Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations

Jazzy said:
You are correct about it being drier than the troposphere, but about the rest you are apparently misinformed.

For "on occasion" read "continually, with few exceptions".

Stratospheric clouds called CIRRUS CLOUDS are observed. They are made of ice: there is no presumption to it. They have always lived at their stated address*. Their exact composition is known, and has been known ever since lasers were first used from ground and space to assay their contents and composition.

The link given is for noctilucent clouds, which are clouds up in the high stratosphere of elemental particles in association with ice. These are much less substantial or understood.

I live on Tenerife at Latitude 27 degrees. It is VERY sunny here, but there is never a day that passes without some cirrus visible somewhere, even on the clearest, bluest day.

The vertical upward transfer of water vapor** through the apparently impermeable tropopause has TWO mechanisms:

  • The quasi-biennial oscillation, where Hadleigh Cell boundaries mix twice a year, and
  • Aircraft.

The proportion of the latter is beneath the resolution of monitoring. If aviation expands at its current rate for a further forty years then this proportion will achieve significance. That isn't very likely.

* If 17% of the lower stratosphere is known to be fully saturated with water vapor, then any reduction in temperature anywhere (possibly caused by falling over a tropospheric "bulge", or by vertical standing waves) will cause ice crystals to nucleate out, and cirrus cloud appear. As this occurs in sheets and layers all over the Earth, then cirrus clouds will be everywhere, over 17% of the earth's surface. The ice crystals composing cirrus clouds are often very temporary indeed... ... a lenticular cloud is a form of cirrus. It appears stationary while its component ice crystals are forever coming into and winking out of existence, much as a rainbow appears stationary when it is being continually remade with falling drops of water - although one is real, the other virtual, of course.

Also jet streams are visible - though more easily visible from space. they can travel much faster than laminar flow will allow, and become turbulent at their edges. This turbulence produces ice clouds by stirring with colder material, which is normally beneath it.

There is enough water in a jet stream to wash out anything which has an affinity with water. The energy of such streams derives itself from the heat stored in the ice crystals and water vapor, and hardly at all from atmospheric air molecules. If water were not to be there, such flows would STOP. Or at least slow right down to a crawl...

** The downward is of course gravity, upon ice crystals, and the QBO. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your details but just what part do you think I am misinformed about???
1) The fact that scientific proposals were published to inject Sulfur Compounds into the stratosphere in the 1990s and until at least the mid 2000s with existing aircraft as well as proposed aircraft designed for higher altitudes?
2) The projected tons of Sulfur Compounds proposed?
3) The location of injection and number of aircraft proposed?
4) I never said it would work, or that the science was on point . . . I just said it was discussed, cost analysis accomplished, and the pros and cons discussed . . .
 
George B said:
Thanks for your details but just what part do you think I am misinformed about???
1) The fact that scientific proposals were published to inject Sulfur Compounds into the stratosphere in the 1990s and until at least the mid 2000s with existing aircraft as well as proposed aircraft designed for higher altitudes?
2) The projected tons of Sulfur Compounds proposed?
3) The location of injection and number of aircraft proposed?
4) I never said it would work, or that the science was on point . . . I just said it was discussed, cost analysis accomplished, and the pros and cons discussed . . .
Click to expand...
George, I'm hardly interested in 'scientific' proposals that weren't carried out - probably because there was never the need for anything that damages forests and oceans while cooling us minutely before we're even uncomfortably hot.

I'm more interested in your apparent disregard for a type of cloud which is made just the same way as a contrail, by being a vapor cooled until it freezes. You could hardly regard it as the child of the lower stratosphere (which it certainly is) if you believe there to be little or no water there in the first place. A persistent spreading contrail from horizon to horizon weighs many thousands of tons. It can only be ice from the air which makes them that heavy. Or that visible. Such a contrail requires no special materials. Kerosine works fine.
 
