posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
My local Meteorologist has admitted on the air,
that with the current amount of aerosols/pollution in the atmosphere,
he has a harder time predicting rainfall due to condensation on aerosols/pollution to form rain drops.
But at the same time he claims contrails/aerosols/pollution is harmless.
In what way did he claim that pollution is "harmless"??
You are clearly stating what you believe him to have said - but the idea that anyone thinks pollution is harmless seems a bit silly.
Clearly pollution is not harmless. And jet exhausts, insofar as they are pollution, are not harmless.
But contrails are only PART of jet exhaust - they are the water vapour. So they are as harmful/harmless as any other water vapour in the sky. The
rest of hte exhaust - NOx, SOx, CO2, CO, etc - that is still harmful - but jets only produce a faction of that - surface transport - cars, trucks,
trains, ships - and other uses (electrical generation, etc) produce a lot more.
Moreover jet exhaust is pollution WHETHER IT MAKES A CONTRAIL OR NOT.
Complaining about jet exhausts only when thy make contrails ignores the 90+% of the!! time they do NOT make contrails!! Why would you ignore 90% of
jet exhausts just because they do not make contrails??
They still contain the same pollutants even if you can't see the water vapour!!
this is what jet engine exhaust is made of (more or less):
It contains this stuff whether you can see the water vapour element or not - so why only complain when you can see it??????
I just want to understand all the mixed messages by Meteorologists, at this time.
I don't see a mixed message??