Explanation of Chem Trails

"According to estimates by the Council on Foreign Relations, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."[7]"

www.cfr.org...


"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, he concludes."

en.wikipedia.org...(geoengineering)

reply to post by __rich__


I can't find the quote snippet in the CFR article you sourced.

The Wiki link seems incomplete.

About "sulphur" suspended in the atmosphere...what are your thoughts regarding the HUGE amounts of sulphur, and other particulates, that were recently spewed by the volcano in Iceland?

Certainly that event produced a heckuva lot more material than humans would be able to loft, using airplanes alone?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weedwhacker....you rock. Thank you so much for this. I really wasn't aware of the temperatures being that different. This is really, really good information. It does make me think that this phenomena is not so anomalous. I still think it's strange because I saw the aircraft up there...and it wasn't a procedure that is normal...but I really understand better now just how much of a difference the temps are. I see how a contrail could remain up there for quite a while.

And to firepilot's credit, it could have been a military exercise. There were only 4 planes that laid this grid down, and I suppose if the weather conditions where right, this could remain up there for a long time. I have only seen this maybe once or twice since, and I could see how it might just been something out of Nellis that they don't talk about or confirm.

I just know that the military is very calculative. My father described how they would create fake cloud cover, and I know you guys have heard this all before, but he wouldn't just make that up. He hates my conspiracy thought processes, and wouldn't tell me something he knows I would just run away with in thought.

We actually happened to be talking about Area 51 and his secretive stuff one night. He wouldn't tell me anything except that his whole time he never encountered anything that could be described as extraterrestrial. He did say however that even with my imaginative brain, I would never be able to comprehend what we were capable of. Basically he said we are so far advanced, he could understand why people would think it's alien. That's how it's supposed to be. Then somehow we got onto this subject, and he mentioned when he knew about the process of fake cloud cover.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by __rich__

 

I can't find the quote snippet in the CFR article you sourced.

The Wiki link seems incomplete.

About "sulphur" suspended in the atmosphere...what are your thoughts regarding the HUGE amounts of sulphur, and other particulates, that were recently spewed by the volcano in Iceland?

Certainly that event produced a heckuva lot more material than humans would be able to loft, using airplanes alone?

It's a "premium article", meaning you have to pay to read the whole thing, here:

www.foreignaffairs.com...

But the title pretty much says it all:

The Geoengineering Option
A Last resort Against Global Warming?

"By David G. Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke


Summary: Global warming is accelerating, and although engineering the climate strikes most people as a bad idea, it is time to take it seriously.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by __rich__]

reply to post by __rich__


Whoa.

The Chinese have been doing this for years, no?

reply to post by __rich__


Ahhh..."premium".

Actually, I was going to highlight this bit, but you did it for me...so I'll repeat it for comment:

Summary: Global warming is accelerating, and although engineering the climate strikes most people as a bad idea, it is time to take it seriously.

Pretty clear, there....it is STILL in teh discussion stages.

It is in the "WTF should we do?" stage....not, "We are doing it NOW" stage. Eh???

reply to post by __rich__

No.

It does not "say it all". Not by a long shot.
The correct quote for the Summary:

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.

Sulfur dioxide injection is one of various proposed geoengineering strategies. None of them with enough research to indicate that they would be effective or "safe" to use. The CFR does not advocate the use of geoengineering. On the contrary, it encourages responsible research and and multilateral effort to prevent the premature unilateral use of any such measures. The stance of the CFR is continually taken out of context and distorted by chemtrailers

Despite years of speculation and vague talk, peer-reviewed research on geoengineering is remarkably scarce. Nearly the entire community of geoengineering scientists could fit comfortably in a single university seminar room, and the entire scientific literature on the subject could be read during the course of a transatlantic flight. Geoengineering continues to be considered a fringe topic.

The highly uncertain but possibly disastrous side effects of geoengineering interventions are difficult to compare to the dangers of unchecked global climate change. Chances are that if countries begin deploying geoengineering systems, it will be because calamitous climate change is near at hand. Yet the assignment of blame after a geoengineering disaster would be very different from the current debates over who is responsible for climate change, which is the result of centuries of accumulated emissions from activities across the world. By contrast, the side effects of geoengineering projects could be readily pinned on the geoengineers themselves. That is one reason why nations must begin building useful international norms to govern geoengineering in order to assess its dangers and decide when to act in the event of an impending climatic disaster.

The article is right here:
iis-db.stanford.edu...

[edit on 7/26/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by akrasia


No prob...here to keep the record straight.

Here's another good source for you, to explore and see the types of established high-altitude routes that exist, especially over LAS:

www.skyvector.com...

I can't seem to link directly to the page I want, on that site.

