California Getting Slammed With Chemtrails

When was the last time clouds were seeded?

I see no clouds for a hundred miles... I am in California. The satellite shows NO CLOUDS. The mouse is waving over the ocean pointing to nonexistent things.

I'm an Air Force trained weather forecaster, and I think you're creating an issue where none exists. I would say that indeed, one of us is lacking knowledge.

Chemtrails are now acknowledged.

which brings me to the only available assumption.

you are a shill, or you are in deep deep denial dat crazy bok.

.

now, do as she says, and go away. my family was all af.... so don't use that.

Whether or not chemtrails have been acknowledged has no bearing on whether or not the government is using chemtrails to control the minds of citizens, or to control tornadoes, hurricanes, etc...

When confronted with a different viewpoint, simply tell the person to go away. That's clever. I can see you're really interested in furthering conversation. Lol.

Well, to start with, you can forecast contrails. And wingtip vortices, in some cases. They can be explained, scientifically. You can predict when and where they will occur, and even how long they will last, generally speaking. We know what causes them.

And it's funny you should mention it. I'm currently in school. It's for an accounting degree, though. I tried doing the meteorology thing, but the job prospects are extremely limited. I have, however, written papers on the formation of severe storms, specifically in Oklahoma, and cloud seeding.

when your condescending to someone who is EXPERIENCING the results of a chemtrailed environment and you call them unknowledgeable... yes, expect to be asked to leave.

I'm not being condescending to anyone. I thought questioning someone's knowledge was par for the course, given that the seeder, in the post, above began the entire questioning of someone's knowledge.

When someone thinks they are EXPERIENCING the results of a chemtrailed environment. That's speculation.

Now, with that being said, care to address the topic? Care to offer any information, or your opinion, or anything? Or would you rather continue the banter?

first, i've laid out the info here at newvine along with many others including Nearing, check out here column and search it. I'm all done doing homework for others. (after awhile it gets old) the discussion has moved along and the naysayers who simply come in and out of hand poo poo it, slow down the PROGRESS.

so, you get my point... catch up... I'm not slowing down anymore.

and while i'm at it ... experiencing something most certainly is NOT speculation!

*ponders the age of one dat crazy bok*

Sheesh. Post an article,someone disputes it,and you ridicule and name-call. In 3.3,you even seem to state that you are learning. Who is how old and in what grade? First must learn respect Danielson. Simply stay out of the chemtrails.

'stay out of the chemtrails'??????????

your ignored for pure ignorance.

...or respiratory allergies to normal outdoor stuff.

What exactly is ridiculous, pointing out the actual definition of whistle blower and the lack of any on this topic?

That response is as lacking as the conspiracy. This theory began on the Internets in 1996 and has gotten close to nowhere in 15 years. That is ridiculous. Don't you think something credible would have surfaced in that time? The alternative is - if it were true and you guys had all this time to expose it yet have not, then the only thing to explain that is sheer incompetence. Have any of the promoters of this conspiracy gone mysteriously missing? No... because nobody cares what happened to X-files devotees once the series ended.

you use a false logic.

because 'no one' exposed' creditable information... the existence of frequency technology is null.

right.

and what exactly is credible... an intelligent person witness HAARP personally, understands the technology, but is not 'accredited' as an expert... means?

what.

please try harder.

you paid hourly?

Salaried consulting engineer. That all you got?

That's because that is where the FAA is routing the aircraft.

That's because that is where the FAA is routing the aircraft.

Of course, so the government craft can do testing but also release some chemicals that supposedly (condition the air). This is what she was told by the military, what this chemical is, is a mystery.

LOL, when flying in civilian airspace, the FAA is always involved. I simply presented a fact to you, maybe you can explain what this conditioning agent is?

On FAA involement: Again, it's wholly implausible and unnecessary. The governemnet has giant volumes of (already) restricted airspace at their disposal.

