If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most?

No need to bring me into that...

But, not that you mention it...are you Hammer's slightly more intelligent twin? Or VT's?

"It is not yet certain if the net result of these effects warms or cools the Earth"

It's like saying billions of birds have shit on the earth over the years...and it's not quite known if there is a related problem...but, we'll keep looking into it as long as the grant money continues to pour in...

Did I say . . . "that the only remaining option" . . . . I DON'T THINK SO . . . I said it was the most manageable and facile. . . . very little or nothing can be done about natural sources. . . That is the point. . . . the easiest thing people can do quickly and passively is mitigate air traffic's effects. . . . secondarily is geoengineering using sulfur injections into the stratosphere. . . .

Thank you. . . .I would much rather be their friends than yours . . .

I believe one of my posts talks about this in a different way. I am sure I covered it.

Hmmmm . . . It is very difficult to potty train birds . . . however we can reduce the amount of persistent trails and cirrus cloud banks. . . .that is a fact. . . .and . . . by-the -way there will always be some discussion about any theory about climate and the effects of any contributing factor. . . .however, I think the consensus is persistent trails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks have a net warming effect and they are expect to dramatically increase unless some mitigation attempts are made. . . .

"NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994. According to Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., there has been a one percent per decade increase in cirrus cloud cover over the United States, likely due to air traffic."

[link to m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov]

Last Edited by George B on 03/29/2013 09:27 AM

Good Morning Windy. . . .you may well have but so much water has gone under the bridge of this Thread I don't remember. . . .

:144:

No, I stopped posting here remember, I stick all my posts under my own name. :)

OK . . .

Excuse me, Vt doesn't ever use the "f" word. So many other decent words to use. Also I would not call George B worthless. I think that he is a fine man.

"State of Science

Persistent contrails and contrail-cirrus that are formed in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere may play an important role in regulating the radiation balance in the Earth-atmosphere system through the competition between the solar-albedo and greenhouse effects that are determined by the ice crystal microphysical and radiative properties within these clouds. The major issue is whether increasing jet air traffic will enhance the generation of additional cirrus clouds, which can lead to an amplification of global warming caused by the build-up of carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere.
We have presented past and current progress in estimating long-term trends of the coverage and frequency of occurrence of contrail and contrail-cirrus clouds. Most works after the publication of the 1999 IPCC report focused on the estimate of long-term frequency trend using meteorological data, satellite observations, and numerical weather model products on global and regional scales, as well as the study of radiative forcings of contrails and contrail cirrus by means of satellite data and radiative transfer calculations. Surface observations and satellite data all show that the trend of cirrus cloud cover increased in the past 50 years and that the formation of cirrus clouds has been more frequent in winter and spring near flight corridors. It is anticipated that this increasing trend will continue as a result of increased aviation-induced contrail cirrus formations that tap hitherto cloud-free supersaturated air."

[link to www.faa.gov]

Last Edited by George B on 03/29/2013 09:38 AM

Thanks VT . . .

How many VTs. on here?

37093066, Are you form Vermont with a daughter in Texas?

vtcw 37086718 . . . same question for you . . . ???

Last Edited by George B on 03/29/2013 09:45 AM

I came upon this study and find it interesting . . . the research indicates that Cirrus Cloud reductions (through a type of high tropospheric cloud seeding) could result in slowing global warming and that commercial aviation could be the easiest and cheapest way to accomplish such geoengineering without much of the side effects of sulfur injection for example . . . the amount of cloud seeding material would be small in comparison to the sulfur injected into the stratosphere . . .



Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming


David L Mitchell and WilliamFinnegan
Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV89512-1095, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Received 1 April 2009
Accepted 12 August 2009
Published 30 October 2009




Abstract. Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal size. The higher the cirrus, the greater their impact is on OLR. Thus by changing ice crystal size in the coldest cirrus, OLR and climate might be modified. Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than–2.8 W m–2 and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling (3.7 W m–2). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has.


[link to iopscience.iop.org]

Science rarely speaks in absolutes. No scientist has ever said that contrail cirrus is the only problem left. It is an immensely difficult problem trying to calculate the influences of all the possible driving forces. At best you give probabilities. All I say is the issue should be studied. That does not mean that contrails are these so called chemtrails. That is an irrational conclusion based on ignorance and hysteria.

This website is PROOF of Chemtrail spraying!

WEATHER MODIFICATION, INC.
The proven success of Weather Modification, Inc., in atmospheric and weather operations is evident by our lengthy and impressive client listing speaks for itself. Our reputation for successful cloud seeding and meteorological services leads our veteran pilots, experienced meteorologists and radar engineers around the world. Our valued clients include private and public insurance companies, water resource management organizations, as well as federal and state government research organizations.

[link to www.weathermodification.com]

Their site also lists some of their clients.

