If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36488183 The reference you quote says "The lack of major eruptions since 1991 has made the identification of this input much clearer than earlier measurements, but the data do not rule out some contribution to the increases in the stratospheric aerosol burden from anthropogenic sources [such as coal burning, see (14) as well]." Sure . . . they accept ground sources as a possible source (which is not highly likely) but never consider intentional Aerosol Injection into the Stratosphere because it never crossed their mind . . . to them it is not an option because no one says it is happening . . . Why is it " not highly likely"?! Because you say so?! Paragraph 2.6.4 "If anthropogenic SO2 emissions can account for more than half of the stratospheric background sulfate aerosol, future changes in anthropogenic SO2 emission could have an important impact on stratospheric sulfate aerosol loading. One can ask whether the past secular trend in anthropogenic SO2 emission has caused an increase in the loading of stratospheric aerosol. This question cannot be easily answered from the limited existing set of observations. Analysis of time series related to the stratospheric aerosol layer does not show any evidence of a trend in the nonvolcanic aerosol loading between the late 1970s, the late 1980s, and the late 1990s to the present(see Chapter 4). The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). [link to ozone.unep.org] So, you are suggesting that "anthropogenic" and "ground source" mean the same thing?! |
vtcw User ID: 37105744 United States 03/29/2013 03:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: George B I suspect you figured that out. . . . No, it is what I believe . . . actually . . . So, you actually believe these people have "felt" there way in regard to the trails in the sky, and have done quite well, and aren't making assumptions based on a lack of education in certain subjects?! I'm asking you specifically...not about "some people" this...and "some people" that... Do you think VT is seeing "chemtrails" or contrails over Vermont. What is more likely? I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness. Hmm...reading isn't your strong point.... Read the post again and use some reading comprehension. You SAY you have seen "chemtrails" and then fail to prove it...and fail to show you understand contrails. You have no way of knowing the chemical composition of the trails and you make assumptions. There is no way you can look at a trail, and from the way it looks or how long it lasts, say its a "chemtrail". I don't care about what you and snake do. I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1211465 So, you actually believe these people have "felt" there way in regard to the trails in the sky, and have done quite well, and aren't making assumptions based on a lack of education in certain subjects?! I'm asking you specifically...not about "some people" this...and "some people" that... Do you think VT is seeing "chemtrails" or contrails over Vermont. What is more likely? I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness. Ya, I get that snake is not that bad. Maybe you should. I think that he is a better man then most of the shills on here. Of course you do...you chemtards stick by each other... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: vtcw 37105744 I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness. Ya, I get that snake is not that bad. Maybe you should. I think that he is a better man then most of the shills on here. Of course you do...you chemtards stick by each other... Oops, I thought you meant George...I guess your lack of reading comprehension is contagious... |
George B (OP) Extinct But Not Forgotten! User ID: 19998253 United States 03/29/2013 03:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: George B Sure . . . they accept ground sources as a possible source (which is not highly likely) but never consider intentional Aerosol Injection into the Stratosphere because it never crossed their mind . . . to them it is not an option because no one says it is happening . . . Why is it " not highly likely"?! Because you say so?! Paragraph 2.6.4 "If anthropogenic SO2 emissions can account for more than half of the stratospheric background sulfate aerosol, future changes in anthropogenic SO2 emission could have an important impact on stratospheric sulfate aerosol loading. One can ask whether the past secular trend in anthropogenic SO2 emission has caused an increase in the loading of stratospheric aerosol. This question cannot be easily answered from the limited existing set of observations. Analysis of time series related to the stratospheric aerosol layer does not show any evidence of a trend in the nonvolcanic aerosol loading between the late 1970s, the late 1980s, and the late 1990s to the present(see Chapter 4). The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). [link to ozone.unep.org] So, you are suggesting that "anthropogenic" and "ground source" mean the same thing?! Yes . . . I should have been more specific . . . Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter! "Email: [email protected]" All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642) The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B |
