Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,779 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,682,108
Pageviews Today: 2,693,083Threads Today: 852Posts Today: 18,867
08:26 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most?
Poster Handle George B
Post Content
...


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 . . . coffee4
 Quoting: George B


Why is it " not highly likely"?!

Because you say so?!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30170064


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]
 Quoting: George B


So, you are suggesting that "anthropogenic" and "ground source" mean the same thing?!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30170064


Yes . . . I should have been more specific . . .
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:



News