The linked article states "While air traffic controllers normally ignore air traffic above 10,000 feet..." That is so far from the truth that I
stopped reading right there.
YMMV.
The Geoengineering Option
A Last Resort Against Global Warming?
By David G. Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke
From Foreign Affairs , March/April 2009
Summary: As climate change accelerates, policymakers may have to consider "geoengineering" as an emergency strategy
to cool the planet. Engineering the climate strikes most as a bad idea, but it is time to start taking it seriously.
The odds that the global climate will reach a dangerous tipping point are increasing. Over the course of the twenty-first
century, key ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, could shift radically, and thawing permafrost could release huge
amounts of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Such scenarios, although still remote, would dramatically
accelerate and compound the consequences of global warming. Scientists are taking these doomsday scenarios seriously because the steady accumulation of warming gases in the atmosphere is forcing change in the climate system at rates so rapid that the outcomes are extremely difficult to predict.
The world's slow progress in cutting carbon dioxide emissions and the looming danger that the climate could take a
sudden turn for the worse require policymakers to take a closer look at emergency strategies for curbing the effects of global warming. These strategies, often called "geoengineering," envision deploying systems on a planetary scale, such as
launching reflective particles into the atmosphere or positioning sunshades to cool the earth. These strategies could cool
the planet, but they would not stop the buildup of carbon dioxide or lessen all its harmful impacts. For this reason,
geoengineering has been widely shunned by those committed to reducing emissions.
Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of high-flying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry). Because of the relative horizontal stability of the stratosphere compared to the troposphere, the residence time of injected particles is approximately 1-2 years.3 As a result, such a scheme would require only annual or biannual replenishment.
Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by habu71
When you are at a campfire or a controlled burn, or at an incinorator and you see the material being burned, does is dissapate into the atmasphere or does it expand so much that it covers much of the sky directly above?

Originally posted by Hazelnut
They dissipate in a minute or less. Whatever you want to call the "trails" that remain for hours, spread out and co-mingle with other "trails" which eventually block out the sky are very real. never mind that the planes themselves are unmarked and fly at extremely high altitudes and make no sound whatsoever.
Depending on atmospheric conditions, contrails may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for many hours
The "trails" shine unnaturally, almost like an oil spill in the sky at sunset.
No matter what anyone (authority or novice) says about them, some people will insist that those "trails" are normal. They are not. The Chemtrails are exactly that. Chemical trails left in the sky by planes following an abnormal flight path. They are coordinated and executed with exacting precision.
Also, normal aircraft make sounds. The ones that leave the lingering trails make NO sound.
Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Originally posted by Hazelnut
They dissipate in a minute or less. Whatever you want to call the "trails" that remain for hours, spread out and co-mingle with other "trails" which eventually block out the sky are very real. never mind that the planes themselves are unmarked and fly at extremely high altitudes and make no sound whatsoever.
Ok, explain the scientific method by which the atmosphere cant sustain contrails for longer than a few minutes. I can explain why they (contrails) do persist.....its part of my job
Ok, explain it then since its part of your job. I'd really like to know.
Depending on atmospheric conditions, contrails may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for many hours
Which atmospheric conditions exactly? The wind was blowing in excess of 40mph on Saturday, the skies full of clouds and above them were the usual Chemtrails being laid by two identical white, unmarked planes flying in opposite directions - toward each other.
The "trails" shine unnaturally, almost like an oil spill in the sky at sunset.
The colours are most probably iridescence, when the sunlight is refracted and diffracted by water droplets or ice crystals, causing rainbow like effects
www.atoptics.co.uk...
Then why don't we see them during the heat of the day? Only at sunset.
No matter what anyone (authority or novice) says about them, some people will insist that those "trails" are normal. They are not. The Chemtrails are exactly that. Chemical trails left in the sky by planes following an abnormal flight path. They are coordinated and executed with exacting precision.
Simply stating this without evidence doesnt show you have a strong argument. Perhaps you should do some research into basic meteorology before coming to a conclusion based on assumption
My eyes are my evidence. What is yours? You sound like you know what you are talking about so convince me.
Also, normal aircraft make sounds. The ones that leave the lingering trails make NO sound.
Thats probably because the planes are flying in excess of 23-24 thousand feet, which coincidently is the approximate crusing altitude and contrail development heights.