I have taken many photos of the spraying, still & videos. On a heavy spray day, rain would follow and a coat of white spots would appear everywhere.

Good thoughts . . . reduce contrails to reduce warming potential or increase the reflection of short wave radiation back into space (geoengineering) are coming I put money one it . . .

Good article on geoengineering cost analysis, etc for sulfur injection . . .

Geoengineering Could Be Essential to Reducing the Risk of Climate Change

Using technology to cool the planet may be the only way to deal with the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, argues scientist David Keith.

[link to www.technologyreview.com]

Keith and some of his colleagues recently hired engineers to estimate how much one approach to sulfate injection might work, and how much it might cost. It could be done at first with existing airplanes—certain business jets can fly high enough to inject the particles into the upper atmosphere. Eventually we would need new planes that can fly higher. All in all, once the procedure is scaled up it would cost about a billion dollars a year and require about 100 aircraft. That’s cheap enough for most countries to pull off on their own.

Last Edited by George B on 03/29/2013 10:04 AM

Here is the study . . .

Cost Analysis Final Report
Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary
Contract Number: __UC01-001______
Aurora Report Number: ____AR10-182__ October 30, 2010

[link to www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org]

2 Geoengineering Concept of Operations
This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft opera- tions, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also ex- amined.

For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized. Transit operations are not economical as the leg length is dictated by the distance between bases (for 8-base operations, legs are approximately 5,000 km) causing release rates to be low and fuel costs to be high.

A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:

x Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
o $0.8B for acquisition and $1B for one year of operations o 0.66M tonnes fuel burned per year

x Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
o $1.4 B for acquisition and $2.8B for one year of operations o 1.6M tonnes fuel burned per year

x Transit: 747s transiting from 4 bases
o 48 airplanes, payload dispersed over 11,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.005 kg/m flown
o $2.8B for acquisition and $4.5B for one year of operations o 3.24M tonnes fuel burned per year

Cloud seeding uses small aircraft with small loads . . . they don't need heavy lift aircraft to accomplish cloud seeding . . .

:C - Cloud Seedin:

No shit...

And cloud seeding doesn't usually result in contrails.

Neither would geoengineering . . . in fact, except for a possible reduction of cirrus cloud banks there would be little or no visible results from sulfur injection or other aerosols . . . visibility is not a requirement for the effectiveness of geoengineering . . .

Last Edited by George B on 03/29/2013 10:14 AM

Nobody gives a shit about what words you don't use. It's the lies you spread about "chemtrails" that concerns some of us.

VT is able to take care of herself; however, I might add that if VT believes honestly what she is saying when she says something . . . she is not lying . . .

All the more reason why chemtards shouldn't be looking at the trails in the sky and assuming they are anything more than contrails.

I have never said that "geoengineering" isn't being research or done on some scale...large or small...My point is that chemtards make assumptions about the visible trails in the sky.

Then again, a complete lack of evidence that geoengineering is being done at all, hasn't escaped me.

As far as I can tell, the trails in the sky, and any form of intentional geoengineering will have very little in common...other than an aircraft of some type.

I'm still not wrong for pointing out that chemtards are seeing trails they don't understand and making assumptions about them based on crap they have "learned" from other chemtards.

She is SPREADING lies she has read online, because or her ignorance.

You can support her ignorance all you want George, but it will remain her ignorance.

Come on George, tell me the trails she sees are unlikely contrails....Because we certainly know about all the trouble Vermont is having with Global warming...and how unlikely the air at altitude above that state is conducive to persistent contrail formation. And tell me that she is "normal" for calling the trails "chemtrails" even if she has NO EVIDENCE they are anything more than contrails.

Tell me how wrong I likely am...and how right she likely is.

George, you are doing her no favors...and you aren't being her "friend" by avoiding the facts here just to maintain a "relationship" with her...

It's funny how you will avoid telling these people the truth all in an effort to be on their good side.

Ridiculous.

I see chemtrails all the time. They are very real.
Why would you doubt something right in your face?

For those of you who think that persistent contrails did not exist before 1996 and those of you who think it is the chemtrail conspiracy who are forcing the issue, here are some papers discussing the issue

1996: Klaus M Gierens. Numerical Simulations of Persistent Contrails

1994: Jet Aircraft Condensation Trails: Their Radiative Impacts and Association with Atmospheric Conditions, David James Travis

1986: Influence of Cirrus Clouds on Weather and Climate Processes: A Global Perspective

1981: Stanley A Changnon, Midwestern Cloud, Sunshine and Temperature Trends since 1901: Possible Evidence of Jet Contrail Effects.

1970: Peter M. Kuhn, Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget.

1960: J. Georgi, Extensive cloud area produced by a condensation trail

So the study of persistent contrails goes back over 50 years and the study of the effects on the radiation budget over 40 years.

Of course the first observations of persistent contrails goes back to the 1920s.