Where is the Stratosphere today?

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George.. Question. When the proponents of this sort of SRM mean the stratosphere, are they really thinking of the sorts of altitudes normally associated with the stratosphere or will any height do provided it is in the stratosphere of the day? What I am saying is, how effective would spraying be from lower altitudes? Serious question to you.

I am still trying to dig up 747 performance data. Getting to 45,000 feet in a 747 requires a seriously light aircraft. It was never a possibility with any sort of load. I will check with some friends of mine still flying it.
Simply stated the higher the injection the longer the aerosol is assumed to remain in the stratosphere (particulate size and background concentrations interact in a very complex process) from several weeks to two to three years . . . the question is what was or is the objective . . . to have the aerosols remain . . . weeks, months, or years . . . I think I would design to require some of all . . . with most short term . . . this gives one the quickest response to changing natural conditions and to a possible unexpected crisis . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I am not saying you are not making good points but just like in a percentage of combat missions some are failures and have to be aborted . . . why would this be any different . . .

Because it's not actually combat?? ;)
 

Fred259

New Member
I think George, you need to ask someone who is type rated on the Jumbo. Maybe someone who has taken a 744 out of Ted Stevens at Anchorage can help.

However I would say that this is actually potentially very dangerous. You propose to climb a heavy aircraft to a very high altitude where the air is very thin or less dense. The problem here is that the aircraft stall speed increases dramatically at these high altitudes. In addition the Mach number also increases. Experienced Captains won't take an aircraft to these altitudes as the possibility of an over-speed exists. They get very twitchy (the captains) they often have a screwed up face, and shout at the number one!. At one time in the RAF they called this area coffin corner.

Then you propose, in this very fragile rarefied atmosphere where Mach number and stall speed are seriously critical............. here..... you propose to dump how many tonnes of chemical? This would produce significant changes in the aircraft centre of gravity which is the very very last thing you would want to experience.....
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because it's not actually combat?? ;)

No, but it is an operation that is optimized under certain environmental conditions and not as much under others . . . the combat was an an analogy . . . I am not saying aerosol injection is an act of war . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think George, you need to ask someone who is type rated on the Jumbo. Maybe someone who has taken a 744 out of Ted Stevens at Anchorage can help.

However I would say that this is actually potentially very dangerous. You propose to climb a heavy aircraft to a very high altitude where the air is very thin or less dense. The problem here is that the aircraft stall speed increases dramatically at these high altitudes. In addition the Mach number also increases. Experienced Captains won't take an aircraft to these altitudes as the possibility of an over-speed exists. They get very twitchy (the captains) they often have a screwed up face, and shout at the number one!. At one time in the RAF they called this area coffin corner.

Then you propose, in this very fragile rarefied atmosphere where Mach number and stall speed are seriously critical............. here..... you propose to dump how many tonnes of chemical? This would produce significant changes in the aircraft centre of gravity which is the very very last thing you would want to experience.....
I would love to hear from an experienced pilot . . . would offloading 20,000 gallons of cargo over 1400 Km flight path in the lower stratosphere destabilize their aircraft . . .??
 

Fred259

New Member
f you told them what altitude you want to spread your chemicals and the outside air temp at that altitude they would give you a straight Yes / No decision.


45,000 feet, I would suggest is out of the question.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It would not be too difficult to arrange tanks that allow material to be shifted around in order to maintain weight and balance considerations - but it would also not be trivial. Aerial refueling tankers, of course, regularly disperse much more than that, but also stick to around 25,000 ft for such operations I think?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
f you told them what altitude you want to spread your chemicals and the outside air temp at that altitude they would give you a straight Yes / No decision.


45,000 feet, I would suggest is out of the question.
I would suggest 31,000 feet for a fleet of 747s . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It would not be too difficult to arrange tanks that allow material to be shifted around in order to maintain weight and balance considerations - but it would also not be trivial. Aerial refueling tankers, of course, regularly disperse much more than that, but also stick to around 25,000 ft for such operations I think?
I was on a refueled mission on a C141 . . . but don't know or remember the altitude . . . was on a transatlantic flight out of Greenland . . . seemed very high and very cold . . .

