Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations

[MikeC]

And so we come back to you not actualy knowing that "anything" happened at all - you are playing "connect the dots" and providing your own set of dots to fill in the spaces.

There are many things that "could" have caused the increase in optical density - perhaps the Starship Enterprise has coem back from the 24th century to solve their global warming catastrophe by triggering small volcanic eruptions all over the world. Perhaps there was a sudden plague that kiled off all the reptiloids that have ben consuming atmospheric sulphur and so the quantity increased. Perhaps there ar just more micrometeorites in this part of space we are travelling through.

"Could have" is not evidence - "could have" is story telling.

and of course you were shown to be simply wrong about the optical depth issue months ago.

I look forward to the story you are about to construct to tell us why the optical density has ceased increasing, but "chemtrails" and "geoengineering" are still being reported by people all over the world.

 

[George B]

And so we come back to you not actualy knowing that "anything" happened at all - you are playing "connect the dots" and providing your own set of dots to fill in the spaces.

There are many things that "could" have caused the increase in optical density - perhaps the Starship Enterprise has coem back from the 24th century to solve their global warming catastrophe by triggering small volcanic eruptions all over the world. Perhaps there was a sudden plague that kiled off all the reptiloids that have ben consuming atmospheric sulphur and so the quantity increased. Perhaps there ar just more micrometeorites in this part of space we are travelling through.

"Could have" is not evidence - "could have" is story telling.

and of course you were shown to be simply wrong about the optical depth issue months ago.

I look forward to the story you are about to construct to tell us why the optical density has ceased increasing, but "chemtrails" and "geoengineering" are still being reported by people all over the world.

I was not shown to be wrong . . . that is your imagination and Jay's hopeful thinking. . . . it in no way proves sulfur injection is not possible or not ongoing or has been turned down or off or anything else . . .unless you can fingerprint the source of stratospheric sulfur you cannot prove its source . . . if I am not mistaken background varies from 1 Tg to 20 Tg each year depending on major volcanic eruptions . . .

 

[MikeC]

I was not shown to be wrong . . . that is your imagination and Jay's hopeful thinking. . .

I have looked at that linked thread again - and your response is, sadly, predictable.

it in no way proves sulfur injection is not possible or not ongoing or has been turned down or off or anything else . .

that wasn't the point - which I am not surprised you missed. The point in the link I gave is that the optical depth has NOT actualy changed all that much at all.

unless you can fingerprint the source of stratospheric sulfur you cannot prove its source . . .

Indeed you cannot - as I freely admitted when I offered alternative scenarios that have just as much evidence to support them as yours.

 

[George B]

I have looked at that linked thread again - and your response is, sadly, predictable.



that wasn't the point - which I am not surprised you missed. The point in the link I gave is that the optical depth has NOT actualy changed all that much at all.



Indeed you cannot - as I freely admitted when I offered alternative scenarios that have just as much evidence to support them as yours.

So if the program was only a nudge or ineffective that is what I would expect for the most part . . .

 

[George B]

Here is an interesting take on sulfur injection into the stratosphere by no less than Ken Caldeira . . .

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL051652


Geoengineering: Whiter Skies?


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051652.shtml




Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering will whiten skies

Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering will brighten skies


The effects are strongly dependent on aerosol size distribution
Authors:


Ben Kravitz
Douglas G MacMartin
Ken Caldeira


One proposed side effect of geoengineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosols is sky whitening during the day and afterglows near sunset, as is seen after large volcanic eruptions. Sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere would increase diffuse light received at the surface, but with a non-uniform spectral distribution. We use a radiative transfer model to calculate spectral irradiance for idealized size distributions of sulfate aerosols. A 2% reduction in total irradiance, approximately enough to offset anthropogenic warming for a doubling of CO2 concentrations, brightens the sky (increase in diffuse light) by 3 to 5 times, depending on the aerosol size distribution. The relative increase is less when optically thin cirrus clouds are included in our simulations. Particles with small radii have little influence on the shape of the spectra. Particles of radius ~0.5 µm preferentially increase diffuse irradiance in red wavelengths, whereas large particles (~0.9 µm) preferentially increase diffuse irradiance in blue wavelengths. Spectra show little change in dominant wavelength, indicating little change in sky hue, but all particle size distributions show an increase in white light relative to clear sky conditions. Diffuse sky spectra in our simulations of geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols are similar to those of average conditions in urban areas today.