SO...I'll walk you through it --- open the website, and you will see the Los Angeles area VFR aviation sectional chart (I've noticed that sometimes, depending on your computer, the site might know your area, and center you in your ISP home town...not sure how it does that...)

Anyway, if it's not showing LAS, then look upper left corner, type in KLAS, click 'Go'. ("KLAS" is the ICAO code for McCarren Airport). NOW you will see the VFR sectional for the Vegas area.

Along the top are some tabs, to select other charts --- click on "Enroute H-4". The 'H' is for the High-altitude IFR charts, the ones jets use enroute.

All of those black lines, with numbers in boxes, are the Jet Airways...the defined routes between VORs, intersections and waypoints. (The blue ones are a fairly new depiction, for airplanes using GPS exclusively, when equipped and qualified...it's part of the upgrade for the future...called "Free Flight"...to help reduce delays and congestion problems).

Notice how the Jet routes angle, compared to each other.

The LAS VOR, due to its location, is very heavily traveled by many flights, on many different city-pair departure/destinations. You see it is part of several Airways.


Also, remember the "winds aloft" forecast?? Every contrail, once formed, will "drift"...) along with the prevailing winds, for as long as it lasts. Just like the clouds do.

ALSO, keep in mind, that airliners are NOT required to always follow the Airways exactly. For example, if I'm flying a trip from LAX to JFK, the flight plan is often going to be along J-9/100/146, passing right over the LAS VOR. (Multiple numbers merely mean two or more Jet Airways co-exist between two points for a short while, before diverging later).

But, farther down the way, there are bends in the route....(because, as noted, Airways are "point-to-point, a holdover from years ago...hence, the new "Free flight" concept beiing developed...). Farther to the northeast, along a typical routing to JFK from LAX, is another VOR...named "Bryce Canyon" (BCE). It's in Utah. (Look on chart "H-3").

Air traffic control (ATC) may, on request, or on their own...for traffic conflict reasons, etc...clear flights "direct" down the route, to other points further in their flight plan...to "straighten out" the routing, move them out of others' way, etc. (We really like the direct clearances...it gives the impression we're getting a "short-cut"...but the time savings are minimal, actually...still, fewer turns, more comfortable for passengers....)

Oh, and....I think you were shown the link to flightaware.com... already. On that site you can look up every flight that's in the FAA ATC computer system, with IFR flight plans, and see the actual filed routing info.

Let's take a look at a typical LAX-JFK flight selected at random, from today: flightaware.com...

I grabbed that one, for no particular reason.

In the box with the info, is the flight plan routing. This is it:

LOOP4 DAG J100 LAS BCE J60 IOW OBK J584 CRL J554 JHW J70 LVZ LENDY5

I bolded 'LAS' there, for you....that plan was the "Loop Four" (LOOP4) departure (SID) from LAX. To the DAG VOR, Jet 100 to LAS, then direct BCE (all VORs are a three-letter code), Jet 60 to IOW, etc, etc.

It's quite common to request a 'direct' to IOW (Iowa City) as we near our cruise altitude...and that direct routing, depending on whne/if it is granted, might mean we pass ABEAM the VOR at Vegas...not directly overhead.

SO...long-winded way to describe WHY contrails can seem to be so varied. Routings, changes in routings, and winds....just a few to consider. As you see, it's complicated, at times.

Anyone interested in aviation might enjoy to learn a bit, from this info posted.


















[edit on 26 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Incidently, the thing with sulphate aerosols - as proposed to combat global warming - is that like other aerosols such as dust and pollen we can't see them from the ground (other than possibly as a haze on the horizon).

If any geoengineering to spray sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere were happening then we wouldn't see a thing.

And if you don't believe me, just try and find one single photograph of the huge cloud of sulphate aerosols produced by Mount Pinatubo that spread around the world and led to a global cooling for a couple of years back in the 1980s (it was this event which led to the idea of deliberately spraying such aerosols into the stratosphere).

I think the problem is that the argument for chemtrails is nothing but disinformation because of the "they're poisoning us" claims. This is a straw man argument that is easy to knock down for obvious reasons.

MY TAKE on the trails is that they may indeed be "persistent contrails", however, I do not believe they are due to normal air traffic. I personally believe that these trails are being laid in the sky in order to fight against global warming. That is why they are hiding it from us. If they admit that is what these trails are, then people WILL panic because they will realize that if the governments of the world are taking these steps to combat global warming, then there is no doubt global warming (or rather climate change) is happening.

This is all conjecture on my part. I do not believe we are being poisoned. I don't believe they are to hide the alien ships ready to invade. I do not believe they are trying to alter our DNA.

I do know that it bothers me when I see a clear blue sky go from beautiful and crystal clear to having a complete whitish-grey blanket of "persistent contrails" covering it up. I believe what they are doing is seeding clouds. That is why some planes make the "persistent contrails" and others don't on the same day, at the same time, at the (seemingly) same altitude.