Jazzy said:
George, I'm hardly interested in 'scientific' proposals that weren't carried out - probably because there was never the need for anything that damages forests and oceans while cooling us minutely before we're even uncomfortably hot.

I'm more interested in your apparent disregard for a type of cloud which is made just the same way as a contrail, by being a vapor cooled until it freezes. You could hardly regard it as the child of the lower stratosphere (which it certainly is) if you believe there to be little or no water there in the first place. A persistent spreading contrail from horizon to horizon weighs many thousands of tons. It can only be ice from the air which makes them that heavy. Or that visible. Such a contrail requires no special materials. Kerosine works fine.
Click to expand...
I have never felt or said for that matter that Chemtrails (if they exist) would be any more visible or any more persistent than contrails or the cirrus cloud banks sometimes triggered by them . . . they would follow the rules of physics like any other aerosol . . . you must have me mistaken for someone else . . . I just believe there is a possibility that aircraft could have been used to inject SOx for geoengineering and experimentation purposes . . . direct injection would likely be almost invisible. . . as a fuel additive (spiked to five times normal concentrations) whether they be more or less visible and persistent is really unknown . . . the research is still out on that one . . . from my reading . . . my guess is the exhaust could even be less visible . . .

Well, I will have to take that one back as NEVER . . . I did speculate several months ago that military countermeasures (possibly some type of Chaff like aerosol) possibly used during the first Gulf War and by an AWACS cruising over the North Sea coast of Northern UK in 2009 might have triggered a Cirrus Cloud bloom . . .
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Haywood09JGR.pdf

ChemTrail Prevailing Winds - 1.jpg
Saudi Picture 1991.jpg
 
George B said:
Ok . . . you can get some fantastic photos of high flying aircraft leaving contrails across the moon . . . how does that help you find aircraft flying normal routes injecting invisible gasses or injecting SO2 in the exhaust wakes . . .????
Click to expand...

You asked if spotters were out looking for and taking photos of aircraft at night...

To answer this NEW question of yours - these a/c photographed at night ARE flying "normal routes", and this shows that you can identify the aircraft even at night, whereas you were trying to discount the ability of anoraks to identify aircraft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeC said:
You asked if spotters were out looking for and taking photos of aircraft at night...

To answer this NEW question of yours - these a/c photographed at night ARE flying "normal routes", and this shows that you can identify the aircraft even at night, whereas you were trying to discount the ability of anoraks to identify aircraft.
Click to expand...
OK . . . you can photograph aircraft at night . . . Point made . . . but if everything appears normal . . . it may not help identify covert activity . . . just very dramatic and artistic photos . . . yes, if photos would help you have the capability . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the aviation enthusiasts also have their own personal ADS receivers and keep up with planes even if they can't see or photograph them. They also watch airports and military bases.

Chemtrail advocates do not do this.

If you really want to speculate, George, why not take it to the limit?
What if your undetectable, invisible, theoretical, covert chemrail operation is being carried out by stealth planes?
Alien technology?
Hey, the sky's the limit, why restrict yourself?
 
"Hey, the sky's the limit, why restrict yourself?"

I think I've found George's much desperately desired and speculated upon smoking gun of evidence. Flying Robotic cats that must be releasing the undetectable invisible covert chemtrails!! Mick was right all along!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S4DZ_aWNuU
 
Jay Reynolds said:
the aviation enthusiasts also have their own personal ADS receivers and keep up with planes even if they can't see or photograph them. They also watch airports and military bases.

Chemtrail advocates do not do this.

If you really want to speculate, George, why not take it to the limit?
What if your undetectable, invisible, theoretical, covert chemrail operation is being carried out by stealth planes?
Alien technology?
Hey, the sky's the limit, why restrict yourself?
Click to expand...
Exactly, the sky is the limit . . . however, I have never seen so many published proposals and cost analysis accomplished, not to mention computer models accomplished on something (for years) while no one has run (in real life) experimentation, prototyping, or operations.
 
