallacies present in this statement?
"Also, they don't want us to have sunlight. Here in London. Always grey. When it's sunny, they spray."
Overcast in the UK? Surely not.
So when it's clear and clouds over you naturally conclude that "they" are spraying. Contrails are frequently a precursor of an incoming front. As such, they are the consequence of such conditions not the cause - together with the clouds that follow.
"When all airplanes were grounded during the first so called saving measure of people getting the flu, these planes still were active daily in South London, spraying."
But "all airplanes" were not grounded. Cargo, freight and to a lesser extent PAX services were still being flown - and what do you mean, "the flu" - omicron may have mutated into something similar, but Alpha was a completely novel and dangerous respiratory vial infection of the lung, from which there was no protection globally.
"People were so programmed, no one looked up at the sky in the park I was. No one."
You shouldn't be so supercilious. Perhaps they actually understand what an aircraft contrail is and that they have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Not everyone gullibly and uncritically accommodates junk online pseudoscience and conspiracy theory simply becasue they have an internet connection. Irony being, you think those that don't are "programmed".
"People don't look up."
You'll find that the entire fields of meteorology, atmospheric science and aviation science do precisely that - as do I. My field is ground based remote sensing, so not only can I tell you what you are looking at, I can show you how to measure it too.
"Just like that Illuminati movie that's mocking us."
The people that are taking the piss are the opportunistic and cynical perpetrators of this nonsense that profit out of the impressionable, the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SebSosa
You are simply seeing contrails - all of this is routinely explained by basic meteorological science and the fact that chemtrails are a physical and mathematical impossibility. Think about the weight of trails - particularly those that stretch from horizon to horizon and the millions of lbs of material contained in them versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them. Then ask yourself what chemical when sprayed can expand and increase in mass in the same way as condensed atmospheric water vapour?
You are referring to the ex Director of the CIA John Brennan as a guest voluntary speaker at the Council on Foreign Nations (a thinktank). His theme was 'Transitional Threats to Global Security'. This has been dishonestly appropriated and titled by chemtrail conspiracy theorists who have posted a series of videos claiming that the speech relates to 'chemtrails'. Brennan is actually discussing future issues that may result in global instability. As part of this, her refers to research into a branch of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is entirely hypothetical and has nothing to do with 'weather modification'. This would aim to arrest global temperatures by replicating the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to the impossibility of international policy and governance, there are also the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SAI in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about the implications of anti-ageing technologies.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the potential misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can refer you to a full transcription of Brennan's speech if you wish. Two more things, SAI has never been secretive - so how precisely do you admit to something that isn't denied? Secondly, SAI has nothing to do with contrails you are seeing and would need to be conducted at double the altitude. It wouldn't result in a visible trail either.
The Dimming? You just referred me to an internet conspiracy movie made by the main perpetrator of the chemtrail hoax Dane Wigington. It's replete with lies, scientific inaccuracy, deception and false equivalence. Why not just objectively learn about aviation and the meteorology/ atmospheric science instead of relying on opportunistic frauds such as Wigington?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DoctorSess
"the U.S. has already confirmed stratospheric aerosol programs being conducted for the past three decades."
Source?
No it hasn't confirmed anything of the sort - and why are you changing the subject? SAI is a hypothetical branch of Solar Radiation Management. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers misidentify as 'chemtrails'. SAI has yet to graduate beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. There is a small scale trail planned called SCoPeX, but this has been repeatedly postponed for the last three years due to ethical approval. It plans to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere, release a few litres of water and possibly on subsequent flights several kilos of CaCO3 to evaluate perturbation and reflectivity. SAI will never be conducted - not simply due to the environmental unknowns or logistical challenges, but owing to the impossibilities of international governance and legal complexities/ramifications.
“Chemtrails” is misinformation. They aren’t spraying chemicals they are spraying metal particulate in the stratosphere. The public doesn’t seem to be aware of just how rapidly the climate is collapsing. It’s a last ditch effort."
There is no agreement over what materials would best achieve the objective of replicating the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Were it ever to be practiced, which it won't - it is likely that sulphates would be employed, but as I said, CaCO3 also has captured the interest of researchers.
Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
@DoctorSess
Thanks for your prompt reply.
No they didn't. To reiterate, SAI has never graduated beyond laboratory research and computer modelling. Actually, there was the SPICE project some years ago, which I think from memory employed a very modest field trial - again involving a balloon, but this was promptly cancelled due to a lack of funding.
It isn't 'old news' at all. SAI is not practiced, is entirely hypothetical and like I said, will never become a reality due to the sheer impossibility of international governance.
Regarding links, some pages still do depending upon spam filter settings, but generally this one does not. No problem. Find this supposed confirmation and then give me the keywords and the date and you can refer me to it.
I'll ask you again. Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... what precisely is your point?
1
-
@DoctorSess
"You’re obviously not as familiar or educated as you believe you are. They’ve been injecting sulphates into the stratosphere for years. CIA director John Brennan confirmed it in his address to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2016."
This again...really?
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous misleading chemtrail conspiracy videos that deceptively appropriated the footage and added the title 'chemtrails' to it. The former Director of the CIA John Brennan delivered a voluntary speech to the COFN, (a thinktank) entitled 'Transnational Threats to Global Security' in which he discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An proposed SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and as I explained, has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or 'confirming; that it is in progress at all, on the contrary, he is warning about the future implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan confirms that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection "has been injecting sulphates for years", (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can direct you to a full transcription of his speech if you wish. You'll find that you can't bluff me that easily mate. Go ahead - please quote the relevant passage.
"Department of Defense reports confirmed it in documents obtained by Mark Rendon through the FOI act in 2017. Now civilian entities are following suit."
Again, precise passage and reference please as requested. You seem to think that simply saying something over the internet makes it true. Now substantiate it.
"Bill Gates and Harvard university have the SCOPEX project that started in 2019 which utilizes CaCO3 (calcium carbonate). You’re in denial."
Seriously - do you have serious comprehension difficulties? That would explain much. One of the first things that I directed you to in my replies was SCoPEx and the possible deployment of a few kilos of CaCO3. Look back at my replies and look it up now. You'll find it under the Keutsch/Harvard group who spearhead global research into the proposal. The intention is to progress the research into a small scale trial using a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere to evaluate perturbation and reflectivity. It has consistently been postponed due to ethical approval. It doesn't use CaCO3 at all - it proposes the use of it and following the release of small amounts of water, subsequent flights may release a few kilos for this purpose. I've already explained this to you. All you have to do is look at the page which tells you that SAI has not progressed beyond laboratory research and computer modelling. Also, Bill Gates has nothing to do with the research beyond providing initial funding and lending vocal support. Genuinely, what's wrong with you?
"Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is no longer theoretical, it’s been implemented for some time."
No it hasn't. As I said, it would help if you actually read the sources that you are quoting. Perhaps start with SCoPEx.
"SCoPEx is a scientific experiment to advance understanding of stratospheric aerosols that could be relevant to solar geoengineering. It aims to improve the fidelity of simulations (computer models) of solar geoengineering by providing modelers with experimental results vital to addressing specific science questions. Such simulations are the primary tool for estimating the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering, but current limitations may make the simulations look too good."
"In the future, if a science flight is approved by the independent Advisory Committee, we plan to release calcium carbonate, a common mineral dust. We may also release other materials such as sulfates in response to evolving scientific interests."
"It’s efficacy is still up for debate as are it’s impacts on the environment and fauna. The conspiracy theorists were (half) right."
Again, precisely as I explained, and it is impossible to gain approval until these are fully evaluated - however, the major insurmountable challenge is the legal implications and international governance which is why it will never be employed.
Half right about what??? You still haven't answered my question. Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
Now please provide the precise quote and reference in which John Brennan 'confirms that "they’ve been injecting sulphates into the stratosphere for years"; the extract from the Department of Defence Reports you are referring to and your clam that SCoPEx has been utilising CaCO3 since 2019. SCoPEx is a planned small scale trail which has yet to take place.
In your own time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SymbolismDude
"Actually there is technically weather control. Check out Jeremy Clarksons video on the cloud/rain maker they use in the uk."
What on earth are you talking about? You are referring to a misleading appropriated video which in the first couple of seconds show the test-firing of an RS-25, an engine that was used on the Space Shuttle and will be used to power NASA’s next big rocket, the Space Launch System. The latter part of the clip is from a 2001 BBC television series called “Speed,” hosted by Clarkson. In the footage, Clarkson attends the test-firing of an RS-68. As liquid fuelled hydrogen and oxygen are being released during the RS-68 commercial engine test, it forms a cloud. Clarkson then says in the video that in about an hour “someone in Mississippi is going to get wet.” The video then shows Clarkson in the rain.
“NASA is playing god,” Clarkson says. “It’s making its own weather.”
But NASA never intended to create rain. The engines run on liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants, which create a steam cloud when mixed together in the combustion chamber and ignited. When the steam cloud cools off, it turns into water and can create rain depending on the temperature and humidity at the time of the test. It's nothing more than a consequence of the test fire. Simple science.
"And just mechanically speaking, I’m just starting to get into jet engines but I know car engines and that’s coolant rather than water he’s talking about and that’s evaporates a lot quicker and it’s less dense than water so the water should evaporate."
Kid, a bit of amiable advice - stop trying to sound clever, it doesn't become you.
"And consuming aluminum causes Alzheimer’s which would be a good way to stupify people and control them. This guy just sounds like someone working for the government to keep conspiracies a conspiracy, which by definition means “a concealed secret”
No causal link between aluminium and Alzheimer's has ever been discovered. What the hell does aluminium have to do with a rocket test firing stand in Mississippi?
"Btw with the aluminum in air argument, you do realize in every snowflake and in a drop of rain, there’s a spec of dirt, by you’re argument dirt shouldn’t be able to float up there either, but it does. Scientifically saying it is completely possible for aluminum to be up there"
What argument? They are fully aware about airborne dust and hygroscopic nuclei. At no stage have they suggested anything to the contrary. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mrscottyboy111
"Look up CIA's John Brennan he explained that chemtrails are real and they are the governments attempt to slow global warming"
Yeah, when you say 'look up', do you mean gullibly find a dishonestly titled You Tube chemtrails conspiracy video which has appropriated his 2016 address to the COFN, or do you mean actually refer to what he really said? I prefer the latter, so let's do that shall we?
Firstly, contrary to your claim, Brennan doesn't even mention 'chemtrails' or 'explain' anything of the sort. To clarify, this is the ex-Director of the CIA in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance and the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM/SAI in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti-ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "explains that chemtrails are real" or that SAI is currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI has very little to do with "the government" bar some hearings in Senate involving impact statements of geoengineering technologies and what would be one of the major challenges associated with any SAI programme, international policy and governance.
To clarify, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, is a purely hypothetical proposal which would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would need to be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Incorrect, you are referring to bauxite and aluminium is refined using the Bayer process. And yes, aluminium is the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element. It has many pathways into nature and the environment.
The patents that you refer to have different purposes and many are unadopted. Also, a patent is not proof of the existence of something, merely the registration of an idea, irrespective of how outlandish that may be. I've seen these claims of 'chemtrail' patents and they range from crop spraying apparatus, smoke generators to exhaust atomisers - nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and believers term as 'chemtrails'. Strikes me that your 'chemtrails' are whatever you want them to be.
Cheemtrails do not exist. They are simply persistent contrails. Contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or they may not necessarily form at all. Whether they do, and their length, expanse and duration is a function of the interrelationship between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deanhall9292
"In another comment u said "Utter Nonsense". I listed them all out."
No you didn't - you simply parroted a combination of pseudoscience, out of context technologies that you clearly don't understand and meaningless word salad. If you really think that you are privy to some higher level arcane knowledge, qualified in aerospace engineering and meteorological science, then try voicing this junk off the internet and into the real world. Tell them that the University of You Tube sent you.
"Metabunk comments are gone...i told ya.(deleted...so whats your aim there?)"
Let's see then. Once again, what was the specific thread and what was your user name? I'll take a look.
"Where is that SBX-1 ?.......or is that 'utter nonsense' too?"
The Se Based X Band Radar - what about it?
"Why were OBIGGS retro-fitted?"
Inerting systems? As a safety measure inaugurated by the FAA to reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapours on the ground and in the air through following the disasters of TWA Flight 800, Thai Airways International Flight 414 and Philippine Airlines Flight 143.
"Why do airport fuel tankers have 2 fillup hoses?"
Dual fills vastly lessen refuelling time and reduce turnaround.
"They have denied Chemtrails, now they are trying to "Justify" as Cloud seeding, or as a solar shield for global warming."
The chemtrail hoax was predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. Neither cloud seeding or proposals into SRM involve trails, commercial jet aircraft, or the altitudes at which you are observing these trails. Dare I ask, who precisely are "they"
"ROT. It is magnifying the solar radiation....and is a fake ionosphere for X-band microwaves."
What????...See? Off you go again. Fake ionosphere? X band microwaves??? - Microwaves are all X band designation.
I can't decide whether you people are simply very sad, highly amusing - or both.
1
-
@deanhall9292
"wheres your truth? "How to Debunk?"
a speed dial to Metabunk or Chris White & Heiser? (Creationist?...Skeptic?)"
Known science is axiomatic, has a voice of its own and speaks for itself.
"No lad, this is MY theory, and why u heard it first."
Then you should sue, because the conspiracy perpetrators that you are blatantly parroting got there first.
"As simple counters , adding a fuel 'additive' into the CWT , to hide its intro into commercial air traffic, is not ludicrous, and have explained how."
No you haven't.
"Yes, 2 lines...one Avgas/Jet fuel/Kero ......standard jet fuel. But the other 'line', has TMA as an additive."
And you have established this how?
"that DOW chemplant explosion in Mass., was TMA."
And you believe that it is being sprayed out of the rear of commercial aircraft?
As you say Trimethyl aluminum is a pyrophoric chemical. Not only would it lunch a jet engine in seconds if you are actually attempting to suggest (as appears to be the case) that the spreading trails are a result of this "additive" you need to explain quite how it can not only persist and expand in the same way as condensed atmospheric water vapour in the form of a visible white cloud, but remain undetected to environmental monitoring, remote sensing and atmospheric science the world over.
"Because planes land-take off on the wing tanks, and switch to Centre at alt/cruise ht"
Utter rubbish. The conditions during takeoff require high fuel pressure. The center tank has 2 pumps, while each wing tank has 2 pumps. If a center tank pump fails, it will be 1 pump supplying 2 engines, compared to 2 pumps for each engine (or 1 for each in a rare double pump failure—one in each wing). If a pump fails, there is no automatic command that can be sent to the sequence valves to change the sequence, or to engage the cross-feed valves. Usually the centre pumps overpower the wing pumps, but what is omitted from that explanation is that there are sequence valves. If one centre pump fails, the pressure may remain high enough to keep the valves closed on the good side, but not high enough to supply two engines during high demand. Also note there is no suction (gravity) feeding from the center tank.
Regarding cruise, if the centre tank is required then the fuel will be consumed first to extend the duration of wing bend relief.
"......its why the pilots are oblivious, and we dont see it low or at airports, that white smoke from the 'burnt' TMA."
Pilots are oblivious to their fuel management? You sure about that? You don't see white trails at airports because contrails require very cold conditions to form - high relative humidity in respect to ice and ice supersaturation to persist and spread.
"Fine. U believe the 'official' story, of CWT tanks, and dont doubt many tank leaks-sparks-overheats have happened...but 17 accidents since 1959......shows how the jet age 60s,70s,80s, was very safe travel....til the mid to late 90s.....when 'chemtrailing ' started."
You mean when Art Bell and William Thomas first misidentified persistent contrails?
"@USAAF.....Weather as a Force Multiplier. Owning the weather by 2025"
??? Have you at any stage bothered to read this? Students of the Air University. As an assignment, the Air Force chief of staff asked the study’s authors to “examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future." the paper’s introduction clearly specifies that it does not reflect official government policy, and that the weather modification and control scenarios described within it are “fictional representations of future situations/scenarios,”
"To answer your other question.....not only do the chemtrail TMA particles help steer cloud fronts,heat cold cells etc, via X-band (Haarp,SBX-1)....
but those ground penetrating 'microwaves' can heat artesian wells causing steam, the pressure triggers the earthquake."
Explain how.
"It was the Haarp scientist that wanted the oilrig"
What HAARP scientist? Do you actually understand what HAARP is?
