@not_an_eloi wrote:
the logical explanation to that question, folks, go 'ere:
http://www.nmsr.org/pilotsvu.htm
I meant to come back to this thread yesterday, but got tied up with dinner preparations, then fell asleep in front of the telly.
Thank you for that link, eloi, it was a very informative and detailed dissertation.
My eyes glazed over a bit at the technical stuff, but I got the gist of it.
I must admit, I've never "chemtrails" or "contrails" in a grid pattern as shown in some of the pictures. I've seen contrails in skywriting and short lines, but never in a grid pattern, and I live just across the harbour from Sydney Airport, so I see many planes coming down to land.
If the grid pattern, as has been explained, is due to contrails from commercial planes flying in their many and various patterns, I would've expected to see these grid patterns on a daily basis, living so close to a busy airport.
I do find these closing comments by the author, Ian Wickson, relevant:
"What should we really be concerned about?
In truth, the exhaust gases and contrails produced by aircraft do have an effect on our environment, but probably not because they contain the clandestine substances “chemtrail” proponents believe. The chemicals that exist in contrails are the same ones produced by our automobiles – hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and various oxides of nitrogen. All of these substances are known to have an effect on air quality and chemistry. The scary thing is that aircraft emit these chemicals in large quantities miles up in the stratosphere.
There are solutions. Reducing these chemical emissions would call for major changes in the way the airline industry operates their aircraft. One solution would be to retrofit airliners to run on liquid hydrogen. Doing so would eliminate the introduction of hydrocarbons, CO and CO² into our upper atmosphere. Unfortunately, the nitrous oxide problem would remain.
In addition, the cost of this conversion would be substantial. That cost would ultimately be passed on to consumers through elevated ticket prices. So much for cheap travel. There would also be the problem of educating travelers. People hear “hydrogen,” and immediately think they would be flying around in H-bombs or Hindenburgs. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Are consumers ready and willing to accept these changes? I would guess not. We’re talking about change, and nobody wants that. We might have to give up a little piece of the good life."
"Are “chemtrails” real?
It’s entirely possible. In concluding this lengthy dissertation, I have to admit I can’t disprove their existence. My point is simply this: proponents of the “chemtrail” theory have failed to produce a “smoking gun.” There are logical and believable explanations for all the “evidence” I have seen. No truly damning evidence seems to exist – or if it does, it’s lost in a sea of inconclusive theory, conjecture and photos of normal contrails and meteorological events."
Notice he doesn't (as a pilot) dismiss the existence of chemtrails out of hand, or laugh them to scorn.
Personally I have heard of "chemtrails" from other sources than in this forum, and would probably not given them any further thought if didn't personally experience the radical temperature swings we've seen of late, and the magnitude and ferocity and frequency of wind- and rainstorms (typhoons, tornados) occuring here and other parts of the world in the last few years.
If I hadn't been following the arrest and imprisonment by Russiaof the Greenpeace activist protesting in the Arctic agains Russian exploratory drilling for oil.
If we hadn't, here in NSW recenly, seen such unusually ferocious bushfires which seem to be increasingly frequent.
Further from Mr Wicksons dissertation:
"Global warming, rather than “chemtrails” as some theorize, may also be to blame for drought conditions in some areas and flooding in others. As stated earlier, warmer air has the ability to hold more moisture than cooler air. In the case of drought, this warmer air may be retaining moisture it would normally have dropped in the form of precipitation under our previously cooler global environment. In the case of flooding, the opposite is happening. When atmospheric conditions cause the formation of precipitation, the warmer, post-global-warming, air contains more moisture to release. Thus the rainfall is heavier than it would have been under our previously cooler conditions, causing flooding.
And yet another possible explanation for increased high-altitude cloudiness: higher concentrations of particulates in the upper atmosphere for moisture to condense upon. Every year, we put more and more automobiles on the road which produce more and more particulate emissions. Increases in air travel have the same effect. Volcanic activity is on the rise, as is the destruction and burning of rainforests. Drought ridden areas are experiencing unprecedented forest fire activity. One would have to surmise that the concentrations of particulates in the atmosphere are higher now than they were a decade ago. More particulates = more condensation points for moisture = increased cloudiness."
For now, think I'll sit on the fence, regarding "chemtrails", but will keep an open mind towards them.
