Fat Lady Singing wrote:My tongue is bigger than yours, so n'yah n'yah n'yah!
You should use it more. I like it.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Fat Lady Singing wrote:My tongue is bigger than yours, so n'yah n'yah n'yah!
Seamus OBlimey wrote:Fat Lady Singing wrote:My tongue is bigger than yours, so n'yah n'yah n'yah!
You should use it more. I like it.
In this chapter a number of "geoengineering" options are considered. These are options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry. Most of these options have to do with the possibility of compensating for a rise in global temperature, caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, by reflecting or scattering back a fraction of the incoming sunlight. Other geoengineering possibilities include reforesting the United States to increase the storage of carbon in vegetation, stimulating an increase in oceanic biomass as a means of increasing the storage and natural sequestering of carbon in the ocean, decreasing CO2 by direct absorption, and decreasing atmospheric halocarbons by direct destruction. It is important to recognize that we are at present involved in a large project of inadvertent "geoengineering" by altering atmospheric chemistry, and it does not seem inappropriate to inquire if there are countermeasures that might be implemented to address the adverse impacts.
Our current inadvertent project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk. Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks. Some do have the merit of being within the range of current short-term experience, and others could be "turned off" if unintended effects occur.
Most of these ideas have been proposed before, and the relevant references are cited in the text. The panel here provides sketches of possible systems and rough estimates of the costs of implementing them.
The analyses in this chapter should be thought of as explorations of plausibility in the sense of providing preliminary answers to two questions and encouraging scrutiny of a third:
Figure 3-16: Persistent contrail coverage (in % area cover) for the 1992 aviation fleet, assuming linear dependence on fuel consumption and overall efficiency of propulsion h of 0.3. The global mean cover is 0.1% (from Sausen et al., 1998).
massen wrote:They were presumably informed that the spraying of heavy metals into the atmosphere, although creating a significant health risk, would great an "albedo" (whiteness) around the globe, reflecting a sufficient percentage of the sun's rays back into outer space to reduce "global warming".
et in Arcadia ego wrote:http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=433In this chapter a number of "geoengineering" options are considered. These are options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry. Most of these options have to do with the possibility of compensating for a rise in global temperature, caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, by reflecting or scattering back a fraction of the incoming sunlight. Other geoengineering possibilities include reforesting the United States to increase the storage of carbon in vegetation, stimulating an increase in oceanic biomass as a means of increasing the storage and natural sequestering of carbon in the ocean, decreasing CO2 by direct absorption, and decreasing atmospheric halocarbons by direct destruction. It is important to recognize that we are at present involved in a large project of inadvertent "geoengineering" by altering atmospheric chemistry, and it does not seem inappropriate to inquire if there are countermeasures that might be implemented to address the adverse impacts.
Our current inadvertent project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk. Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks. Some do have the merit of being within the range of current short-term experience, and others could be "turned off" if unintended effects occur.
Most of these ideas have been proposed before, and the relevant references are cited in the text. The panel here provides sketches of possible systems and rough estimates of the costs of implementing them.
The analyses in this chapter should be thought of as explorations of plausibility in the sense of providing preliminary answers to two questions and encouraging scrutiny of a third:
This chapter has several mitigation proposals detailed down to the last iota. The entire publication in its time was an authoritative reference. The only reason its no longer considreed to be such is because the runaway reactions of the Planet that are outpacing the IPCC's predictions even as short as 6 months ago.
"Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base" was published in 1992. This publication was submitted to Congress more than 10 years before GWB denied any possibility or reason to look into warming scenarios, including 'spraying', which in actuallity meant passing aluminum particulates through aircraft turbines, which was suggested by Teller, but in reality, he stole the idea from Ramanathan, who suggested it more than 25 years ago. Another suggestion was to burn airplane fule 'richer', creating soot(chemtrails), and the timing of JP8's arrival as a fuel source is no small coincidence.
Speaking of IPCC, here's the link to the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/avi ... vf3-16.jpgFigure 3-16: Persistent contrail coverage (in % area cover) for the 1992 aviation fleet, assuming linear dependence on fuel consumption and overall efficiency of propulsion h of 0.3. The global mean cover is 0.1% (from Sausen et al., 1998).
There's a 2050 projection above I'm out of time to track down, but its in either chapter 3 or 6 I believe.
Sharing this stuff over and over and taking flak for it is a pretty thankless task. I hope this offers an insight into why I keep trying to kill the windmill with a toothbrush. Truth is, this subject crops up every six months or so, and dilutes the integrity of discussions on this forum. Just having google index the word 'chemtrail' drops this forum's ratings.
This is an important place where important things are discussed. The witchcraft needs to be gutted from teh Science when it comes to 'chemtrails'.
Sorry, guys.
Just having google index the word '...' drops this forum's ratings.
More proper terminology is 'Radiative Forcing". When you come across this term, what it means very specifically is Man's effect on the planet's Albedo and nothing else.
Fat Lady Singing wrote:Jeff wrote:What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?
Hi Jeff: I don't know if what I saw could be classified as a "problem" or not, really. Perhaps the worst that could be said of the grid is that it was unsightly.
What I saw was a hundred times more clear, neat, and obvious than any of the pictures posted on this thread -- that's what I meant when I described it as "blatant." No disrespect intended toward the people posting pictures, but the pictures are, to my eyes, open to interpretation. What I saw absolutely was not. The clarity and perfection of the grid was astonishing. I don't know if that's a function of actually being there to see it as it formed, or the inadequacy of cameras to capture such events, or whether it's because the event in the sky I and my husband witnessed was qualitatively different from what's pictured in this thread.