I realize that some of you completely disagree with me and I don't care. But me thinking this hurts no one. It hasn't made me crazy or believe the world is coming to an end. I'm not stocking up on guns and food. I live a completely normal 9-5 life and I don't go on and on about the trails on a frequent basis. I mostly just look up at the sky and sigh, then move on to living out my meager existence.

Originally posted by akrasia
Well, the I am not sure what the upper temperature was that day, but I know it was taken in summer, around August. The outside temp was well above 100 degrees. Not sure why contrail would hang up there for so long if it wasn't cold enough up there.

In Las Vegas...we do not have flight paths with the airport that fly directly over the middle of the city. Departing flights generally make a left or right turn from leaving the runway and actually avoid most of the inner city...but they actually do fly over parts of Summerlin and North Las Vegas. There should be no reason why aircraft flew directly over the center of the city like this...and so many times to leave the criss cross pattern.

It could be a military exercise...but again...over the center of the city? I dunno....

Check out the maps of Las Vegas...specifically where the base and airport is located. Check out McCarran's flight patterns - they suggest there should be no reason for this much activity above the center of the city.

Better to check out the aviation maps for Las Vegas. They show the LAS VORTAC right in the city, That radio range defines route segments for many airways, like V105, V251, V538, V394, as well as numerous Jet Routes, including highly travelled Jet Route 9. Look at www.runwayfinder.com...
As for the temperature, Vegas is reporting 98 Deg F on the ground and -51 deg C at 39,000 feet. That's -61 F.

Originally posted by nunya13
I think the problem is that the argument for chemtrails is nothing but disinformation because of the "they're poisoning us" claims. This is a straw man argument that is easy to knock down for obvious reasons.

MY

As a forensic chemist, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the poisonous nature of the stuff of which normal contrails are made.
-In 2009 6,500 people in the US died from accidental inhalation of the stuff.
-People die almost every year from over-ingestion of the stuff.
-100% of people who get AIDS have a history of use of the stuff.
- Every illegal alien uses it regularly, as does every single child molester.
Yup, who needs aluminum oxides or barium salts when we have dihydrogen monoxide around. Good old H2O.

There should be no reason why aircraft flew directly over the center of the city like this

Why not? If the airport is in the city, and the LAS navigational aid/waypoint is there, then why wouldnt overflying aircraft that have LAS in their flightplan as an enroute waypoint, end up flying over the airfield at high altitude.

I do know that it bothers me when I see a clear blue sky go from beautiful and crystal clear to having a complete whitish-grey blanket of "persistent contrails" covering it up. I believe what they are doing is seeding clouds. That is why some planes make the "persistent contrails" and others don't on the same day, at the same time, at the (seemingly) same altitude.

Cloud seeding is about precipitation enhancement, not cirrus. We had a long thread just a few days ago, regarding cloud seeding. A few people actually learned from it, but others would just stick their fingers in the ear and go "la la la I cant hear you"

You are using a cause and effect relationship, when often its not that. Cirrus occurs naturally, and when conditions for natural cirrus are present, the same thing is going to help contrails become more persistent too.

Originally posted by firepilot

I do know that it bothers me when I see a clear blue sky go from beautiful and crystal clear to having a complete whitish-grey blanket of "persistent contrails" covering it up. I believe what they are doing is seeding clouds. That is why some planes make the "persistent contrails" and others don't on the same day, at the same time, at the (seemingly) same altitude.

Cloud seeding is about precipitation enhancement, not cirrus. We had a long thread just a few days ago, regarding cloud seeding. A few people actually learned from it, but others would just stick their fingers in the ear and go "la la la I cant hear you"

You are using a cause and effect relationship, when often its not that. Cirrus occurs naturally, and when conditions for natural cirrus are present, the same thing is going to help contrails become more persistent too.

firepilot, maybe I can help with a little science although possibly not.
Cloud seeding is done with, guess what, clouds. You don't seed blue sky. The silver iodide is dossolved in acetone and sprayed in the form of tiny particles. These particles provide a condensation nucleus to which water vapor already there in the cloud attaches. So it would be sheer idiocy to seed blue sky. - no water vapor.It would also be pretty stupid to seed above about 35,000 feet above sea level. To get rain, you need clouds. To get clouds you need water vapor. Cold air doesn't have, in normal situations, mych water vapor at all. Saturated (100% humidity) air at 86 deg. F can hold about 50 grams/cubic meter of water vapor. At 0 deg F, it can hold about 2. See, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... It immediately condenses and flash freezes. That's why cirrus clouds are ice crystals and not water vapor.
It would be really dumb to try to seed cirrus clouds for another reason. Cirrus are generally predictive of cold fronts, which bring, you guessed it, rain. So why spend $$$/ounce silver to try to cause something that's going to happen anyway?
And I love it when people say, "It wasn't like this 20 years ago and I know what I saw.' I have been investigating aircraft accidents professionally since my USAF days. And without fail, 50% of witnesses to a crash that had a post-impact fire will swear that the aircraft was on fire before the crash. It can be disproved by other forensic evidence like charring and soot. But they will continue to claim, "No, it was on fire."

