|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 16, 2006 21:35:38 GMT -5
Hey et Arcadia, my head is groggy after trying to sift through engine searches, plugging in various words I came across, ideas, etc.. It does seem that the big party is over the North Atlantic.
Everything is leading me to believe without doubt that what we have been experiencing all these years has been uv-b radiation mitigation. The Geoengineering to offset global warming would be done apparently up in the stratosphere. There is tons of reading material on this ozone hole aspect, yet disinfo has been trying to push the chemmie's buttons all these years with the global warming conundrum, that is, if chemtrails are to "cool the planet", then why is it getting warmer.
The global warming angle has been a rabbit hole in a way, keeping us sidetracked from searching more logical explanations.
CFC's got banned in 1987 by the Montreal Protocols.
Scientists are saying the worst is over for ozone depletion.
Ozone remediation makes perfect sense for having been the
modus operandi all these years.
With those strange acronyms I mentioned earlier,
I think those are the supercomputer company
programs calculating all the fancy physics in real time.
Ozone remediation is what we are seeing imho.
|
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 16, 2006 21:40:06 GMT -5
I have also located proof that I am either disinfo or was somehow psychic in choosing my forum name.  Socrates 2-D Model |
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 16, 2006 23:16:09 GMT -5
www.enn.com/today.html?id=11856&ref=rssScientist Says New Data Backs Sulphur Climate Plan December 15, 2006 — By Ari Rabinovitch, Reuters TEL AVIV -- Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect. Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August. The Dutch meteorologist showed what he calls the positive cooling effect of adding a layer of sulphates to the atmosphere at a global warming conference at the Porter School for Environmental Studies in Tel Aviv. He said new, detailed calculations carried out since August showed the project would indeed lower global temperatures. "Our calculations using the best models available have shown that injecting 1 million tonnes of sulphur a year would cool down the climate so the greenhouse effect is wiped out," Crutzen told Reuters.An added layer of sulphates in the stratosphere, some 10 miles (16 km) above the earth, would reflect sunlight into space and reduce solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, Crutzen said. He said he envisioned giant cannons or balloons dispersing the sulphur to offset the build-up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, largely released by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles. The world has struggled for decades to reduce sulphur pollution, a component of acid rain that kills forests and fish, mainly through tighter controls on burning coal. "We are now entering a very intensive period of model calculations and following that we will conduct small experiments to test the sulphur oxidation mechanisms that we calculated," Crutzen said. NO LONGER TABOO Crutzen said he planned to publish the new findings in a few months' time in one of the major scientific journals. The idea of using sulphur to combat global warming -- which most scientists say will bring more floods, desertification, heatwaves and rising sea levels -- is not new. Scientists noticed that large volcanic eruptions had similar effects and the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines lowered temperatures around the world for two years. For decades the theory was dismissed as dangerous until Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research on ozone, published his paper. "Until August this was a taboo issue. But the paper I published really set off some movement in this area. It never hit the level of seriousness which it has taken in the past months. It may have had to do with the Nobel Prize, but I hope that's not all," Crutzen said. Some critics say the project is too risky and will have negative effects on the earth's water supply and increase acid rain. Crutzen said it was necessary to study the negative consequences, but he did not expect a rise in acid rain because the amount of sulphur injected would be a small percentage of the sulphates polluting the lower atmosphere today. Some environmental groups, wary of geo-engineering projects, say the idea should at least be looked at. "The fact that the top experts in the field are saying it's necessary shows it's a sad state of affairs," said Steve Sawyer, a policy adviser for Greenpeace International. "This idea should be examined and as a last resort it can buy us a few decades," Sawyer said. Source: Reuters
|
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 17, 2006 0:34:40 GMT -5