Refueling speed chart altitude range from 3,000 to 35,000 feet . . .

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The average height of the troposphere between Anchorage and Helsinki is FL240
Do you mean the stratosphere or tropopause?? I assume . . . Tropopause . . . So the stratosphere is very accessible to a 747 at those latitudes . . .
 

Fred259

New Member
Yes Tropopause...
Indeed you could go between Anchorage and Helsinki. Around 3,500nm circa 8 hrs. So you could dump 90 tonnes of chemicals at say 10 tonnes per hour. However at these latitudes its almost 24 hours of darkness so at this time of year would you not be better going to Antarctica instead.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Fewer airfields around Antarctica - harder to hide 747's in Sth Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Chile or Argentina :)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes Tropopause...
Indeed you could go between Anchorage and Helsinki. Around 3,500nm circa 8 hrs. So you could dump 90 tonnes of chemicals at say 10 tonnes per hour. However at these latitudes its almost 24 hours of darkness so at this time of year would you not be better going to Antarctica instead.
Depends on the objective . . .but yes, injection to limit polar melting would be more effective to follow the sun . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Fewer airfields around Antarctica - harder to hide 747's in Sth Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Chile or Argentina :)
Yes . . . except there are fewer people to detect the operations as well . . . the real problem is the sulfur sources . . . would require deep water ocean delivery of sufficient tons and transport from port to airfield . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The polar stratospheres are under intense and constant scrutiny by multinational groups. If George's conspiracy speculation had any foundation, he would be be able to easily show it. He doesn't even try. It ain't happening.

Stop spamming all the threads on this board with your fantasy, George. You are becoming a nuisance. Take your disgruntled axe against the government and grind it elsewhere.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The polar stratospheres are under intense and constant scrutiny by multinational groups. If George's conspiracy speculation had any foundation, he would be be able to easily show it. He doesn't even try. It ain't happening.

Stop spamming all the threads on this board with your fantasy, George. You are becoming a nuisance. Take your disgruntled axe against the government and grind it elsewhere.
And just how would they detect it Jay?

About Spam . . . I am responding to questions . . . the OP asked me to respond as well . . . See #41 above . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I am not saying you are not making good points but just like in a percentage of combat missions some are failures and have to be aborted . . . why would this be any different . . .
I wasn't going to return to this thread, George, but now we've left the Equator, tropics and temperate zones, and we're haggling about the polar regions.

What's the next step, "chemtrails" in space*? They're also possible... and the mirrors. What then? Attacking the Sun? Can't you intuit the general direction of this debate?

* Pigs in Space. Wonder Warthog. Any other guesses?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I wasn't going to return to this thread, George, but now we've left the Equator, tropics and temperate zones, and we're haggling about the polar regions.

What's the next step, "chemtrails" in space*? They're also possible... and the mirrors. What then? Attacking the Sun? Can't you intuit the general direction of this debate?

* Pigs in Space. Wonder Warthog. Any other guesses?
I am sorry but if I respond to your statement . . . according to Jay . . . .I would be spamming . . . LoL!!!!

To respond out of courtesy . . . sure if it has been discussed for years in the scientific community, computer modeled, cost analyzed, one of the most discussed approachs by geoengineering symposia . . . and within the infrastructure and capabilities of present technology as well as technology and capabilities two decades ago . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I am sorry but if I respond to your statement . . . according to Jay . . . .I would be spamming . . . LoL!!!!

To respond out of courtesy . . . sure if it has been discussed for years in the scientific community, computer modeled, cost analyzed, one of the most discussed approachs by geoengineering symposia . . . and within the infrastructure and capabilities of present technology as well as technology and capabilities two decades ago . . .
You made me laugh...

But it isn't very serious unless you really can't see what we are driving at. Then you need a little counseling about the vagaries and inaccuracies both of the weather and the people living in it.

