MikeC
Closed Account
what are chemtrails?
Bill Gates is helping fund geoengineering (chemtrails) ... so why are you denying it?
- Thread starter hiilikeyourbird
- Start date
-
- Tags
- chemtrails
- Status
what are chemtrails?
hiilikeyourbird
Member
SR1419
Senior Member.
Why can't they?
They have been observed doing so for as long as planes have flown high enough.
They were studying EXACTLY what you described decades ago...never mind that there are literally tens of thousands of flights everyday now..:
Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
R.G. Knollenberg
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972)
"It is often observed that contrails spread considerably...Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed...If sufficient air traffic exists, and entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029<1367:MOTGOT>2.0.CO;2
Last edited:
hiilikeyourbird
Member
Great question. Wish I knew the answer to that one. Let me know if you find out.
It's not "spinning it" to highlight the relevant passage.
Let me spell it out for you:
Bill Gates has not funded any actual geoengineering experiments, only research and theoretical studies.
I am not the one trying to twist words. Please point me to a single study outside of a lab that Gates has funded. That is your claim: that Gates is funding "chemtrails". Do chemtrails exist in the lab? If not I have to say your claim is 100% false.
hiilikeyourbird
Member
One of you thinks asays chemtrails can persist and make clouds, one doesn't. Which is it?
Great, so we've established that geoengineering is real. Now the only realy question is if it's happening right now or not? And from looking up in the sky, sure looks like it.
Great, so we've established that geoengineering is real. Now the only realy question is if it's happening right now or not? And from looking up in the sky, sure looks like it.
Persistent trails from planes have a net global warming effect.
The idea of SRM geoengineering would be to REDUCE global warming.
Can you please explain, @hiilikeyourbird, why anybody would try to reduce global warming using "chemtrails"? It would have the exact opposite effect.
The idea of SRM geoengineering would be to REDUCE global warming.
Can you please explain, @hiilikeyourbird, why anybody would try to reduce global warming using "chemtrails"? It would have the exact opposite effect.
hiilikeyourbird
Member
Well that is the proposed reason. It doesn't appear to be working though does it?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Take the time to read the thread where the NASA talk is discussed, and reply to the issue there.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...s-for-decades-actually-sounding-rockets.2009/
Try to focus on your initial claim - the reasons people think geoengineering is not currently underway, and your evidence for thinking it is. Why are the reasons people have provided not adequate?
If you are referring to this -
Take some time to consider people's responses, you don't have to reply to everyone or right away, but at least show that you are thinking about the responses.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...s-for-decades-actually-sounding-rockets.2009/
Try to focus on your initial claim - the reasons people think geoengineering is not currently underway, and your evidence for thinking it is. Why are the reasons people have provided not adequate?
Who said that? contrails can persist and make clouds, everyone here thinks that.
If you are referring to this -
think about it and answer the question.
Take some time to consider people's responses, you don't have to reply to everyone or right away, but at least show that you are thinking about the responses.
SR1419
Senior Member.
It has never been a question if Geoengineering is "real" or not. Its certainly a very real concept.
The question is do any of the possible geoengineering projects involve leaving persistent trails in the sky? No, they don't.
Nothing that the NASA guy said in your video has anything to do with persistent, white lines in the sky...
If you are truly educated on what geo-engineering might look like AND the scientific reality of persistent contrails- then you wouldnt misconstrue persistent contrails for geo-engineering.
What are you talking about? CONTRAILS can persist and make clouds, just as they always have. Chemtrails don't exist. Spraying of aerosols into the stratosphere wouldn't and couldn't create anything that looks like a trail. How could it?
Have you got the slightest bit of evidence of geoengineering happening in the sky? What does it look like? Can you show us a photo and point out the hallmarks of geoengineering? If not then I'm afraid I don't believe you. There are lots of people observing the atmosphere both visually and with chemical analysis every day, and not one of them has produced any evidence of geoengineering. Could you really be the first?
hiilikeyourbird
Member
My evidence is what I, and millions of other people see in the sky.
[offtopic deleted]
Last edited by a moderator:
hiilikeyourbird
Member
Oh no! Someone on the internet doesn't believe something.
If everyone here thinks a few jumbo jets can fill up a perfectly blue sky with white haze for about 12 hours, well...then I probably won't get many answers.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Why do you think white lines in the sky are evidence of geo-engineering when those white lines have always been observed and are a well known, long studied phenomenon of air travel?