"Its why i brought up the Iranian News on TV and Papers, had the cooked dolpins washed up on the beach......cooked underwater?"
Link please.
"Yes lad, over the horizon missile detection is all satellites, even Star wars lasers to disable. It should be on a fast moving "Radar/Command" vessel to BE movable."
The concept is not speed, the purpose is deployment.
"Enjoy it cooking the west coast....or steering Hurricanes in the Gulf..."
Explain how X band radar can "steer hurricanes".
"Radar weather images (spirals,rings,wedges,)......not shown on MSM weather reports now. It was showing the effects of Haarp on the TMA in the chemtrailed clouds!
and that is more physical,TV recorded evidence, of why and how,
this TMA and Chemtrails is a ionosphere to magnify these X-band microwaves...."
Utter, total fantasy. Complete drivel.
"u can parrot the official version..."
The only parrot here is you.
"I have no agenda but to provide a logical,rational,and evidence provided theory as to what they are up to by Chemtrailing......."
The unintentional irony at this point is off the scale.
"most 'nutbags' think the Alumina particles are to poison us. I have stated another reason.....to magnify X-band microwaves (Haarp,SBX-1, and 5G wi-fi tech)
hence my man made 'ionosphere'......to simplify."
Do you actually understand what the ionosphere is and why it is so called?
"and using the sun (solar microwaves) to cook us, likes kids cooking ants....its magnified the Sun's rays."
The peak of the sun's rays is in the visible light rang of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Question for you. You can't blag or bullshit science - why are you attempting to do so?
1
-
@deanhall9292
"i used science and rational expalnations to explain my theory......"
Science and rational explanations???? Like I said, the unintentional irony metre is off the scale here. Let's see about that.
You think that the entire commercial airline industry is covertly spraying trimethyl aluminum as an additive to jet fuel which is separately and secretly independently fuelled into the centre tanks. This then creates an artificial ionosphere in the troposphere which acts like a magnifying glass to capture microwaves from the sun, and guided by HAARP and a mobile floating X Band radar at the behest of a 'HAARP scientist" this can be deployed for the purposes of everything from frying dolphins in the Strait of Hormuz to steering hurricanes to boiling water in artesian wells to create seismic events in Iran. Sounds reasonable then.
."with the very science you keep screaming "Utter Nonsense". "
Do you actually understand what HAARP is designed to do and capable of in the real world? the electromagnetic spectrum? what the ionosphere actually is? how X band really radar works? the functioning of jet engines and the pump configuration between centre and wing tanks? the actual mass density and weight of the trails that you are seeing? RHi, dew point, adiabatic lapse rates and supersaturation? No, of course you don't. You're simply a very silly man with an internet connection.
Once again, explain precisely how your supposed trimethyl aluminum chemtrails are magnified by X band microwaves, HAARP and 5G? Detail the physical process.
"Why do you keep defending the govt narrative on this?.........The 'scientist expert' is paid by the govt u dolt !!"
I haven't referred to any "government" - and what "scientist expert"? I am referring to known science which is reproducible, demonstrable and axiomatic and so has a voice of its own and speaks for itself. Why are you trying to blag this when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about?
"whats your real reason 4 defending govt?"
I am, as are my responses to you, entirely apolitical. Established science doesn't do politics.
"What comPELLs u to label me a nutbag theorist"
The fact that you are a nutbag theorist may well have much to do with it.
"will your life fall apart if jesus = a myth, and your govt has lied to you?"
As an apolitical agnostic - not in the slightest.
1
-
@deanhall9292
"Apolitical means u dont care who, u trust the govt elected, whatever their views."
No, apolitical in this case means that I have no political affiliation and express no agenda. As I explained, my responses to you are apolitical - science does not do politics.
"Agnostic ~ a 'fence sitter". You dont know what side the grass is greener on."
Again, incorrect. Purely that nothing is known or can be known about a deity.
"u dont know what to believe , so play it safe and balance on the border in the middle."
I do not enter into this. Known science is not about "belief".
"That doesnt make u 'normal and me a nutbag' because i dont agree with u"
Again, I am not the issue. You are choosing to "disagree" with the axioms of evidence based science which is demonstrable, ineluctable and has a voice of its own.
"and ur govt aligned take."
What "government aligned take"" would that be?
"I am grounded and rational"
If you say so.
"not floating up in the clouds on some contrail fence with Jesus still an option and saviour. .....agnostic lol"
Who mentioned "Jesus"? I am a disbeliever - since the metaphysical can neither be proven nor disproven and I certainly don't subscribe to any deity. Again, I am of no bearing to this exchange, the evidence that I have requested and the outlandish unsubstantiated claims that you have made.
"agnostic also = Cognitive Dissonance. The confusion in ones brain when two thought beliefs oppose each other."
I have no thoughts or beliefs that oppose each other - your understanding of Festinger is as flawed as your comprehension of the electromagnetic spectrum, atmospheric chemistry, and aerospace engineering.
"the only thing that supports your adamant govt science take.....is they pay ya."
Again, what "government science take" would that be? My replies are apolitical in that science does not do politics - it does not do God either, and neither do I.
"Nice try trying to ridicule by attacking my credibility ..."
You have no credibility based upon the posts that you have made and the wild, frankly ludicrous assertions that you make. Any "ridicule" is entirely of your own making.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jussee85
"Science is full of shit these days."
And yet here you are attempting to comment about...science, without deferring to it. And here you are using a device that lets you instantly share this claim with people all over the world. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness and off the spoils of the scientific method, which not only furnishes you with technological advancement but offers explanations for natural world and the phenomena that you observe around you.
And meanwhile online conspiracy theory that you resort to is entirely honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Ok then.
To reiterate, and to clarify, nothing to do with 'shit', HAARP is an HF pump and facility trained on the ionosphere for research purposes. It has nothing to do with the jet stream in the stratosphere or the weather in the troposphere. Cloud seeding is not sufficiently practiced on anything near the scale to have any impact on global weather. It works by teasing rainfall out of existing cloud masses that are conducive to precipitation.
1
-
@jussee85
"John 3:16"
John 5
Ilya Sandra Perlingieri? Seriously? This again? You posted a link to a conference at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover during which five people sat in a room, presumably some of the organising panel out of sympathy, listening to an individual with a History of Art degree and supposedly and 'environmental writer' who was clearly booked as a filler and in error, spout conspiratorial nonsense about her deranged chemtrail beliefs. It's astonishing that thirteen years later this complete embarrassment has not been removed from their channel.
"When air is full of metal particals it can manipulate via antennas. Even water itself can manipulate by elektromagnetic force. You can test that just take a airballoon rub it in your hair to make it positive charge and you can put that balloon close to the running tap water. That flowing water will be magnetic to that balloon."
Please don't take offence to this, but there are occasions, even in the comments section of You Tube that someone floats a notion so ludicrous, or submits something that is so transcendently stupid that one is perplexed by the sheer variety of overwhelming valid counterpoints that simultaneously present themselves. In such times you find yourself left to suffocate in the overwhelming paralysis of indecisive bewilderment, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlight, which suffers for its immobility when any action would be preferable to none.
Your statically charged balloon aside - to reiterate, HAARP is an array of high frequency radio transmitters powered by two diesel generators trained upon the ionosphere. And no, the air is not "full of metal particles" (note the spelling). Assuming hypothetically that it was - what do you think it would do to the jet engines on the aircraft that are supposedly putting them there? Moreover, you are actually prepared to believe that atmospheric science, environmental monitoring and remote sensing initiatives the world over remain oblivious to these supposed particles?
You actually couldn't make this up - except someone did, and astonishingly people still fall for it.
Why don't you actually learn about atmospheric science, meteorology and aviation instead of naively entertaining internet and social media junk about subjects you clearly have zero understanding of?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elliottdennis2014
Incorrect - what I stated is 100% correct, which was simply that contrary to the claim - aluminium does indeed "come from the earth naturally". You are referring to aluminium production, the bayer process the principal industrial means of refining bauxite to produce aluminium from mined bauxite.
Although Al is the most abundant metallic element in the Earth's crust, it is highly insoluble and generally unavailable to participate in biogeochemical reactions. However, under highly acidic or alkaline conditions, or in the presence of complexing ligands, elevated concentrations may be mobilised to the aquatic environment. In fact, natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Whilst as I explained, acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes will also occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
I guarantee that the OP is likely referring to the fallacious claims of scientifically illiterate chemtrail conspiracy theorists that aluminium is 'bonded 'and therefore cannot be found naturally in its elemental form in nature - yet is detected in soil and water tests. What they fail to comprehend is the fact that any sample submitted, which invariably has been collected through flawed and incorrect methodology will be tested by analytical laboratories using ICP-MS. I'm sure that you will be able to comment on precisely why this is significant?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unclephilly2127
"Geo-engineering deniers suffer from cognitive dissonance more than most any other group"
Even online conspiracy theorists?
Who's denying geoengineering? - read my initial response to you. Why the strawman fallacy? Why are you changing the subject again? Oh wait...
“Chemtrails” (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection) is the primary delivery system for geo-engineering, so it’s not “changing the subject”, it is the subject."
No it isn't. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. The association fallacy with geoengineering is through charlatans and perpetrators of the latter such as Dane Wigington in a lame attempt to add legitimacy to his claims.
"Perhaps the transcripts of the 111th Congress, discusses specifically SAI, would be a good read for you."
You mean the 2010 House of Representatives Hearing on Science and Technology? The one that tells you that SAI is purely a hypothetical proposal? What about it? I suggest that you read it yourself and refer back to my initial reply to you.
"Or Harvard professor and top geoengineer David Keith would make you see more clearly."
Perhaps visit the Harvard website (Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Programme), click on the 'Geoengineering' tab then once again refer to my initial response to you. Alternatively google 'Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory: The Keith Group', see what he has to say about it, then get back to me.
"Or maybe the 100+ patents of aircraft aerosol delivery systems."
Yep - what about them? Do you understand what an aerosol actually is? Do by all means select your best example of a patent relating to your alleged 'chemtrails'. I will then explain the actual intended purpose to you. Just the patent number will suffice. Also, do appreciate that a patent is not proof of the existence or worth of something, it is merely the registration of an idea, no matter how outlandish that may be. Precisely why you can find patents for teleportation devices or time travel.
"Or maybe Operation Popeye that was used during the Vietnam war."
Yeah, cloud seeding. Why are you changing the subject again? Strikes me your 'chemtrails' are whatever you want them to be.
"Or the worldwide conferences discussing SAI. (chemtrails)."
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is not chemtrails which are simply misidentified aircraft contrails - you can keep saying it, but don't expect to be taken seriously in the real world outside of your online echo-chamber. Of course there are conferences discussing SRM proposals. None of this is secretive.
"Or perhaps the publication from The Defense Technical Information Center- using weather as a force multiplier- owning the weather by 2025 - Maxwell AFB"
This again? Seriously? You mean 'Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025'? What you are referring to is a College project, an assignment written in the future abstract sense. Perhaps you missed to disclaimer clearly states the following: "The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government."
"But I’m sure you’ll just dismiss all of those and anything else on the topic that is a matter of open record."
I've heard and seen it all over and over and over and over again. I absolutely guarantee that I know infinitely more about the origins, the background, the claims, the false equivalence/association fallacy and the perpetrators of this dumb hoax than yourself. What's next? the ludicrous Kristen Meghan?
"Also, I have working in and around military and civilian aircraft since the 1990s"
Of course you have - isn't the internet a wonderful thing?
"so i’m pretty sure i know what a contrail is and what a contrail isn’t"
Nothing like an appeal to your own authority. Odd then that you failed to respond to my question. Actually, I have two.
1/ Why should a contrail dissipate within minutes? Please detail the physical laws that determine this.
2/ Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
@unclephilly2127
So like any conspiracy believer - having addressed and debunked all of your claims, you completely ignore my reply.
"The skies are being spayed as part of geo-engineering operations"
No they aren't. SAI is entirely hypothetical. Do you actually bother reading your own sources? Also, if you actually understood what SAI proposes then you'd know that it aims to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and so would need to be conducted at a minimum of 65,000ft in altitude. There are already naturally produced and heterogeneously formed sulphates in the Junge Layer. SAI would similarly be completely invisible to a ground based observer and would certainly not result in a trail.
I suggest that you look into a small scale trail called SCoPEx on behalf of the Keutsch/Harvard research initiative. This plans to send a steerable balloon 20 kms into the stratosphere to release a few kilos of water and possibly calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation. That's the point, SAI hasn't even reached the stages of field trails yet - nor have the materials been determined. The SCoPEx project has been five years now awaiting ethical approval. SAI will never become a reality. As the Congress hearing that you referred to states, there are many environmental unknowns and dangers. Aside from the cost, logistics and objections, SAI will never be conducted due to the impossibility of international governance.
"whether you , or Joe Rogan, or Neil DeFraud Tyson or Bill Nye the science guy wish to acknowledge it or not."
Did you actually read what David Keith has to say about it? It was your suggestion after all. I suggest that you google 'Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory: The Keith Group'
"Yes, I’m sure you also deny that cloud seeding ever happened."
What do you mean 'ever happened'? and why are you changing the subject again? Cloud seeding programmes are practiced all over the world. In addition to large state sponsored schemes such as in the UAE and China there are private enterprises advertising their services and contracts online. So what? Aerial deployment of cloud seeding typically employs a few kilos of silver iodide through burning flares retrofitted to light aircraft at low altitude. What does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails in the stratosphere?
"open your eyes. look up."
As explained, those are the same aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
You also completely ignored my questions. In case you missed them, here they are again -
1/ Could you explain why contrails must "dissipate in minutes" the physical laws that determine this and why these don't apply to a cirrus cloud?
2/ Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I again ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
@fabriciooliveira3720
"we know government lie and there is some nasty stuff they do"
Of course all governments lie. Should we trust our government? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check.They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our governments is always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Simply because a government has lied or conspired it does not then follows that 9/11 (or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) must be true. A syllogistic fallacy.
"some conspiracies are created and propagated by the same people that did the 911, whomever they are. like the flat earth and chemtrails for example, and those people who are skeptical of everything fall easy for this"
Yes indeed they do - but you are illustrating that yourself in ascribing sinister intent to their origins and inception. Chemtrails for example are simply misidentified contrails and the hoax originated with an article written by William Thomas in the mid nineties and popularised by the junk radio shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast FM. Conspiracy theory burgeoned with internet access and became lucrative. The motivation is profit and the target market the gullible and impressionable who buy into the illusion of empowerment and knowledge that somehow others aren't privy too.
"if people realize that the moonlandings were made in a hollywood studio, and the URSS never contested it besides all the intelligence of KGB, that would mean the cold war was a PSYOP to control the masses, the deep state house of cards would colapse."
And you can't get much further down the rabbit hole than this comment. Just to take your Hollywood Studio comment, aside from the fact that it would need to be fairly impressive to recreate the lunar landscape alongside 1/6th gravity and a vacuum, what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Groom Lake Nevada? Death Valley? The Arizona Desert? Shepperton Studios, Surrey UK? You can't even get your stories straight, because that's precisely all they are and it depends which online conspiracy theory that you subscribe to. Incidentally, I think you meant the USSR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lcocum
No. SRM is entirely hypothetical and has not graduated beyond research and mathematical modelling.
However, let's assume for the sake of argument that SAI had progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, - you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
In order to achieve SAI, such a strategy would be conducted in the stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and stratospheric boundaries - the regions in which the contrails that you are observing and under discussion in this video occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
Additionally, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing contrails can actually trap heat which is precisely the opposite effect that the proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaymuzikelsensacional
"no sir this video might be 5 years old but it wasn't in the top of algorithms when searching for chemtrails truth like it was 4 years ago"
Chemtrails were a popular conspiracy theory throughout the last decade.
"now all those videos are gone,,,explain that,?"
But they haven't. That is completely false. You can still find this nonsense past and present and as I explained within seconds on Google. It may be, that it's finally waning in popularity.
"Ur argument didn't explain why the censoring of those videos that was exposing the truth"
Sigh. No censoring has taken place. Many platforms have come under fire for nurturing and encouraging conspiracy theory because it was lucrative, attracting interest and therefore selling advertising. Once habits form, information sharing is automatically activated by cues on the platform without users considering critical response outcomes, such as spreading misinformation. This type of behavior has been rewarded in the past by algorithms that prioritise engagement when selecting which posts users see in their news feed, and by the structure and design of the sites themselves. You Tube came under immense pressure over this and fearing brand damage has been forced to curtail the visibility of conspiratorial content. It's all still there, and none of this, contrary to your belief has at any point 'exposed any truth'.