Received 9 March 2012; accepted 2 May 2012.
Citation: Kravitz, B., D. G. MacMartin, and K. Caldeira (2012), Geoengineering: Whiter Skies?, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2012GL051652, in press.
‹ AGU Home | ‹ GRL Home | ‹ AGU Journals

Content from External Source

 

[Jazzy]

Here is an interesting take on sulfur injection into the stratosphere by no less than Ken Caldeira . . .

Yes, we know it's possible! But is it probable? It's a labour of Hercules (Popeye!): you walk up to the Gordian Knot and strike!

 

[MikeC]

And not only is it "probable" - but is it actually happening??

 

[Jazzy]

And if it's happening, but doesn't show over the noise, is it meaningful? Or like the fairies? Or just noise?

 

[George B]

And if it's happening, but doesn't show over the noise, is it meaningful? Or like the fairies? Or just noise?

Why would someone engage in a covert geoengineering operation which would not be obviously detectable from background noise . . . Hmmmm . . . maybe because they want the program to remain covert. . . . but maintain an operational infrastructure and budget line capable of turning the trend of warming toward the direction desired . . .seems to me a small insurance premium to pay when the castrophe avoided might be draconian at least from the perspective of policy makers in the 1990. . .

 

[scombrid]

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

Regarding those circular contrails over the North Sea. Apparently it isn't that uncommon which may be why scientists were able to study it.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-479370.html

rogcal
8th Mar 2012, 09:57
From time to time from my strip in South Lincolnshire I observe the contrails of a large jet flying a circular route over an area of 50 miles or so.

These flight sometimes go on for an hour or more which leave concentric circles in the sky which show there is little deviation from the circular route flown.

I've identified the aircraft type as E-3 Sentries and can only assume they are on flight test and possibly out of Lakenheath, as the circular route would encompass that base.

It's been bugging me for sometime now and I'm sure there's someone knowledgeable out there that can put me right.

Thanks


sunshine band
8th Mar 2012, 10:37
Do you mean like this?

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo116/sband/1024sentryorbit160112.jpg

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo116/sband/1024sentryorbitwide160112.jpg

It caused widespread panic back in mid January as people thought it was a hijacked airliner and they called their local radio stations, etc. However, it was just another routine E3 Sentry training sortie.

Please excuse the quality, but I had to shrink them down in size for the mods...

SB

---

Willard Whyte
8th Mar 2012, 11:15

There are various E-3 orbit areas in the UK and abroad. The crew will generally pick whichever orbit fits in best with the nature of the sortie.

The E-3 will be set to fly a ground track, prevailing winds aloft will carry the contrails away from the orbit area.

RAF E-3s are based at Waddington.

 

[Jazzy]

Why would someone engage in a covert geoengineering operation which would not be obviously detectable from background noise . . . Hmmmm . . . maybe because they want the program to remain covert. . . . but maintain an operational infrastructure and budget line capable of turning the trend of warming toward the direction desired . . .seems to me a small insurance premium to pay when the castrophe avoided might be draconian at least from the perspective of policy makers in the 1990. . .

[...]

Sulfur dioxide is an ACID GAS. It makes ACID RAIN. This causes DEFORESTATION and KILLS OCEAN FLORA AND FAUNA. It also STRIPS THE OZONE LAYER at the poles.

It won't be done*. EVER. [...]

* Yes, I know high-sulfur fuels exist. But some accountant will soon be working out the break-even point for de-sufurizing fuel as a matter of course. He will be forced to.

