Originally posted by Uncinus
The biggest problem with the theory is that if it were true, they you would expect global dimming to increase. In fact global dimming has steadily
been decreasing since 1993 (Mt Pinatubo eruption). Or really since the 1970s if you factor out volcanos. This has been mostly due to the clean air
acts in most developed nations.
Levels of black carbon (soot) and sulphate aerosol in the Arctic have also decreased steadily in the last 20 years:
While it is true that global dimming has decreased, this is due largely to a reduction in industrial emissions, and anyone who has lived in say the
60's and 70's will know that there has been a marked decrease in not only industrial air pollution but also water pollution etc.
So if you were to factor out volcanos, industrial emissisions and anything else for that matter that may induce dimming and you were left only with
airline emissions, not only would you still have global dimming, although by a very small degree, but you would actually see an increase due to an
increase in air traffic.
Airline emissions as you may know do not come under quite the same environmental scrutiny as that of industrial emissions, which brings us back to
high content sulphur fuel and the shifting of blending stocks.
EU's airline emission goals under scrutiny "When the European Commission unveiled plans to slash transport CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050 last week,
many assumed the figure would apply to road, rail and air travel in the same way. But EurActiv has learned that the cut for aviation is only 34%, a
target both environmentalists and industry sources say is unrealistic."
"Sandro Santamato, head of the alternative fuel policy unit at the Commission's transport department, told EurActiv that "CO2 emissions from
aviation will not decrease by 60% but by only 34% between 2005 and 2050". Other transport sectors will be measured against a 1990 baseline but in
the 15 years to 2005, air emissions soared by some 81%. So the 2050 figure should be more easily achieved for airlines."
So, taking into account that in the years from 1990 to 2005 there was an 81% increase in air emissions, (which begs the question of how much of a
measurable percentage of that 81% occured after the mid 90's?) then there must have been a noticeable increase in persistent contrail formation,
which as you claim Billions of the general public did not notice, while those in the chemtrail community did.
How the tens of thousands of scientists and meteorologists saw no change I have no idea, if indeed the figures are correct.
Could one of the reasons that the chemtrail community noticed persistent contrails in the first place be due to many of them also being ufo believers
and therefore spend a lot of time checking the daytime sky?
I myself had read about chemtrails back in about 1999/2000 and kept my eye out for them, but as I did not notice anything odd at the time, apart from
the odd sliver of the remnants of a contrail, I concluded that what was going on could only be happening in the USA and not happening here in the
As it happens I live under a main UK to US atlantic flight path in the countryside, so the planes are already at cruising altitude by the time they
reach my area, so if the conditions are right I should see trails.
It was not until around september 2002 while driving home just before dusk that in the distance, in the direction that I was traveling I noticed a
huge X in the sky, it was not until I was almost under it that I realised that it was hanging above the local military firing range and practice
I thought at the time that due to the build up with war with Iraq, that maybe it had something to do with the military, and it was only after that the
trails became almost constant, so for a while I assumed that there must be a military defence explanation like bouncing radar signals over the horizon
As I mentioned the trails had been almost constant up until the iceland volcano when the skies cleared up during the period the planes were grounded,
and even now they are not as frequent as they were, so does this mean that there is less air traffic than there was before the volcano, or has the
fuel changed in some way that the trails are now rarely visible where I am, with the exception of the 4th of May when the trails were particulary
heavy as a frontal weather system was on the way, although for a couple of days before that I noticed a lot of plane activity above but were not
forming persistent contrails.
Now the plane activity appears to have tailed off again except for the Atlantic flight path of course, but even when I look to see if there are any
trails now there are none, the sky is absolutely clear, almost of planes too except the odd plane heading towards the smaller airports, which is very
different to all the planes coming from all directions like they did on May 4th and the couple of days previous.
As you have probaly gathered by now I do not go for the wilder chemtrail conspiracies like population reduction etc, but I do feel that the contrails
are a lot denser than they used to be before when I noticed a change in 2002 and think that if it is happening, then there has to be a logical
explanation for it, which has to be down to either economics, environmental, military use or even all three.