Thread: What are chemtrails for?

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Passing Through

The claimed observations made by Borey were of a particular few (20) military planes

Wrong. It wasn't a complicted bit of writing but here we go:

I estimate that there had to be at least a few hundred flights each day over my area...of all the hundreds of aircraft overflying my area, all chemtrails were being spewed by the same two groups totalling about 20 aircraft

He's tracking hundreds of planes a day. Allegedly. Credulous old fools like you might believe that but those of us blessed with a brain will not. Now back to your lobelia, old man.

which are a recent (1990s < to date) phenomenon.

Indeed. The lizard men faked all the photos of WW2 bombers leaving contrails.

Are you slow on the uptake, chappy?
In other words, digging past your obfuscation, he noted that;
" all chemtrails were being spewed by the same two groups totalling about 20 aircraft"

Then you go on about "lizard men" faking WW2 pics of bombers leaving con-trails.

Interesting that you'd bring that point up, as WW2 bombers didn't emit con-trails, as they were all turbo-props, not jets.

But since you did bring up that point, let's have a look at it here;

Even ww1 biplanes can leave contrails under the right conditions...humidity and temperature during early winter mornings...

I have heard the best protection against them, and the reason there are so few in Thailand, is the gt200...
... I think pseudo may have a few if anyone is interested

The only grainy shots I ever saw of WW1 bi-plane contrails were of non-persistent single plumed smoke and water condensation trails.

Interesting point you make, "under the right conditions", ie.of "humidity and temperature during early winter mornings"........ plus low pressure air systems at higher altitudes.

Generally speaking, contrails form at high altitudes of 27,000 ft or more, within a low pressure system with a relatively high humidity level of 47% or more.

So what explains persistent con-trails formed at lower(thus warmer) altitudes than 27,000 ft, on a clear (higher barometric pressure) day with low humidity?

The main difference between contrails formed pre 1990s and those formed more recently is in their now their extreme lengths and extreme persistence after formation, taking hours to spread and drift, slowly dissipating, but not disappearing altogether, as con-trails normally did pre-1990s.

What's causing that phenomenon?

More fuel exhausted as vapour? More water exhausted? If so why and where from in an atmosphere of low humidity?
More efficient jet engines emit more water vapour, one reason for more contrails observed at high altitudes, only if the humidity is above at least 30%.
Not in high, dry air


Even stranger, is when an aircraft suddenly stops emitting a con-trail in mid flight at around 30,000 ft, or if the con-trail erupts in short bursts only after leaving long, persistent contrails earlier in its flight.

Those particular truncated contrails look odd, they're observable, plane passing through patches of 'thick' and 'thin' air?
That's one explanation.

Having said all that, spraying chemicals out through jet engines is not a viability, so any chemical spraying would have to be via ports in the wing or tail of the plane, the spray then being caught up in the air turbulence created by the jet's movement through the atmosphere.

Some of the suspected chemicals thus sprayed out would combine with unburnt fuel and hot water vapour exhausted by the jet engines, into a cold upper atmosphere and precipitate a condensate trail along its flight path the suspected chemical trails persisting and not precipitating downwards, but rather spreading across at a certain atmospheric level, as water vapour or smoke does, the denser particles precipitating faster.

Aerosols (the suspected chemicals sprayed) can persist in the atmosphere for years, depending on their particle size.

• The Day They Made It Rain

RAF rainmakers 'caused 1952 flood.
Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster

On August 15, 1952, one of the worst flash floods ever to have occurred in Britain swept through the Devon village of Lynmouth. Thirty five people died as a torrent of 90m tons of water and thousands of tons of rock poured off saturated Exmoor and into the village destroying homes, bridges, shops and hotels.

The disaster was officially termed "the hand of God" but new evidence from previously classified government files suggests that a team of international scientists working with the RAF was experimenting with artificial rainmaking in southern Britain in the same week and could possibly be implicated.

Squadron Leader Len Otley, who was working on what was known as Operation Cumulus, has told the BBC that they jokingly referred to the rainmaking exercise as Operation Witch Doctor.