 

[scombrid]

Note that I bumped a really old thread because I discovered a bit of information about a photo in a post in the thread.

 

[Jazzy]

Note that I bumped a really old thread because I discovered a bit of information about a photo in a post in the thread.

I really don't care. I enjoy scolding George.

 

[George B]

Note that I bumped a really old thread because I discovered a bit of information about a photo in a post in the thread.

What might that be?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The State of The Climate In 2012 should be out around September. There should be some updated stratospheric aerosol thickness measurements to discuss. Hopefully Carly won't have blown her hand off or blinded anyone permanently over a hoax.

 

[George B]

The State of The Climate In 2012 should be out around September. There should be some updated stratospheric aerosol thickness measurements to discuss. Hopefully Carly won't have blown her hand off or blinded anyone permanently over a hoax.

I hope there is some interesting new info. . . .by-the-way below you will find some new analysis of my own. . .


Seems like a possible trend to me . . . two of the most important satellites to be launched to study global warming gases and aerosols failed to launch . . . three times the failure rates of all other satellites . .



January 2009 --- September 2011 Launch Reports


Launch Failures by Quarter 1, 1, 0, 2, 4, 3 = 11 (5.3 %)
Launch Success by Quarter 15, 38, 33, 39, 31, 42 = 198 (94.7%)
Total Launches by Quarter 16, 39, 33, 41, 35, 45 = 209
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2Q2009 Quarterly Report.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/10998.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...st/media/semi_annual_launch_report_051810.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ast/media/2010-2 Semi-Annual Layout Final.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...a/Semi Annual Launch Report April 18 2011.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/HQ-121473.pdf






Climate Satellite Launch failures represent 18% or 2/11 of Total failures . . . normal failure rate for all satellites was 11/209 or 5.3% . . .

Failure #1: On February 24, 2009 The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) is a NASA satellite mission intended to provide ... The original spacecraft was lost in a launch failure on February 24, 2009, when the payload ... http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2012/02/26/oco-lessons-learned-opportunities-lost/


Failure #2: On 4 March 2011, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) was lost as a consequence of the failed launch of the Glory Mission. On 6 March 2011, Dr. Michael Freilich, Director of the Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, directed the Glory APS Science Team to perform a comprehensive study intended to develop and evaluate the science rationale for an APS reflight. http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/

Content from External Source

 

[Jay Reynolds]

There's no need to invent a conspiracy over failed satellites when historic as well as near-real-time optical transmission data is already freely available from the global AERONET network and confirmable by anyone worldwide using a spectral radiometer.



You cannot hide aerosols,they are literally in plain sight, using the correct tools. You know this.

 

[George B]

There's no need to invent a conspiracy over failed satellites when historic as well as near-real-time optical transmission data is already freely available from the global AERONET network and confirmable by anyone worldwide using a spectral radiometer.



You cannot hide aerosols,they are literally in plain sight, using the correct tools. You know this.

I don't think scientists believe the present monitoring system is adequate . . .

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/

"Unique sensor capabilities help to reveal the impact of atmospheric aerosols on climate


Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor was designed to collect global aerosol data for climate scientists during NASA’s 3-year Glory mission. It is the most advanced polarimeter ever to fly in space — and the only instrument able to distinguish various types of natural aerosols from the man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere."

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

I hope there is some interesting new info. . . .by-the-way below you will find some new analysis of my own. . .
Seems like a possible trend to me . . . two of the most important satellites to be launched to study global warming gases and aerosols failed to launch . . . three times the failure rates of all other satellites . .
[..]
Climate Satellite Launch failures represent 18% or 2/11 of Total failures . . . normal failure rate for all satellites was 11/209 or 5.3% . . .

2 is not statistically significant. If you take those 209 satellites, and dived them into 19 groups of 11, and then randomly toss failures into the groups, then it's more likely than not that some groups would have more than one failure in them, and some would have none. It's just random.

 

[George B]

2 is not statistically significant. If you take those 209 satellites, and dived them into 19 groups of 11, and then randomly toss failures into the groups, then it's more likely than not that some groups would have more than one failure in them, and some would have none. It's just random.