I'm talking about what one does in relation to a politician who has begun to ask questions in parliament on the subject. It would seem that what has to be done is to provide support for such a person. So why aren't you already doing this, then? And if support is an issue, why haven't you already translated and disseminated the information as it would seem to be important to do so, yet you haven't? Two of my collaborators have spoken to her on the telephone and told me about the content of their conversation. I haven't yet translated and disseminated the information because I have to prioritise what I do, and there is the factor that what she has said is not very sophisticated or well-informed and if I put it up may well become a discussion-opener and butt for sarcastic comments by JohnnySpray and/or other debunkers. If there were an international network on our side that was actively oriented to intervening in such real-world situations the way that the debunkers have done in the past this might outweigh the hesitations I feel for the reasons outlined above. In other words if I thought that some of you guys might be interested in contacting this woman and putting her straight I might talk more about her. So far the only network, with the exception of isolated individuals elsewhere, that I feel to be supporting what I do and try to do, is in Greece. Certainly when I see Socrates' notions that we should use such events involving parliamentarians to strengthen our hand in arguing on-line with debunkers I see a methodological disagreement that is a disincentive to my being more dynamic in publicising the words and actions of this Greek parliamentarian. It is we who have to provide the leadership. We can't trail along behind such politicians. We have to give them support and strengthen them, not take our agenda from them. Okey dokey...To support or not to support. Which is it, man? I'm amazed at how many words it takes you to say as little as possible. You're a kinda persistent contrail yourself, aren't you? And who might you be in favor of nominating among our little society for this 'Leadership' role you suggest? Lemme guess . . . . We can all nominate ourselves as leaders as much as we like. Who turns out to be leader is not something either you or I dictate. |
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 17, 2006 1:28:38 GMT -5
How wonderously mercurial of you, halva..Or is it silver? I'm wondering which of those two metals would bind to a tongue better?
|
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 17, 2006 2:06:24 GMT -5
Thank you for this confirmation.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Dec 17, 2006 2:47:10 GMT -5
Mech, I think "mercurial" is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 17, 2006 13:35:57 GMT -5
BB, I think you meant Arcadia, not Mech.
posted by Halva:
"Certainly when I see Socrates' notions that we should use such events involving parliamentarians to strengthen our hand in arguing on-line with debunkers I see a methodological disagreement that is a disincentive to my being more dynamic in publicising the words and actions of this Greek parliamentarian."
You are the one who is so adamant in going after "debunkers". Any thoughts on whether the chemtrails we are witnessing have to do with ozone loss mitigation, or are you too stuck in your geoengineering global warming mode to see any other possibilities?
All I was trying to say was that any credible news sources reporting on parliamentarians anywhere bringing up this subject would be something chemtrail forums might want to advertise, this would be something worth sending to politicians and media types. Why is it so difficult to find the info on Kucinich and "chemtrails"? It's not because the bill he proposed didn't have mention of it. It's because disinfo agents are all over this internet obfuscating, misinforming, pushing people into dead end corners, basically being mercurial.
From The American Heritage Dictionary:
mercurial: (adj.) "Having the characteristics of eloquence, shrewdness, swiftness, and thievishness attributed to the Roman god Mercury in Roman mythology"
|
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 17, 2006 22:16:23 GMT -5
BB, I think you meant Arcadia, not Mech. posted by Halva: "Certainly when I see Socrates' notions that we should use such events involving parliamentarians to strengthen our hand in arguing on-line with debunkers I see a methodological disagreement that is a disincentive to my being more dynamic in publicising the words and actions of this Greek parliamentarian." Socrates all that I am doing at DBS is refusing to be driven away from a forum to which Johnnyspray had stalked me and set himself the task, along with a pack of hangers-on, of driving me away. While doing this I have been simultanously working off-line at tasks far more important. I am pleased to see that the monitoring and commenting from the safe distance of Gastronamus on the goings-on at DBS has dwindled to virtually nothing, so that Johnnyspray has been reduced to making totally baseless claims of being the driving force behind discussion here. In fact apart from in this posting, in which I cannot adequately respond to you without mentioning him, NOBODY is saying anything about him or the other hanger-on debunkers. That is great progress and something that encourages me and gives me energy. Well, I've changed my mind about translating the relevant news coverage. I have no evidence that it would lead to any useful input from abroad in our liaising with this Greek politician. I have no objection to your crusade against trolls if it is effective and if you lay off targeting me as a troll, but you seem to have been making other mistakes also. |
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Dec 17, 2006 22:25:07 GMT -5
Thank you Socrates. My humblest apologies Arcadia. My observation remains however.
|
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 17, 2006 23:41:07 GMT -5
Halva, why won't you answer this question?