Yes, the military needs to inform the controllers of any air activity so they can clear the airspace. I'm not here to change your mind, you seem to be the one who is challenging the information I've presented, for what purpose, I'm not sure?

Gozo, you're breathing in stuff that's 4 miles over your head? How do you do that?

Obviously Gozo what is making you sick is at ground level. PLENTY of stuff there to accomplish that. Like all that pesticide sprayed on the ground. Just a thought.

I 'manually restored' them. You get an email from newsvinehelp when a comment is deleted which quotes the comment. So I just went into my email and made some copy pasta and served it back onto this seed.

This Gozo character is out of control with the deletions. Agent Moulder would be ashamed.

Nice, I'll have to give that a go.

No chemspray over my head since my complaint ....

Persistant high pressure system with very dry conditions...

What caused the weakening of Irene was an inflow of dry air on the backside of the storm. That's pretty easily verified. If you're going to make such claims, you should at least make it match some sort of scientific reasoning. When you brutally slander the fundamentals of meteorology, you look even sillier with your conspiracy theories.

Try this, maybe... "The US government used HAARP to create a dry spot in the ENE area of Irene, which weakened the storm." or "the hurricane hunters are actually chemspray planes that release chemicals into hruricanes."

Then, you'd still be wrong, but wouldn't look QUITE as silly.

Yes...specifically, that clearly you don't. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

That's okay. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in miracles. I have my 10-month old son, that's about as close as I'll come, and I'm content with that.

However, the trough in the jet stream only served to steer the storm, and keep it parked firmly on the east coast. There was a pretty powerful Atlantic high pressure system. Between the high and the jet stream (where your trough was) the storm simply took a perfect line up the coast.

As to your claim that the trough injected dry air, a trough is a rain maker. Any trough that has established itself all the way up through the jet stream will be significant enough to cause rainfall. Not dry air, as you claim. This is easily verified.

Now, the dry air did originate in the western side of the storm. However, this is pretty common, especially for storms that ride the east coast. The logistics of it is quite simple, actually. If you were just off the east coast, on your west would be land. This land is drier than the ocean around it. Dry air inflow. No need for any trough steering or anything else. Just looking at a picture should be enough to explain to any competent adult.

Traditionally, when the air turns back from the west side to the east, it goes through the warmer southern waters and rehydrates. This did not occur in this case, because the storm had progressed so far north that there wasn't sufficient warm water off the eastern seaboard to cause anymore lift, and the dry air influx had already become prominent. Once this dry patch had wrapped from the west side, where we agree it began, to the east side, north of the eye, the storm began to weaken. There wasn't sufficient fuel, at that point, to maintain a hurricane.

Regardless, a trough IS fuel. A trough feeds hurricanes, in the lower levels of the atmosphere. The jet stream trough simply steered the storm, and it's pretty much set up where it always is this time of year, which, again, is easily verifiable.

That's alright. I expected that from someone of your caliber. I've been forecasting for a dozen years and studying weather even longer. I don't really need your validation, considering all the knowledge you've shown here. Besides, as I mentioned, this is all pretty easily verified. Pull up a constant pressure chart from Saturday night. Look up a trough, as it pertains to weather, and tell me what you find. Look up how low the pressure got in the hurricane, then try to tell me that the trough "punched Irene in the kisser".

Or, enjoy your ignorance. It doesn't really affect me, either way.

Could I have sources, from where you researched your information, so that I could perhaps understand a little better?

Wait... let me be sure I get this straight... YOU are YOUR OWN source?

With all due respect, I think I will just trust my USAF training, and dozen years of forecasting experience. Seems to offer a little more credence.

No proof required, or attempted. I'm just a random dude on newsvine. Why would you count me as proof? That's just about dumb. However, NOAA and NASA and the Weather Channel and accuweather, and NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox News... they're a little more than random dudes on newsvine, and they've all proven it already. I was just trying to offer information so you didn't look so vastly unintelligent regarding a topic you were discussing.

I would say I have failed.