It all depends on how one divides or does not divide the apple . . . the numbers are all probably too small for the normal stastically valid scientific study where hundreds or thousands of events are collected and correlated . . . so as I indicated theses are trends . . . significant enough for NASA to fire their contractor who wasted $697 million on two launch failures . . . seems NASA feels your dog named randomness doesn't hunt in this case . . .

 

[Mick West]

It all depends on how one divides or does not divide the apple . . . the numbers are all probably too small for the normal stastically valid scientific study where hundreds or thousands of events are collected and correlated . . . so as I indicated theses are trends . . . significant enough for NASA to fire their contractor who wasted $697 million on two launch failures . . . seems NASA feels your dog named randomness doesn't hunt in this case . . .

You are conflating two issues. The failures themselves were not random - they had causes, specifically incompetence. But there's no statistical significant correlation with climate satellites.

If you toss a coin twice, and it comes up heads both times, would you call that a "trend"?

 

[George B]

You are conflating two issues. The failures themselves were not random - they had causes, specifically incompetence. But there's no statistical significant correlation with climate satellites.

If you toss a coin twice, and it comes up heads both times, would you call that a "trend"?

It could be if the coin has heads on both sides . . . incompetence? Intentional or Unintentional? A suspected motive along with a trend could spell "significant" . . . If I wish to hide something and your light will reveal my activities . . . I stop my activities or destroy your light and frustrate or delay your purchasing a new light . . .

 

[Jazzy]

For God's sake, George.

 

[George B]

For God's sake, George.

You believe in God?

 

[justanairlinepilot]

George, you've watched too many movies.

So you think a sophisticated covert operation cannot overcome that little issue . . . I do . . . one could distribute the aircraft which appear to be for example DHL, FedEx, UPS, or a new charter company to several locations throughout the world . . . as in the proposal above, maybe eight bases . . . they could fly to one or two secure hubs once or twice each operational day . . .

 

[George B]

George, you've watched too many movies.

Pure speculation . . . hypothetical . . . yes, parties involved would need to feel secrecy was totally reasonable and essential for the greater good . . . just like thousands of people do daily on military projects, organized crime, fraternal orders, etc . . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

George, you've watched too many movies.

 

[George B]

But Jay thinks he knows what to look for . . . we have more devious and resourceful people than Jay could imagine . . we laugh at Jay's puny efforts to expose us . . .

 

[justanairlinepilot]

George, you are in way over your head.

So I am sure the managers are very aware of the threats of discovery and are motivated and skilled at covert operations . . . could just purchase a small transport company for cover . .

 

[George B]

George, you are in way over your head.

For people to be discovered . . . people have to be looking . . . who is looking? . . .certainly not the authorities . . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Thinking you could hide geoengineering is like imagining you could hide an eclipse. Can't happen.

 

[George B]

Thinking you could hide geoengineering is like imagining you could hide an eclipse. Can't happen.

Except for those in the know most people never even are aware an eclipse occurred. . . .

 

[pseacraft]

And those same people do not notice that the sun rises and sets everyday, that the moon can be seen is the blue sky during the day. Too many trees in the forest even when the forest is an single cartoon panel with only a dinosaur on an open plain.

 

[George B]

And those same people do not notice that the sun rises and sets everyday, that the moon can be seen is the blue sky during the day. Too many trees in the forest even when the forest is an single cartoon panel with only a dinosaur on an open plain.

That is what most covert operations count on. . . The best way to hide something is in plain sight. . .

Even with hundreds of thousands of police and DEA agents tons of illegal drugs get imported and distributed into the US every day. . . right under our noses. . . .

 

[pseacraft]

So what we have is a 'global covert operation' that involves hundreds/thousands of individuals and not a single one has an issue with it? Not to mention the logistics that it would take to coordinate such an activity. We, humans, can not even hide it when someone farts in a crowded room. I was involved in a program that was compromised by one person, one! Only about 50 people were briefed on this project. Where is my ultra large BS flag gone?