GregMc said:
"Hey, the sky's the limit, why restrict yourself?"

I think I've found George's much desperately desired and speculated upon smoking gun of evidence. Flying Robotic cats that must be releasing the undetectable invisible covert chemtrails!! Mick was right all along!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S4DZ_aWNuU
Click to expand...

LoL!!! I just don't think this prototype has the lift capacity . . . good find however. . .
 
Load limit just defines the number you need - and if no one is looking for them then no-one is noticing them no matter how many...have you seen any??
 
MikeC said:
Load limit just defines the number you need - and if no one is looking for them then no-one is noticing them no matter how many...have you seen any??
Click to expand...
No . . . but I use to see flying toasters on my screen saver . . .
 
MikeC said:
Load limit just defines the number you need - and if no one is looking for them then no-one is noticing them no matter how many...have you seen any??
Click to expand...

I've got a more conventional one I fly around here.

​


Heaps of fun.
 
George B said:
I have never felt or said for that matter that Chemtrails (if they exist) would be any more visible or any more persistent than contrails or the cirrus cloud banks sometimes triggered by them . . . they would follow the rules of physics like any other aerosol . . . you must have me mistaken for someone else . . . I just believe there is a possibility that aircraft could have been used to inject SOx for geoengineering and experimentation purposes . . . direct injection would likely be almost invisible. . . as a fuel additive (spiked to five times normal concentrations) whether they be more or less visible and persistent is really unknown . . . the research is still out on that one . . . from my reading . . . my guess is the exhaust could even be less visible . . .

Well, I will have to take that one back as NEVER . . . I did speculate several months ago that military countermeasures (possibly some type of Chaff like aerosol) possibly used during the first Gulf War and by an AWACS cruising over the North Sea coast of Northern UK in 2009 might have triggered a Cirrus Cloud bloom . . .
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Haywood09JGR.pdf

ChemTrail Prevailing Winds - 1.jpg
Saudi Picture 1991.jpg
Click to expand...

Seems also that since the aerosol injection would be in the stratosphere there is even less a chance that a persistent contrail would result . . . according to Dr Minnis of NASA the stratosphere is too dry to sustain persistent contrails to any great extent . . .
 
George B said:
Seems also that since the aerosol injection would be in the stratosphere there is even less a chance that a persistent contrail would result . . . according to Dr Minnis of NASA the stratosphere is too dry to sustain persistent contrails to any great extent . . .
Click to expand...
He is talking about heights between 49,000 and 78,000 feet. At the Equator.

Planes don't (can't) fly there. They fly between about 25,000 and 39,000 feet with very few exceptions. X15, B1, U2, and Felix Baumgartner. Oh, he isn't a plane...

Nor is Bono, come to think of it...
 
Jazzy said:
He is talking about heights between 49,000 and 78,000 feet. At the Equator.

Planes don't (can't) fly there. They fly between about 25,000 and 39,000 feet with very few exceptions. X15, B1, U2, and Felix Baumgartner. Oh, he isn't a plane...

Nor is Bono, come to think of it...
Click to expand...

Just how do you conclude that he is only talking about 49,000 feet plus ???
 
George B said:
Just how do you conclude that he is only talking about 49,000 feet plus ???
Click to expand...

Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shownby both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data
Content from External Source
It's your external material. Don't you read your own posts?
 
Jazzy said:
Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shownby both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data
Content from External Source
It's your external material. Don't you read your own posts?
Click to expand...
Yes I do . . . so what, there are normally a few seemingly contradictory discussions in research discussions . . . I asked . . . "just how do you conclude that he (Dr Minnis) is only talking about 49,000 feet plus??"
 
George B said:
Yes I do . . . however, that is not what I asked . . . I asked . . . "just how do you conclude that he (Dr Minnis) is only talking about 49,000 feet plus??"
Click to expand...
Because they are ALL talking about the lower stratosphere AT THE EQUATOR.