"yes those "conspiracies" where out by the 90s but it wasn't until 6 to 7 years ago when it took massive popularity like flat earth and the illuminati in Hollywood and government, this videos are popping out now debunking because is called damage control"
Nope, brand damage control - and the platforms have been suffering for it. As you concede, this is driven by trends. Chemtrails were very frequently searched for - not so much now. Although part of the product line for junk online conspiracy theory websites and You Tube accounts, the singular dedicated ones are becoming fewer and the main protagonists such as charlatans like Dane Wigington, increasingly marginalised.
Why do people subscribe to this? - Lack of education, critical thinking skills and an abundance of circumstances that facilitate fallacious and self serving lines of thought - in addition to a refusal to ascribe major events to natural or chaotic circumstances. Conspiracy theory is a business, it sells empty useless product to the deceived mind. As usual it's about money under the false pretence of enlightenment.
I live in perhaps a forlorn or overly optimistic hope that we have reached, or at least are approaching “peak bullshit”, when younger generations, who have grown up with the internet, can see through the twisted morass of nonsense they encounter online, having been inoculated against it through early exposure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rookshire
"just a bit of the conversation. Cloud seeding is what they are calling it. Its something like chemical trails."
No one terms cloud seeding as "chemtrails" - only gullible conspiracy believers looking to justify their hoax through false equivalence. There are no rain bearing clouds to seed up in the stratosphere where the trails you are observing are formed which is why it is conducted by light aircraft, typically between altitudes of 2,000 - 6,500 ft. Moreover, cloud seeding does not result in long lasting visible trails - in fact it does not leave a trail at all. Combine that with the fact that an average run will burn only a few grams of silver iodide, the 'chem' aspect is pretty negligible too,
"I think those 20 thousand vials that went missing found their way into chemical trails. I could be wrong because this is just a theory."
Well no shit.
What 200 vials are you talking about? And what effect do you think that they would have had released from an aircraft in the lower stratosphere? Like I said, SARS-CoV-19 was impossible to contain due to international travel and social mixing.
"I know that the virus has about a 6% comunicablity rate or so I heard, If its true. Then it doesn't seem possible for it to spread that quickly on its own"
Not possible for a contagious virus to spread quickly on its own? What are you talking about "6% communicability"? You need to understand the R number. Actually take some time to read some scientific literature on the subject of viral spread and reproducibility instead of relying on internet hearsay and anecdotal nonsense.
"The timing of this pandemic seems really fishy too."
Why?
"Chim trials seems to be a way to spread it. I've looked into what can it seems probable."
No you clearly haven't. Learn basic immunology, virology and epidemiology. As I said, it's hard to conceive a more inefficient way to transmit a virus that spraying it out of the rear of a jet aircraft at 35,000ft.
"The fact that important data about how it got out should be another example of fishy behavior! Its things like this that make most people say . Humm! Something shady is going on."
What "important data got out"? Again, what the hell are you talking about?
"Kinda like a girl or boyfriend might at strange because they are cheating. They delete messages that sorta stuff. Its feels the same way with the virus and plenty of other things!"
Solely because you clearly haven't got the first idea about what you are talking about and are clearly completely scientifically illiterate. Genuine question - how old are you? This reads like the meandering and erratic thought process of a twelve year old with learning difficulties. No offence meant.
1
-
1
-
@krispoli22
What? "stretch the ionosphere out into space to change the jet streams"?? Is this actually serious?
Yeah, you're clearly consuming a conspiratorial 'sushi' of online false equivalence and association fallacy contrived and perpetuated by the perpetrators of this nonsense and in so doing have just regurgitated that response.
Firstly HAARP is the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project owned by the University of Alaska, an HF pump, which has absolutely nothing to do with the weather and is used as an ionospheric research tool. Find out what it actually consists of and is designed to do/capable of, instead of relying on junk circulated by crackpot conspiracy theorists.
Secondly, once again, the chemtrail conspiracy theory is based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. To reiterate the ionosphere has nothing to do with our weather. Chemtrail conspiracy theorists rant on about 'aluminium oxide and barium' purely because fifteen years ago, they were identified as possible materials to deploy by those spearheading research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which most scientifically illiterate chemtrail believers now comically assume to be those white trials in the wake of jet aircraft. SAI is entirely hypothetical and were it ever to be employed in a bid to arrest global temperature increase (which is won't, due to amongst other things, the impossibility of international governance.) would likely involve sulphates or CaCO3.
"Nano size!? - another term chemtrail believers seem to like to mindlessly bat about. That being the case, how do they form trails?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SAI - happening since 1940? No it hasn't.
Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilitse the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
The $20 million launch of the recent Harvard Research programme is a drop in the ocean. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to understand the economic, environmental and practical challenges of geoengineering. The systematic dominance of physical science and engineering perspectives in geoengineering research encourages a neglect of social and environmental impacts. This negligence is characteristic of an approach that addresses symptoms but aims to leave the underlying conditions that spawned the problem in place. Yet the socio-political and socio-economic implications of large-scale technological schemes to “fix” the climate are profound: under existing global power relations, geoengineering is bound to be exploited for corporate and strategic interest.
Computer simulations have predicted other possible impacts of geoengineering schemes on the natural world. Injecting aerosols in the stratosphere could suppress rainfall and potentially interfere with monsoon patterns. Carbon farm monocultures could conceivably destroy natural ecosystems at a massive scale. Given that natural processes and systems are complex, non-linear, and in some measure chaotic and unpredictable, the overwhelming majority of effects that will ripple through our global ecosystems might only become apparent after geoengineering technologies are actually deployed.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
@on-ye7ir
"you seem extremely misinformed"
https://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://izenmeme.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/i_meter5.gif&key=e8afe5c7f0f6f609f441e3f3a5a92d9cdf393094dde3927c39e0a43b0ec88fa6
"look up once in a while,"
Well I have alpine climbed since childhood, obtained a post graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two decades ago, subsequently specialising in ground based remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength - (so I can not only tell you what you are looking at - but how to measure it) - and have more than a passing interest in astronomy - what's your point and what in particular about my reply to you do you wish to challenge?
"its not rocket science."
...it's meteorological science - and you clearly know the square root of jack shit about either.
"I thought Armenians are considered a highly intelligent race"
Armenian?
"https://youtu.be/AClt8BgXPpQ"
Er, yeah, that'll be a link to another baseless you tube video about the chemtrails conspiracy posted by believers in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, featuring confirmation bias and deceptive, misleading and dishonestly appropriated footage pushing the chemtrails conspiracy theory, by perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory as supposed evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory.?!? Genius.
Other than the fact your shit conspiracy video told you what to parrot, why do you think that SAI has been conducted since the 1940s and why it would have anything whatsoever to do with a contrail in either appearance, nature or deployment?
1
-
1
-
"Let’s talk about SAI. Stratospheric aerosol injections."
Nope, that would be Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.
"This is what the CIA wants to do, with 10 billion dollars"
Source?
"Tax payer dollars of course, and they plan to drop the chemicals or chemtrails into the sky to combatant climate change and pollution."
SAI has nothing to do with pollution.
"This isn’t a conspiracy this is out in the open and they have held press conferences on the matter."
The CIA? Could you refer me to one? Surely, you can't be referring to a 2016 video of John Brennan's voluntary address to the COFN in which he identified transnational threats to global security and that conspiracy theorists have dishonestly appropriated and posted as a chemtrails video?
"Now you half brain dead, mutilated (circumcised) poisoned (injected) people, (don’t feel bad I’m injured too) tell me, do you think it is a good idea to combat pollution, with more chemical pollution?"
It isn't designed to combat pollution. Why do you keep saying that?
"And do you think that they actually want to combat climate change with these chemicals?"
That's the general idea yes. It will never come to fruition though.
"The CIA director has already been pushing for this."
No he hasn't, that is entirely false. As explained, the former Director of the CIA John Brennan spoke about the potential dangers of this - the complete opposite of advocating its use.
"Now you tell me. If they haven’t already done it without our permission, why are they trying to do it with our permission and even worse OUR hard earned money."
Please allow me to explain. SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with the CIA. It is a branch of geoengineering called Solar Radiation Management. With the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening, this is entirely hypothetical. SAI, would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols ad that heterogeneously produced in the Junge Layer. The main impetus behind this research is the Keutsch/Keith group at Harvard. This has not progressed beyond mathematical modelling and research proposals. They received a huge set back recently having waited years to gain ethical approval for their SCoPEx project which never came. This intended to launch a steerable balloon 20km into the stratosphere and release a few kilos or water (and possibly calcium carbonate) to test perturbation.
SAI will never become a reality - not simply due to environmental unknowns, opposition and logistics, but due to the sheer impossibility of international governance and the ramifications of legal liability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedudewashere1987
"Type in solar radiation management and look at the Wikipedia definition."
I have no need to. I'm already very familiar with the proposals.
"Then, look up the patent for Stratospheric Aerosal Injections."
What? Patents are not proof of the existence of something. Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'aerosol.'
SAI would aim to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. "Metal particulates"???? As I said, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - yup, that's right, chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"Then watch Peter Brennan former director of the CIA explain a multi billion dollar proposal to start spraying."
Oh Christ, you're embarrassingly bad at this aren't you. If you insist on parroting things off shite online conspiracy videos, at least get the names right. You are referring to the ex-Director of the CIA 'John' Brennan and his appearance as a guest speaker at the Council for Foreign Nations in which his chosen theme was transitional threats to global security.
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
During his address Brennan discussed future issues that may result in worldwide instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could create international conflict and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to identify a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political, Environmental Sociological and Technological framework. He explored research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan states that SAI is about to commence. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"Then research the difference between a contrail that needs specific conditions to even be visible and which dissipates in a short time"
My background is meteorology and climate science. Please for the benefit of anyone reading this explain why a contrail must "dissipate in a short time" supported by the physical laws that determine this, and providing citations and scientific substantiation to verify your claim. Good..luck...with...that.
"and an Aerosal injection which eventually blankets the sky with a hazy layer."
As I explained, SAI would be imperceptible to the ground based observer. Coincidentally - condensed atmospheric water vapour tends to do exactly that...well no shit.
"Couple those factors with using your own lying eyes and you'll see that these aren't contrails."
My background is ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength). Not only do I understand what I'm looking at, but I can tell you precisely how to measure it too.
And you in-situ analytical data of your supposed chemtrails at source?
Why do you imbeciles feel the need to comment on issues that you clearly have no understanding of whatsoever - purely because you have access to the internet but clearly have no clue how to use it?
1
-
@thedudewashere1987
"because imbeciles like you never question the narrative."
Coming from a gullible buffoon that has allowed the internet to convince him that a cloud is a conspiracy theory. And your point about "Paul" Brennan?
"You're pretty good at copying and pasting. I'll give you that."
Squawked the online conspiracy parrot.
All my own words, all addressing your confused regurgitated nonsense. Feel free to refute it.
"Don't mind the evidence that this is something that has been planned for a while"
What "evidence" would that be? You mean research proposals into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which have never been in the slightest bit secretive or out of the public domain?
"And all of the sudden, we have "contrails" or condensation that doesn't dissipate."
Persistent contrails have been occurring for almost a century. Why should contrails immediately dissipate? I asked you to support this contention...you have failed. Condensation "that doesn't dissipate"??? Are you equally as perturbed about fog. mist or a cloud?
"The point is, those are aerosol injections, not contrails."
As I painstakingly explained SAI is designated for double the altitude of the contrails that you are misidentifying. In addition to this, the objective is to reproduce the effects of volcanic aerosols and would be imperceptible to ground based observation - far less resemble the large white plumes in the wake of a commercial airliners that have been documented, studied and understood since the advent of the jet era.
"Even if I produced a few typos, it doesn't make me wrong."
Say hello to "Paul" Brennan.
"The whole point of this interview was about how absurd the idea of chemtrails are. Well, the government sure doesn't think so."
I assure you that they do. Which "government" in particular are you referring to?
"I'm done arguing because I know you will write, excuse me, copy and paste a bunch of articles trying to debunk chemtrails."
I have no need to whilst there are imbeciles such as yourself parroting this nonsense. You've done a comprehensive job ridiculing your own conspiracy theory yourself.
"While your at it..."
Learn to understand the difference in application between a possessive pronoun and a contraction?
"...why don't you go argue with somebody about whether or not we are being bombarded by radio emissions from cell towers."
Because the subject under discussion here is contrails. What do research proposals into SAI have to do with the latter?
"Nothing is being sprayed"
Correct. The only correct thing you have typed in this entire exchange. Even a fucked clock tells the right time twice a day.
Why do you people do this to yourselves?
1
-
1
-
Which you obviously didn't. False equivalence yet again.
Bill Gates is doing nothing of the sort . Gates leant vocal support and some funding to an area of geoengineering research called Solar Radiation Management - more specifically, Harvard's research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. This is entirely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond publications and computer modelling. Moreover, Bill Gates has nothing at all to do with this in practice. Finally, even in the highly unlikely event that SAI were ever to be employed, it would bear no relationship whatsoever to the misidentified aircraft contrails discussed in this video that have been observed, measured and studied for the best part of a century and since the early advent of high altitude powered flight. - and what do you mean "pigments"? There is no agreement upon which material would best replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, which is why the SCoPEx project is looking to evaluate perturbation, reflectivity and dispersion using a small balloon launched to an altitude of 20kms and initially a few kilos of water, followed by calcium carbonate.
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This is bull, Harvard uni admit to strasospheric aerosol spraying"
Sigh. That's "Stratospheric Aerosol Injection" and Harvard don't "admit" to anything of the sort. Research into SAI has never been secretive. It is very much in the interest of those involved in research into any form of Solar Radiation Management to publicise their work to generate funding and support. How precisely do you "admit" to something that isn't denied? Furthermore, SAI is purely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond publication of proposals and mathematical modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance, the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles in addition to the environmental unknowns, mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used.
"aluminium, berillium and strontium"
Absolute nonsense. What on earth are you talking about. Also, I think you mean beryllium.
SAI would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. Regarding Calcium Carbonate, early research suggests that it has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulfate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. It is also non-toxic and earth abundant. However, it does not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate.
In 2019 year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails or the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
"HOW FUCKING PATHETIC ...HOW ABOUT I LOOKED UP AT THE SKY AND SAW THE AIRPLANES SPRAYING WHITE LINES THAT WENT COMPLETELY ACROSS THE SKY"
You mean the same contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation?
"AND NOW THERE ARE X PATTERN AND V PATTERNS"
Amazing to think that commercial air traffic actually originates from, and travels to, a range of different destinations on the planet, using multiple headings, altitudes and bearings. Did you know that they can actually change course during this too? V patterns? You got some footage of this?
"SO I RESEARCHED THIS CAREFULLY FOR 10 YEARS"
What could possibly go wrong?
"AND FOUND OUT THEY WERE DOING CHEMTRAILS BACK IN THE 50S ...OPERATION POPEYE IS AN ADMITTED CHEMTRAIL OPERATION THAT HAPPENED IN VIETNAM ....."
No, it was a cloud seeding programme which has nothing to do with long lasting white trails in the wake of jet powered aircraft at six times the altitude .
"BUT THIS WEIRDO JOE ROGAN , THE SHILL OF ALL SHILLS , THINKS WE ARE STUPID ...."
What could possibly give him that impression?
"ONE DAY , THE GOVT WILL ADMIT TO CHEMTRAILS BECAUSE ALL OF US WILL EVENTUALLY SEE THESE TOXIC SPRAYINGS ...THEN WHAT JOE ? WILL YOU APOLOGIZE FOR BEING THE SHILL THAT YOU ARE ??"
You are seriously attempting to suggest that a small community of special people in the internet are the only ones that have noticed white trails in the sky accompanying high flying aircraft...a phenomena known, recognised and understood since the early inception of powered flight?
Might want to get that jammed caps lock on your keyboard looked at.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juniortee3283
Rosalind Peterson??? Again???