 

[George B]

So what we have is a 'global covert operation' that involves hundreds/thousands of individuals and not a single one has an issue with it? Not to mention the logistics that it would take to coordinate such an activity. We, humans, can not even hide it when someone farts in a crowded room. I was involved in a program that was compromised by one person, one! Only about 50 people were briefed on this project. Where is my ultra large BS flag gone?

1) Who said the operation would require thousands of people?
2) Who said the people who are involved don't believe what they are doing is essential to our survival?
3) I have been involved with operations that were kept silent for years and years. . . with only suspicions and rumors and no confirmation or validation released. . .

If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

Content from External Source

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/66...-Covert-Atmospheric-Aerosol-Injection-Program

Several geoengineering proposals have been made which are specific to the Arctic. They are usually hydrological in nature, and principally centre upon measures to preventArctic Ice Loss. These are detailed below.
In addition, other solar radiation management geoengineering techniques, such asstratospheric sulfur aerosols[2]​ have been proposed. These will cool the Arctic by adjusting the albedo of the atmosphere.

Content from External Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_geoengineering

 

[Jay Reynolds]

So what we have is a 'global covert operation' that involves hundreds/thousands of individuals and not a single one has an issue with it? Not to mention the logistics that it would take to coordinate such an activity. We, humans, can not even hide it when someone farts in a crowded room. I was involved in a program that was compromised by one person, one! Only about 50 people were briefed on this project. Where is my ultra large BS flag gone?

PSEA,
George has already wasted about 30 threads 300 pages on here flogging this CT. The thread title of this one describes it. Undetectable, invisible, theoretical covert James Bond Fantasy stuff.

Somehow Ernst Stavro Blofeld has a thousand strong army of die-hard scientists coffee machine repairmen and floor sweepers willing to spray the world and keep quiet about it for him. They are all either paid off so well or their families are held hostage so that they will cooperate. And no one ever breaks cover, for fifteen years. Nobody ever notices, there is no detectable trace anything ever happened. An absolute perfect crime. Made in Hollywood. Screenplay by Tom Clancy, starring "The Expendables".

 

[Mick West]

So what we have is a 'global covert operation' that involves hundreds/thousands of individuals and not a single one has an issue with it? Not to mention the logistics that it would take to coordinate such an activity. We, humans, can not even hide it when someone farts in a crowded room. I was involved in a program that was compromised by one person, one! Only about 50 people were briefed on this project. Where is my ultra large BS flag gone?

Unfortunately George's debating technique is to simply modify his theory to slip under whatever objections are raised. So there's not much to be had here in the way of discussion.

George thinks there's a 30% probability that there's a small covert geoengineering spraying operation using a small number of dedicated planes in a remote location, with a small team of people, having a small and essentially undetectable effect.

The evidence to back this up is:

1) Oppenheimer once mentioned geoengineering
2) Skunkworks and The Manhattan Project worked out
3) Intuition

 

[Mick West]

Except for those in the know most people never even are aware an eclipse occurred. . . .

Except for the hundreds of millions of people who saw it after being told about it.

The point is that you can't hide it. It can be easily detected. Just like a secret geoengineering program could be tracked down if there was ANY evidence pointing to it going on.

 

[George B]

Unfortunately George's debating technique is to simply modify his theory to slip under whatever objections are raised. So there's not much to be had here in the way of discussion.

George thinks there's a 30% probability that there's a small covert geoengineering spraying operation using a small number of dedicated planes in a remote location, with a small team of people, having a small and essentially undetectable effect.

The evidence to back this up is:

1) Oppenheimer once mentioned geoengineering
2) Skunkworks and The Manhattan Project worked out
3) Intuition

1) It is Edward Teller not Oppenheimer. . . .
2) It is LLNL and SDI not simply the Manhattan Project. . . .
3) Yes it is intuition as well as human history, human behavior, and the Military Industrial Complex. . .