How to put this? Only all-out war (or its threat) coordinates such efforts with any success. You could argue we're at war, but I'd only point out that very few people are mobilized for it. We're at peace, for what it's worth, and massive campaigns against the atmosphere would stick out like a sore thumb. Massive northern forest and ocean die-off is only to be expected from GW and city/industrial smog SO2 content. Volcanoes happen, ditto. That's it. It's all recorded everywhere.

Next?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You made me laugh...

But it isn't very serious unless you really can't see what we are driving at. Then you need a little counseling about the vagaries and inaccuracies both of the weather and the people living in it.

How to put this? Only all-out war (or its threat) coordinates such efforts with any success. You could argue we're at war, but I'd only point out that very few people are mobilized for it. We're at peace, for what it's worth, and massive campaigns against the atmosphere would stick out like a sore thumb. Massive northern forest and ocean die-off is only to be expected from GW and city/industrial smog SO2 content. Volcanoes happen, ditto. That's it. It's all recorded.

Next?
If you want a war analogy . . . how about the Cold War . . . ongoing but just below the radar for the most part . . . who says very intelligent, well funded and capable people can not design and implement such a covert program as stratospheric injection . . . they did the Manhattan Project and SDI . . . and those are the ones they publicized . . . imagine the ones they didn't . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
And just how would they detect it Jay?
Hit the books and learn about the stratosphere, learn what is normal first, before you start speculating. Failure to establish normality is what started this hoax.
If you people had done due diligence, people wouldn't be induced to attack innocent airplanes and passengers. You and your cohorts are responsible for your baseless claims and idle speculations. When some ignoramus is persuaded by what you say and hopefully just gets arrested, causes damage or even kills someone, you and your 4000 thousand postings here and elsewhere will bear some of the responsibility. Think carefully if you want that on your conscience because every day this thing goes on we get one day closer to the eventuality. You are part of the problem, and so far none of the solution at all.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hit the books and learn about the stratosphere, learn what is normal first, before you start speculating. Failure to establish normality is what started this hoax.
If you people had done due diligence, people wouldn't be induced to attack innocent airplanes and passengers. You and your cohorts are responsible for your baseless claims and idle speculations. When some ignoramus is persuaded by what you say and hopefully just gets arrested, causes damage or even kills someone, you and your 4000 thousand postings here and elsewhere will bear some of the responsibility. Think carefully if you want that on your conscience because every day this thing goes on we get one day closer to the eventuality. You are part of the problem, and so far none of the solution at all.

By engaging in debate over controversial issues one is advocating violence and hate? . . . Hmmmmm. . . seems there are few significant things to debate that cannot be used by imbalanced people to justify an irrational action . . . it could be by allowing and encouraging open discussion about fears and misconceptions the truth can be realized by those participating . . . which is more constructive keeping the discussion in forums where few if anyone participates (who have misconceptions) or in forums where people frequent in greater numbers . . . there is a tightrope to be walked between alienation caused by dismissal of someone's position and rational debate based on mutual respect . . . if you notice I never dismissed, discouraged or limited any comment or discussion which challenged chemtrail advocate positions . . . my threads were and are open to debunkers as well as to advocates . . .

PS . . . I have hit the books more than most and see very little I have said which is not possible, plausible or logical . . . and my position is based upon historical or scientific data and information . . . I usually cite the information for all to investigate . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
By engaging in debate over controversial issues one is advocating violence and hate? . . . Hmmmmm. . . seems there are few significant things to debate that cannot be used by imbalanced people to justify an irrational action . . . it could be by allowing and encouraging open discussion about fears and misconceptions the truth can be realized by those participating . .
You aren't helping things by being a chemtrails promoter. Three new threats today bear witness. What did you do about it?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
. . . imagine the ones they didn't . . .

Yes. Just imagine. I must be imagining the totally blue sky today. It isn't really that transparent. "They" have blocked out the sun and are using NEXRAD to beam blue sky thoughts into my head. It's all an illusion.