[replies to offtopic deleted]
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeC
Closed Account
that is the proposed reason for geoengineering - it is not the "proposed reason" for contrails.
so "doesn't appear to be working though does it?" is a meaningless statement - there is no verifiable evidence geoengineering is happening, and contrails are not supposed to achieve this at all.
MikeC
Closed Account
you are getting lots of answers - apparently you are choosing to not believe them.
So I think you do not actually want "answers" - you want someone to tell you are right - which is not the same thing at all.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Why can't they?
Can you explain why a contrail cannot persist for hours and spread?
They have been observed doing so for as long as planes have flown high enough.
They were studying EXACTLY what you described decades ago...never mind that there are literally tens of thousands of flights everyday now..:
Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
R.G. Knollenberg
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972)
"It is often observed that contrails spread considerably...Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed...If sufficient air traffic exists, and entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029<1367:MOTGOT>2.0.CO;2
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
YOU came here to ask about it, we are giving you our reasons. If you aren't interested in considering them or demonstrating you are open to answers to your questions then you'll just have to be banned.
You've been directed to the other thread multiple times. Take some time to stop replying to people and read the other thread.
SR1419
Senior Member.
[offtopic replies deleted]
You are avoiding the reality of persistent contrails to such an extent that you are bordering on trolling.
Its indisputable fact that contrails from planes often persist and spread into a cirrus cloudcover...ignoring this fact makes any assertions you make based on "look up" highly dubious.
The fact of the matter is even if "chemtrails" were real you couldnt tell by seeing a persistent trail in the sky
You are avoiding the reality of persistent contrails to such an extent that you are bordering on trolling.
Its indisputable fact that contrails from planes often persist and spread into a cirrus cloudcover...ignoring this fact makes any assertions you make based on "look up" highly dubious.
The fact of the matter is even if "chemtrails" were real you couldnt tell by seeing a persistent trail in the sky
How many people — professional observers – do you think are looking at the sky? How many air samples are taken around the world every day by monitoring stations both public and private? Is it really possible that some secret spraying program is going on and nobody has spotted it?
Please can you tell me why aircraft trails cannot spread into cirrus cloud, when every atmospheric scientist in the world knows that they can, and it has been written about for decades?
Here is just one example from 1969. That is 45 years ago. If it was happening then, why wouldn't it happen now when there are FAR more flights?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
I really suggest you actually take some time to re-read the replies you got. People were responding in good faith and trying to address your questions, but you admitted you were just trolling and never intended to listen to answers because you think we're being paid to disagree with you.
Even if that were true, you can't show that any of what was said was false, so it's totally irrelevant.
The *proposals* for geoengineering that you yourself linked to show no link whatsoever with trails emitted by aviation traffic. They propose methods that are totally different.
Even if that were true, you can't show that any of what was said was false, so it's totally irrelevant.
The *proposals* for geoengineering that you yourself linked to show no link whatsoever with trails emitted by aviation traffic. They propose methods that are totally different.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
They can if there is adequate moisture in the atmosphere, because THAT is where the vast majority of the substance in a persistent contrail has originated. It has NOT originated in the aircraft. This is the exact reason why "chemtrails" can't produce what you see taking place in the sky. No plane in existence could carry enough material.
JDubyah
Member
Actually, the evidence is likely not just what you're seeing in the sky, but also what you're seeing put through a mental filter of what you've read online.
I say this because, by just looking at contrails, the explanation of them being the result of very hot water vapor coming out of the back of a plane at an altitude where the cold and the humidity lets them turn into clouds.. that works. That's the scientific explanation, and explains contrails that have appeared since planes first flew at those heights.
Just by looking, no one would have ever thought that those plane-made-clouds contain 'chems' unless they went online and read these theories on the internet. They may have thought there were more of them these days, or noticed how contrails hang around, but not that there was something insidious about them, because they're the same white cloudy formations that everyone's always seen.
As of today, no one's seen any evidence that contradicts the scientific explanation. Not atmospheric tests, not planes with sensors trailing a contrail as it forms.. nothing.
What you do have is a 'connect the dots' scenario, where there are documents, studies that show we *could* spray from planes, talk of geoengineering, cloud seeding, chaff, etc, and some people like to connect those dots into a picture that says:
Geoengineering is a real 'thing'.
Plane trails are real 'things'.
Some Geoengineering talks about spraying from planes.