Rosalind Peterson isn't a 'Senator,' she was a crops loss claims adjustment adjuster – a sort of agricultural insurance agent.The main video that she features in which is still tirelessly flogged by chemtrail believers over a decade later is not as it dishonestly claims Peterson addressing the UN either. This was simply a conference on Climate Change organised by the UN, not an actual UN sitting. The session she addressed was titled "Coping With Climate Change: Best Land Use Practice"Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defence Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC is just her. It's just the name of her personal website. Her presentation only discusses geoengineering – again in the future tense, and focuses more on existing weather modification (cloud seeding), sounding rockets in the ionosphere, and the effects of normal persistent contrails which she clearly has no scientific understanding of. At 4:58 she mentions persistent jet contrails, stressing her belief that they are affecting photosysnthesis by reducing sunlight. She mentions ‘persistent jet contrails’ - due to her background her chief concern is how they potentially affect agriculture, by reducing sunlight, and trapping heat. Five years later Peterson had explicitly distanced herself from her unintentional association the chemtrails hoax. “We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything” Rosalind Peterson 2015.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@White Wolf
Certainly - and I appreciate the apology, although like I say, I am impervious to it.
A contrail is simply a form of artificially induced cirrus. The governing factors are temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is very cold. If you burn a hydrocarbon fuel the the two chief products will obviously be H20 and C02. Do so in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, if the conditions permit, then this water vapour present in the aircraft exhaust as a gas will condense out. In cases of high Relative Humidity in respect to ice then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
Now reconsider those supposed chemtrail aircraft interiors that you were dishonestly mislead about. How could they possibly collectively have the necessary capacity to deposit a single horizon to horizon trail and what chemical can expand and grow in mass other than condensed atmospheric water vapour? When viewed as a ground based observer it looks like this, (taken from the pages of a 75 year old meteorology textbook)..
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
The science of contrail cirrus is explained here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
This is also very informative...
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/6229/2009/acp-9-6229-2009.pdf
I genuinely hope this helps.
1
-
@White Wolf
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then there is SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely hypothetical - the exception being ground based albedo modification.
So to reiterate, the reason that you may term Stratospheric Aerosol Injection as "chemtrails" owes solely to the perpetrators of this hoax intentionally conflating the two and due to confirmation bias, chemtrail believers are simply too ignorant about the subject to recognise their intentional false equivalence / association fallacy or objectively critically appraise the claims.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which Harvard's David Keith is the main proponent of would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. As I mentioned. the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. Chemtrail believers parrot "aluminium, barium, strontium' and yet there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. This year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it currently looks like...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
However, let's humour you and the video that you link that you posted and assume for the sake of argument that SAI had progressed beyond the hypothetical and was actually being deployed. What you fail to appreciate is that you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft or a cirrus cloud. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing and under discussion in this video occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
Additionally, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing contrails can actually trap heat which is precisely the opposite effect that the proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video there really is no further need to discuss it.
1
-
@White Wolf
"Look.. How come we never seen all this stuff before the 1990s then? Why did they suddenly appear out of nowhere? I've spoken to numerous people on this matter and they all concur with me that you never used to see these long thick trails years ago..."
Absolutely incorrect. Persistent contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century. Do you actually read my replies? Again, allow me to refer you to an image from a 75 year old meteorology text book...
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
In Flight to Arras the legendary aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is almost five decades old.
"Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SGTACESGTACESGTACE
To clarify, and remind you - this is what you said:
"Bill gates is tryin to dim the sun by flyin planes and dumping chems to reflect the light back and lower the earth temp. Hes been workin on it for 20 years."
This is absolutely incorrect. Yes, he has been a strong advocate and has donated to the Harvard initiative, but he has nothing whatsoever to do with the research per se.
"And yes for 20 years he has been pushing it."
You now need to substantiate that. Go ahead. The idea of SAI wasn't even conceived back then.
"in all the years he has conducted a experiment or prototype time will tell i guess."
SAI hasn't graduated beyond mathematical modelling nor has it reached the stages of small scale trial. There is not even agreement upon which materials would best serve to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. And to reiterate, Bill Gates has nothing to do with SAI in practice should it even get that far.
"they wouldn't hesitate to experiment on the people"
What would be the purpose of that?
"I guess it depends how far along in research they are but hypothetical after all that time i doubt. But as i said we shall see."
I can assure you that it is. SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. It would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. Currently there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft). It also faces many environmental unknowns in addition to insurmountable challenges in respect of global governance and transnational relations.
However, let's assume for the sake of argument that SAI had progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed - you wouldn't see it at all, far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
In order to achieve SAI, such a strategy would be conducted in the stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere regions in which the contrails that you are observing and under discussion in this video occur. As I said, there is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes. Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
There was however an experiment designated for 2019 which never took place. This was to involve a small steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere releasing several kilos of water and possible in later tests the same negligible quantities of calcium carbonate to evaluate dispersion and perturbation. This is called SCoPEx and here is the current status of SAI as it stands...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JJ-kz7sm
"actually you do make claim to science and fact, for that you are responsible."
As I said, I am irrelevant. Known science is ineluctable and axiomatic, thereby, as I explained, speaks for itself.
"Next concept we discuss is time. It's relative. My time for now has expired. I don't have time to spend all afternoon arguing with a closed off person."
As I said, I am irrelevant. Your dispute lies with physical laws, not me.
"Repeatedly I say I don't prescribe but you just ignore that."
Actually, you said this..
"This is a 30 year old theory and it's plausible"
And I disagree, that's all.
As I said, this is a 30 year old conspiracy theory - and a particularly dumb one at that - originating in the misidentification of persistent contrails.
"_"If you look back I made no claim, simply asked a question framed with "if"_*
Incorrect. You said it was plausible. I disagree. The burden of proof is therefore incumbent upon you to demonstrate why. The onus does not lie with me to establish a negative.
"I will revisit this some other time to see if your holding up or if you jumped."
You are at liberty to 'revisit' it whenever you want. It's a comments section.
"Take care and make sure to wear 2-3 facemasks."
One N95 respirator is quite sufficient to filter out the most of the particle matter I was referring to.
1
-
1
-
@JJ-kz7sm
"you do realize that by claiming you are irrelevant you disqualified yourself."
Disqualified myself from what precisely? As I said, the atmospheric chemistry and physical laws that govern contrail formation are independently verifiable, nothing to do with me.
"So why, just because you said it, does it become fact?"
Just because I said what precisely? To reiterate, known science is axiomatic and thereby has a voice of its own.
"You say I have a burden of proof for asking questions and pointing out plausible circumstances."
You haven't and you didn't though. You made a series of ill-informed statements before concluding that the chemtrail hoax was "plausible".
"That same burden exists on you for making your claims here."
The only claim that I have made is that the chemtrail conspiracy nonsenses is predicated upon with the misidentification of persistent contrails - which is correct. If you wish to suggest that the trails you are seeing are anything other than the product of condensed atmospheric water vapour then the onus is upon you to present your data and provide evidence. Particularly when you brand this nonsense as "plausible". The onus does not lie with me to establish a negative. Again, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Russel's teapot.
"I do hope you enjoy your troll life but would guess you don't enjoy much?"
As the one posting irrational claims, ill-informed nonsense and assumptions and ad-hominem abuse, then the troll would be none other than yourself. I simply questioned your logic about particulate matter, corrected you on your claims about jet fuel and addressed every point you made with verifiable science...and how you people hate that. You in return responded with indignation and logical fallacy before pronouncing that chemtrails are plausible, failing to understand burden of proof, then said you were going, only to return with another undignified emotional outburst and series of non-sequiturs. By definition, that makes the troll none other than yourself, another very simple concept that you are evidently incapable of comprehending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lizardfirefighter110
"I am flattered that you spent so much time trying to debunk me."
Don't be. It took a maximum of about five minutes to type my reply to you. I'm not "trying" to do anything - your dumb conspiracy theory debunks itself. Nothing to do with me.
"I know what I saw and it is different than what I saw as a kid."
But you don't know what you saw by virtue of the fact that you claim that they are chemtrails. The persistent spreading contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. These are simply more prevalent today due to the huge unregulated expansion of commercial aviation and routes flown.
"You have to ask why is there even a discussion on this topic. Why are there witness with degrees in science walking my path?"
Such as? Would you like me to also explain the logical fallacy that is appeal to authority?
"Why do people talk about Geo-engineering?"
Because it is a very broad subject. GGR (or negative emissions technology) involves such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), whilst carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation and ocean fertilisation are all highly topical. The Solar Radiation Management which you appear to be alluding to encompasses research initiatives such as Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This, with the exception of ground based albedo modification, entirely hypothetical consisting or research proposal and mathematical modelling. What's your point? Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about - as your posts are ample testimony to.
"I know what I see"
Yes, so you keep saying. Your personal incredulity and repeated insistence has no bearing upon reality - and if you think that geoengineering would in anyway remotely resemble a contrail, then you demonstrably don't. Why dion't you actually read up on the subject instead of letting internet conspiracy theorists tell you what to think?
"and it’s not contrails running through a dynamic atmosphere"
What?
"I know my blue sky turns white by mid afternoon after seeing white streaks from horizon to horizon against a blue sky in the morning."
Did you read the paper that I provided you with? Of course you didn't. Your explanation can be found through a basic grasp of meteorological science as opposed to a junk You Tube chemtrails conspiracy video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Nono technology is 100% real"
Nono technology?
"and they have been accused of testing it via airplanes by many credible people."
Such as? And who precisely are "they"?
"Elizabeth May, tge leader if the Green Party in Canada can straighten you out on what is happening in the world of geoengineering"
What does geoengineering have to do with persistent contrails which have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation or the chemtrail hoax which is predicated upon the misidentification of the latter?
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification. SAI aims to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate this - indeed, this year an experiment involving a steerable balloon launched 20 kms into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert and mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - will take place to measure dispersion and perturbation. Here's the current status of SAI -
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Geoengineering is a largely hypothetical theoretical series of proposals which have nothing to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory bar the attempts of its perpetrators to conflate the two to afford credence to their ludicrous claims.
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
"I hope illegal geoengineering dust makes its way into your lungs. You obviously want to ignore it as crazy. Asshole"
Illegal geoengineering dust????? ...calcium carbonate?
You really don't understand this do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What on earth are you talking about? Research into geoengineering has always been fully transparent and in the public domain. And what are you referring to? Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification.
The chemtrail hoax is based upon misidentified contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and over eighty years. It originated in the US (where else?) during 1990s largely through the junk late night radio shows of Art Bell on commercial radio station Coast to Coast AM that churns out all manner of conspiratorial sensationalism to harvest stupidity, boost ratings and therefore advertising revenue. Internet availability, rampant growth in populism/ant-science and the 'post-truth' era have caused online conspiracy theory to burgeon and become very lucrative for some. The perpetrators of this hoax have intentionally used false equivalence in a feeble attempt to add legitimacy to their ludicrous claims - chemtrail believers and self-appointed armchair experts that have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about meteorology, atmospheric science and aviation and so are unable to recognise such association fallacy simply uncritically lap it up and regurgitate it over the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HenryyHill
You only need to make the one post. Try consolidating your replies into one comment.
"Try to pour boiling water on ground in -20°C. Then we can talk how invisible it is."
The water will create steam - what's your point?
"or even better one. Look at the clouds, and then tell me vapour is invisible."
You have inadvertently and unintentionally proved my point. ASd I previously explained, clouds are formed from water vapour which is an invisible gas. Clouds are condensed water vapour in the form of water droplets or ice crystals. A contrail is nothing more than a cloud.
Allow me to explain this to you in very simple terms. The atmosphere contains water vapour. You can't see it because it is an invisible gas. The room you are sat in right now contains water vapour - we call this humidity.
Now understand that relative humidity is defined as the ratio of the current vapour pressure to the equilibrium vapour pressure. If the room you are in was hypothetically completely sealed, the relative humidity will eventually reach 100%. If the relative humidity is less than 100%, then water in liquid form will evaporate at a higher rate than vapour will condense. If there is some form of ventilation, as is the case in most houses, this means that a volume of liquid water will completely evaporate given enough time. If the relative humidity is above 100%, we speak of supersaturation which is the process that allows clouds to form, expand and increase in mass or aircraft contrails to spread across the sky. The rate of condensation will exceed the rate of evaporation - or more accurately in this case, sublimation, and water will start to condensate through coalescing onto condensation and hygroscopic nuclei. The relative humidity depends on the temperature as well as the absolute amount of water present in vapour form, since the equilibrium vapour pressure depends on the temperature.
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will snap freeze condense out as ice, forming a trail. The water vapour in the superheated exhaust is invisible hence the phase gap after the engines.
A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. The jet exhaust is merely the trigger event. Very basic meteorological science.
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonaanon6808
Cloud seeding does not "make it rain", the intention is to introduce additional nucleate to existing cumulus/stratiform masses which are conducive to rainfall in order to prematurely induce precipitation. Cloud seeding does not create clouds and similarly, it cannot create rainfall, only stimulate it. As Rogan says, it is impossible to control the weather and make it rain over Santa Barbara on a whim. You cannot make it rain where there are no rain clouds already present. Also, the results of cloud seeding are highly erratic and unreliable and the very efficacy of the practice, highly questionable.
There is however footage of liquid fueled rocket test stands which have been appropriated by the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax and branded as 'cloud making machines'. The plumes from these rocket motors are so vast that in conditions of high humidity which is frequently the case at the Stennis Test Facility in Mississippi for example, the combustion of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants of these materials creates large clouds of steam that exceed 6,000 °F. The steam rises after the engine test and cools, condensing out in the air, that can create rain in the vicinity.
1
-
@nonaanon6808
"that was during the Veitnam war"
???? Cloud seeding services are freely advertised by private organisations over the internet. Let me explain this to you, because you clearly haven't the first idea what you are commenting about.
Cloud seeding is dispersed via at least four methods; [1] Light aircraft. [2] Burn sticks containing silver iodide, placed in desirable spots on the ground. [3] Rockets (they are often also fired in order to prevent the formation of crop-damaging hail (some tea growers also use them, sometimes with radar-reflecting "needle" wire dipoles scattered through the silver iodide, to enable tracking of the release points; some hail rockets are at least partially reusable). [4] surplus AA (antiaircraft) guns, whose shells contain silver iodide instead of high explosive. The Chinese make extensive use of cloud-seeding AA guns. The shell fuses can be set to burst at any desired altitude within the guns' altitude capabilities.
As I explained, weather modification, the technical term for cloud seeding is a commercially advertised venture and is neither secretive or covert. In addition to this there are high profile state sponsored initiatives, the UAE and China being two examples - the latter deploying the practice during the Beijing Olympics closing ceremony. In spite of this, cloud seeding is not at all widespread.
"how far have they came since then"
Oh Jesus wept!!! HR 2977??? Are you serious? This is Dennis Kucinich's Space Preservation Act, which effectively ruined not only his bid to run as a presidential candidate but arguably his political career. Have you actually bothered to read this nonsense? Of course you haven't and neither did he.
Had he taken a look at the draft - which he had he nothing to do with writing - and perhaps not entrusted it to UFO enthusiasts Carol Rosin and Alfred Weber, he would have discovered that it contained all manner of fanciful conspiratorial nonsense from extraterrestrial technology to pyschotronic mind control weapons. So it really wasn't that surprising that they flung in "chemtrails" as well.
When this bullshit was discovered it was hastily redrafted and prompted Kucinich to say "“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.'” Ultimately it was never passed, because of its lack of substance and fizzled out under committee. it was a huge embarrassment for Rep. Kucinich, not because of any alleged "secret revelations", but because certain members of his staff acted without his direct consent. And what does any of this have to do with cloud seeding?
What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justintrollope7544
"well water vapour isn't going to hang around in the atmosphere its water ! You don't need a PhD to work that one out"
No you don't - it's very basic science and you still couldn't get it right. Water vapour is a gas Over 99% of atmospheric water is in the form of vapour, rather than liquid water or ice. This is measured as humidity. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds. In the case of jet engines, if the conditions are conducive (the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure), then the water vapour present in the exhaust will condense out as ice. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not form at all - whether it does together with its length and duration is a function of the above. If the ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, then the contrail will not only persist, but will increase in mass and expand drawing 99% of the moisture from the atmosphere. The aircraft exhaust is merely a trigger event. Like I said, very elementary meteorological science - why are you attempting to sound authoritative about something that you clearly have no idea about whatsoever?
"as far as cloud seeding is concerned I've never been asked and certainly not seen it mentioned in any political party's manifesto have you , let a lone seen any programs on mainstream media obviously you have?"