Manhattan project isn't a great analogy is it really? That was tucked away, not global, and there wasn't nearly as much remote sensing equipment around then sampling visible and IR light from satellites, sniffing the air and checking what's in it.... It wasn't a project flying hudrends of flights in the sky deploying many many tons of material where it can be seen and or detected by air monitoring. "They" *might* be able to secretly divert enough sulfur from commercial users to spray it in the sky. They *might* be able to secretly fly that many really big aircraft (but I doubt it). They wouldn't be able to hide their product. Too many satellites and air quality monitoring stations. You put enough "stuff" in the stratosphere to affect light transparency and the satellites are going to pick up the signal. If the quantity is small enough to avoid detection then they really aren't doing anything, at least not the geoengineering that you chemtrail advocates are now latching on to. Since you are proposing that it be deployed from conventional aircraft then the stuff isn't going to be high enough to stay put for long and it is going to come down and be detected then too. I suppose "they" have bought off all the meteorologists (public and private, forecasting and research) as well as all of civil aviation (since civil avaition would notice the extra unidentified air traffic).
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes. Just imagine. I must be imagining the totally blue sky today. It isn't really that transparent. "They" have blocked out the sun and are using NEXRAD to beam blue sky thoughts into my head. It's all an illusion.

Manhattan project isn't a great analogy is it really? That was tucked away, not global, and there wasn't nearly as much remote sensing equipment around then sampling visible and IR light from satellites, sniffing the air and checking what's in it.... It wasn't a project flying hudrends of flights in the sky deploying many many tons of material where it can be seen and or detected by air monitoring. "They" *might* be able to secretly divert enough sulfur from commercial users to spray it in the sky. They *might* be able to secretly fly that many really big aircraft (but I doubt it). They wouldn't be able to hide their product. Too many satellites and air quality monitoring stations. You put enough "stuff" in the stratosphere to affect light transparency and the satellites are going to pick up the signal. If the quantity is small enough to avoid detection then they really aren't doing anything, at least not the geoengineering that you chemtrail advocates are now latching on to. Since you are proposing that it be deployed from conventional aircraft then the stuff isn't going to be high enough to stay put for long and it is going to come down and be detected then too. I suppose "they" have bought off all the meteorologists (public and private, forecasting and research) as well as all of civil aviation (since civil avaition would notice the extra unidentified air traffic).
You are ignoring history . . . In 2011 NOAA announced the increase of stratospheric aerosols in the 2000s primarily sulfur particulate which they did not have a clear explanation for . . . they speculated it might be some tropical volcanoes they had overlooked earlier along with man made sources which had been underestimated . . . Hmmmm . . . seems it is not easy to fingerprint the sulfur sources . . . volcanoes, man made . . . could that not include stratospheric injection . . .?????
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You aren't helping things by being a chemtrails promoter. Three new threats today bear witness. What did you do about it?
What did you do about it? . . .I disagree . . . I don't promote chemtrails . . . I engage in and facilitate responsible discussions primarily about preemptive geoengineering that you classify as chemtrails and I collect data via polls about people's opinions regarding the Chemtrail conspiracy theories . . . and I don't demean, threated or criticize either side of the debate . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I engage in and facilitate responsible discussions primarily about preemptive geoengineering that you classify as chemtrails and I collect data via polls about people's opinions regarding the Chemtrail conspiracy theories
Yes, George.

Feed the controversy, which only people like you are creating. Your stance matches exactly that of those attacking Evolution. Stand in what's thought to be a GAP in data or understanding, wear a sandwich board of mirrors, and spin slowly, issuing smoke.

Useful?
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I disagree . . . I don't promote chemtrails

You have promoted your belief in chemtrails since your very first post. From the start, you claimed to be a chemtrail advocate and argued in favour of a chemtrail conspiracy.


I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

Started by George B, 02-17-2012 11:04 AM

I am new to your forum . . . these are some of the reasons I believe there is an Aerosol Injection program in place and or Chemtrail Conspiracy . . .

To be fair, you made that post nine months ago, perhaps your position has changed since then.

I have actually changed my original position very little from my research in 2009 . . . I am amazed at how little the positions on this Forum have altered my opinion. . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You have promoted your belief in chemtrails since your very first post. From the start, you claimed to be a chemtrail advocate and argued in favour of a chemtrail conspiracy.