At the equator ALL passenger planes fly beneath the tropopause (which they cannot reach!) where they can make as many trails as they like. It's nice and WET, on occasion, even if the sky is a clear blue..

I'm at Latitude 27 deg North and flights to South America make some MASSIVE trails. In a sky which is normally untrailed, when these occur they really stand out. They occur at hour intervals in the morning only. Sometimes they appear about 5 miles above Mt. Teide and stretch for only maybe 50 miles. Sometimes they go the whole 200 over the horizon.

They occur roughly one day in five, which kind of accords with research findings concluding that 17% of the atmosphere was always saturated - somewhere... ...and there's always some cirrus about at the time, come to think of it*...

The longest flights will be the highest, I guess, at 39,000 feet. So that's maybe exactly where the tropopause lies, eh?

* It is logical to suppose that the slower the troposphere's prevailing overland flow speed is, then the clearer it will appear to be, for there will be less relative motion, and thus less turbulent mixing.
 
Jazzy said:
Because they are ALL talking about the lower stratosphere AT THE EQUATOR.

At the equator ALL passenger planes fly beneath the tropopause where they can make as many trails as they like. It's nice and WET, on occasion.

I'm at Latitude 27 deg North and flights to South America make some MASSIVE trails. In a sky which is normally untrailed, when these occur they really stand out. They occur at hour intervals in the morning only. Sometimes they appear about 5 miles above Mt. Teide and stretch for only maybe 50 miles. Sometimes they go the whole 200 over the horizon.

They occur roughly one day in five, which kind of accords with research findings concluding that 17% of the atmosphere was always saturated - somewhere...

The longest flights will be the highest, I guess, at 39,000 feet. So that's maybe exactly where the tropopause lies, eh?
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you are going or just exactly what you are trying to say, but yes, I would expect the persistent contrails would be able to extend to much higher altitudes in the tropics than in the temperate zones because in the tropics the tropopause is higher and is lower in the temperate zones . . . what Dr Minnis is saying . . . I believe is simply a generalized statement . . . global warming will increase the amount of humidity in the troposphere and increase its temperature as well . . . so persistent contrails will form more easily in the higher reaches of the troposphere where the temperature is the coolest; however, because of global warming there are fewer zones of the coldest air (in the troposphere) thus fewer possible persistent contrails forming . . . basically the stratosphere is not a player in persistent contrails . . .
 
George B said:
I believe is simply a generalized statement
Click to expand...
It's a bit difficult to "generalize" between a tropopause which is 18,000 feet above the Poles, yet 49,000 feet above the Equator, isn't it?

Minnis and his satellites are best used studying equatorial conditions. You are best advised to note the point.
 
Jazzy said:
It's a bit difficult to "generalize" between a tropopause which is 18,000 feet above the Poles, yet 49,000 feet above the Equator, isn't it?

Minnis and his satellites are best used studying equatorial conditions. You are best advised to note the point.
Click to expand...
Why would Dr Minnis make a generalized comment about persistent contrails and not be referring to and inclusive of the regions of the earth where most of these puppies exist because of the traffic patterns?????
 
George B said:
Why would Dr Minnis make a generalized comment about persistent contrails and not be referring to and inclusive of the regions of the earth where most of these puppies exist because of the traffic patterns?????
Click to expand...
You have already drawn a false conclusion because you cannot answer this question. You need to be able to answer this question yourself.

You have already claimed the stratosphere too dry for planes to lay trails in, using Minnis's Equatorial altitudes, which planes cannot even reach. I recommend you draw your own conclusions.

Try not to make me responsible for this.
 
Jazzy said:
You have already drawn a false conclusion because you cannot answer this question. You need to be able to answer this question yourself.

You have already claimed the stratosphere too dry for planes to lay trails in, using Minnis's Equatorial altitudes, which planes cannot even reach. I recommend you draw your own conclusions.