Cloud seeding is not in the slightest bit secretive. The state sponsored schemes you refer to are extremely high profile and there are commercial organisations that freely sell their services online. What does cloud seeding have to do with the trails that you are seeing and misidentified by chemtrail believers?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Chemtrail Planes you CANNOT track on the live flight tracker apps and websites like you can with all commercial flights...."
So what's happened here is that in the inflated conspiratorial mindset you have seen some aircraft producing what you deem to be 'chemtrails' (remember there is no consistency between chemtrail believers about this), and they don't show up on a flight tracker. Which tracker do you use? Aircraft located visually in the sky, and planes found on such tracking software normally have a slight lag. Also, not all flights are required to transmit the ADS-B information
"They are TRULY up to something and it's not good at all."
Who precisely are "they"?
"Any idiot can pull up a chair on their front patio and watch these planes and what they are doing.... the trails do not dissipate but linger and formulate to cover the sun and leave a haze in the sky."
Right, so we have a rough description now. The persistent spreading contrails that you are seeing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. You can establish this for yourself. It's basic meteorological science. Are you also perplexed by the duration of a cloud?
Whether or not a trail will appear to "cover the sun" is entirely dependent upon your position on the ground relative to it.
"it's a BUNCH of tax payer funded CRAP and it should be STOPPED!"
Nope, it's atmospheric science. Combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel produces CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will snap freeze and condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. In this case, the jet exhaust is merely the trigger.
A question for you to ponder next time you 'pull up a chair'. Have you any idea of the weight of material contained in these trails versus the capacity and the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? What chemical can mysteriously spread, expand and increase in mass just like, well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I can't research this s*** for you"
I wouldn't want you to...because you have zero in the way of the critical thought process and are absolutely bereft of objective understanding. Once more, research does not simply involve typing "chemtrails" into a search engine or YouTube..that's called confirmation bias.
"USAF Chemtrail acadamy manual Chemtrails: Chemistry 141 and 142, Fourth Edition CB (Applications and Concepts in Chemistry) by USAF Academy
ISBN: 0201306840
ISBM-13: 9780201306842 the academy is in Virginia"
Have you actually read this? It's a chemistry text book.
Sigh, are you people utterly incapable of finding anything new or original or that hasn't been aimlessly parroted thousands of times?
"no one's this stupid"
Let's see shall we?
"here now do your own damn research"
Righto....
The book is a lab manual for freshmen at the academy who take chemistry course # 131 as an ordinary part of graduation. All Air cadets are required to take basic chemistry as part of their curriculum. "100" level courses are for freshmen students. The lab manual contains nothing of relevance to the subject of aerial spraying, and the name is simply a play on the words contrails and chemistry. Why is it called "Chemtrails"? Because every first year cadet also has a small book to memorize aviation and USAF history and trivia from, called "Contrails". and it was simply a play on that. You can purchase these inexpensively.
https://shop.usafa.org/products/bookstore/contrails
And the manual that you are referring to is easily obtainable as a library resource, here's a source in Australia...
https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4068308/Holdings
This was found out by chemtrail believer Diane Harvey in 2001 quite simply because she could be bothered to read it - which you couldn't, but oddly it continues to be uncritically bandied about as part of chemtrails lore.
"I think I can solve this puzzle, which has a very mundane solution. "Chemtrails" is the happy-camper name of the official government/military chemist's bulletin. Last year I corresponded with a Dr. Donald Bird there, who was absolutely disgusted to discover what I was writing to him about. And I was in the end quite satisfied that he was genuinely annoyed to be associated with this topic, and that indeed the bulletin is exactly what he said it was. I read a couple: boring beyond belief and nothing to do with chemtrails."
That's one of your own chemtrail cohorts speaking and you can find her on the Chemtrail.central website.
1990: USAF whimsically calls their chemistry text book "Chemtrails" after the cadet handbook "Contrails", which has been around since the 1950s. 1999: Conspiracy theorists start using the term "chemtrails".
May I suggest that you also download and read the contents of the manual whereupon I'm hopeful that even you will also discover that it is simply a chemistry textbook - we can discuss the topics contained in more detail if you wish.
"no one's this stupid"
Are you sure about that?....
https://youtu.be/6ppEl0G6zLA
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@canadianmmaguy7511
*_"Chemtrails" are a description for abnormal persistent contrails.
It's a theory because people don't associate the aerosol spraying programs with SRM, cloud seeding, etc."_*
Incorrect - 'chemtrails' are a baseless hoax originally predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails - which are not as you claim 'abnormal' in the slightest.
"Geoengineering is the fact, chemtrails are the theory for the people who are not privy to geoengineering
"
Let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional manufactured false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense such as yourself are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about. Incidentally, cloud seeding has nothing whatsoever to do with geoengineering, and why do you think that even if it were to be employed, that SAI would even vaguely resemble a white trail in the wake of a commercial aircraft at half the designated altitude that it is designed to be employed?
If you think that you are 'privy' to geoengineering, then by all means let's discuss it. There's really no need to involve your antisemitic agenda or your programmed parroted obligatory 'shill' conspiratorial clichés/script, you are simply embarrassing yourself - learn to address the argument as opposed to attacking the individual.
So, to return to the point, what does geoengineering in any of its forms have to do with persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered flight and in excess of 85 years?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@canadianmmaguy7511
"excuse me, misrepresentation of contrails?
I thought a contrail was a visible form of ice that's formed from low temperatures and moisture at a high altitude. How can we misrepresent those?"
You tell me? Precisely my point. So why do you people insist on pointing to them as supposed evidence as your alleged 'geoengineered' chemtrails then?
"As the patents identify , airplanes inject aerosols, salts, and metals into the atmosphere for weather engineering."
Indeed some of them do - for a variety of purposes ranging from crop spraying, cloud seeding, smoke generation, and proposed methods of geoengineering. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the visible contrails that you are seeing however. Also, a patent is simply the registration of an idea, irrespective of how impractical or outright outlandish that may be. It is not proof of the existence of something. Currently SAI for example has progressed no further than paper based proposal and computer modelling and hasn't even reached the stages of small scale trial.
"That is the chemtrails "theory", the fact is the application of scientific terms"
Incorrect. As I keep pointing out to you, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is the belief that persistent contrails are evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying. However - out of desperation, it has rapidly come to mean whatever you want it to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roseparkerartist9657
Yes, SAI, what about it? Did you not watch your own video link or read the part in which it tells you that it is purely research based and simply an idea and potential response to global temperature rise? What's wrong with you people?
SAI is a hypothetical branch of Solar Radiation Management. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers misidentify as 'chemtrails' and is completely unrelated to cloud seeding. SAI has yet to graduate beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. The idea is to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. There is a small scale trail planned by the main proponents of this strategy called SCoPeX, but this has been repeatedly postponed for the last five years due to ethical approval. It plans to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere, release a few litres of water and possibly on subsequent flights several kilos of CaCO3 to evaluate perturbation and reflectivity. SAI will never be conducted - not simply due to the environmental unknowns or logistical challenges, but owing to the impossibilities of international governance and legal complexities / ramifications. Because it would aim to use the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns for global dispersal, this raises huge issues for international law and security.
Let's be honest, you haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about. You people would never have even heard of SAI were it not for the intentional association fallacy on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about in the name of the 'chemtrails' conspiracy theory.
Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But it's not a UN meeting is it.
This is an old video that was deceptively framed by a perpetrator of the chemtrail hoax and is still over a decade later batted about your vacuous echochamber as supposed evidence of chemtrails. Supposedly she was addressing the UN - only she wasn't. This was simply a 2007 conference on Climate Change organized by the UN, not an actual UN session. Peterson did not work at the UN, or have any connection to the UN at all. Peterson is a retired crop loss adjuster (a type of insurance agent working in agriculture). She worked for the USDA in Mendocino, California. Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defence Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC was simply the name of her personal web site. And contrary to your claim, Peterson did not mention "chemtrails", rather misappropriated weather modification (cloud seeding), regular aircraft exhaust and some NASA sounding rocket experiments.
And despite becoming an unwitting spokesperson for this fraud the late Ms.Peterson later (in 2012) entirely distanced herself from the hoax and explained that she did not think there was any good evidence to show that any trails were anything other than normal contrails:
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft." Rosalind Peterson 2012.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for that, I've seen this before but didn't realise that they plan to deploy provisional trails as early as next year.
"Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the “StratoCruiser” would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere."
Significantly...
"Keith stresses that it’s too early to say whether any geoengineering technologies should ever be deployed. But he has argued for years that research should move ahead to better understand their capabilities and dangers, because it’s possible they could significantly reduce the risks of climate change. He stressed that the experiments would have negligible environment impacts, as they will involve no more than a kilogram of materials."
Also...
"Only two known experiments have been carried out in the open air to date that could be considered geoengineering-related: University of California, San Diego, researchers sprayed smoke and salt particles off the coast of California as part of the E-PEACE experiment in 2011, and scientists in Russia dispersed aerosols from a helicopter and car in 2009. The so called SPICE experiment in the United Kingdom was quickly scuttled in 2012, following public criticism and conflict of interest accusations after several of the scientists applied for a related patent."
Clearly though, such geoengineering experimentation involves very small quantities of materials and the principle of SAI involves deployment at very high altitudes. This video is debunking the chemtrails hoax which alleges that large white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic are evidence of a programme of global chemical spraying. It has since been intentionally conflated with geoengineering by the perpetrators. SAI would not resemble a contrail and is designed to be deployed at double the altitude. Hopefully the believers in the chemtrail conspiracy theory will actually bother to read the link that you provided. Thanks again for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It's Geo-engineering, and is happening."
Some areas of Geoengineering are indeed happening such as GGR which encompasses strategies such as aforestation, biochar, ocean fertilisation and carbon sequestering. SRM on the other hand, (with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening) are entirely hypothetical. What does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails.
"This is why Texas & New Hampshire banned them. "
Sigh. There is no ban. A New Hampshire House of Representatives bill that would prohibit some forms of emissions linked to the baseless “chemtrails” conspiracy theory has not been voted on or signed into law. The claim is based on an article published by a website that regularly publishes fabricated stories. Are you incapable of independently verifying dumb social media memes for yourself?
"Agent Orange in Vietnam was a conspiracy?? Really!!! It was to stop the moonsoons."
No it wasn't. Agent Orange is a defoliant and was intended to strip the cover afforded to the Viet Cong/NVA on the Ho Chi Minh trail? You are getting confused with Operation Popeye. What does cloud seeding have to do with aircraft trails in the stratosphere?
"Look up HB 1700."
A bill drafted by two Republican crackpots cynically attempting to legitimise dumb online conspiracy theory which is why is hasn't been passed.
"YOU need to research, Joe!!"
Er yeah...appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"You've deemed truth to be a conspiracy before, and were wrong!!"
No, he's deemed untruth to be a conspiracy theory. There's a difference.
"Scrape your windshield after a storm, bring it to a college lab, and wait and see the toxic mixture. Strontium, aluminum, barrium."
Then ask for the readings and the proven causal relationship with those long white trails, six to eight miles above your head, that you don't understand. I think you mean 'barium'. And why do you people always parrot the same predictable nonsense? "strontium, aluminium and barium"? Strontium? Let's start with that shall we?
"Agenda 21."
Ah yes, that old chestnut. Do you have a badly written 'conspiracy theory for dummies' crib sheet/aide memoire? You mean that non-binding action plan suggested by the United Nations in respect of sustainable development dating back the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, some twenty eight years ago? The one that isn't enforced and contains a series of guidelines pertaining to fair trade practices, sustainable energy and urban development (i.e. more efficient zoning), and debt reduction for the developing world? The one that no nation ever has instituted or rigidly adhered to its guidelines? That Agenda 21?
Clever lad!.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There are actually legit conspiracy reasurchers that use facts for their conclusions."
Really? Name one. (Incidentally, I think you mean 'researchers').
"Most people are already programed by the goverment media to believe that a conspiracy theorist is as dangerous as a terrorist!
Bullshit!"
Incorrect. Most people are simply able to see that conspiracy theory is "bullshit".
"There is no bigger terrorist than your goverment period if we go by historic facts."
Who in their right mind would trust their 'government' - but simply because governments have lied, deceived and committed atrocities in the past and present, that does not afford legitimacy to 'chemtrails' or any random conspiracy theory of your choice or devising. Surely you can comprehend that?
"All the demonizing of the conspiracy reasurchers comes from the goverment made.propaganda, which is in fact a conspiratory activity."
No it doesn't - the reality is, government's don't give a rats arse about 99% of this nonsense. The demonising you refer to is self-inflicted due to the unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, deception, quote mining, scientific inaccuracy, manipulation, profiteering and agenda peddled by the perpetrators of online conspiracy theory, which if you hadn't noticed has become quite lucrative for some and a product line for others. If you can't see through that, then you really aren't as 'awake' as you and your ilk claim to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pineapplepissant
"since you obviously aren’t very intelligent I found it for you. Didn’t want you to hurt yourself"
The burden of proof is incumbent upon you, since you are the one making the claim. The onus does not lie with me to search for an absent or negative based upon your behest, personal incredulity and general ignorance of the topic.
"us-patent 4686605"
Really? This again??? Have you actually even read this? It's the Eastland patent from 1985, that not only was never adopted, has now expired. Why is it the same things parroted over and over and over again by you people?
Specifically, the patent involves using a hydrocarbon fuel - (natural gas is suggested) to generate electricity to create electromagnetic radiation to excite a tiny section of the ionosphere to about 2 electron volts, thus moving it upward along the lines of the magnetic field. The conspiracy theorists that you are mindlessly parroting, once again, completely ignore the fact that this can only happen in the ionosphere, and they interpret it as some kind of weather control system or seismic weapon. Such conclusions are once again bereft of any scientific basis or any rational or plausible foundation.
A further disconnect in this conspiracy claim is that Dr. Eastlund's patent was for a speculative and unproven device approximately one million times as powerful as other HF pumps. The patent does allude to these but none of its drawings remotely resemble anything built . For perspective, HAARP's antenna array measures about 1000 feet on a side. A device such as that imagined by Dr. Eastlund would have been 14 miles on a side, with one million antenna elements, compared to HAARP's 180. Furthermore, Dr. Eastlund left APTI to found his own company before the HF Pump programmes were commissioned and was never involved with them.
You also need to comprehend, that a patent is not proof of something, merely the registration of an idea, irrespective of how outlandish it may be.
Unfortunately this is yet another example of a dumb conspiracy believer attempting to sound clever and significant over a subject that they clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever. I would be more than happy to discuss the physics of the Eastland Patent with you in more detail in a civil and constructive way. Hopefully then in the future, you won't place blind faith in online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
What does any of this have to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory which is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
"since you obviously aren’t very intelligent"
The irony - was it intentional?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you not even remotely see the irony in your continual parroting of 'cognitive dissonance' given the nonsense that you just churned out? Why are conspiracy believers so lacking in self-awareness.
And no, contrails do not "always show parallel thin lines behind the engine of a plane that disappear at a constant distance of the plane". This is completely false. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or they may not necessarily form at all. Whether or not they do and the degree of their spread is dependent upon the prevailing ambient air conditions - in particular, the interaction between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure.
Of course geoengineering exists. The are many forms of GGR in progress and the future most probably lies in DAC in spite of the expense. In respect of SRM, with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening it remains entirely hypothetical and unlike to ever progress beyond that due to ethical approval and the impossibility of international governance. Why are you changing the subject?
More to the point, why are you attempting to sound authoritative about subjects that you demonstrably have zero knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@graff8757
No it really isn't. The introduction of additional nuclei into existing clouds that are conducive to precipitation is merely an attempt to influence it on the local scale. The UAE and China have state sponsored schemes, which have never been secretive. How do you "admit' to something that isn't denied?
Cloud seeding is conducted by a range of methods. --[1] by air, typically turboprop light aircraft retrofitted to burn silver iodide flares; [2] burn sticks containing silver iodide, placed in desirable spots on the ground, [3] rockets (they are often also fired in order to prevent the formation of crop-damaging hail [some tea growers also use them], sometimes with radar-reflecting "needle" wire dipoles scattered through the silver iodide, to enable tracking of the release points; some hail rockets are at least partially reusable); and [4] surplus AA (antiaircraft) guns, whose shells contain silver iodide instead of high explosive. The Chinese make extensive use of cloud-seeding through AA guns, whose shells' fuses can be set to burst at any desired altitude within the guns' altitude capabilities.