To be fair, you made that post nine months ago, perhaps your position has changed since then.
Vocabulary and communication are a difficult slope to navigate . . . it is hard to discuss the possibility of an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program or Preemptive Geoengineering without initially using a term that is recognized by all involved . . . so in my initial foray on this Forum it is a nomenclature I used . . . I have been trying to change the terminology here and on GLP but it is difficult . . . I don't accept an open discussion about the possibilities of geoengineering as fear mongering . . . that is your conclusion . . . if it is . . . sorry you feel that way . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes, George.

Feed the controversy, which only people like you are creating. Your stance matches exactly that of those attacking Evolution. Stand in what's thought to be a GAP in data or understanding, wear a sandwich board of mirrors, and spin slowly, issuing smoke.

Useful?
So this is not the Forum to openly discuss differences in position and opinion . . . ? To allow those of you who wish to debunk to debunk . . .?? It is inappropriate to point out (as you say) gaps in the scientific data . . . which you call using a smoke screen to cause controversy . . .?? Hmmmm . . . seems to me you all would welcome such a challenge . . . God forbid someone might believe the gaps might show the emperor may not have all his clothes on as well . . .

If Mick feels I am doing harm to your cause . . . he can remedy the situation very easily . . . he doesn't have to ban me . . . he just needs to tell me to leave and not return . . .

Common sense tells me if you want to change hearts and minds of people you have to reach them . . . to reach them you have to understand them and engage them in conversation that interests them and makes them reevaluate their position . . . I can offer such a portal . . . you can use it or reject it . . . it's up to you . . .
 

Fred259

New Member
You have promoted your belief in chemtrails since your very first post. From the start, you claimed to be a chemtrail advocate and argued in favour of a chemtrail conspiracy.



To be fair, you made that post nine months ago, perhaps your position has changed since then.


Wow....Trigger...I'm impressed, you mean you had him in your cross-hair all that time!
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
What did you do about it? . . .I disagree . . . I don't promote chemtrails . . . I engage in and facilitate responsible discussions primarily about preemptive geoengineering that you classify as chemtrails and I collect data via polls about people's opinions regarding the Chemtrail conspiracy theories . . . and I don't demean, threated or criticize either side of the debate . . .

I asked you what you did about the threats, George. Don't answer my question with a question. You DO promote the chemtrails conspiracy theory in every posting possible, you aren't fooling any of us by making a false claim. The fact is you've done NOTHING to bring sanity to this issue. At every turn you IGNORE the facts presented to you which show the holes in your fantasy, then you come up with the next iteration of it. You are PART OF THE PROBLEM, George, and despite your claims of innocence, you are eternally in retrograde away from a solution.

Here is a good example from this page:

GeorgeB said:
In 2011 NOAA announced the increase of stratospheric aerosols in the 2000s primarily sulfur particulate which they did not have a clear explanation for . . . they speculated it might be some tropical volcanoes they had overlooked earlier along with man made sources which had been underestimated . . . Hmmmm . . . seems it is not easy to fingerprint the sulfur sources . . . volcanoes, man made . . . could that not include stratospheric injection . . .?????
GeorgeB tries again to seed his fantasy:

"Hmmmmm.......might....could....??????"

Hmmmm.......???? indeed!

But George, that one was blown away two months ago, yet you still IGNORE the facts presented to you.

You aren't fooling with retards here, George. We can see what you are doing.
Your behavior here is exceedingly irrational and doesn't respond to fact or logic.
You dont "facilitate", you "advocate" incessantly for your own personal position despite fact and logic .


You claim:

GeorgeB said:
And there is nothing wrong with my position . . . it is not illegal, illogical, illicit or improper . .

Why not immoral?

Isn't being an "advocate" for something false which is inducing folks to issue threats to murder others an immoral act?


