Contrails/Chemtrails ... is it all just confusion....

I Have decided to create this post as i see more and more stuff about chemtrials and there really appears to be a 50/50 slip on what people believe.

I have just finished watching the Weather show on the BBC news channel, and I was surprised to say the least when they explained chemtrails/contrails and the effects they have on weather and cold formation.

I'm no weather expert nor am I a scientist, but that said i will attempt to explain it as it was explained on the news, i will bullet point it (this is to help me more than anything else.)

- Contrails are a newish phenomena, they started to be seen during world war 2 when development of jet engines was forced to advance.

- The average temp of the air the plane sits in is -47 degrees

- When water and dust leaves the plane engine it instantly freezes with the dirt becoming what is called the contrail nuclei (this is why it does not just form ice)

- These dirt and ice particle then dissipate in the air spreading over the sky

- This can stay in the sky for a number of hours and serious clouds form

---------- NOW ALL CHEMTRAIL BELIEVERS SHOULD LOVE THIS--------------------

- BBC then stated that more and more scientists have concerns of the effects contrails have on both the weather and the environment.

- BBC stated that this was "put to the test" during the 3 days after 9/11 when flights across the U.S had been grounded. They advised they saw a couple of degrees temp rise during this time (but didn't state on the show by how much) .... (makes you wonder how much the temp would rise if left a month or a year)

The show then moved onto a different topic which was also good --Solar Flares-

Now as i have always said (if you have seen any of my posts...there are not many) i have never 100% bought into the the Chem-trail theory... so why make a post about it? The answer to that is simple... I really noticed how what the BBC said included both info from what the Chemtrail believers say but also what debunkers say... it was bang in the middle....

So ill end by saying.... Chemtrails.... is it simply a case of info being twisted misread and lost in translation????

Originally posted by TheOdogg
So ill end by saying.... Chemtrails.... is it simply a case of info being twisted misread and lost in translation????

No, its not just a misunderstanding. Its clearing a line of thinking that "the government" wants to poison the population in some vague undefined way, using some vague undefined chemical that nobody can agree on, and they use aerial spraying to achieve that goal.
The way you tell whether a trail is a contrail or a chemtrail is to ask a conspiracy theorist. But no more than one.
No kidding. They cant actually agree on the details. But they're real, I swear!!

Seriously though, here's some more detail on the temperature effect thing you mentioned...
The change in the temperature difference was plus 1.1 degree Celsius
Link

As we know, will water steam (contrails) create clouds. And the cloud coverage has an impact on the grounds temperature. It's a very simple logic and natural. In sept 12. 2001 it was a lot warmer then normal in NewYork because of the flying ban.

www.pbs.org...

reply to post by alfa1


The investigation didn't find an increase in temperature - it found an increase in the RANGE of temperature from night to day - ie the difference betwen daytime and night time temperatures increased.

Trouble is teh amount of the increase was insignificant - and "extra" 1.8 deg C was within hte normal range expected at that location and time of year.

so ther's been a series of studies done resulting in the effect being atributed to "natural" variations.

Eg www.agu.org... attributes most of it to low clouods - which are thicker, warmer and closer to the ground so have a much higher effect on ground temperatures.

Both arguments are summarised at www.celsias.com... - including the original researcher's response.

I'm surprised no-one has come out & done a similar study of the effect of groundings over Europe as a result of the Icelandic volcano erruption. A few more studies of similar phenomena would give us better conclusions than just 1 - indeed I suspect the parameters of such a study could probably be defined in advance ready to be done as soon as somethign similar manifested.