None of this is a revelation or new. Cloud seeding has been around since the 1950s and there are many private sector organisations that offer 'weather modification' services online. In spite of this, and the state sponsored schemes mentioned, it is not widespread, the results are highly erratic, it does not create clouds, rather needs existing rain clouds to induce rainfall, and the very efficacy is questioned by science. Hardly "controlling the weather".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teamflaco1
As I explained, "they" - the water authority, do not necessarily add fluoride, it depends where you live. Also, to reiterate, fluoride is toxic at high concentrations but in the amounts added to water it is not. Fluoride additions are no more than 1.5 milligrams per litre (equivalent to one and a half parts per million). In most areas it’s much lower. It is also naturally present as a mineral and is released from rocks into the soil, water, and air. All water contains some fluoride. Usually, the fluoride level in water is not enough to prevent tooth decay which is why it is sometimes added; however, some groundwater and natural springs can have naturally high levels of fluoride.
In our air? You mean ground level industrial pollution? It's hard to conceive of a more ineffective way to "poison" a population than those white trails six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand.
"Do your research"? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
@teamflaco1
"yea I have did research"
Have did? I'd start with basic written English if I were you. And to return to my question, appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you accomplish this?
"am I a scientist... no I am not"
Well no shit.
"So your saying that fluoride in our water and chemtrails is not a possibility?"
Seriously, do you have learning and comprehension difficulties? To reiterate, fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral and present in ground water. Chemtrails are not a possibility no, in fact they are a physical impossibility. Moreover, it's hard to imagine a more ineffective way to disperse an agent. Incidentally, you needed to type the contraction 'you're' as opposed to the determiner - 'your'.
"Are you saying you know how much amount of fluoride is put in out waters?"
And once again, it isn't added by every water authority. In cases that it is, for the third time now, around 1.5 milligrams per litre (equivalent to one and a half parts per million).
"Flouride is a poison..."
Not at those levels it isn't.
"and has nothing to do with the benefit of our teeth"
I assure you that it does. Would you like me to explain the biochemistry to you?
"and IF it was you really think the government would be giving it to us for FREE?? HELL NO they would charge your ass!"
To understand the cost effectiveness of water fluoridation, I suggest that you study the York Report.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"BS. Over Brooklyn there are never any “vapor” trails streaking from horizon to horizon at night, and I’m up 4:am."
They aren't "vapour" - water vapour is invisible. Such persistent contrails are a product of largely condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"I’ve seen and photographed “thin mist” in these trails (daytime) gently cascading downwards accompanied by the sun refracting off it into a subtle rainbow isolated in a tiny are ."
Pendules and iristation.
"Why have jet engines never, until recent years, ever left a perfect linear cloud which doesn’t dissipate??"
They have. Persistent contrails have been observed, recorded, documented, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight. They posed a particular problem for bombing raids during WWII whilst during the cold war the Lockheed U2 spy plane even had a rear view mirror to enable the pilot to enable detection and adjust altitude in response. Didn't do Gary Powers much good though.
"Last: the planes leaving these trails are crosshatching the sky, and mostly aren’t in commercial flight lanes?"
And how have you established this?
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
https://youtu.be/d9r3H4iHFZk
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_skitch_viz_20121001_214327.jpg
"Been watching the sky since I could see.."
So have people that actually understand what they are looking at; y'know, all those pilots, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, air traffic controllers, remote sensing and envirionmental monitoring initiatives, aerospace engineers...You obviously know better. Perhaps they need to watch the same crap You Tube conspiracy videos too?
Incidentally, there's another bloke from Brooklyn posting on this page. Very nice chap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Chem trails are real !!"
Actually, no. They are simply a dumb conspiracy theory originating in the 1990s surrounding the misidentification of aircraft contrails, popularised over Coast to Coast FM and subsequently perpetuated through internet echo-chambers.
"Nope they are trying to heat the earth"
Heat the earth? You mean anthropogenic climate change?
"and they did make the Cali fires"
Because wildfires never happen in nature then. Who precisely are "they"?
"You have no brain!!"
The irony, was it intentional?
"It's Agenda 21"
You mean that non-binding action plan suggested by the United Nations in respect of sustainable development dating back the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, some twenty eight years ago? The one that isn't enforced and contains a series of guidelines pertaining to fair trade practices, sustainable energy and urban development (i.e. more efficient zoning), and debt reduction for the developing world? The one that no nation ever has instituted or rigidly adhered to its guidelines? That Agenda 21? Righto then.
"and bill gates just admitted they were spraying the skys you joke!!"
No he didn't - he leant vocal support and provided some funding for research into a division of Solar Radiation Management called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. The proponents of this particular area of geoengineering wish to publicise their work as much as possible to generate awareness, and attract backing. How do you possibly admit to something that isn't denied? Not only is this is entirely hypothetical but the entire rational is to cool the planet, not as you suggest "heat the Earth". (incidentally, the plural of sky is 'skies').
You haven't really thought this through have you?
Cue the inevitable abuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryuranzou1936
"I get it I made a silly error at 3 a.m. "
I queried it several times and you still didn't notice . It wasn't a "silly error" or a typo, simply testament to the fact that you are commenting upon something that you don't fully understand and haven't bothered to learn about beyond cursory confirmation bias. Quite why you though that I2 would be released from "mountain top generators" is beyond me. These are simply ground based flares releasing Agl. Cloud seeding is a commercially advertised venture and is neither secretive or covert. It usually involves silver iodide, potassium iodide or dry ice in the form of solid carbon dioxide. Liquid propane has also known to be deployed because it expands into a gas and can crystalise at higher temperatures than the latter.
The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels.
"Also I never said it was a spray, for the freekin record."
Then why mention cloud seeding in the first place?
I didn't suggest that you did. I merely queried why you would refer to cloud seeding in relation to this video when it does not involve spraying, is not secretive does not produce a trail and is not conducted between six and eight miles above your head.
"I believe contrails are as poisonous as any other exhaust (contributing to the overall health burden of pollution)..."
Known science and "belief" are very different things. Nonetheless, good for you, if only because, like I said, contrails are a visual testimony to the terrifying exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector and the shameful carbon footprint associated with this.
"and I also acknowledge geoengineering ( which is essentially deliberate pollution with some goal in mind).... "
What precisely do you mean by "geoengineering"? - It is a very broad term divided into two branches - GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...(most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation). So could be as benign as planting a tree. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. But again, this could be as harmless as a modification to a rooftop or an architectural strategy to lessen the urban heat island effect.
I'll wager, (given the desperate attempts by the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory to conflate geoengineering with their online hoax), that you are referring Stratospheric Aerosol Injection? Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilitse the Brewer-Dobson patterns. However, you are absolutely correct in that the environmental effects are not quantified.
Saying that, given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, again, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"Finally, I don't doubt that in some cases there are covert campaigns of spraying "god knows what" on people in order to see what happens, or if they've done the covert studies already -- to affect human health in some devious manner. The record shows this kind of stuff has occurred (spraying places with various bacteria etc etc secretly).... so why not eh?
I am familiar with this dubious history and am able to discuss each case individually if you wish. Many of these "experiments" were not performed on the public per see, rather tests to measure dispersal. However, once again, this wouldn't be conducted six to eight miles above your head and involve a long white trail in the wake of a commercial aircraft would it?
To remind you, the subject matter of this video is the chemtrails conspiracy theory - which is the erroneous belief that persistent contrails in the wake of civil airliners cruising in the tropoapuse and lower stratosphere are evidence of an intentional programme of spraying conducted for such reasons as depopulation, to controlling the weather, to mind control, trans-humanisation, concealing the return of Planet X, dropping fibres that burrow into and riddle the populace with morgellons disease etc etc...(they don't seem to be able to make their minds up.) All seemingly easier to for these people to believe than condensed atmospheric water vapour generated by superheated aircraft engine exhaust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Contrails are produced by the compression and rarefaction of air, creating water vapor which appears then disappears a few seconds later. "
Wrong. Water vapour is invisible, so how can it "disappear"? Contrails are precipitated by the fact that water (together with CO2) are the main products of hydrocarbon combustion. Do this in the regions in which aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - and if the conditions are conducive in respect of temperature, pressure and humidity then a short lived contrail will form. In cases of high RHi, this will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state - and if the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand and often fanned by high altitude shear will draw upon the available atmospheric moisture budget. This means that contrails can not only grow, but that they can agglomerate becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
"Chemtrails is a substance being sprayed in the sky that is dumped on us. It doesn't go away, stays in the skies for hours, and does not evaporate."
You mean, much like the above scenario? - how coincidental.
"The contents of chemtrails is well known, lab tested and not a mystery. "
Excellent - finally!!!! Could you present these "lab tests" together with the precise methodology which also demonstrates cause and effect. One analytical in-situ sample of a chemtrail at source would be a great place to start too. Given the high volume of comparable studies into the microphysical properties of contrails, there should be hundreds at your disposal.
1
-
@Pinlight
"But there are multitudinous examples of both Chemtrails and contrails and the two are completely different"
Splendid, you can become the first of your ilk to actually detail both your qualitative and quantitative methodology to allow differentiation. Your alternative, bearing in mind, the scientific content of my original reply to you is to concede that you have no such methodology.
"- all verified by hundreds of video examples from numerous sources."
Verified? Numerous sources? Countless footage of contrails and baseless conspiracy videos posted on You Tube by incredulous believers in this hoax is not "verification". What sources?
"Seeing is believing."
Known science is not about "belief" - and actually understanding what you are looking at helps.
"Unless you believe that contrails can be turned on and off selectively, as we see in films on chemtrails all the time."
As I said, science is not about "belief" The atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogenous and is constantly in flux. The main factors that govern the formation of contrails - pressure, temperature and humidity can change within mere metres. A contrail is a binary event based upon the interplay of the latter. Fly a commercial aircraft through such changeable conditions at high speed then of course they can appear to instantaneously and sporadically turn on or off. Don't believe me? You need to look harder. Ironic that you people exhort us to "just look up" but oddly you never seem to notice sections of recently deposited contrails seemingly arbitrarily fade and vanish as parcels of rising or subsiding drier or warmer air create this phenomena. Or perhaps you have an alternative explanation?
These "lab tests" that you referred to, as requested could you present them, together with the precise methodology which also demonstrates cause and effect. One analytical in-situ sample of a chemtrail at source would be a great place to start too. Given the high volume of comparable studies into the microphysical properties of contrails, there should be hundreds at your disposal. Only, it seems that you forgot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexc1105
Heat is transferred between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere in a variety of ways, including radiation, conduction, and convection. Since the atmosphere is a fluid and a poor conductor you are correct the main process is convection.
Essentially all of the energy the Earth receives is in radiant energy that originates from the Sun. The temperature of the Earth is a balancing act, with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contributing to a planet that is inhabitable. This balance of temperature is maintained through several different mechanisms.
If all that contributed to the temperature of the Earth was the incoming, absorbed sunlight then the temperature of the Earth would rise nearly 1 million degrees Celsius over a billion years. Therefore clearly a habitable planet must have the mechanism to lose shed energy to space. Since Earth is surrounded by the vacuum of outer space, it is unable to lose energy through conduction or convection. Therefore the only way the Earth loses energy to space is by electromagnetic radiation. At typical planetary temperatures, this energy being shed to space is in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. All objects with a temperature emit some form of radiation, and the infrared emission to space results from contributions by the planetary surface and atmosphere.
The temperature of an object governs the speed that they will lose energy to their surroundings. Obviously hotter objects emit more radiation than colder objects, and thus a hotter planet will shed more energy to space than a colder planet. This means that there must be some temperature where the rate of infrared emission to space equals the rate at which energy is being absorbed from the Sun. If, for whatever reason the planet were made hotter, the energy out would simply become greater until the planet had cooled to its equilibrium temperature. Similarly, if the planet were suddenly made colder, it would lose energy more slowly and thus warm up until the energies balanced.
This balancing act of solar and terrestrial energy flows defines the energy balance (and equilibrium temperature) of a planet. This balance is the basic constraint on a planet's climate, and the dependence of outgoing infrared energy on temperatures is a basic type of stabilising feedback that allows planets to remain in equilibrium (in addition to not easily exhibiting very wild climate swings of hundreds or millions of Kelvin).
Since radiative equilibrium is the benchmark of climate physics, it then follows that climate scientists are very interested in the concept of energy balance. When climate changes, such as through the burning of fossil fuels and the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration it is imperative to understand how the incoming and outgoing energy flows are disrupted and what temperature changes are demanded in order for the whole planet to be in energy balance as opposed to a runaway greenhouse effect witnessed on Venus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly, research into SAI has never been concealed, secretive and has always been in the public domain. How precisely do you "admit" to something that isn't denied? In fact, it has always been in the interest of any proponent of geoengineering to publicise their work to attract funding and support - (although less so certain GGR schemes which tend to be better financed than SRM).
Secondly, you are referring to the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, a theoretical branch of geoengineering that has not yet even progressed beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols as a last ditch measure to arrest climate change - and although there is no agreement yet on the materials that would be employed to achieve this, it's likely that sulphates themselves would be deployed. SAI has not even reached the early stages of small scale trail. There was a field experiment designated for last year to take place above the Arizona desert and to involve a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere. The intention was to release small quantities of water and later a few kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation and dispersal. However, to date this has yet to take place. This is your SAI as it currently stands...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
To clarify, this video is about the chemtrail conspiracy theory which is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video...which is misidentified contrails, may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you look up John Brennan he himself admits to chemtrails. The real name is stratospheric aerosol injection.if John Brennan tells you he is spraying the skies would you believe him"
Seriously, how many times?
You are referring to ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it simply the fact that your conspiracy video had chemtrails in the title? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is in progress, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the future misuse of it should it ever become a reality. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI has not graduated beyond research proposal and computer modelling and has yet to even reach the early stages of small-scale trials. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, this year, an experiment was scheduled involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing mere kilograms of water and possibly in future experiments, calcium carbonate, to measure dispersion and perturbation. Here's your SAI as it currently stands.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
What does any of this have to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video?
SAI wouldn't even make a trail, would take place at double the altitude of the aircraft that you are seeing and wouldn't even be visible to a ground based observer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@souljahroch2519
"Because they ruined their soul, now they are ruining 'my' soil, and The Corporation cares not for humans."
Monsanto did not "ruin your soil" and as I said, does not exist anymore. Stop mindlessly accommodating online conspiracy theory. All business cares about is business...and maximising profits. No "conspiracy" here.
"My land grows my 'organic' crops better without aluminum"
Which occurs naturally in soils. Some, more than others. Again, why would Monsanto not have wanted to engineer aluminium resistant crops?
"which has also been identified as a cause of Alzheimer's."
No it hasn't. There is no proven causal link whatsoever.
"The chemtrails are litterally poisoning the land to grow only Monsanto's GMO acid resistant terminal seeds, & poisoning the air, leading to increased respiratory illnesses."
"The chemtrails" that you refer to are simply persistent contrails. Even if they did contain aluminium, which they do not, you are seriously suggesting that there is a global plan instituted by an agrichemtical company that doesn't even exist any more to spray the planet in aluminium from six to eight miles above your head. Have you any idea how inefficient this would be...not to mention the logistics. There's about 470 million acres of arable land in the US. The topsoil is about the top six inches. So that's 290 billion cubic meters of topsoil. 1% of that is 2.9 billion cubic meters. Soil is about 1500 kg/cu.m, so that's, 4.35 billion tonnes of aluminium needed to raise the aluminium content of soil by 1% (i.e. from 8% to 9%)
Most of the world's production of Aluminium comes from bauxite. The total world production of bauxite is around 200 million tonnes per year. Bauxite is only about 50% aluminium by weight.Hence, to increase the aluminium content of US arable land by 1%, you would need to spray the equivalent of 40 years of the entire world's production of bauxite.
"The glyphosate used in the Roundup necessary to grow these anti-nature seeds has also been proven to cause cancer, & autism."
No, it really hasn't.
"This is solely to monopolize the market, and squeeze small family farmers, like me, out. Please, sir, pull your head out of The Corporation's ass."
I deplore the way that concessions to big business attempt to crush small independent producers and that corporate laws favour the economies of scale....however, chemtrails are a baseless online hoax, perpetrated by opportunistic charlatans whose stock in trade is scaremongering and stoking outrage. If you hadn't noticed, conspiracy theory is big business too.
1
-
@souljahroch2519
"I diplore the way selfish Corporate schmucks defend The Beast."