That leaves a void when assessing your motivation. You seem unconcerned by the threats, while at the same time only interested in fostering suspicions.
From some intimations you have made it seems to me that your agenda is driven by some vendetta against the government. You won't find satisfaction for that yearning here where the facts count more than your fantasy of suspicion. You won't persuade anyone here by suspicion, and you certainly won't amount to a roadblock towards a solution. You are just an irritating little speedbump.
Maybe that's what I should call you.
Speedbump.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I asked you what you did about the threats, George. Don't answer my question with a question. You DO promote the chemtrails conspiracy theory in every posting possible, you aren't fooling any of us by making a false claim. The fact is you've done NOTHING to bring sanity to this issue. At every turn you IGNORE the facts presented to you which show the holes in your fantasy, then you come up with the next iteration of it. You are PART OF THE PROBLEM, George, and despite your claims of innocence, you are eternally in retrograde away from a solution.

Here is a good example from this page:


GeorgeB tries again to seed his fantasy:

"Hmmmmm.......might....could....??????"

Hmmmm.......???? indeed!

But George, that one was blown away two months ago, yet you still IGNORE the facts presented to you.

You aren't fooling with retards here, George. We can see what you are doing.
Your behavior here is exceedingly irrational and doesn't respond to fact or logic.
You dont "facilitate", you "advocate" incessantly for your own personal position despite fact and logic .


You claim:



Why not immoral?

Isn't being an "advocate" for something false which is inducing folks to issue threats to murder others an immoral act?


That leaves a void when assessing your motivation. You seem unconcerned by the threats, while at the same time only interested in fostering suspicions.
From some intimations you have made it seems to me that your agenda is driven by some vendetta against the government. You won't find satisfaction for that yearning here where the facts count more than your fantasy of suspicion. You won't persuade anyone here by suspicion, and you certainly won't amount to a roadblock towards a solution. You are just an irritating little speedbump.
Maybe that's what I should call you.
Speedbump.
I have done nothing immoral . . . you are free to express your opinion . . . I believe what I believe . . . whether you think it is a speed bump or not I consider it logical, possible and even probable based on my experience and knowledge of corporate and human behavior . . . I have presented the full weight of my evidence that I know at this time and obviously no one here is persuaded . . . so be it . . . just because you aren't persuaded does not mean I have to abandon my fully informed position . . . you have presented your evidence which I fully understand and still I have no problem with my position . . .

PS . . . I don't accept your denial of the NOAA information I think you suffer from confirmation bias . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The problem with your theory George, as we've gone over several times before, is that it amounts to nothing.

You assert, on the flimsiest of evidence, that a covert geoengineering program is something that is likely to have been going on for some time.

You then theorize about how it might be done without leaving any evidence. If it's ever pointed out where your theory would leave evidence, then you change the theory.

But you are not really making the argument "geoengineering is happening", but simply "it's possible to do some kind of something without leaving evidence of that thing". A theory that is is necessarily true.

So it's irritating to people when you come into threads about specific scientific points, and you hijack them into the "well, even with this, it's possible there's a secret program going on that we can't detect, or then maybe this is evidence of that, even though it need not be". Of course people can't help themselves, and then the thread drift off, and gets mired in a procrustean quagmire where you simply lop off objections, and stretch your theory to encompass observations.

While this might be an interesting exercise for you, it's annoying and pointless for everyone else. Threads lose focus, people get irritated, the same tired ground gets stomped over yet again, and we end up in the same place - an undetectable program that does nothing.

So if this is the ONLY thing you are going to do, then I would prefer it if you stop.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The problem with your theory George, as we've gone over several times before, is that it amounts to nothing.

You assert, on the flimsiest of evidence, that a covert geoengineering program is something that is likely to have been going on for some time.

You then theorize about how it might be done without leaving any evidence. If it's ever pointed out where your theory would leave evidence, then you change the theory.

But you are not really making the argument "geoengineering is happening", but simply "it's possible to do some kind of something without leaving evidence of that thing". A theory that is is necessarily true.

So it's irritating to people when you come into threads about specific scientific points, and you hijack them into the "well, even with this, it's possible there's a secret program going on that we can't detect, or then maybe this is evidence of that, even though it need not be". Of course people can't help themselves, and then the thread drift off, and gets mired in a procrustean quagmire where you simply lop off objections, and stretch your theory to encompass observations.