Try not to make me responsible for this.
Click to expand...

If I made a claim . . . It is one IMO supported by Dr Minnis' claim that the stratosphere is generally too dry to support persistent contrails no matter at what altitude and latitude the stratosphere may be found . . . this is generally a surprise to me; however, I am sure there may be a few exceptions . . . for example areas perturbed by turbulence from the jet stream and very high storms that punch through the tropopause . . .
 
George B said:
If I made a claim . . . It is one IMO supported by Dr Minnis' claim that the stratosphere is generally too dry to support persistent contrails no matter at what altitude and latitude the stratosphere may be found . . . this is generally a surprise to me; however, I am sure there may be a few exceptions . . . for example areas perturbed by turbulence from the jet stream and very high storms that punch through the tropopause . . .
Click to expand...
I think it was the higher stratosphere that he meant because 49,000 to 79,500 feet IS the altitude of the higher stratosphere in temperate and polar zones, which is where the flights mostly are, but where passenger planes don't fly anyway. Not because it's too dry but because their wings cannot support them.

At the Equator that 49,000 feet is the beginning of the lower stratosphere. It's still a place where passenger planes don't fly, but it can be quite wet.

So according to you George, passenger planes wouldn't make trails anyway in places they cannot fly into. That's useful.
 
Jazzy said:
I think it was the higher stratosphere that he meant because 49,000 to 79,500 feet IS the altitude of the higher stratosphere in temperate and polar zones, which is where the flights mostly are, but where passenger planes don't fly anyway. Not because it's too dry but because their wings cannot support them.

At the Equator that 49,000 feet is the beginning of the lower stratosphere. It's still a place where passenger planes don't fly, but it can be quite wet.

So according to you George, passenger planes wouldn't make trails anyway in places they cannot fly into. That's useful.
Click to expand...

Dr Minnis made no mention of the altitude within the stratosphere (above the ground or above the tropopause) nor the latitude he was referring . . . all location and altitude mentioned were in the cited research I attached to my email . . . I did not endorse the research as correct or controlling in regards to his response nor did he refer to the attached research what-so-ever . . . so my only logical conclusion is:

1) Existing aircraft can and do fly into the lower regions of the stratosphere between 33,000 (10.0584 kilometers) and 49,000 feet (14.9352 kilometers) in the mid latitudes . . . this is not unknown to Dr Minnis . . .

The troposphere is one of the lowest layers of the Earth's atmosphere; it is located right above the planetary boundary layer, and is the layer in which most weather phenomena take place. The troposphere extends upwards from right above the boundary layer, and ranges in height from an average of 9 km (5.6 mi; 30,000 ft) at the poles, to 17 km (11 mi; 56,000 ft) at the Equator.[3]​[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause
​
Content from External Source

Performance . . . Learjet 45

Content from External Source

  • 2) He inidcated that in general the stratosphere is too dry to sustain persistent contrails . . . that means to me no matter where it is found . . . so in the mid latitudes aircraft DO sometimes fly in the stratosphere . . .

    3) So Dr Minnis is also aware that aircraft fly at all latitudes within the troposphere and that GW is changing the temperatures within the troposphere . . . so if he thinks the GW changes result in possibly fewer persistent contrails . . . even though some research indicates there is an increase of RH . . . I believe that is what Dr Minnis meant . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the high range gulfstream a/c have ceilings in the order of 55,000 feet - but they and Learjets are not what most peole think of as "passenger aircraft" - they are business jets - Bizjets for short.

so they:
1/ are very expensive for their size, and
2/ don't carry much in the way of payload.
 
MikeC said:
And the high range gulfstream a/c have ceilings in the order of 55,000 feet - but they and Learjets are not what most peole think of as "passenger aircraft" - they are business jets - Bizjets for short.

so they:
1/ are very expensive for their size, and
2/ don't carry much in the way of payload.
Click to expand...
I am aware . . . I was just giving one of the highest well known aircraft that can easily cruise in the stratosphere . . .
 