Any thoughts on whether the chemtrails we are witnessing have to do with ozone loss mitigation, or are you too stuck in your geoengineering global warming mode to see any other possibilities?
|
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Dec 17, 2006 23:53:43 GMT -5
Halva, why won't you answer this question? Any thoughts on whether the chemtrails we are witnessing have to do with ozone loss mitigation, or are you too stuck in your geoengineering global warming mode to see any other possibilities? I'm not going to answer for halva, but in my opinion they are related. Both caused by human intervention and acceleration. At this point, these two, Global Warming Cooling and UV-B blocking are my choices. Nuclear Testing www.his.com/~sepp/key%20issues/ozone/depcause.html |
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 18, 2006 2:59:00 GMT -5
Socrates, my only answer to this is to refer you to the recent post I made at DBS www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=708864&postcount=7934I don't have detailed knowledge on this subject. I have read Rosalie Bertell's "Planet Earth, the Latest Weapon of War", which has a lot of information on the damage done by nuclear testing and other vandalistic "military"-related projects. But it is not my ambition to be a fount of scientific knowledge, for which I do not have the appropriate training or mind. I want to be an effective political activist and to be able to make use of the scientific expertise of my colleagues and comrades without having to engage in political battles with them. Big Bunny, for example, is a person I would value as a scientific consultant, if he could be content with such a role in relation to me. But he wants to be my political advisor, a task for which he is no more suited than I am suited to give him lectures on science. |
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 18, 2006 9:30:51 GMT -5
Just what I thought. He won't answer the question. He'll go on and on about how Chem11 and Deborah fudge things, but then he admits he has no scientific knowledge himself. He never answers any questions in a straight forward manner. He just comes back with his delusions.
I am out of this website.
On the chemtrail subliminals thread, Increase1776 dropped a pile of shit on me and Swamp asked me to apologize, not him. Screw this. Carry on with the confusion while sibncere people like me, Arcadia, and Big Bunny just don't post too much or leave.
HEY ARCADIA, BIG BUNNY, YOU ARE 100% CORRECT ABOUT WAYNE HALL AND HIS DISINFORMATION.
HALVA, THE ONLY BAD MISTAKE I HAVE MADE WAS TO EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
BUT ATLEAST IT IS ALL OUT THERE THAT YOU ARE A FRAUD, AN APPENDAGE TO REYNOLDS.
I AM OUT OF THIS WEBSITE. F YOU HALVA AND INCREASE. f all you frauds.
I hope those energy company checks are serving you well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Dec 18, 2006 11:01:15 GMT -5
Socrates, I also said to Increase that name calling must stop. Just take a deep breath and think about it. I agree with you and Lou on disinformation and what the spraying is actually about, Global Warming, and other issues, more than most.
Where I differ is I let people say what they want, and I counter by examples, not by name calling, and least most of the time. So what if halva says what he does, or Mech thinks humans have nothing to do with Global Warming, or mmmmbarium thought aliens were involved, or Increase doesn't put as much as others in Aerosols. The only thing I will not tolerate is cursing and bickering. Disagreement is OK, but constant hammering is not good for the ideas being put forth. I have told everyone involved through PMs to cool it.
Are you going to exit one of the better Aerosol sites on the web? Don't forget, Gastronamus is not just Aerosols, but a myriad of other subjects. In that respect, we are more wider scoped than even Megasprayer.
