J
Joe
Guest
The theory is it would have a cooling effect ? but iv heard others say its the opposite ,So its not me since Im not claiming to be a scientist its the scientist that cant make up their minds and keep changing things .
Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate?
- Thread starter Lone Bison
- Start date
J
Joe
Guest
Oh and it didnt snow in Egypt yesterday for the first time in 100 years ? We didnt have the least active hurricane activity this year even though NOAA said it would be very active ? The Daily Mail is no worse than NOAA or the IPCC at misrepresenting . The National Enquirer probably would do a better job . Its a shame you believe a hoax and the same science that depends on that hoax and is funded by it as well .
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Joe
Guest
Do you trust the government ? Do they lie ? Would they tell you they were manipulating the weather only to get blamed for severe weather ? Plausible deniability .
J
Joe
Guest
Ok fine could you explain How does a aircraft carve out a contrail cirrus cloud ? Is it like snow since as you say its ice crystals ?
Belfrey
Senior Member.
I never said it helped anything, and of course it is pollution. So are the emissions from driving your car, and using coal-based electricity - and the cumulative effects of everyone doing so are in most respects far worse than for air travel.
True, unless one of them acts on their proposals to start trying to bring down planes full of passengers. Although even if it mainly harms themselves and their families, it does pain me to see people live in anger and fear because they believe that they are being "sprayed" when they see contrails.Joe said:
As far as I can tell, the actual geo-engineering proposals would not look anything like persistent contrails if they were put into operation. It's only the chemtrails believers who conflate the two topics. And most scientists who study the issue seem to agree that they don't really "want" to see these techniques used, but think that it should be studied now, so that people can understand the potential effects in the event that it's needed.Joe said:
Indeed, it starts with them being misrepresented, their statements put out-of-context in a misleading way.Joe said:
I'm not involved in citrus greening research personally, although I know many people who are. Pests and pathogens can be extremely difficult to control once established in a new area, which is why a much greater focus needs to be placed on prevention. There are phytosanitary rules involving imports of fruit shipments and the like to prevent import of infected or infested material, but obviously the rules and/or their enforcement are insufficient.Joe said:
Last edited:
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
No, Joe, Murphy & Co. simply figured they would prosper the hoax best by tagging themselves onto aluminum which the Jehovah's Winesses have been at war with since it was produced.
They got some people like Dane and Francis who had tunnel-vision and would hush up when their claims were found to be fake. The rest was just yes-men, mob action and folks like you who bought the enchilada. Don't try and deny it, you helped promote a hoax. Now, every single day a bunch of your former friends are looking up at the sky wishing they could kill whoever is in that plane, and we all know they are looking at a plane full of passengers. Knowing that, I will not stop and you need to accept that fact even if you are too embarrassed or cowed by peer pressure to help.
J
Joe
Guest
16:50 in the video Mick
J
Joe
Guest
?? what are you talking about Jay ? PLUS ITS OFF TOPIC . IM if you need to explain .
That's a distrail. The plane disturbs the cloud, either by the downwash pushing it to the sides, or by inducing precipitation (falling ice crystals, essentially snow).
Some discussion of various forms of distrail here:
http://contrailscience.com/the-opposite-of-contrails/
Some discussion of various forms of distrail here:
http://contrailscience.com/the-opposite-of-contrails/
Here's an account of a partial distrail from 1921:
http://contrailscience.com/files/mwr-049-07-0412c.pdf
http://contrailscience.com/files/mwr-049-07-0412c.pdf
An altitude flight was made in the morning at McCook Field recently by Lieut. J. A. Macready in a La Pere with supercharged Liberty [engine]. When the airplane reached a height of 26,000-27,000 feet at 11:50 a.m., a long feathery white streamer was observed forming behind a rapidly moving dark speck. The cloud was of the cirrus variety, well defined at the edges and apparently 10 to 15 times the width of the plane. The sky behind the first portion was clear blue with no clouds in the near neighborhood. The first streamer seemed perhaps 2 miles long. Then a gap of one-quarter mile. The second streamer formed with a background of light cirrus cloud and after 2 or 3 miles the plane seemed to go into the cirrus background, for the streamer formation ceased while an apparent path of blue continued beyond for a way in the cirrus cloud. The whole streamer may have been 3 miles long. After 20 minutes the streamer had drifted and spread until it merged indistinguishably with the other cirrus clouds visible.
cosmic
Senior Member.
You don't establish a global climate trend by drawing attention to one local weather event.
That it's difficult to predict the expected number of hurricanes over an entire season doesn't cast aspersion on climate models. There is a difference between weather and climate.