I am quite familiar with cloud seeding and the science involved, since I have flown to date 9 cloud seeding projects. I was just trying to keep it pretty simple, I unfortunately find that I have to dumb down my explanations quite far to explain meteorology, aviation and cloud seeding to conspiracy theorists and chemtrailers.

I could have tried to explain the nature of cloud seeding, usage of silver iodide, cumulus, supercooled water, but that much at one time is usually going to go over their heads unfortunately.

It can unfortunately take pages and pages just to get across to them, i mean to attempt to, that the large numbers of aircraft aloft can result in many on crossing paths, but also many on the same routing too.

The military and commercial aircraft have gone to using synthetic fuel mixes. I believe the "chem-trails" are a by product of the synthetic fuels.

reply to post by Jetman44


BALONEY!

Which "chemtrail" website is spreading this nonsense??

NOT in wide spread use...not even approved yet, for commercial civil aviation.

Still in testing phase.

Airbus welcomes the latest steps towards the approval by ASTM International, one of the largest voluntary standards developing organizations in the world, for the use of a 50 per cent synthetic jet fuel in commercial aviation. Synthetic liquid jet fuels can be made from biomass, natural gas or coal. All of these are known as xTL fuels.

“This breakthrough paves the way for a 100 per cent xTL blend made entirely from bio feedstock, such as woodchip waste”, said Christian Dumas, Airbus Vice President Sustainable Development and Eco-Efficiency. “This new specification is a major step towards reducing aviation’s environmental footprint and represents a significant achievement along the Airbus alternative fuels roadmap,” he added.

The Airbus Alternative Fuels roadmap estimates that some 30 per cent jet fuel used in 2030...

Aviation News.eu article.

AS OF sometime in 2008 the USAF has certification for the use of synthetic in the C-17, and B-52....

Testing of the blend of synthetic and conventional JP8 in the CFM56 follows certification of the fuel in the Boeing C-17 airlifter and its Pratt & Whitney PW2000 engines (the same as on Boeing 757s) in December and in the P&W TF33-powered Boeing B-52 bomber in August 2007.

BUT, not all Boeing 757s are fitted with the P&W. Some use the R/R RB211-535.

The US Air Force has started ground testing of the CFM56 engine with synthetic jet fuel made with the Fischer Tropsch process, further establishing the fuel’s future role in military and civil aviation.

The CFM56, besides being the engine used on the KC-135 re-engine modification, is the engine used in one of the most prolific commercial airliners, the Boeing 737. (Models -300 and upwards).

The CFM56 is one of the most widely used engines in the world, powering the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families as well as the Airbus A340.

Not ALL the A320s, though....some operators buy the IAE V2500 instead.

The Air Force hopes to meet half of its energy needs by 2016 with fuels made using the Fischer Tropsch process, which converts coal, natural gas and other carbon-based feedstocks into petroleum substitutes.

Flight Global.com article.


SO...up gist here (is that a phrase??) is: The "chemtrail" fear mongers hope that using the word "synthetic" will dutifully scare the Bee-jesus out of the ill-informed.

In fact, one can research just how "synthetic" these actually are.

Not a heckuva lot different from using ethanol-based products, as an alternative to normal petrol (gasoline) in automobiles...well, big difference in formula, but little difference in source....BIOLOGY!







[edit on 4 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

I have lived something that only happens by sheer dumb luck.
A friend invited me to his place so we went hitch hicking for 300 miles.

There they had an observatory on the top of the college.So we are looking at the full moon and it's my turn to look at the lens and while im watching my friend is looking at the sky and say "hey, there's a plane that's about to pass right by".

1,2,3...then wooooossh, it passed right through the moon's ring of light and i could,ve seen that brownish smoke all over and my eyes were full of this sight.

taking a step back from the lens i went "wooahh" and there i saw my pal staring at the floor, dissapointed that this did not happened on his watch.

Now i know for a fact that contrails are made of condensed water vaper expelled from engines but man...this was something else...it was so thick it almost dimmed the moonlight.
I feel priviledged to have seen this

you people are aware that in that chaff video he mentions aluminum. and you are aware that aluminum is a toxic element right

im sure you all are.

im not a chemtrail believer by any means. but i am not too keen on the government dropping even more heavy metals into the environment, for whatever the purpose