How is anything in my responses to you defending corporate interest? I have simply explained to you why an organisation sought to engineer aluminium resistant crops. I have at no stage defended Monsanto or advocated the use of Roundup - simply pointed out the inaccuracies in your posts. Incidentally, the correct spelling is "deplore".
"Monsanto 'doesn't exist anymore'? Monsanto is now Bayer."
No - Bayer brought out Monsanto. Completely different.
"This was done to indemnify Monsanto from their crimes against humanity, & imminent bankruptcy due to their cancer, & autism causing Roundup."
The shareholders, corporate strategy and entire history of business takeovers would suggest otherwise. Moreover, roundup continues to be manufactured and sold, whilst glyphosate is still the most widely used herbicide and crop desiccant. There is no causal link to cancer - simply weak statistical associations which are inconclusive and certainly without any basis for a legal case to be made. Roundup has never been found to cause autism.
"You, & your Corporatist pals are killing mankind, & the planet, for no more than paychecks of valueless 'money'."
How? To reiterate, I despise corporate interest and the profligate western consumer lifestyle. What pals? What paycheques? - you have no idea what I do.
"When the trees are gone, & the crops are gone, & the water is all soured, and leaded, what will our children eat? But you don't care. Selfish Selfish Selfish..."
On the contrary, I care very much for the future of this planet and the welfare of those that inherit the earth. Precisely why I devote time and energy to genuine environmental concerns as opposed to baseless online conspiracy theories predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails and perpetrated and perpetuated by profiteering exploitative charlatans. Once again, you appear oblivious to the money that these people make by exploiting your outrage, scientific ignorance, gullibility and incredulity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daveeol1987
"oh you seem to know it all."
The irony, was it intentional?
"Why do you discuss things on YouTube at all? So you can prove your intelligence or ignorance."
I suggest that you look back at your last few posts.
"If you think for one minute John brennan would address this technology and the major geopolitic consequences he outlined in the speech without the us government already testing the technology your very naive"
SAI is nothing whatsoever to do with the US government.
To repeat, SAI is one area of a branch of geoengineering research called 'Solar Radiation Management' which with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical. It has nothing to do with either cloud seeding or like the latter, aircraft contrails. It proposes replicating the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols as a last ditch method to arrest global temperature rise. Cost, logistics, environmental uncertainties and above all, the problems associated with international governance and geopolitical relations mean that it is highly unlikely ever to become a reality.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails and the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
"Obviously it's a black op dumbfuck how would you be able to get any information on the technology. "
And there it is. Why is it impossible to engage with any conspiracy believer without the inevitable ad hominem abuse? Why do you feel the need for it. Concentrate on the topic instead of attacking the individual, all you achieve is your own humiliation.
"how long did it take you research that bullshit o wise one"
You are the one making claims that you are unable to substantiate. Regarding 'research', it's actually my job, and my background is atmospheric science. I'm more than happy to discuss either with you.
So far, you have posted a deceptive chemtrails video and confused and conflated SAI with cloud seeding. SAI would be deployed between 65,000 - 70,000ft, Cloud seeding, which is conducted at 2,000 - 6.500 feet and has nothing to do with the latter, whilst neither would result in a trail, but the aircraft contrails that you are observing which do, are typically formed between FL180 and FL440.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daveeol1987
"OK the first line of your smokescreen copy paste."
So straight into the attack again. I copy and pasted the original question that I posed to you, that's all.
"How do you know that sai doesn't exist beyond research and mathematical modelling considering black projects exist?"
It could do, but given that the purpose would be to arrest global temperature increase and that it needs to be conducted across the globe - what would be the point? Moreover, since it would require the complicity of every government on the planet (the issues of international governance that I referred to), it would be impossible to keep a secret. Additionally, why publicise and draw attention to a 'black op'?
And again, what does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers term 'chemtrails' which is the subject of this video?
Odd don't you think that the entire independent fields of atmospheric science, meteorology, environmental monitoring and aerospace engineering worldwide - y'know, the people that actually understand the physics of the atmosphere - remain completely oblivious to the presence of these supposed 'black op' geoengineered 'chemtrails' yet a community of online armchair conspiracy theorists and self-appointed overnight 'experts' think that they know better because the internet told them so.
"Why would it be a commercial jet aircraft?"
I wouldn't be - and if it was, it would need to be heavily modified. Simply that conspiracy believers that push the false equivalence of SAI in a lame attempt to justify and legitimise their belief in chemtrails, point to precisely that. Trails left by commercial aircraft. Moreover, that is the subject of this video - misidentified aircraft contrails. SAI wouldn't even result in a trail and to attribute it to contrails demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what it actually is.
"would they not test as high up as they could go with conventional aircraft"
No point. The entire purpose of SAI is to replicate volcanic (and heterogeneously produced aerosols in the junge layer). In 2019 there was a small scale trial scheduled by Harvard called SCoPEx to involve a steerable balloon launched to 20kms in altitude intended to release a few kilos of water and possibly the same negligible quantity of CaC02 to evaluate perturbation, reflectivity and dispersion. This test has yet to take place. As I said, the materials have not even been determined, hence the research. It's likely to be some form of sulphate - although calcium carbonate may have potential.Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
"Do they have multiple aircraft purposefully built to complete the project, Which could carry the load?"
Like I said, this would be necessary, yes.
"And yes I believe that video of brennan to be an admission of sai expierimentation as I said before he's not talking about it unless it's happening"
So admission of something that isn't denied in a speech about possible future technologies and their impact on global security, and reference to what you claim to be a 'black op'. Yes, that makes perfect sense then.
Like I said, I suggest that you read the transcription for yourself instead of relying on a daft strapline on a junk YT chemtrail conspiracy video. Your 'belief' and personal incredulity has no bearing on reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chadkline4268
"I can substantiate Chemtrails, and I can show people how to prove them to themselves"
Splendid!! Even better. Why didn't you say? Given that substantiation does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, I very much look forward to seeing how.
"but you and your fellows at YouTube keep deleting my posts that substantiate Chemtrails."
So simply because I asked you to qualify your claims you now conclude that I work for You Tube? Seriously, how do you people even manage to dress yourselves in the morning? Nothing to do with the spam filter settings on this page then. I've had three comments fail to post in the last 24 hours - because they contained links. On other occasions, it's been ok and they have. It seems to be quite specific what it picks up on. You're replying now, so why don't you simply answer the question?
"Y-assassin = YouTube truth assassin. afraid of free speech, are we?"
No in the slightest. Free speech is the noose by which you hang yourself, and conspiracy believers do so through their own stupidity. I encourage it which is why I have repeatedly implored you to answer the question. So here it is again - very simply, what particles are being sprayed, who precisely are "they" and how have you established this? Not hard.
Try again - only it seems to have slipped your mind last time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"you are so wrong. Chemtrails only exist in highly populated areas."
Chemtrails don't exist at all. And you are talking complete nonsense. There are videos posted all over the internet from chemtrail believers in sparsely populated areas misidentifying aircraft contrails. Wherever there is commercial air traffic, in cases where the ambient atmospheric conditions are conducive to their formation, you will see contrails.
"You will not find them, for example, on Canary Islands, because the wind would blow them into the barely populated Sahara desert."
Not true. It is quite common to see long haul transatlantic flights overflying the Canaries and heading east towards the African continent. I'm looking at them now on Flight Radar 24. Also the prevailing winds are the north-east trade winds, typical of subtropical climates in the northern hemisphere. Also, it is not uncommon for easterlies to blow in from the continent as evidenced by Sahara dust storms.
"And what a coincisence: In Europe, Canary Islands are known for having very good conditions for all kinds of lung diseases."
No, lower levels of respiratory disease and prevalence and severity of COPD than Spain. Epidemiologists largely attribute this to the favourable climate characteristics.
"And there are big airports on Tenerife and Gran Canaria. So why are there no chemtrails even if there are big airliners flying around"
Because the contrails that you erroneously refer to as 'chemtrails' are formed at cruise altitudes, Proximity to airports has no relationship to this.
"They are destroying the immune system with aluminium hydroxide, titanium oxide and barium. Therefore, many people get ill as soon as it is raining, beause the posion comes down concentrated in the rain."
How have you established this, where is your data demonstrating a causal relationship and who precisely are 'they'?
"And in towns, you will realize that the sky is not full of chemtrails every day. Some nice warm sunny day, everything is clear. Next day with same weather, it´s full of chemtrails that are spreading in the sky over hours. Why is that although the amount of flights are similar on these days?"
Are you equally perplexed by variations in cloud cover. Perhaps start with an understanding of relative humidity.
"It just doesn´t make any sense that those stripes in the sky that spread over hours and sometimes exist, sometimes not, come from water particles in normal contrails. It simply makes no sense."
"It makes no sense to me so it can't be true" is not an argument. Your personal incredulity aside, because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will snap freeze, condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high relative humidity, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. The exhaust is merely the trigger event where 99% of the trail is drawn from available atmospheric water vapour. As I indicated - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are. It makes perfect sense to anyone with a basic understanding of meteorology.
What doesn't make sense is precisely how your supposed chemical trails are able to expand, increase in mass and vastly exceed the MTOW of the aircraft producing them.
1
-
@segoiii
So in common with most online conspiracy believers, you have completely disregarded my response to you.
"I´ve been many times to canary islands. I´ve been to every island there including the small ones El Hierro, La Graciosa and Lobos. There are no chemtrails there."
Correct, chemtrails do not exist. There are however contrails largely as a consequence of long haul transatlantic flights.
"If you see oversee flights on flightradar, it´s even more a proof that chemtrails do exist."
Nope. Simply confirmation of commercial air traffic which if the ambient atmospheric conditions allow, will produce contrails.
"Because the sky over canary islands is always clear and blue"
No it isn't. That is demonstrably false.
"If you see contrails there, they are like you know them from the 90s and further back."
Again incorrect. Contrails are more prevalent today due to the increased volume of commercial air traffic.
"Long, sharp, thin and they disappear within 10 minutes."
And there it is again. As I explained, a contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Whether it does or not is a governed by the interrelationship between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Please explain why a contrail must be "long sharp and thin and must disappear within 10 minutes" detailing the physical laws that determine this.
"The checkerboard patterns that spread over hours and make the sky milky dusty grey, simply cannot be contrails, because water aerosols do not spread like that."
Water aerosols? Contrails are condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals. No different to a cirrus cloud.
"Which can be proven on real contrails."
What 'proof'?
"If those are not chemtrails, then why do those contrails behave so differently ? Why don´t they spread over hours on canary islands ? Why do we have sometimes blue sky in high populated areas too? And then suddenly, the checkerboard patterns are back again without any change in weather or amount of flights in that area ? And when there are chemtrails, you can still observe planes that leave normal contrails that are sharp and disappear within 10 minutes."
If you hadn't elected to disregard my reply to you, then you would have had your explanation. The atmosphere is in flux - it is neither homogenous or isotropic. Are you equally confused and perplexed by spatial and temporal variations in cloud cover? What you refer to a chemtrails are simply persistent contrails. And yes, of course you can see variations in length and duration at the same time.
"It simply doesn´t make sense"
'I don't understand something, therefore...conspiracy' is not an argument.
"Those checkerboard patterns that spread over hours and end in a milky sky, cannot be normal contrails. Their behavior is too suspicious."
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
What simply doesn't make sense is how a supposed chemical spray can expand, spread and increase in mass vastly exceeding the MTOW of the aircraft producing it. Just like, well no shit....condensed atmospheric water vapour.
1
-
@segoiii
"You are the one not answering the major questions."
I have systematically and methodically addressed every aspect of your comments as this thread is ample testimony to.
"So again just for you: Why are there no checkerboard "contrails" on canary islands that spread over hours and end up in a misty, milky sky?"
Because there simply isn't the volume of high altitude air traffic at cruise that you observe over the continent.
"A normal contrail in 10km height looks thin and sharp like that"
There is no "normal contrail" As I explained, a contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all.
"because it´s very dry up there"
You clearly have no comprehension of relative humidity.
"You could argue that those long lasting "contrails" where i say they are chemtrails, are created in lower heights where you also see clouds and where the air is more saturated with water. And that´s why they appear near big cities where airplanes start and land. Okay."
That would also be an incorrect assumption and as I said, proximity to airports is irrelevant. Persistent spreading contrails are commonly formed in very frigid air, at altitude - the regions where aircraft cruise, the tropopause and stratosphere. If the relative humidity is high, and the vapour pressure sufficiently low then the water in the exhaust will snap freeze forming a trail. In cases of high relative humidity in respect to ice, the trail will persist and therefore be of greater length. If the air is supersaturated which it is more conducive to at altitude then the exhaust is all that is needed to trigger a persistent spreading contrail where the atmospheric water vapour is feeding 99% of the ice in the trail. These trails can be further fanned out by high altitude wind shear.
"But then, why there are none of those checkerboard long lasting "contrails" on canary islands ? There are 2 big airports at Tenerife and Gran Canaria. So you should see them, but you don´t."
Because what you fail to grasp is that air traffic predominately landing and departing in warm air does not form contrails. Although observable, there is simply not the volume of long haul traffic overflying the islands to result in the grid patterns that you refer to.
"The only answer of you is that i am a liar"
Now you are lying. At no stage had I branded you as such and my answers have been comprehensive and based upon known atmospheric science, geography and aviation. The problem being is that you are quite confused, full of misconceptions and apparently rely upon online conspiracy theory to provide explanations for things that you demonstrably don't understand.
"Well ... I have been there many times because of my Asthma. Never seen chemtrails. And in whole Europe, Canary Islands are known for being very good for health problems with the lungs. What a "coincidence"
Nope, it's known as a logical fallacy called false equivalence. You think that persistent contrails are chemtrails, and since they are not frequently observed in the Canary Islands you attribute that to the lower incidence of respiratory illness whilst completely disregarding factors such as geography, climate, epidemiological data and the lower levels of ground based/urban pollution.
"Science is just a new religion that you liars use to silence people´s discoveries."
Sigh. Yet here you are, using a device that allows you to make that asinine claim around the world. No, science has shaped the world around you. You live off and enjoy the spoils of the scientific method. Chemtrails are not a "new discovery", it is a dumb baseless conspiracy theory originating a quarter of a century ago with the misidentification of aircraft contrails. Known science needs to be evidenced, independently tested and reproducible and being governed by demonstrable physical laws and mathematical axioms, has a voice of its own.
Why the need for unnecessary abuse?
1
-
@segoiii
"Doesn´t make sense. Because then, you would always see the same kind of contrails at the same time on airplanes that fly at round about the same height. But that isn´t the case."
It's independently verifiable meteorological science. What you meant to say was simply that again, it doesn't make sense to you. And to reiterate, your personal incredulity has no bearing upon reality. Commercial aircraft do not fly at the same altitude they are subject to vertical, lateral and longitudinal separation minima. Furthermore, as I explained, the atmosphere is not isotropic nor homogeneous in terms of humidity and pressure, it is constantly in flux and the interrelationship of the factors that determine the formation of contrails can change within mere seconds and metres. Again, are you equally as perplexed by variations in cloud cover?
"I´ve at the same time planes that make long contrails, but that disappear within the normal 10 minutes. And planes that create chemtrails that spread over hours with this typical pearl-like structures."
Yes, you are seeing contrails at a range of altitudes and subject to differing ambient conditions. If you actually looked hard enough, you'll frequently observe large sections of recently deposited trails seemingly randomly fade, vanish and even reappear. This is confirmation of the motion of the atmosphere, the rising and subsiding of warmer drier air - yet not one chemtrail believer has every noticed this phenomena.
"The air cannot be oversaturated and not oversaturated at the same time."
? Of course it can. Read up on lapse rates, dew points and relative humidity. And in the stratosphere, as I have already explained, it does not take much to saturate the ambient air. How do you think that high altitude cirrus clouds can occur on a hot summer's day? Seriously, this is very, very basic meteorological science. Your ignorance at this stage is frankly shocking.
"And again: If that was the case, you would have to see those chemtail-like contrails also on canary islands. But you do not see them there."
But you do observe persistent spreading contrails over the Canary Islands, I have seen them myself. The explanation lies in high altitude long haul commercial aircraft.
"Your explanations simply do not make sense. That´s what you are ignoring."
They are not "my explanations". This is largely Primary School science. What you are ignoring is that simply because it does not make sense to you is not a valid argument. To reiterate again, your personal incredulity is irrelevant.
1
-
@segoiii
"this crap is not science, but pseudo-science to hide a major crime. You all belong sued and imprisoned."