His navigator, Group Captain John Hart, remembers the success of these early experiments: "We flew straight through the top of the cloud, poured dry ice down into the cloud. We flew down to see if any rain came out of the cloud. And it did about 30 minutes later, and we all cheered."

The meteorological office has in the past denied there were any rainmaking experiments conducted before 1955, but a BBC Radio 4 history investigation, to be broadcast tonight, has unearthed documents recently released at the public record office showing that they were going on from 1949 to 1955. RAF logbooks and personnel corroborate the evidence.

Until now, the Ministry of Defence has categorically denied knowledge of any cloud-seeding experiments taking place in the UK during early August 1952. But documents suggest that Operation Cumulus was going on between August 4 and August 15 1952. The scientists were based at Cranfield school of aeronautics and worked in collaboration with the RAF and the MoD's meteorological research flight based at Farnborough. The chemicals were provided by ICI in Billingham.

Met office reports from these dates describe flights undertaken to collect data on cumulus cloud temperature, water content, icing rate, vertical motions and turbulence, and water droplet and ice crystal formation. There is no mention of cloud seeding.

But a 50-year-old radio broadcast unearthed by Radio 4 describes an aeronautical engineer and glider pilot, Alan Yates, working with Operation Cumulus at the time and flying over Bedfordshire, spraying quantities of salt. He was elated when the scientists told him this had led to a heavy downpour 50 miles away over Staines, in Middlesex.

"I was told that the rain had been the heaviest for several years - and all out of a sky which looked summery ... there was no disguising the fact that the seedsman had said he'd make it rain, and he did. Toasts were drunk to meteorology and it was not until the BBC news bulletin [about Lynmouth] was read later on, that a stony silence fell on the company," said Mr Yates at the time.

Operation Cumulus was put on hold indefinitely after the tragedy.

Declassified minutes from an air ministry meeting, held in the war office on November 3, 1953, show why the military were interested in increasing rain and snow by artificial means. The list of possible uses included "bogging down enemy movement", "incrementing the water flow in rivers and streams to hinder or stop enemy crossings", and clearing fog from airfields.

The documents also talk of rainmaking having a potential "to explode an atomic weapon in a seeded storm system or cloud. This would produce a far wider area of radioactive contamination than in a normal atomic explosion".

UK weather modification experiments at the time presaged current practice in the US.

The idea was to target "super cool" clouds, and to increase the volume of freezing water vapour particles. Most methods involved firing particles of salt, dry ice, or silver iodide, into clouds, either from an aeroplane or from burners on the ground.

The clouds would then precipitate, pulled down below freezing point by the extra weight of dense particles, thus making it rain sooner and heavier than it might have done. Significantly, it was claimed that silver iodide could cause a downpour up to 300 miles away.

Many countries now use the technology, which has considerably improved during the past 50 years.

But controversy still surrounds the efficacy of these early cloud-seeding experiments. In 1955 questions were asked in the Commons about the possibilites of liability and compensation claims. Documents seen by the BBC suggest that both the air ministry and the Treasury became very anxious and were aware that rainmaking could cause damage, not just to military targets and personnel, but also to civilians.

The British Geological Survey has recently examined soil sediments in the district of Lynmouth to see if any silver or iodide residues remain. The testing has been limited due to restrictions in place because of foot and mouth disease, and it is inconclusive. However, silver residue has been discovered in the catchment waters of the river Lyn. The BGS will investigate further over the next 18 months.

Survivors of the Lynmouth flood called for - but never got - a full investigation into the causes of the disaster. Rumours persist to this day of planes circling before the inundation.


RAF rainmakers 'caused 1952 flood' | UK news | The Guardian

Everyone knows about cloud seeding FFS, it's no big conspiracy.

That's right.

It has, and amazingly none of us have perished from this rainfall

oh my god the cars are at it too

Originally Posted by hazz

oh my god the cars are at it too

Don't laugh. It's becoming increasingly well known that the government is forcing the fuel companies to put mind altering chemical additives in motor fuel that are emitted through the exhaust system. This is a much more efficient method of dispersal than high altitude spraying where the chemicals are too widely dispersed and diluted and spread too far from the target populations by wind.