So if I were you, I wouldn't cut off my nose to spite my face.
|
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Dec 18, 2006 12:37:07 GMT -5
Socrates, back up and take a breather, man. Can't speak for halva, but increase is in my Good Guy list 110%. Not sure what friction stands between the two of you, but if you think I'm ok, then he's ok.
Cheers,
D
|
|
|
|
Post by increase 1776 on Dec 18, 2006 12:47:24 GMT -5
Socrates when I post a url on a topic it doesn't mean I think the whole thing is spot on.I'll post it for you or anyone else, to see if it may help answer questions,or cause more questions.Which are both okay.If you had a problem with me defending someone that I mistakenly had taken to be an old school mate of mine from the 60's,talk to me about it,not a mediator.Turns out ,PAK isn't the girl I went to school with in Philly in 1968-1969,just happens to live inthe same town in Illinois.It looks to me like you got a resentment going,by not talking to me directly,and when I posted the url,you were ready to jump my shit.All this cause I defended a friend,or what I thought was a friend,from what looked to me was getting bullied by another poster.You would have done the same thing, if put in that situation. I'll post more latter.My government check never came this month and I'm in the process of loosing my home to the bankers,thus I'm meeting with someone for some advice.I''ll be back this afternoon to finish. Oh yeah,et and myself didn't exactly get off to a good start at CTC.That has come full circle since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Dec 18, 2006 13:30:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 24, 2006 11:42:12 GMT -5
OK, so lately I have been saying I am leaning towards uv-b radiation intervention as the primary rationale behind chemtrails. What got me in this direction was how geoengineering global warming doesn't make sense with the net warming effects of aircraft emissions, the fact that the spraying is too low, and with how people say they have seen spraying done at night. Spraying at night would warm us up by trapping in the day's heat. I engine searched all I could, but the science was too dense for me or perhaps I was just being too dense. ;D But then along comes Chem11 who found exactly what I was looking for. From Contrails and the Dark Side: posted by Chem11: Brühl and Crutzen (1989) indicated the disproportionate role that tropospheric ozone plays in UV-B absorption; more scattering events in the lower atmosphere due to greater molecular and aerosol scattering effectively lengthen the ozone path length in the troposphere, thus making a given quantity of ozone in the troposphere more effective in attenuating UV-B than an equal amount of ozone in the stratosphere. sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ozone/rtm/uvsens.htmlYeah, but... The average O3 budget is reduced by 8% in winter and 6% in summer. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH), the sulfate aerosol loading is significantly smaller than in the Northern Hemisphere. As a result, sulfate aerosol has little impact on NOx and O3 budgets of the Southern Hemisphere.www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2001JD001508.shtmlAnyone that tells you sulfate seeding isn't relevant from a macroengineering standpoint because it's tropospheric is full of crap. You might get a 5% reduction in UV-B exposure under heavy white-out conditions when they exist, but you're destroying 5-8% of your ozone budget..... all day, every day... with sulfate loading. The one smart thing this planet has done collectively, intelligently and quickly was the Aerosol Ban once it was discovered that we were destroying the ozone layer. Ready for the kicker? "A time-dependent numerical experiment will be designed covering the past 20 years of satellite aerosols measurements and the next 50 years, with the purpose of investigating the effects on the ozone recovery rate of potentially increasing sulfate aerosols in the troposphere and lower-stratosphere. Future trends of aircraft emissions are also included." gacp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/report/giovanni_pitari.htmlThere's that magic number again. 50 years of get-out-of jail-free for the Stakeholders while the government 'studies' the destruction of the atmosphere. Think we'll actually get that report in 2050? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looks like you got it wrong again, Jimbo! Sulfur content 'has been increasing'! - J. Reynolds Obviously there is now an opening for us rank and file both to defend the environmental benefits of air pollution... what about some comment on whether the "air pollution is good" line is utilisable, perhaps in rallies - Wayne Hall |
|
