Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Six Reasons Why I Consider Chemtrails a Hoax.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Debate and Debunking

Author Thread
Et in Arcadia ego





Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void
PostMon Jul 18, 2005 3:48 pm  Reply with quote  

To contribute to this discussion I would like to share the following:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/040.htm#img324

This image depicts current persistent contrail coverage & the bottom one demonstrates a 2050 projection.



Root:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm

The above is taken from chapter 3. From Chapter 3's executive summary:

In the future, contrail cloudiness and radiative forcing are expected to increase more strongly than global aviation fuel consumption because air traffic is expected to increase mainly in the upper troposphere, where contrails form preferentially, and because aircraft will be equipped with more fuel-efficient engines. More efficient engines will cause contrails to occur more frequently and over a larger altitude range for the same amount of air traffic. For the threefold increase in fuel consumption calculated for a 2050 scenario (Fa1), a fivefold increase in contrail cover and a sixfold increase in radiative forcing are expected. The contrail cover would increase even more strongly if the number of cruising aircraft increases more than their fuel consumption. For other 2050 scenarios (Fc1 and Fe1), the expected cirrus cover increases by factors of 3 and 9, respectively, compared to 1992. Higher cruise altitudes will increase contrail cover in the subtropics; lower cruise altitudes will increase contrail cover in polar regions. Future climate changes may cause further changes in expected aircraft-induced cirrus cover.

From what I've gather reading this, the panel of scientific authors suggests that persistent contrails manifest by climate supersaturation of airplane exhaust which will only increase in the future. In a lot of ways this makes sense to me, but it doesn't explain why they tend to begin & end over dense populations unless there's an interaction between the contrails and a city's generated weather, which is a very good possibility as large city's are very much known for 'generating' their own weather, but does not explain formation over rural areas in this context.

Chapter 3 discusses the role of contrails with regards to RF(man-made enviornmental imbalance), and demonstrates why artificial cirrus would give both effects of cooling during the day & trapping heat at night, thus contributing simultaneously to global warming AND cooling.

Said plainly, if persistent contrails' existance is based on a saturation issue in the atmosphere, we can only expect to see more & more of them. If anyone's not familiar with supersaturation, there's an old science trick where you take photo developer's crystal & dissolve it in a glass of water. When you achieve a state of super-saturation, the dissolved chemical will become crystal again. My understanding of the process indicates that when you are in a (local) enviornment in a state of supersaturation(a city, for example) the contrails will not dissipate because the area already has too much of this material in situ, so you will instead see a persistent contrail & it's evolution into an artifcial cirrus cloud, which is what I see almsot every day.

All in all, this makes ALOT of sense to me in my admittedly limited, but intuitive grasp of science. While I don't think it explains EVERYTHING that has been witnessed to date, I think it explains a very good amount of it.

Of course I could be entirely wrong, but either way, I think this publcation contains an excellent amount of information for people to study for themselves, especially chapter 3, which indicates in black & white contrail's role in Global Warming.

So much for "Air Pharmacology".. Rolling Eyes

No matter WHAT the phenomenon is, I would very much like to get to the bottom of it. I think we've witnessed several different activities over the years, but the actual activity of deliberately introducing a chemical agent into the atmosphere seems to be masked behind this model discussed by this panel of scientists.

So what do you guys think?
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
 View user's profile Send private message
Et in Arcadia ego





Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void
PostMon Jul 18, 2005 4:32 pm  Reply with quote  

From the exectutive summary of chapter 3:

"Contrails cause a positive mean radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. They reduce both the solar radiation reaching the surface and the amount of longwave radiation leaving the Earth to space. Contrails reduce the daily temperature range at the surface and cause a heating of the troposphere, especially over warm and bright surfaces. The radiative effects of contrails depend mainly on their coverage and optical depth."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/032.htm

Does this not suggest a role in both Global Warming as well as Global Dimming?
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
 View user's profile Send private message
Et in Arcadia ego





Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void
PostMon Jul 18, 2005 5:54 pm  Reply with quote  

http://www.google.com/search?q=supersaturation++persistent+contrail&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Do I think this is the explanation for everything?

Hell no.

Do I think that there's been aerosol spraying incidents over civilian populations?

Hell yes.

But I think this potentially plays a big part in what's been seen.
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
 View user's profile Send private message
mr. jones





Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 1899
reply PostMon Mar 20, 2006 6:49 pm  Reply with quote  

to the boing guy.

Your post is a joke.

Do you actually think we are all teenagers in here?

Please sir grow up, you're too old to be making yourslef look like a fool among the older people in this forum.

I would seriously consider sending you back to high school.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BrassRat





Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 133
Location: Gulf Breeze, Florida
Item 6 Every characteristic PostFri Aug 03, 2007 6:36 am  Reply with quote  

With regard to you Item # 6 at beginning of this POST:

I beg to differ. My partner and I have been in privately funded active research in matters of the environment. My specialty has been involved in atmospheric particles. I have several images on display at this site which specifically address particles, chemtrails, particle alignment and interaction with natural and unnatural forces. I invite you to use this link to take you to my Personal Image database:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/album.php?user_id=6474

Further, view image ID# 1178 on page 1, then go to page 6 and view ID#'s 893, 1032, 1033, 1036, 1037

Intentionally withheld information keeps the general public about 30 to 60 years behind existing technology. Short of wacking people with a stupid stick, I think our government has done a great job of keeping us all ignorant of the world we live in.
 View user's profile Send private message
Free World Order


tagged & banned


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU
PostThu Feb 07, 2008 1:10 am  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Et in Arcadia ego
To contribute to this discussion I would like to share the following:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/040.htm#img324

This image depicts current persistent contrail coverage & the bottom one demonstrates a 2050 projection.



Root:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm

The above is taken from chapter 3. From Chapter 3's executive summary:

In the future, contrail cloudiness and radiative forcing are expected to increase more strongly than global aviation fuel consumption because air traffic is expected to increase mainly in the upper troposphere, where contrails form preferentially, and because aircraft will be equipped with more fuel-efficient engines. More efficient engines will cause contrails to occur more frequently and over a larger altitude range for the same amount of air traffic. For the threefold increase in fuel consumption calculated for a 2050 scenario (Fa1), a fivefold increase in contrail cover and a sixfold increase in radiative forcing are expected. The contrail cover would increase even more strongly if the number of cruising aircraft increases more than their fuel consumption. For other 2050 scenarios (Fc1 and Fe1), the expected cirrus cover increases by factors of 3 and 9, respectively, compared to 1992. Higher cruise altitudes will increase contrail cover in the subtropics; lower cruise altitudes will increase contrail cover in polar regions. Future climate changes may cause further changes in expected aircraft-induced cirrus cover.

From what I've gather reading this, the panel of scientific authors suggests that persistent contrails manifest by climate supersaturation of airplane exhaust which will only increase in the future. In a lot of ways this makes sense to me, but it doesn't explain why they tend to begin & end over dense populations unless there's an interaction between the contrails and a city's generated weather, which is a very good possibility as large city's are very much known for 'generating' their own weather, but does not explain formation over rural areas in this context.

Chapter 3 discusses the role of contrails with regards to RF(man-made enviornmental imbalance), and demonstrates why artificial cirrus would give both effects of cooling during the day & trapping heat at night, thus contributing simultaneously to global warming AND cooling.

Said plainly, if persistent contrails' existance is based on a saturation issue in the atmosphere, we can only expect to see more & more of them. If anyone's not familiar with supersaturation, there's an old science trick where you take photo developer's crystal & dissolve it in a glass of water. When you achieve a state of super-saturation, the dissolved chemical will become crystal again. My understanding of the process indicates that when you are in a (local) enviornment in a state of supersaturation(a city, for example) the contrails will not dissipate because the area already has too much of this material in situ, so you will instead see a persistent contrail & it's evolution into an artifcial cirrus cloud, which is what I see almsot every day.

All in all, this makes ALOT of sense to me in my admittedly limited, but intuitive grasp of science. While I don't think it explains EVERYTHING that has been witnessed to date, I think it explains a very good amount of it.

Of course I could be entirely wrong, but either way, I think this publcation contains an excellent amount of information for people to study for themselves, especially chapter 3, which indicates in black & white contrail's role in Global Warming.

So much for "Air Pharmacology".. Rolling Eyes

No matter WHAT the phenomenon is, I would very much like to get to the bottom of it. I think we've witnessed several different activities over the years, but the actual activity of deliberately introducing a chemical agent into the atmosphere seems to be masked behind this model discussed by this panel of scientists.

So what do you guys think?