I saw the Columbia contrail in 2003 as it was crashing. or was that a chemtrail? Neither? I'm pretty sure what a contrail looks like. But could you post a picture of a chemtrail?

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by Cujo

Originally Posted by hazz

oh my god the cars are at it too

Don't laugh. It's becoming increasingly well known that the government is forcing the fuel companies to put mind altering chemical additives in motor fuel that are emitted through the exhaust system. This is a much more efficient method of dispersal than high altitude spraying where the chemicals are too widely dispersed and diluted and spread too far from the target populations by wind.

dont laugh... but one of the things our geniuses is TD CSI have missed is the real chemtrail story. lead in petrol and violent crime. but then I guess its because the government conspiring to take an element that alters minds out of the environment does not fit their post truth reality.

They've been lowering lead levels from petrol for year.

Of course the real answer is to fuck off the combustion engine, and with electric cars on the rise that may someday happen.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They've been lowering lead levels from petrol for year.

Not just lowering. There is no lead in gasoline now for a long time. It had to be eliminated because it kills not only people, but the catalytic converter too. Need to protect the cat.

Lead hasnt been added to petrol for decades.

HHO

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They've been lowering lead levels from petrol for year.

Not just lowering. There is no lead in gasoline now for a long time. It had to be eliminated because it kills not only people, but the catalytic converter too. Need to protect the cat.

There's almost no lead in petrol now.

Third world don't you know.

this is all true, but the correlated reduction in violent crime takes place some 20 years or so after the lead is removed from car chemtrails.... obviously on of those evil government conspiracies to make the general population calm and compliant. I am amazed that TD CSI missed this one... but I guess they could nto find any youtube vid's about it.
.

Originally Posted by hazz

this is all true, but the correlated reduction in violent crime takes place some 20 years or so after the lead is removed from car chemtrails.... obviously on of those evil government conspiracies to make the general population calm and compliant. I am amazed that TD CSI missed this one... but I guess they could nto find any youtube vid's about it.
.

Guessing by the number of Trumpeteers, I'm guessing there are still a lot of places in the US slipping it in.

There's no lead in My pencil

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by hazz

this is all true, but the correlated reduction in violent crime takes place some 20 years or so after the lead is removed from car chemtrails.... obviously on of those evil government conspiracies to make the general population calm and compliant. I am amazed that TD CSI missed this one... but I guess they could nto find any youtube vid's about it.
.

Guessing by the number of Trumpeteers, I'm guessing there are still a lot of places in the US slipping it in.

think about it, look at the constituency.... most of the teabuggerers, the dumpf supporters infact the hard right.... most were the last generation to get lots of lead from car chemtrails during their childhood... when lead does its damage to the brain.

you ever know when they die off maybe america will become normalish

Having fun, babies?

we are. unfortunately it would take more than a headline to explain why.... so you will never understand

Those persistent broad feathery contrails, ....

Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2013)


Proposed.....to inject sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.
The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in solar radiation management climate engineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,[3] hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons has been proposed.[5] It presently appears that this proposed method could counter most climatic changes, take effect rapidly, have very low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects.

If found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, the study concludes.

It has been suggested that the direct delivery of precursors could be achieved using sulfide gases such as dimethyl sulfide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide, or hydrogen sulfide (H2S).[5] These compounds would be delivered ..... aircraft (such as the high-flying F-15C)[4] or balloons, and result in the formation of compounds with the sulfate anion SO42−.[5]
According to estimates, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."[8]

Arguments for the technique
The arguments in favour of this approach in comparison to other possible means of solar radiation management are:
Mimics a natural process:[9] Stratospheric sulfur aerosols are created by existing natural processes (especially volcanoes), whose impacts have been studied via observations.[10] This contrasts with other, more speculative solar radiation management techniques which do not have natural analogs (e.g., space sunshade).
Technological feasibility: In contrast to other proposed solar radiation management techniques, such as marine cloud brightening and space sunshades, much of the required technology is pre-existing: chemical manufacturing, artillery shells, high-altitude aircraft, weather balloons, etc.[5]


Cost: The low-tech nature of this approach has led commentators to suggest it would cost less than many other interventions. Costs cannot be derived in a wholly objective fashion, as pricing can only be roughly estimated at an early stage. However, many sources suggest that it would be cheap relative to cutting emissions.[11][12][13]

According to Paul Crutzen, the annual cost of enough stratospheric sulfur injections to counteract effects of doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 to 560 ppm would be $25–50 billion a year.[2] This is over 100 times cheaper than preventing the temperature change caused by this additional 280 ppm CO2 via reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[14]


Efficacy: Most proposed solar radiation management techniques can only provide a limited intervention in the climate—one cannot reduce the temperature by more than a certain amount with each technique. New research by Lenton and Vaughan suggests that this technique may have a high radiative 'forcing potential'.[15]


Efficacy Issues
It is uncertain how effective any solar radiation management technique would be, due to the difficulties modelling their impacts and the complex nature of the global climate system. Certain efficacy issues are specific to stratospheric aerosols.
Lifespan of aerosols: Tropospheric sulfur aerosols are short lived.[16] Delivery of particles into the lower stratosphere in the arctic will typically ensure that they remain aloft only for a few weeks or months, as air in this region is predominantly descending.[17] To ensure endurance, higher-altitude delivery is needed, ensuring a typical endurance of several years by enabling injection into the rising leg of the Brewer-Dobson circulation above the tropical tropopause. Further, sizing of particles is crucial to their endurance.[18]


Aerosol delivery: There are two proposals for how to create a stratospheric sulfate aerosol cloud, either through release of a precursor gas (SO2) or the direct release of sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and these face different challenges.[19] If SO2 gas is released it will oxidise to form H2SO4 and then condense to form droplets far from the injection site.[20]

Releasing SO2 would not allow control over the size of the particles that are formed but would not require a sophisticated release mechanism. Simulations suggest that as the SO2 release rate is increased there would be diminishing returns on the cooling effect, as larger particles would be formed which have a shorter lifetime and are less effective scatterers of light.[21]

If H2SO4 is released directly then the aerosol particles would form very quickly and in principle the particle size could be controlled although the engineering requirements for this are uncertain. As direct H2SO4 release would allow control over the particle size it could be possible to avoid some of the inefficiencies associated with SO2 release.[19]


Possible side effects
Climate engineering and solar radiation management in general are controversial, and pose various problems and risks. However, certain problems are specific to, or more pronounced with this particular technique.[22]
Ozone depletion: is a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols;[23][24] and these concerns have been supported by modelling.[25] However, this may only occur if high enough quantities of aerosols drift to, or are deposited in, Polar stratospheric clouds before the levels of CFCs and other ozone destroying gases fall naturally to safe levels because stratospheric aerosols, together with the ozone destroying gases, are responsible for ozone depletion.[26]


Whitening of the sky: Stratospheric aerosols have the potential to whiten the sky and cause more colorful sunsets, dependent on the amount being sprayed.[27]
Tropopause warming: and the humidification of the stratosphere.[24]
Stratospheric temperature change: Aerosols can also absorb some radiation from the Sun, the Earth and the surrounding atmosphere. This changes the surrounding air temperature and could potentially impact on the stratospheric circulation, which in turn may impact the surface circulation.[28]


Delivery methods
Various techniques have been proposed for delivering the aerosol precursor gases (H2S and SO2).[2] The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of the tropopause, which varies from 11 km (6.8 miles/36,000 feet) at the poles to 17 km (11 miles/58,000 feet) at the equator.

Airliners could use lower-quality sulfur-rich fuels on higher altitudes. That approach would utilize regular flights and enable airlines to use cheaper fuels on long-distance flights. It would require separate fuel tanks for takeoff and landing in populated areas, due to toxicity and olfactory sensations of sulfur oxides.

Civilian aircraft including the Boeing 747-400 and Gulfstream G550/650, C-37A could be modified at relatively low cost to deliver sufficient amounts of required material.[29]

Military aircraft such as the F15-C variant of the F-15 Eagle have the necessary flight ceiling, but limited payload. Military tanker aircraft such as the KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender also have the necessary ceiling and have greater payload capacity.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...e_side_effects