Therefore, those planes *must* be spraying for geoengineering.
(It doesn't help when you go online and read something like the above already neatly written up and presented as proof of a conspiracy)
However, just because you *can* connect those dots that particular way doesn't make it true. It just means you have an active mind that likes to make sense of things, and form a picture out of all this information. It's how fiction writers do research to make their books.. they gather a lot of information, facts, and ideas, and then play 'what if', and produce a story.
However, the online conspiracies like to 'steer' that dot-connecting to the direction of 'Geoengineering is happening'. They don't just present you with unbiased facts and let you draw your own conclusions, they present you conclusions, and then show you the facts that, when selectively edited and arranged properly, support those conclusions in reverse.
What I encourage you to do is to study each of the elements separately - can/do planes make condensation trails normally? How does that work? Can they persist? Is Geoengineering real? What methods are in practice now? Which are just proposed? Which tests and simulations have been run? What were their conclusions?
If you do this without bias, you might start to see that the dots can connect in different ways.
I look at it as two pictures being formed, that don't *have* to overlap.
One set of dots connect to how planes form contrails, at what height, temperature, humidity, etc.
Another set of dots forms a picture of how proposed geoengineering techniques might come into practice.
But I find that without knowing all the the individual facts first, people become a little more prone to back-fitting the facts into the theory, if they adopt the theory before the facts.
Last edited:
Hevach
Senior Member.
We did that particular math a couple months ago. The AN-225 Mriya, a plane so obscenely large they never built a second one, so powerful it holds basically every heavy lift record on the books and their runners up, could convert its entire maximum takeoff weight - including the plane's own weight, all of its fuel, a full load of cargo, and its crew - into trail cloud and still not be able to produce the length of contrails seen behind small single engine corporate jets.
Actual proposals for atmospheric geoengineering (which primarily talk about using sulfur compounds, water, and volcanic ash analogs rather than metals) typically call for a new generation of superlarge, sustainable-powered, long-mission airships for this reason. There simply aren't enough airplanes in the world or fuel to fly them to meet the needs of such an immense project to even begin to make a dent, and a dent is as good as nothing. A project like this has to be all or nothing, if you don't reach the tipping point you're wasting your time and if you do the effects are dramatic (and the exact opposite of what the global climate is actually doing).
Peter
Active Member
You don't even need the Jumbo Jets. Skies get filled up with 'white haze' all the time. They're called clouds. Jumbo jets can help trigger that process though, if the air is saturated enough.
This is what wikipedia has to say about it, and it's backed up by decennia of scientific research. If you feel this is wrong, then feel free to correct the science, and back it up with evidence:
'
Contrails (/ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapor trails are long, thin artificial (man-made) clouds that sometimes form behind aircraft. Their formation is most often triggered by the water vapor in the exhaust of aircraft engines, but can also be triggered by the changes in air pressure in wingtip vortices or in the air over the entire wing surface.[1] Like all clouds, contrails are made of water, in the form of asuspension of billions of liquid droplets or ice crystals.
Depending on the temperature and humidity at the altitude the contrails form, they may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for hours and spread to be several miles wide. The resulting cloud forms may resemble cirrus, cirrocumulus, or cirrostratus, and are sometimes called cirrus aviaticus. Persistent spreading contrails are thought by some, without overwhelming scientific proof, to have a significant effect on global climate.[2]'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Jason
Senior Member
Why does it seem more plausible that it IS being done vs it's NOT being done? I don't understand that argument. You're basing it on the fact that "millions" of people around the world are witnessing this and they can't all be crazy. That's like saying aliens are real because millions of people have witnessed UFO's, or that Nibiru exists and its going to crash into our planet because millions of people believed it was at the end of the world in 2012. The only thing all of these things have in common, is that neither of them are truthful. There are many studies in the world of science and patents that never pan out or become tangible. Scientist are constantly proposing theories and ideas to help solve problems in our daily lives, but all they are, are proposals until proven viable.
What evidence is there that this is actually being done? And evidence should come in the form of real scientific facts, like chemical proof or particulants, not a photo of some plane in the sky that's 3 miles away. Who are the millions of people you claim are seeing this happen?
Did you know that there are several "crazy" ideas out there that scientist are proposing in the field of geo-engineering to help slow or stop global warming;
1. Wrap Greenland in a blanket that would reflect the sun's UV's, which in turn would stop the melting of Greenlands glaciers
2. Hungry Ocean: the ocean could absorb much more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by creating plankton blooms. This is done by mixing the nutrient rich water in the colder depths of the ocean with the warmer surface water by placing huge wave-powered pumps on the swells of the North Pacific.