This is demonstrably false. The tabloid has an established history of printing contrarian nonsense. Whatever your opposition to NOAA and the IPCC, it isn't based upon science. That much is obvious from your posts.
Unfortunately, repeating these assertions won't make them true. Posting Gish gallops as you've done here won't change the fact that your claims about climate are consistently and fundamentally wrong. It would be wise to accept the corrections provided to you instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending nothing happened. You might even learn something.
Edited to add: apologies to Mick for veering off topic.
Last edited:
J
Joe
Guest
Look in the mirror Tony . LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
No thanks.
And yes, I really don't understand what you're saying.
How does anomalous snow = warming hoax? What science is behind that idea?
If snow to you proves the planet is not warming, how can you say they are geo-engineering to make the planet warmer to 'prove' their hoax? Has it not been effective yet?
So when you decide the data does prove the planet is warming, will you then say that is proof the geo-engineering was successful?
J
Joe
Guest
well I sent you a PM I didnt say it made it warmer you did with you lizard statement and JRbids .
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
So if you think they are geo-engineering to make it cooler (because contrails = cooler), WHY are they doing that unless global warming is *actually* happening?!
You see my problem with your logic? -you insist global warming is a hoax, but you believe they are deliberately making the planet cooler too.
Sorry, but it bothers me.
You see my problem with your logic? -you insist global warming is a hoax, but you believe they are deliberately making the planet cooler too.
Sorry, but it bothers me.
J
Joe
Guest
Bingo . I am no expert that is only my opinion ( which I am entitled to ) I am just a average Joe like millions of people that believe the same .
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Joe, aluminum is a part of chemtrails conspiracy theory, and the JW's have been waging a war against aluminum for as long as it has been produced. At least some of the bunk we see began with their irrational campaign, supposedly these people were ordained to speak the truth, now we pay the price for 80 year old bunk. http://watchthetower.net/alum2.html
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
LOL It's so crazy, but yet they believe!
J
Joe
Guest
Part of the theory maybe but something I dont belive at all .
JFDee
Senior Member.
Actually, my impression from your contributions here is that you are well above average, if you allow me to say so.
I assume if your oppositon to government as a whole wouldn't be so strong, you were much less likely to believe in these very, very implausible theories.
I also assume that due to your political attitude you are tuning in to a matching selection of media (TV, radio, web) that 'inspire' those kind of theories.
But then again, these other millions with similar beliefs (and similar media selection) would probably not stop by in this forum and expose themselves to opposing views. Keep it up!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Any attempt at global climate management would be a most complex and dynamic affair presenting the average world citizen with observing weather contradiction after contraindications at least until the real direction of climate change was locked into a obvious unchangeable cascade . . . my take on this issue is . . . If such a program was truly undertaken it would take knowledge and resources far beyond the level we humans now have available . . . so if change is coming it is either a natural cycle or by technology and science we don't own . . .
Ross Marsden
Senior Member.
I think you imagine far more capability that is actually possible.
The stated plan is to dope the tripical stratosphere with some volcanic product like substance to reduce net incoming solar radiation. The effect will be smeared evenly around the planet. The effort will probably focus on the northern hemisphere, as that is where there seems to have been the most warming. That is the only regionalisation option; northern or southern hemisphere. You cannot granulate this any smaller.
This will further reduce the equatoral to polar temperature gradient in the northern hemisphere and induce ever greater meanders of the polar and subtropical jets. This will result in ever greater weather extremes of heat and cold on short time scales, and of drought and pluviality on longer time scales.
If done, it will be a spectacular and tragic disaster unfolding like a super slo mo train wreck.
Even more tragic will be the necessity to keep doing it, because to stop would be to return to gradual warming, but there will be a bit of a back log to be cought up with.
The ONLY strategy with any hope of success is to:
1) STOP exhausting CO2 into the atmosphere,
2) Start sequestering it out of the atmosphere (and oceans) permantly and safely.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmm . . . I think I said . . . what you just said but without the specifics . . . I also said I don't think we own the knowledge to do it properly . . .