And there it is. It really didn't take long. Seriously - are you ok?
I have explained the formation of contrails to you, the geographical and climatic reasons that the Canary Islands experience a lower level of CPOD and respiratory diseases. I have detailed basic principles of air traffic and meteorology to you, the fact that the atmosphere is in continual flux, whilst recommending that you understand basic principles such as lapse rates, relative humidity and dew point. I have corrected your misconceptions and methodically addressed your every contention. If you wish to brand independently verifiable and rudimentary atmospheric science as 'crap' simply because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear and descend down the dark path of junk online conspiracy theory instead, then I pity you and suggest that you worry more about your future mental health as opposed to your asthma.
The aircraft contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
Genuinely, I pity you.
1
-
@segoiii
"It might be not generally wrong what you are explaining, but it doesn´t explain my observations."
It matches and accounts for them perfectly,
"Your explanations still don´t explain why there are no chemtrails (or over hours spreading "contrails") on Canary Islands, why i see chemtrails and normal contrails on different airplanes at round about the same hight at the same day and why those chemtrails correlate with the population of an area. Your explanations are not sufficient."
Then either, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, you have not adequately read my responses, or you have reading, learning and comprehension issues. Key takeaway points:
1/ You are not seeing 'chemtrails' which are a physical impossibility. How can a chemical spray expand and increase in mass like a cloud, vastly exceeding the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
2/ The air traffic that you are seeing is not "about the same height" - commercial air traffic is subject to separation minima regulations which are both spatial and temporal.
3/ The atmosphere is nether homogenous in terms of humidity or pressure nor is it isotropic. It is layered and in continual flux.
4/ Contrails are observed wherever there is commercial air traffic routed in the skies above. They tend to be formed at cruise altitudes. They do not correlate with the population of any given area, that is complete nonsense but obviously in the case of large countries and populous continents there will be a high volume of domestic and long haul flights in the airspace above.
5/ Read up on lapse rates, dew point, relative humidity, supersaturation, cirrus clouds and the formation and growth of persistent contrails.
"With your explanations, the Canary Islands would have to have a special climate where the air in 10km height is never fully saturated with water in contrast to the 99.9% rest of Europe and maybe even the world."
To reiterate. The Canary Islands do not have a high volume of air traffic routed over them. Nonetheless, contrails are occasionally observed because long haul flights do pass overhead. Arriving and departing flights will not produce contrails.
"Which is obviously ridiculous, because in Greece, South Italy, South Spain, Croatia, for example, the climate is similar to Canary Islands, but the area is way more populated and guess what Chemtrails are there, too."
Continental Europe and a higher volume of air traffic. Guess what? They are contrails too.
To reiterate again, and you are completely ignoring this - what chemical when deployed can expand and increase in mass? just like, well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour, completely exceeding the maximum take off weight of the aircraft producing it? Have you the vaguest comprehension of the weight, volume and mass of material in a 100 mile long or persistent spreading contrail? Of course you haven't.
1
-
@segoiii
"what you are claiming is ridiculous for someone living in Germany, because here they cannot hide that they spray stuff into the atmosphere, because it was spread in federal television on I can´t give you external links and on fascist youtube, everything was censored away. So you have to search for yourself."
What on Earth are you going on about now? Surely you can't be referring to that weather report broadcast on that date in which the TV weatherman refers to some military aircraft over the North Sea?
"I can´t give you external links and on fascist youtube, everything was censored away. So you have to search for yourself."
Sigh - you are referring to shadow banning that is a broken algorithm/spam filter that indiscriminately affects every user of the comments section - particularly if you post links.
"But on that day, on the weather radar, you could see huge parallel stripes from the North Sea over Western Germany down to almost Switzerland. And they said on Television that "this is just stuff brought out by some military planes over the North Sea and has nothing to do with weather". Which should express that the people should not expect rain from those clouds. But they said more than they wanted to say...Until today, they cannot hide this. You also find this on the "Kachelmann weather site" which is another huge well known weather guy in Germany. They say that those are only "Düppel" which is military technology to fool radars. They even tell the people officially what they are using. They are using metallized plastic fibers or carbon fibers."
Yes - chaff deployed in a military exercise. It's no secret, it has been used by the military as a radar countermeasure since the Second World War. No one is hiding anything. Why are you changing the subject? This has nothing whatsoever to do the aircraft contrails that I was discussing with you.
"The only thing they are not admitting, is that this spraying is used to poison people"
Because it isn't. Seriously, what's wrong with you?
"So telling that chemtrails aren´t possible is as stupid as telling me that Santa Clause exists."
These aren't even your supposed 'chemtrails'. This is military chaff. If you wish to refer to them as such, then more fool you. It's no different to saying crop spraying - therefore chemtrails. To clarify for you. The chemtrail conspiracy theory centres around the misidentification of aircraft contrails and that is what is under discussion here. If you wish to change the subject to chaff, then I can explain the details of that to you too. To reiterate again, the trails that you are witnessing have nothing to do with the latter and are simply aircraft contrails. Chemtrails are a physical impossibility since no such trail would be able to stretch for such a distance, periodically fade and reappear, expand, spread over the visible sky and increase in mass weighing thousands of times more than the aircraft producing it. The reason it can is because you are observing condensed atmospheric water vapour. No different to the formation of a cloud aside from the fact that the water in the exhaust is the trigger event.
1
-
@segoiii
"it´s not contrails."
No, correct, it's chaff. You changed to subject to something wholly unrelated to the trails that you are seeing.
"The only links i can give you is from other platforms because youtube fascists censored it away. And if i post external links, my comment gets deleted."
As I already explained, there is a poorly written algorithm/spam filter which can result in the indiscriminate removal of posts. This can happen to anyone using the comments section of You Tube, myself included. You are much more likely to be shadow banned if you post links.
"And no - we are not talking about contrails"
That is precisely what I was talking about, you simply misidentify and term them as 'chemtrails' because you allow junk online conspiracy theory to substitute and provide and explanation for the science that you are unable to comprehend.
"those are definitely chemtrails in which matalized fibers are used. Proven in federal television."
No, this is military chaff and has nothing to do with the trails behind jet aircraft that can expand and spread across the sky that you were initially referring to, remember? You simply veered off on yet another tangential non-sequitur and false equivalence fallacy. What do you mean proven? No one is denying the existence of 'chaff' - it isn't in the slightest bit secretive and has been used since World War II. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the trails that you were describing earlier and the footage that you provided.
"And you claimed that they are not possible. Which is definitely 100% wrong."
At no stage have I claimed that chaff is not possible. You simply changed the subject. To clarify - again - and I'll try to keep this very simple for you because it isn't going in. The trails that you refer to as chemtrails, that you said spread across the sky "over hours" are not 'chaff' and are not chemtrails, they are simply persistent contrails that have been observed and studied for the best part of a century. It is a physical impossibility for a chemical spray to stretch for 100miles in length or to expand and increase in mass vastly exceeding the maximum take off weight of the payload capacity of the aircraft producing it. Are you able to comprehend that. The trails that you are seeing that cover the sky contain millions upon millions of lbs of ice. They are no different to clouds because the ice is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture vapour due to supersaturation. Seriously, how many times? It is physically impossible for them to be anything else for this reason.
"I´m ending this now"
Is that a promise?
"because it makes no sense to discuss this on a fascist platform where you cannot bring any evidence, because the proofs are deleted on the own platform and external links are getting deleted, too."
As I said, shadow banning afflicts everyone that uses this comments section, myself included. It is triggered by a certain combination of words or phrases but is unable to detect intent or context. Like I said, links are virtually certain to result in a comment being removed. It's simply a crude and unsophisticated draconian method of moderation that saves time and expense, that's all.
1
-
@segoiii
I thought you said you were going?
"Chaffs are chemtrails."
Nope. Chaff is a radar countermeasure that has been employed by the military since the Second World War. Not in the slightest bit secretive or sinister and nothing to do with the expanding trails that fill the sky that you originally began this thread by referring to (until you veered off tangentially to a totally unrelated topic). If you insist upon referring to chaff as 'chemtrails' then as I said, more fool you.
"It makes no sense to permanently pollute the air with that crap."
Then fortunate that it doesn't. And it makes perfect sense if you are a military aircraft wishing to avoid detection by enemy radar or during a military exercise.
"As i said. I´m using radar at work, too and i see those stripes, too."
Of course you do. With all due respect, I seriously doubt whether you could successfully operate a transistor radio.
"It´s not that it occurs only once a year. You can see those stripes permanently. And we are not in a war. Why should you permanently use anti-radar-spray?"
Chaff does not leave a trail. The stripes that you refer to and in your footage are contrails.
"Chaff is a protective claim to hide the chemtrail poisoning program."
Seriously, you need specialist help. I genuinely mean that.
"Aluminium is highly toxic and they admit to use it in those "chaff" chemtrails."
Aluminium is in your kitchenware. It's in beverage cans, pots and pans, siding and roofing, and foil. Aluminum can be mixed with other metals to form alloys. These alloys are used in water treatment and in consumer products such as antacids, food additives, cosmetics, and antiperspirants.It is in our soils and has multiple pathways into nature. It is on the air you breath, you are surrounded by it as the most abundant metal on the planet and the third most common element. Toxicity is a function of exposure concentration and duration.
"And those polymer strings also perfectly fit to my observation that those chemtrails spread over hours in the sky and make it milky and dusty even on hot summer days with no clouds at all and dry air"
Or instead, as suggested, you could learn about lapse rates, dew point, relative humidity and supersaturation. You don't even understand that temperature and pressure decreases with altitude. Clue for you - those cirrus clouds that you see on those "hot summer days" - they are composed of ice crystals. How do you think they got there?
"And it perfectly fits that although there are flights on canary islands, too, you don´t see those chemtrails there, because they don´t spray them there."
As I said, contrary to your claims, you do see contrails over the Canary Islands. I have explained why.
"And you definitely said that chemtrails aren´t possible from a technological standpoint."
They aren't.
"I proved you that it´s wrong."
Nope, you changed the subject to chaff, which doesn't even leave the 'long thin white trail' that you are describing. Nor does it spread out and fill the sky. At most, when flares are deployed they resemble a firework shell. Given the extremely low concentrations of chaff encountered in the environment, there is only a remote possibility that chaff could be ingested by humans, livestock, or wildlife–thus, health hazards associated with this exposure pathway are deemed to be negligible.
Talking of fireworks though they produce smoke and dust that may contain residues of heavy metals, sulphur-coal compounds and some low concentration toxic chemicals. These by-products of fireworks combustion will vary depending on the mix of ingredients of a particular firework. (The colour green, for instance, may be produced by adding the various compounds and salts of barium, some of which are toxic, and some of which are not.) Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryllium, strontium and radium. By your logic, chemtrails!!! - and there are an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of fireworks detonated every.
"You entangle yourself in your own contradictions and always and only focus on one single aspect without seeing the whole picture."
The unintentional irony at this stage is frankly staggering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stellaabby37
"Let me put it like this, yes they did. It was in Harvard magazine but No one has to come out and admit anything."
You have completely misunderstood my reply. Research into SAI has never been secretive - how do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied? Moreover, no one is denying the existence of such research initiatives, they simply have nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that you are seeing - and there is nothing called 'Operation Solar Shield' - which is purely the invention of chemtrail conspiracy theorists based upon the false equivalence of SRM.
"And It’s not a belief, I know they spray the sky’s with something"
Your anecdotal personal incredulity is precisely that - a belief. And you 'know' nothing of the sort.
"I live within two miles of a international airport."
So what? Proximity to an airport has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails that you are observing.
"Since childhood I’ve looked up. There were very few contrails then"
So have I - it's been my living. And that's simply untrue. Contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. This again is independently verifiable. The following is a 75 year old photograph taken from the pages of a meteorological textbook:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
Contrails are more prevalent today due to the exponential growth of the commercial aviation section and associated routes flown.
"you could not go out at night and watch the planes spray over the moon"
Yes you could. Also, surely, surely you are able to comprehend that this is relative to your position and perspective as a ground based observer?
"nor could you have the sky’s covered up on one day or week, then watch them take a day or a week off and have nothing but blue sky’s with what I would call normal air traffic."
Are you equally perplexed and confused about variations in cloud cover?
"I don’t know what there spraying or why but You’ll never convince me there not spraying something at certain times for some kind of reason."
Of course I won't. As a conspiracy believer you are emotionally invested and amongst the most closed minded community on the entire internet.
"Come on NASA has the rocket engine test site in Louisiana and the BBC said they were playing god cause they can make it rain."
The BBC said nothing of the sort. You are referring to the Stennis rocket test stands in Huntsville Mississippi visited by Jeremy Clarkson and the appropriated footage dishonestly misrepresented by chemtrail videos. NASA don't "make it rain". If you fire a liquid fueled rocket engine in conditions of high relative humidity, the plume will condense and precipitate as a consequence.
"Moreover they ran the thing the longest it has ever ran in the middle of hurricane Harvey. You know, Had to get that testing done. This is a fact."
What?????? These are liquid fueled rocket engines - test fired for a few minutes. What on earth are you talking about. You can't artificially create a hurricane - far less control one. The latter are spawned halfway across the globe in tropical seas. When warm moist air over the water rises, it is replaced by cooler air. The cooler air will then warm and start to rise. If there is enough warm water, the cycle will perpetuate forming a hurricane. Seriously, you need to learn some basic meteorology instead of substituting a lack of education and scientific illiteracy with junk online conspiracy theory and pseudoscience.
"Now your going to say your government has never lied to you?"
Of course government's lie. Should we trust our government? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that a government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
So because historically government lie and deceive it then follows that chemtrails or any conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary subjective choice or devising must be true? Of course it doesn't - surely you can comprehend that?
1
-
1
-
@stellaabby37
"it’s no theory or hypothesis"
I'm not suggesting that it is. You seem terribly confused again. I was responding to your ill-informed comments about gravity and explaining what the term theory and hypothesis means in science as opposed to lay parlance. Regarding chemtrails, it is neither - and nothing more than a baseless hoax involving the misidentification of contrails.
"All you have to do is go outside and look up."
No, all you have to do is understand 1/ why chemtrails are a physical and mathematical impossibility and 2/ what you are looking at.
"Planes and dark gray epoxy like clouds covered up the sky, not high altitude and not in the normal flight path."
So air traffic, contrails and cloud cover then
"You can call it paranoia, but like I always say it’s not paranoia if it’s really happening."
It's a combination of paranoia, gullibility and allowing online conspiracy theory to provide the explanations instead of science for something that you don't understand.
"Just like you can give examples for theory but it is no longer a theory if it is real."
What theory? I explained that in science - any theory is based upon evidence and data.
"Now let’s talk hypothetical. I could say I think my boat sank cause it had a hole in it. That’s my theory. If I go bring it up and it’s got a hole in it then it would be a fact. Just cause my theory was right doesn’t help my friend that drowned. Guess what I’m saying is Occam‘s razor. The simplest solution is probably the right one."
Then why do you reject it then in favour of a ludicrous physically impossible hoax that would require the complicity of every government on the planet, the global aviation sector and the collective coopting and coercing of the entire branches of meteorological and atmospheric science and environmental monitoring worldwide?
"Two many variables to create a contrail."
And you clearly don't understand a single one of them. Start with air temperature, vapour pressure and relative humidity. Are you equally perplexed about the formation of a cloud? - because that is all that a contrail is.
"Especially one that looks like a two part epoxy that’s mixing together and stays in the sky till out of site."
Your anecdotal personal incredulity is irrelevant.
"I’m not trying to convince you. I Challenge you"
I am irrelevant. Your contention lies with known physical laws, meteorological science and the fundamentals of aviation.
"Every time your outside, look up, if it’s a clear day, take note"
I have done all my life having alpine climbed from childhood, worked as a mountain guide across four different continents and obtained a post-graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology over a quarter of a century ago. Question to you. What is your occupation?
"you see a contrail, look at each one and consider that maybe that’s not condensation. Maybe in your mind it always will be? In my mind I don’t know why or what but I know where and know someone is putting it there for a reason."
And a challenge for you. Ask yourself, what is the weight of material contained in the trails that I am seeing and the payload capacity of the aircraft producing them? Do I actually understand the terms, lapse rates, relative humidity, dew point and supersaturation? And finally, can I name these precise chemicals that can mysteriously linger, expand and increase in mass just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Get back to me when you have those answers.
1
-
1