vtcw User ID: 37105744 United States 03/29/2013 03:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: vtcw 37105744 I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness. Ya, I get that snake is not that bad. Maybe you should. I think that he is a better man then most of the shills on here. Of course you do...you chemtards stick by each other... Birds of a feather flock together |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1211465 So, you actually believe these people have "felt" there way in regard to the trails in the sky, and have done quite well, and aren't making assumptions based on a lack of education in certain subjects?! I'm asking you specifically...not about "some people" this...and "some people" that... Do you think VT is seeing "chemtrails" or contrails over Vermont. What is more likely? I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness. Hmm...reading isn't your strong point.... Read the post again and use some reading comprehension. You SAY you have seen "chemtrails" and then fail to prove it...and fail to show you understand contrails. You have no way of knowing the chemical composition of the trails and you make assumptions. There is no way you can look at a trail, and from the way it looks or how long it lasts, say its a "chemtrail". I don't care about what you and snake do. I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Yet, you feel the need to argue about it when others say it's most likely contrails... And maybe the chemicals in the tap water cause the rainbows...right?! You chemtards make the crazy sprinkler lady look like a genius. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? Paragraph 2.6.4 "If anthropogenic SO2 emissions can account for more than half of the stratospheric background sulfate aerosol, future changes in anthropogenic SO2 emission could have an important impact on stratospheric sulfate aerosol loading. One can ask whether the past secular trend in anthropogenic SO2 emission has caused an increase in the loading of stratospheric aerosol. This question cannot be easily answered from the limited existing set of observations. Analysis of time series related to the stratospheric aerosol layer does not show any evidence of a trend in the nonvolcanic aerosol loading between the late 1970s, the late 1980s, and the late 1990s to the present(see Chapter 4). The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). [link to ozone.unep.org] So, you are suggesting that "anthropogenic" and "ground source" mean the same thing?! Yes . . . I should have been more specific . . . So, that's a yes...you do think these terms mean the same thing?! Wow.... |
vtcw User ID: 37105744 United States 03/29/2013 03:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: vtcw 37105744 I'm kind of puzzled as to why you are asking George B what I see. To answer your question- man/woman behind the curtain, yes I've seen plenty of chemtrails in Vermont, as well as in numerous other states. Maybe I should take Snake up on his offer to meet at xxxxxxxx Park so we can watch sunset chemtrails together. He will be another witness. Hmm...reading isn't your strong point.... Read the post again and use some reading comprehension. You SAY you have seen "chemtrails" and then fail to prove it...and fail to show you understand contrails. You have no way of knowing the chemical composition of the trails and you make assumptions. There is no way you can look at a trail, and from the way it looks or how long it lasts, say its a "chemtrail". I don't care about what you and snake do. I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Yet, you feel the need to argue about it when others say it's most likely contrails... And maybe the chemicals in the tap water cause the rainbows...right?! You chemtards make the crazy sprinkler lady look like a genius. Raintards.. Crazytards. Sprinklertards. Geniustards.. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 36488183 United States 03/29/2013 03:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Quoting: vtcw 37105744 So you expect everyone to take your word on faith. As if your proclamations carry more weight than any scientific evidence. I will ask but expect the question will be ignored since no chemtrail believer has yet to answer, what is your science background? |
George B (OP) Extinct But Not Forgotten! User ID: 19998253 United States 03/29/2013 03:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: George B Paragraph 2.6.4 "If anthropogenic SO2 emissions can account for more than half of the stratospheric background sulfate aerosol, future changes in anthropogenic SO2 emission could have an important impact on stratospheric sulfate aerosol loading. One can ask whether the past secular trend in anthropogenic SO2 emission has caused an increase in the loading of stratospheric aerosol. This question cannot be easily answered from the limited existing set of observations. Analysis of time series related to the stratospheric aerosol layer does not show any evidence of a trend in the nonvolcanic aerosol loading between the late 1970s, the late 1980s, and the late 1990s to the present(see Chapter 4). The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). [link to ozone.unep.org] So, you are suggesting that "anthropogenic" and "ground source" mean the same thing?! Yes . . . I should have been more specific . . . So, that's a yes...you do think these terms mean the same thing?! Wow.... I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). Last Edited by George B on 03/29/2013 03:46 PM Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter! "Email: [email protected]" All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642) The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30170064 Hmm...reading isn't your strong point.... Read the post again and use some reading comprehension. You SAY you have seen "chemtrails" and then fail to prove it...and fail to show you understand contrails. You have no way of knowing the chemical composition of the trails and you make assumptions. There is no way you can look at a trail, and from the way it looks or how long it lasts, say its a "chemtrail". I don't care about what you and snake do. I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Yet, you feel the need to argue about it when others say it's most likely contrails... And maybe the chemicals in the tap water cause the rainbows...right?! You chemtards make the crazy sprinkler lady look like a genius. Raintards.. Crazytards. Sprinklertards. Geniustards.. No, just the ones who think that contrails are chemtrails earn the "tard" suffix. |
vtcw User ID: 37105744 United States 03/29/2013 03:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Quoting: vtcw 37105744 So you expect everyone to take your word on faith. As if your proclamations carry more weight than any scientific evidence. I will ask but expect the question will be ignored since no chemtrail believer has yet to answer, what is your science background? Yes, take my word on faith. I believe very much in the Lord. I'm a Faithtard. Bibletard. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30170064 So, you are suggesting that "anthropogenic" and "ground source" mean the same thing?! Yes . . . I should have been more specific . . . So, that's a yes...you do think these terms mean the same thing?! Wow.... I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30170064 So, you are suggesting that "anthropogenic" and "ground source" mean the same thing?! Yes . . . I should have been more specific . . . So, that's a yes...you do think these terms mean the same thing?! Wow.... I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). OMG George...look at what you wrote before I wrote "Why is it " not highly likely"?!" And ten look at your reply to that same statement... |
vtcw User ID: 37105744 United States 03/29/2013 03:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: vtcw 37105744 I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Yet, you feel the need to argue about it when others say it's most likely contrails... And maybe the chemicals in the tap water cause the rainbows...right?! You chemtards make the crazy sprinkler lady look like a genius. Raintards.. Crazytards. Sprinklertards. Geniustards.. No, just the ones who think that contrails are chemtrails earn the "tard" suffix. Why do you guys take contrails so seriously? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Quoting: vtcw 37105744 So you expect everyone to take your word on faith. As if your proclamations carry more weight than any scientific evidence. I will ask but expect the question will be ignored since no chemtrail believer has yet to answer, what is your science background? Apparently she doesn't expect us to do anything with her statements. She's just letting us know what se saw...like a kid with Down's telling the world he has a cookie... She doesn't want debate.... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30170064 Yet, you feel the need to argue about it when others say it's most likely contrails... And maybe the chemicals in the tap water cause the rainbows...right?! You chemtards make the crazy sprinkler lady look like a genius. Raintards.. Crazytards. Sprinklertards. Geniustards.. No, just the ones who think that contrails are chemtrails earn the "tard" suffix. Why do you guys take contrails so seriously? Because you people are so serious about spreading the ignorance as truth, when the truth matters so much more. You people are spreading lies about people and subjects you know nothing about. |
vtcw User ID: 37105744 United States 03/29/2013 03:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Quoting: vtcw 37105744 So you expect everyone to take your word on faith. As if your proclamations carry more weight than any scientific evidence. I will ask but expect the question will be ignored since no chemtrail believer has yet to answer, what is your science background? Apparently she doesn't expect us to do anything with her statements. She's just letting us know what se saw...like a kid with Down's telling the world he has a cookie... She doesn't want debate.... Why would I debate with someone on here that I don't know a thing about. That doesn't seem very logical. If you don't believe me, so be it, not a big deal. And please give me back my cookie. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 03:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Quoting: vtcw 37105744 So you expect everyone to take your word on faith. As if your proclamations carry more weight than any scientific evidence. I will ask but expect the question will be ignored since no chemtrail believer has yet to answer, what is your science background? Yes, take my word on faith. I believe very much in the Lord. I'm a Faithtard. Bibletard. At least you can admit it.... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 36488183 United States 03/29/2013 04:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). Quoting: George B But your interest was AFTER 1990. What happenend to anthropogenic SO2 emission after 1990? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 04:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail.. Quoting: vtcw 37105744 So you expect everyone to take your word on faith. As if your proclamations carry more weight than any scientific evidence. I will ask but expect the question will be ignored since no chemtrail believer has yet to answer, what is your science background? Apparently she doesn't expect us to do anything with her statements. She's just letting us know what se saw...like a kid with Down's telling the world he has a cookie... She doesn't want debate.... Why would I debate with someone on here that I don't know a thing about. That doesn't seem very logical. If you don't believe me, so be it, not a big deal. And please give me back my cookie. Lol! The funny thing is, no one wants to debate you! You obviously see contrails, and use your limited education and propensity to believe in conspiracy theories to come to a conclusion based on assumption and anecdotal "evidence" you have accepted as truth from other chemtards. The fact remains, you have no evidence that any trail you've seen is anything more than a contrail. You're here to lend support to George...we get it...and don't care. Personally, I'd rather discuss the subject with a rock than with you. But, the truth IS a big deal...and needs to be posted alongside the lies and stupid nonsense the chemtards post as truth. There is no debate. Have you seen evidence that anyone has flown through a trail that you, or any other chemtard has seen, and found it to contain anything more than water vapor and combustion gases?! Nope! That's the truth! You can call them "chemtrails" but it's a lie! Jesus isn't gonna like that! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5917739 United States 03/29/2013 04:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). Quoting: George B George is a bad doggie, no biscuit. |
George B (OP) Extinct But Not Forgotten! User ID: 19998253 United States 03/29/2013 04:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). Quoting: George B But your interest was AFTER 1990. What happenend to anthropogenic SO2 emission after 1990? According to the EPA in the US and like agencies in Europe the ground level concentrations went down. . . . Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter! "Email: [email protected]" All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642) The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5917739 United States 03/29/2013 04:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). Quoting: George B But your interest was AFTER 1990. What happenend to anthropogenic SO2 emission after 1990? According to the EPA in the US and like agencies in Europe the ground level concentrations went down. . . . Doctors don't recommend it. |
George B (OP) Extinct But Not Forgotten! User ID: 19998253 United States 03/29/2013 04:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? So, that's a yes...you do think these terms mean the same thing?! Wow.... I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). So, that's a yes...you do think these terms mean the same thing?! Wow.... I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). OMG George...look at what you wrote before I wrote "Why is it " not highly likely"?!" And ten look at your reply to that same statement... No matter how garbelled the communication. . . .I was trying to say ground (anthropogenic) sources were actually static . . . However, the other GROUND sulfur compound sources as the ocean are also very static as well. . . . the only greatly variable sources appears to be volcanic. . . . Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter! "Email: [email protected]" All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642) The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B |
George B (OP) Extinct But Not Forgotten! User ID: 19998253 United States 03/29/2013 04:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I have to run. . . please play nice. . . . Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter! "Email: [email protected]" All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642) The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 36488183 United States 03/29/2013 04:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? It isn't the contrails per se but the anti-science, science illiteracy that bothers me. People ignore the science in favor of the mind numbing, irrational explanations that are counter to 2000 years of scientific progress. Then there is the lack of complete logic: “I know what I see.” You may know what you see but you may not know how it got there and you definitely don’t know what it is composed of. “So many people argue against it, so it must be true.” That is just inane. There are so many more examples. People just do not realize that when they see something in the sky that is an observation. The observation has value but the improper extrapolation of interpreting what they see is meaningless. Here is an example. Uri Geller is a so called psychic. Many years ago he was tested by a group of scientists and was able to convince them he had psychic powers. The problem was, none of the scientists were magicians. Later when a magician studied the problem he was able to explain and duplicate all of the Uri Geller feats as simple magic tricks. The scientists were rather embarrassed and retracted their statements. The point is, the scientists were out of their field and made a mistake. If you haven’t studied science and particularly atmospheric physics you run the very big risk of being wrong. But so many people fear being wrong they dig in their heels and start arguing even though they don’t realize how ludicrous their arguments are. People really need to know that this arguments in favor of chemtrails are just bogus arguments based on fear, ignorance, and lies. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30170064 United States 03/29/2013 04:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? It isn't the contrails per se but the anti-science, science illiteracy that bothers me. People ignore the science in favor of the mind numbing, irrational explanations that are counter to 2000 years of scientific progress. Then there is the lack of complete logic: “I know what I see.” You may know what you see but you may not know how it got there and you definitely don’t know what it is composed of. “So many people argue against it, so it must be true.” That is just inane. There are so many more examples. People just do not realize that when they see something in the sky that is an observation. The observation has value but the improper extrapolation of interpreting what they see is meaningless. Here is an example. Uri Geller is a so called psychic. Many years ago he was tested by a group of scientists and was able to convince them he had psychic powers. The problem was, none of the scientists were magicians. Later when a magician studied the problem he was able to explain and duplicate all of the Uri Geller feats as simple magic tricks. The scientists were rather embarrassed and retracted their statements. The point is, the scientists were out of their field and made a mistake. If you haven’t studied science and particularly atmospheric physics you run the very big risk of being wrong. But so many people fear being wrong they dig in their heels and start arguing even though they don’t realize how ludicrous their arguments are. People really need to know that this arguments in favor of chemtrails are just bogus arguments based on fear, ignorance, and lies. Great post |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 36488183 United States 03/29/2013 04:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002). Quoting: George B But your interest was AFTER 1990. What happenend to anthropogenic SO2 emission after 1990? According to the EPA in the US and like agencies in Europe the ground level concentrations went down. . . . But that is off by 40,000 to 100,000+ feet. The question is straospheric, not ground level SO2. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 13916976 United States 03/29/2013 06:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most? It isn't the contrails per se but the anti-science, science illiteracy that bothers me. People ignore the science in favor of the mind numbing, irrational explanations that are counter to 2000 years of scientific progress. Then there is the lack of complete logic: “I know what I see.” You may know what you see but you may not know how it got there and you definitely don’t know what it is composed of. “So many people argue against it, so it must be true.” That is just inane. There are so many more examples. People just do not realize that when they see something in the sky that is an observation. The observation has value but the improper extrapolation of interpreting what they see is meaningless. Here is an example. Uri Geller is a so called psychic. Many years ago he was tested by a group of scientists and was able to convince them he had psychic powers. The problem was, none of the scientists were magicians. Later when a magician studied the problem he was able to explain and duplicate all of the Uri Geller feats as simple magic tricks. The scientists were rather embarrassed and retracted their statements. The point is, the scientists were out of their field and made a mistake. If you haven’t studied science and particularly atmospheric physics you run the very big risk of being wrong. But so many people fear being wrong they dig in their heels and start arguing even though they don’t realize how ludicrous their arguments are. People really need to know that this arguments in favor of chemtrails are just bogus arguments based on fear, ignorance, and lies. Great post What is so great about it, it is stupid. I don't think anyone was saying they fear chemtrails, its mostly a question of why, who is doing it, funding it, what will happen when it is stopped. Valid question that are not answered from you shills and sock puppets. |