3. Space sunsheild (my favorite): I think this one is self explanatory, but just in case, they would put a 100,000 square mile sun shade in space to reflect the sun's energy.
4. Raining Forest: Consultant environmental engineer Mark Hodges believes forests could be generated by dropping "tree bombs" from a plane. The seedlings are dropped in a wax canister full of fertiliser that explodes when it hits the ground and grows into a tree. The method has already been used to regenerate mangrove forest in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.
5. Infinite Winds: Fred Ferguson, a Canadian engineer specialising in airships, has designed a wind turbine that will use the constant winds that exist at 1,000 feet to produce renewable energy.
6. Brighter World: Creating more clouds by sending salt into the atmosphere above the oceans, which in turn would reflect more sunlight
And the list goes on. The thing about all of these "geo-engineering" concepts is they could all potentially work. Geo-engineering doesn't mean doom and gloom, all it means is altering the earth's environment and atmosphere. There are many viable options on the table that are way better than spewing aluminum into the atmosphere, but we never here CT advocates discussing them. Why is that? Well for starters because none of them actually exist. They are all just "concepts" similar to what you are discussing.
I just don't understand why so much emphasis is made about geo engineering with respect to "contrails/chemtrails" when there is a plethora of other concepts out there as well. Possibly because the other concepts are deemed to be non dangerous, and in actuality some of them could actually be a much cheaper and viable solution.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
Because the chemtrail meme is nothing to do with practicality or any other real world consideration - it is to do with visibility and scaremongering - you can't scare people with something they can't see (well you can - eg the devil, boogie monster, etc., but...) - but you can certainly scare people with a phenomena that they CAN see and which they do not understand.
chemtrails are not rational - so thinking about why people would rationally believe in them is a pointless exercise!
JRBids
Senior Member.
Those are the only two options? I would also disagree that millions of people all over the world [are crazy] think it's happening.
JRBids
Senior Member.
"A few"? "Fill up"?
hiilikeyourbird
Member
SR1419
Senior Member.
You are confusing weather with climate.
Weather modification is simply cloud seeding. Enhancing precipitation from already existing rain or snow clouds. It's been done for decades and isn't any secret. Guys in Cessnas burning flares.
Geo engineering refers to changing the climate which is an entirely different concept and process.
Weather modification is not Geo engineering
hiilikeyourbird
Member
Right right, got it. Weather modification is only going on by small companies, on a small scale... not by anyone else on a large scale.
"Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" Written by the US Air Force in August of 1996. Hmmm, what else started in the mid 90's?
"Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" Written by the US Air Force in August of 1996. Hmmm, what else started in the mid 90's?
SR1419
Senior Member.
Right right, got it. Weather modification is only going on by small companies, on a small scale... not by anyone else on a large scale.
"Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" Written by the US Air Force in August of 1996. Hmmm, what else started in the mid 90's?
Can you point out where in that non- classified theoretical paper they talk about Geo engineering or Chemtrails? Or does it just have a spooky title which fits in with your preconceived beliefs?
Why would you disagree with my previous post? It's a fact. Weather modification is not geo-engineering. You are conflating two issues and you think you make a point. But you don't. You are disagreeing with a fact. That's illogical
JFDee
Senior Member.
A very speculative paper, with a rather boasting title. No evidence of anything ongoing.
Speaking of evidence:
Do you still claim that Bill Gates is funding ongoing geoengineering? If so, have you found any evidence for that claim?
NoParty
Senior Member.
Clozapine?"Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" Written by the US Air Force in August of 1996. Hmmm, what else started in the mid 90's?
Public internet access. And also the chemtrail hoax. The two may be related.Hmmm, what else started in the mid 90's?
I suggest you read, for example, the Royal Society report on the regulation of geoengineering. It specifically states that weather modification is not considered to be geoengineering.
And just think about it. How cloud cloud seeding possibly produce results that look anything like "chemtrails"? It is done in a totally different part of the sky.
Last edited:
This thread lacks focus. The title suggests it's about Bill Gates' and his (very minor) connection to geoengineering research. But there's not a lot of actual discussion about it.
If there's a specific question, or specific debunk, then please start a new thread.
If there's a specific question, or specific debunk, then please start a new thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