Why does the image not show data for Africa or South America? Or even Antarctica for that matter? (Yes, I know these are not busy flight paths in comparison). Because if you bother to check there are trails daily over those continents. Are these areas excluded from the 2050 projection? Anyone have data on flight paths/plans over Antarctica and other remote places of the world? Would be interesting for me to learn something more on this.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org
 View user's profile Send private message
Free World Order


tagged & banned


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU
PostSat Feb 16, 2008 4:26 pm  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Et in Arcadia ego
From the exectutive summary of chapter 3:

"Contrails cause a positive mean radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. They reduce both the solar radiation reaching the surface and the amount of longwave radiation leaving the Earth to space. Contrails reduce the daily temperature range at the surface and cause a heating of the troposphere, especially over warm and bright surfaces. The radiative effects of contrails depend mainly on their coverage and optical depth."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/032.htm

Does this not suggest a role in both Global Warming as well as Global Dimming?


Not true, original research twisted. Overall contrails trap in heat like any artificial aerosols do.

code:
Contrails and climate

Contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing). Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming.[2] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/mē to 17 mW/mē. Other studies have determined that night flights are most responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing




Now the following is also propaganda in order to continue using aircraft that produce trails, we have the aircraft engine technology developed by government funding into once government founded aircraft companies that are now privatised that allow no contrails, if we had no contrails we then have natural cloud formations and a net cooling instead of a net heating year in year out. Look at stats ever since aircraft has been used to now. Then see why global warming is caused. it is a hoax, we've been lied to about the science of it, and the independent sources are ignored, even when they are nobel prize winning ones. If this fails then maybe the Mayans had a better clue about it all back in 7th century, they predicted our time would arrive and with increased solar flares, storms, etc.

code:
September 11, 2001 climate impact study

It had been hypothesized that contrails may affect the weather, reducing solar heating during the day and radiation of heat during the night by increasing the albedo. The suspension of air travel for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided an opportunity to test this hypothesis. Measurements did show that without contrails the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before;[4] however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.




I get tired of scientific research confirming what has already been proved over and over and over, until it is then twisted more over time to say, we were wrong, or we are not sure about it. So we disagree. SO give us more tax money so we can rip the people off and confuse them with our deceit, lets not use independent science, lets form our own NGO's and fund them directly from our corp based entities.

All it does is delay things, gives science a bad name. And stops real progress. A lot of rogue scientists out there for the big $$$ = zero ethics. I come across them all the time in all industries. Even if it is non profit or non government organisation, they have means and ways of making big $$$, the government call it money laundering when the little people do it but it is legal when the corps and institutions do it. Since they have no moral ethics - they have no knowledge of right or wrong, they carry on regardless no matter what there is. Dishonesty to them is success.

in case we missed this,

code:
It had been hypothesized

NOT PROVEN FACT! Soon though these same scientists will engineer a model that proves their theory to be fact! It will be based on a flawed theory! Meanwhile all this rogue science research is being done based on flawed theories, we have government science advisors ignoring their own research projects that represent more balanced true science. Global Warming climate models are continually fixed from bugs and glitches wasting years of funding and resources. Some day they will find it is natural and caused by the sun and biospheric conditions. The little we do trap in during our short life here is man made, but not the cause of it - just merely showing the symptoms. Since humans ignore long term weather statistics = nature! We really would be far better off just preserving natural forests and things we do have a clue about. Instead of funding trillions into things that have no outcome.

Yes we have pollution of all kinds and ways to limit, reduce or completely eliminate some or most of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
They won't make their minds up on what it really is, I say it is both. That way we can go about preserving a balance by funding ecological development solutions for today using more environmental science based engineering and design in infrastructure that was available to us 800 years ago. We have a better understanding of using nature to work with us, we are either part of it or we are killing it and us. it is our only life support system and is quintessential for all life that we maintain ecological balance. Now this is something science was based on decades ago, something hippies campaigned for as well. We have moved in the wrong direction though, lagging far behind in progress. Science and technology like PAK says works as a whole, internationally and always has mostly. Call it quackery though if that pleases. The alternative is depopulation on a global scale and a downscaling of our lifestyles. At the end of it all economies and currency, or fiat is a controlled artificial system (even if we only used gold - people then outbalance value), it could be vastly improved but can't ever be 100% perfect. This is part of the reason why we are here today, the US has almost 1,000 billionaires - a lot of good it does them. Razz No, I don't dislike science/tech.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  
1, 2, 3, 4

All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:15 am


  Display posts from previous:      




© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base