George B said:
J
Joe
Guest
No I watch no television at all . didnt like bush as well . Dont like big intrusive government that thinks it know whats best for us . We have a representative government that only represents themselves and thier buddies . CCX was a perfect example of how government officials try o line their pockets at the expense of the taxpayers . I know a guy who was in politics for years he is now in his 90s . He explained how it works , He worked with Mario Cuomo when he was governor . Im not really partisan as i appear because I know both parties suck . You know things like the NSA ad all those who said they couldnt be spying on all of us . Or using the IRS to target their enemies . Running guns to Mexico to make it look like their is a prblem . Setting up terror groups to set people up as with the first World trade center bombing . where the FBI dropped the ball on that one . I could give you thousands of examples why nobody should have faith in Government , That my guy is in charge so its OK attitude doesnt work . It doesnt fuel my conspiracy that started with my eyes first . Could I be wrong ? Sure I could be . If not like we've ever been lied to
J
Joe
Guest
No I said I could be but havent seen enough evidence to convince me . Not here or anywhere else . When you have some pass it on .Again with your opinion of me as well I consider that a insult . You need to leave that part out peter . I doesn't add to the discussion unless your just waiting for those who agree wih you to give you some thumbs up ? I like to see how long you guys would last on forums opposite of this ? If I dont agree with you I must be wrong attitude sucks .
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
You made a point of following ' I may be wrong' with obvious sarcasm, so what impression does that give? It completely calls your whole position in to question.
I don't pay attention to whether I get likes for posts or not, I prefer not to get them if I am in direct contention with someone as it can be a distraction.
I do try to leave my opinion out of it but can only manage so much. I am not saying if you dont agree with me you must be wrong, I am trying to challenge what appears to me as completely unfounded opinions, which you often present in a very aggressive manner.
I don't pay attention to whether I get likes for posts or not, I prefer not to get them if I am in direct contention with someone as it can be a distraction.
I do try to leave my opinion out of it but can only manage so much. I am not saying if you dont agree with me you must be wrong, I am trying to challenge what appears to me as completely unfounded opinions, which you often present in a very aggressive manner.
J
Joe
Guest
well In this forum I feel that way at times . You try going on a site where no one agrees with you politically and otherwise see how youd act ? Or would you just leave ? Im here to learn to get the other sides opinion . When I try to do the same I am mocked . I dont mind a debate at all but to say when its debunked because you and many others believe it is doesn't make it so . Again its a matter of opinion . someone says its getting warmer someone says its not . Maybe im just not good at making my point and you should just ignore me if it bothers you so ?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
I'll try.
But this site is not about agreeing politically. It does not matter that you disagree politically, politics shouldn't even be an issue in evaluating stuff here.
Politics is hardly ever about rational evaluation of evidence, it's about teams and sides.
So it's jarring that you focus so much on it and seem to use it as evidence for or against things.
But this site is not about agreeing politically. It does not matter that you disagree politically, politics shouldn't even be an issue in evaluating stuff here.
Politics is hardly ever about rational evaluation of evidence, it's about teams and sides.
So it's jarring that you focus so much on it and seem to use it as evidence for or against things.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Using living organisms like trees, corals, and algae. These have self-interest and reproduce themselves. We can then sit back, or bicycle to our canoes and go fishing again.
Or we can do it the hard and self-defeating way, using more technology. After all, that's worked really well so far, hasn't it?
J
Joe
Guest
Politics unfortunately affects everything . I wish it didnt but it does . I did a thread on Common Core it became politically BIG government verse small government , Same with Agenda 21 . Gun control is political . I see plenty of politics . The Birth Certificate is left verse right . Chemtrails seems to come from the left but I see it on both sides . There is not a conservative host that belives in chemtrails or at least I dont know of any , yet the convention of chemtrail kooks had the likes of roseanne barr and other assorted leftist anarchist ect
Belfrey
Senior Member.
I actively seek out places where I can discuss these issues with those of a different perspective. When I've tried to go onto a forum for chemtrails believers (such as geoengineeringwatch), I've been banned after a single post that dared to even politely question their basic premises. You've been here for over a year and a half (long enough to learn some things that would likely get you banned on a chemtrails forum as well), so I think that does say something.
JFDee
Senior Member.
There you are pointing to one of the fundamental problems in this discussion:
Science is not a matter of opinion.
Of course, very complex issues with economical interrelations (like human-induced climate change ) are subject to battles between interest groups.
The media - particularly in the U.S. - tend to construct a "balanced" representation, probably with good intentions. Unfortunately, the result is that the minority opinion - sometimes a fringe position - is overemphasized.
(Usually, you'll see two interview partners with opposing views and one moderator trying to stay 'neutral', no matter the issue.)
This is O.K. for politics but not suited well for scientific facts. That's why it's much better (but also a bit harder) to go to the source, or at least to popular but respected science outlets.
If the vast majority of scientists from one discipline agree on a certain statement, independently from country and political system, their findings are very likely to be true.
So when a simple "Yes" or "No" is insufficient, weight indeed matters.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