While this might be an interesting exercise for you, it's annoying and pointless for everyone else. Threads lose focus, people get irritated, the same tired ground gets stomped over yet again, and we end up in the same place - an undetectable program that does nothing.

So if this is the ONLY thing you are going to do, then I would prefer it if you stop.
All you have to do is ask (I will refrain from reference to my theories). . . however, I rarely now do anything but respond directly to questions and statements directed toward me . . . if you and THEY wish to cease this invisible covert discussion please refrain from asking questions I feel obligated to answer . . .

1) Do you consider the discussion regarding my prompting Chemtrail Comspiracy and what that means as the same issue??

2) The issue of facilitating open discussion is something I presented above which has been ignored . . . I see you as a group are always complaining you aren't allowed free access and comment on Chemtrail forums and threads to get your positions presented . . . I can help there if you are interested . . .

 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Today's stratosphere is about 39,000 ft "390" over much of the US, except for the south at about 50,000 ft. "500"
 

Attachments

  • ICAO stratosphere 11-22-12.jpg
    ICAO stratosphere 11-22-12.jpg
    158.8 KB · Views: 339

Met Watch

Moderator
While all this invisible, covert discussion is going on, I'm going to settle down and eat my invisible, covert turkey that I hope is sitting in front of me.

The stratosphere is going to tend to be lower when it gets colder, hence why it's significantly lower across the north, rather than the south. Take a look at an upper-air chart for today, and you'll see the similarities between the two.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
While all this invisible, covert discussion is going on, I'm going to settle down and eat my invisible, covert turkey that I hope is sitting in front of me.

The stratosphere is going to tend to be lower when it gets colder, hence why it's significantly lower across the north, rather than the south. Take a look at an upper-air chart for today, and you'll see the similarities between the two.
Chicken or the egg? Colder temps are a reaction to the lowering of the stratosphere or colder temps compress the troposphere and lower its ceiling . . . ? Or the relationship is totally random?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
K I miss my sister. Where do I start? Escaping The Rabbit Hole 27
JKL George H. W. Bush "can't remember" where he was on Nov. 22, 1963 Quotes Debunked 11
FatPhil Given a photo of a building, where was it taken from? Tools for Investigating and Debunking 1
banditsat12oclock Where did UFO reports go between 1969 and 2007? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
Mick West Nanothermite on 9/11 - Where did the idea come from? 9/11 32
Rory Where online is debunking most effective? Practical Debunking 14
Mick West Where are you on the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale? Practical Debunking 28
SFX Where to ask questions about posting? Site Feedback & News 5
Trailspotter Where did the third trail go? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Where and How could the Wallace Experiment Easily Be Repeated? Flat Earth 252
R Occasions where you don't engage a misconception CT? Practical Debunking 18
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Whitebeard Magic Hills Where Cars Roll "Uphill" Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Converting mb (pressure) to altitude, and sites where this is useful Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Where are the AE911 models? 9/11 79
Mick West Debunkers, Skeptics and Conspiracists: Where are you on the political compass? General Discussion 252
Tazmanian Where did the explosions come from? Boston Marathon Bombings 46
George B Contrails in the Stratosphere Contrails and Chemtrails 49
Mick West RT Promoting Flat Earth? Flat Earth 31
deirdre PSA: Mick West discusses Flat Earth on Joe Rogan (JRE) show today Flat Earth 8
steve holmes Why only one contrail today? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Mick West Why Were There Contrails Today, But Not Yesterday? It's the Weather! Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Critical Thinker Psychology Today article: 'Reasoned Sense would be better than Common Sense' Practical Debunking 0
Critical Thinker Article in Psychology Today: The Art of Positive Skepticism Practical Debunking 0
PowerSlug Russia Today..... Trustworthy? General Discussion 118
AluminumTheory Conspiracists and Skeptics: (in your opinion) What is Wrong with the World Today? General Discussion 4
Neil Pennington No planes today Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Related Articles





























Related Articles

Top