A new twist for George B.
What if the "mainstream chemtrail theory" is just a decoy for your 'Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations'? It certainly has a potential to distract the attention of many suspecting skywatchers and make them barking up the wrong tree. :cool:
 
Trailspotter said:
A new twist for George B.
What if the "mainstream chemtrail theory" is just a decoy for your 'Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations'? It certainly has a potential to distract the attention of many suspecting skywatchers and make them barking up the wrong tree. :cool:
Click to expand...
That is old stuff . . . I suggested that months and months ago . . . basically common military practice . . . covert operations have always used camouflage, straw men, trial balloons, misdirection, on and on to keep from being outed . . . remember Operation Overloard in WWII . . . LoL!!!!

Operation Bodyguard Fooled Germans About D-Day Invasion

A well designed, high-level intelligence plot code named Operation Bodyguard guaranteed the success of the Allied landings in Normandy on June 6, 1944.


Inflatable tanks, wooden planes and trucks, and specially painted ships were used to deceive enemy reconnaissance planes. Faked radio communications and information provided by double agents to the Germans added to the deception.
http://suite101.com/article/operation-bodyguard-fooled-germans-about-d-day-invasion-a409837

Content from External Source
 
George B said:
That is old stuff . . . I suggested that months and months ago
Click to expand...

Did you? Then I must have missed it. Anyway, the existence of 'chemtrail theory' is the best supporting evidence for your theory so far. Why would somebody promote such a nonsense unless they have something real to hide... Oh no, wait a minute... the same applies to your theory as well.
 
Why would you need to do anything to divert attention from something that no attention is being paid to because it is "Undetectable"???

In fact back to a question I asked a while back - if it is undetectable then that can only be because it is not actually doing anything....so:
1/ why is anyone bothering to do it? and
2/ why is anyone worried about it?
 
Trailspotter said:
Did you? Then I must have missed it. Anyway, the existence of 'chemtrail theory' is the best supporting evidence for your theory so far. Why would somebody promote such a nonsense unless they have something real to hide... Oh no, wait a minute... the same applies to your theory as well.
Click to expand...

Metabunk is not the only Forum on the internet . . .
 
George B said:
I am aware . . . I was just giving one of the highest well known aircraft that can easily cruise in the stratosphere . . .
Click to expand...

that is, IMO, a cop-out.

Not mentioning the characteristics and capabilities of the aircraft under those conditions (high altitude flight) smacks of cherry picking evidence that suits you while conveniently ignoring less supportive information that is directly relevant.
 
MikeC said:
Why would you need to do anything to divert attention from something that no attention is being paid to because it is "Undetectable"???

In fact back to a question I asked a while back - if it is undetectable then that can only be because it is not actually doing anything....so:
1/ why is anyone bothering to do it? and



2/ why is anyone worried about it?
Click to expand...

Pre-emptive planning . . . if I have a good covert plan I look at all the potential threats that could result in my discovery . . . in fact part of budget would be dedicated to just that purpose along with general security . . . don't you think the people at area 51 devote a good part of their budget to keeping people from discovering what they are doing . . . possibly the real operation is being done elsewhere . . . they want the attention . . . it distracts from the real locations where the important things are being accomplished . . . the ones that are doing the "undetectable things' . . . the things no one is worried about . . .
 
MikeC said:
that is, IMO, a cop-out.

Not mentioning the characteristics and capabilities of the aircraft under those conditions (high altitude flight) smacks of cherry picking evidence that suits you while conveniently ignoring less supportive information that is directly relevant.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about . . . my response was regarding the issue with Dr Minnis' position that global warming was not likely causing more persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus clouds . . . the Lear jet was simply an example of an aircraft that could operate in the stratosphere . . . where he says persistent contrails are not expected because of its low humidity . . . that would make its exhaust invisible wouldn't it . . . LoL!!!