Again, I saw the jets creating the grid, so it was definitely a process going on, rather than any kind of product I saw traces of later.
Honestly, if it is some kind of government program to forestall or reverse global warming, I'm not going to feel too bad about it, secret or not, as long as whatever is in the air that happens to fall to the ground isn't more dangerous to the population than global warming itself. I'm sure that would have some RI members aghast... and I'm a little surprised, myself, to see those words coming from my keyboard. I guess I'd prefer to think we're doing *something* about global warming -- that is, something more than continually contributing to it.
brainpanhandler wrote:et in Arcadia ego wrote:Just having google index the word '...' drops this forum's ratings.
Can we just use another word?
et in Arcadia ego wrote:Jeff wrote:What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?
This is what I've been trying(admittedly a little hot-headedly) to suggest to people for years.
gongfu, you are correct, discussion for discussion's sake is indeed a good thing and nothing I'd ever wish to stamp out, but there's a dynamic at work here where once a person believes their being 'poisoned', they really fly off into the deep end and all the sudden the world is 1,000 shades blacker.
Its black enough, dude. My darkest days literally were when I was a 'chemmie'. Peace of mind was literally impossible and I hesitated to draw breath outside for fear of what I was consuming.
Joe's a smart guy; smart as they come.
Go spread three years of your life eating this meme and find your own 'bored-to-fucking-tears-with=the-bullshit' smiley.
I am a Pro.
Or was one.
But please, dismiss nothing out of hand; there are ,millions of colorful energy sinks to allow to suck one's face off staring into.
A toilet will even do that.
Is a toilet a part of the Clemtrail Conspirarcy?
___
Do yourselves a favor and move on.
___
That's it for me in this talk.
Enjoy, guys. I'd rather hang with my kid or talk about other stuff. Its just hard to let go of something that took such a substantial bite out of 3 years of my life.
I hope the same doesn't happen for any of you, is all.
___
If they're stunned into motionless over a stupid persistent contrail, they should try reading one of Jeff's CLIMATE CHANGE ABOUT TO REAM ALL OUR FUCKING ASSES DRY DESPITE THE SILLY PLANES AND THEIR JP-* FUEL EVERYONE THINKS IS SOME KILL DYE OR WHATSIT.
Chemtrails are idiotspeak. I say this fully with the stamp of being one(chemmie) in the past, a PRO idiot.
___
Learn something about the shit you fret and itch over, guys.
Seriously.
Ciao,
D
___
JP8 fuel was implemented in commercial flights in the early 90's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8
JP8 has extra chemical components(NOT KILL KILL, DIE DIE stuff) that permit flight in a higher stratospheric altitude where persistent contrails are more likely to form. Its been some time, but the actual layer where they form is less than 15 miles high, if I recall correctly.
___
This is a waste of time.
Go chase the Phantom, guys! You have my blessing.
___
gongfu, you are correct, discussion for discussion's sake is indeed a good thing and nothing I'd ever wish to stamp out, but there's a dynamic at work here where once a person believes their being 'poisoned', they really fly off into the deep end and all the sudden the world is 1,000 shades blacker.
Its black enough, dude. My darkest days literally were when I was a 'chemmie'. Peace of mind was literally impossible and I hesitated to draw breath outside for fear of what I was consuming.
As Joe said, I am convinced when a person sees a persistent contrail they are observing a localized supersaturation state.
I defer you to the IPCC's Aviation and the Global Climate, as I've done over and over here and elsewhere the last 4 years.
I don't seek to discourage you from learning as much about this as you can, but I do strongly believe we are observing a reaction, not an action.
We've fucked the Climate, man. We all know this. 'Chemtrail's are just one of many symptoms. There's literature all over the net(VALID, sourced, and verified by peer research scientists, not backyard Orgonites with their Cloud Go Buh Bye Towers.
The stuff's out there; go and grab it. Have a good look in the NAP; there's paper after paper on it. If you search for chemtrails and my name here, you'll find many links that might prove a valuable read for you.
Did you know that astronomers have predicted that by 2050 we won't be able to use ground-based telescopes anymore? This is because what you call a chemtrail fans out into artificial cirrus. This is a cumulative process that only aggravates itself as the years go by. I've posted image maps of current artificial cloud cover and 2050 projections by the IPCC.
You'll likely be shocked by what you see.
Cirrus Uncinus(the scientific name for artificial cirrus) acts as a barrier for keeping infrared heat dissipating off the Earth's surface. In other words, it accelerates warming.
nathan28 wrote:Real, observable phenomenon: Persistent jet contrails. Contrails fanning out into cirrus clouds.
Speculation: that it's an effect not a cause and caused by global climate change.
Possible support: global climate change is real and observable, and clouds and the atmosphere are part of climate
Problem with theory: I'm not a climatologist or fuel engineer
Alternative speculation: the contrails linger because... They are full of toxic chemicals and Morgellon's and the Shadow Government put tehm there!!1!!1!
Support: a bunch of sites on the internet almost always by people who are not chemists, not climatologists, not doctors, but make specific fact claims in all those categories and back them with photographs of the contrails and some photographs of what people claim are "threads" that literally fell from the sky, and more pictures of "strange sparkles" that show up when you turn the contrast all the way up on Photoshop
Problem with theory: No one can explain *why* the NWO/Shadow Gov't/Aliens are sparying us with microdoses of moderately toxic compounds. it appears to be based on the work of a hoaxer trying to draw attention to climage change.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests