Building dams for power generation, flood control, and irrigation is "geoengineering." Arguably also freeway construction. Do you want those outlawed also?
And sometimes it has unexpected consequences. We have retention dams upstream of a local river, for the purpose of absorbing sudden heavy flows and releasing them later at a lower rate (damping the system). There have been occasions, however, where the heavy flows were successive and filled the dams, so that the dams had to release water at a rate that indeed caused some flooding. It was either that, or the dams would overflow and possibly collapse.
The point being that "geoengineering" entails these projects, and they are commonly accepted on the basis of experience that they are helpful and necessary. I don't see any difference with cloud-seeding, as the available data indicates they augment natural rainfall by about only 24%
We've had contrails in the sky for half a century. All I have to do is look up. No big deal. They are like blowing out a foggy breath on a cold winter day. Contrails mess with nothing. Again: where is the evidence?
Not at all. It depends on the relative humidity and temperature of the air at altitude. If the relative (not absolute) humidity is low and the temperature is above freezing, the contrail is short-lived. If the relative humidity is high and the temperature is below freezing, the contrail is long-lived, maybe even indefinite. Such a contrail is only ice crystals, no different from the persistent clouds at that altitude. Since a contrail is only a cloud, there is no reason for it to behave any differently than a cloud.
I'm afraid you have picked up a bit of conspiracist mythology that has no foundation in any text on atmospheric physics. I've seen high-altitude contrails go clear across a blue sky, since the mid 1950s.
There were fewer persistent contrails then, because the airliners flew at a lower altitude than they do not. The changeover happened with the introduction of newer airliners in the 1980s that flew about 10,000 feet higher.
I saw persistent contrails in the mid-1950s from B-52 bombers on test flights out of Seattle. They flew at 50,000 feet, higher even than today's airliners. A long, long set of contrails that went clear across the clear blue sky. No hindrance to sunlight.
Not long ago we would get banned for mentioning chemtrails. The chemtrails ive been watching since 2010. That always pissed me off beyond belief on here.
The government already has control of what is in the skies but apparently it was not extensive enough. This should stop most geo-engineering via drones and planes.
Good for her.
It's about damn time these covert geoengineering programs are outlawed.
Building dams for power generation, flood control, and irrigation is "geoengineering." Arguably also freeway construction. Do you want those outlawed also?
Funny you mention "flood control"
And sometimes it has unexpected consequences. We have retention dams upstream of a local river, for the purpose of absorbing sudden heavy flows and releasing them later at a lower rate (damping the system). There have been occasions, however, where the heavy flows were successive and filled the dams, so that the dams had to release water at a rate that indeed caused some flooding. It was either that, or the dams would overflow and possibly collapse.
The point being that "geoengineering" entails these projects, and they are commonly accepted on the basis of experience that they are helpful and necessary. I don't see any difference with cloud-seeding, as the available data indicates they augment natural rainfall by about only 24%
So you say, but where is the evidence?
It's in the sky. Here in MO, all I have to do is look up.
We've had contrails in the sky for half a century. All I have to do is look up. No big deal. They are like blowing out a foggy breath on a cold winter day. Contrails mess with nothing. Again: where is the evidence?
Contrails dissipate. A contrail "lives" a short time.
Not at all. It depends on the relative humidity and temperature of the air at altitude. If the relative (not absolute) humidity is low and the temperature is above freezing, the contrail is short-lived. If the relative humidity is high and the temperature is below freezing, the contrail is long-lived, maybe even indefinite. Such a contrail is only ice crystals, no different from the persistent clouds at that altitude. Since a contrail is only a cloud, there is no reason for it to behave any differently than a cloud.
I'm afraid you have picked up a bit of conspiracist mythology that has no foundation in any text on atmospheric physics. I've seen high-altitude contrails go clear across a blue sky, since the mid 1950s.
Well we will agree to disagree. I'm 62 and I remember things too all the best, 😁👍🇺🇲
There were fewer persistent contrails then, because the airliners flew at a lower altitude than they do not. The changeover happened with the introduction of newer airliners in the 1980s that flew about 10,000 feet higher.
I saw persistent contrails in the mid-1950s from B-52 bombers on test flights out of Seattle. They flew at 50,000 feet, higher even than today's airliners. A long, long set of contrails that went clear across the clear blue sky. No hindrance to sunlight.
Do you disagree about the atmospheric physics?
Let’s see who supports this bill.
Certainly not Vampires and Ghouls. They hate the sun.
Gotta say, it's been really nice for thr last 10 days or so in north Georgia. Haven't seen any spraying at all.
Same here. But then I stayed up late outside. They started spraying at midnight in the dark.
When the air is cold (or colder), contrails are more likely to form.
Not long ago we would get banned for mentioning chemtrails. The chemtrails ive been watching since 2010. That always pissed me off beyond belief on here.
Calling a contrail a "chemtrail" is about as rational as calling a shadow an evil spirit.
Your hilarious.
What you are watching is as innocuous as a cloud. Because it IS a cloud. No need to be pissed off at a natural phenomenon.
IF this comes to a vote, it would be interesting to see who would vote against this bill.
She is absolutely crushing it lately
By doing what? Introducing bills? You realize it's not difficult to introduce bills, right?
It's actually getting them passed and made into laws that's the tricky part.
Maybe keep score on how many of her bills actually make it to a law before proclaiming that she's doing anything grand.
The problem with this is that it will protect droughts and harm farming families, for no proven harm from any identified actions.
It certainly will not touch the production of contrails.
https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1945235019565281734
The government already has control of what is in the skies but apparently it was not extensive enough. This should stop most geo-engineering via drones and planes.