Not only that . . . I didn't start this Thread either . . . Mick did and put my name on it . . . I have had my say about using SOx injection into the stratosphere and all the studies, proposals, cost analysis, etc . . . you either believe it is possible or you don't . . .
 
well George earlier on in this thread you were talking about how many a/c it would take to carry out a programe of spraying - indeed in the first post on this page you are dicussing those factors - my apoliogies if the discussion has drifted so far as that is no longer any part of it.

As for pre-emptive planning - that ignores the initial permise - this supposed programme is "undetectable" - the only way that could be the case is if it DOES NOTHING.

So why would you bother doing it in the first place if it does nothing, let alone trying to hide it if it can't be detected anyway???
 
MikeC said:
well George earlier on in this thread you were talking about how many a/c it would take to carry out a programe of spraying - indeed in the first post on this page you are dicussing those factors - my apoliogies if the discussion has drifted so far as that is no longer any part of it.

As for pre-emptive planning - that ignores the initial permise - this supposed programme is "undetectable" - the only way that could be the case is if it DOES NOTHING.

So why would you bother doing it in the first place if it does nothing, let alone trying to hide it if it can't be detected anyway???
Click to expand...

It may have accomplished nothing because it was too little to be detected and beyond their capability . . . simply it didn't work because the rational was from the 1990s and was based on incomplete and outdated information, models etc. . . . for example they didn't have enough lift capability and ceiling to be completely successful . . .



or

It did work but was designed to be only a slight nudge in the right direction . . . and close enough to the normal background noise variation so as not to be clearly detectable. . .
 
Well at least half of that answer does actualy make sense - they thought it might do something but it didn't.

but that still begs the question of why you think something was actually done in the 1st place - since it was so ineffective as to be undetectable!

Part 2 - just a "slight nudge" so as to be "not easily detectable" is not the same thing at all but still begs a question - why bother doing something that was going to have hardly any effect? There is a wealth of easily accessed (relatively) analytical capability around the world today.......and it has found nothing at all - ther are air quality monitoring programmes, atmospheric research programmes in many different countries, global warming studies 9both the measure it and in an effort to discredit the idea it is man-made)....and....zip....
 
MikeC said:
Well at least half of that answer does actualy make sense - they thought it might do something but it didn't.

but that still begs the question of why you think something was actually done in the 1st place - since it was so ineffective as to be undetectable!

Part 2 - just a "slight nudge" so as to be "not easily detectable" is not the same thing at all but still begs a question - why bother doing something that was going to have hardly any effect? There is a wealth of easily accessed (relatively) analytical capability around the world today.......and it has found nothing at all - ther are air quality monitoring programmes, atmospheric research programmes in many different countries, global warming studies 9both the measure it and in an effort to discredit the idea it is man-made)....and....zip....
Click to expand...
I have presented my evidence repeatedly . . . I will summarize quickly . . . there was an increase in optical density in the 2000s which showed an increase in stratospheric aerosols which was explained as perplexing by atmospheric scientists . . . it was even thought to be enough to slow warming . . . it was also suspected to be primaily sulfur species . . . and was later thought but not proven (because man made sources were also considered) to be from previously unrecognized volcanic activity in the tropics . . . I contend aerosol injection from aircraft could also be such a human source . . . and there is no way to fingerprint the sulfur to determine the ultimate source . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FatPhil
Can AI (ChatGPT etc.) help people out of the rabbit hole?
Replies
12
Views
434
john.phil
J
Mendel
Sean Kirkpatrick in Scientific American
Replies
1
Views
509
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
3K
MapperGuy
M
Mendel
AARO Historical Report vol.1 press conference with Tim Phillips
Replies
2
Views
540
Mendel
Mendel
C
Clouds and The Rain Gods
Replies
4
Views
602
CameronNguye
CameronNguye

Latest posts

Back
Top