Posts Tagged ‘contrails’
THIS – 87,000 Flights each Day – The Skies over Britain – Aviation and the Environment – Climate change – Mechanisms – Total Effect – Radiative Forcing – Vostock Core Samples – Potential reductions – Reducing travel – Kyoto Protocol – Emissions Trading – References for Understanding the Atmosphere
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
This increase in the number of passengers using UK airports is representative of the world as a whole. It almost exactly also represents the annual number of millions of tons of water deposited as ice in our stratosphere. Where once it was SIX MILLION TONS per year (in 1958), it now (in 2008) is THREE HUNDRED MILLION TONS per year of exhaust ICE that finds its way into our stratosphere as a consequence of Man’s aviation activities*. THAT is what is VISIBLE in your sky when you are complaining about it. NOTHING ELSE. It’s a piffling amount compared with the amount of water vapor ALREADY up there!
* That is three hundred million tons of seed ice. When the stratospheric layer the aircraft is passing through is supersaturated, then the trail may grow by a factor of up to ten thousand times.
87,000 Flights each Day
On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. Only one-third are commercial carriers, like American, United or Southwest. On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.). At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States. In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings.
For every one flight you see listed on an airport monitor, two you don’t see show up on air traffic controllers’ screens. It would take approximately 7,300 airport terminal monitors to show all the flights controllers handle in a single day and approximately 460 monitors to show the number of flights being handled at any one time.
The Skies over Britain
Aviation and the Environment
Aviation impacts the environment because aircraft engines emit noise, particulates, gases, and contribute to climate change and global dimming. Despite emission reductions from automobiles and more fuel-efficient and less polluting turbofan and turboprop engines, the rapid growth of air travel in recent years contributes to an increase in total pollution attributable to aviation. In the EU greenhouse gas emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006.
There is an ongoing debate about possible taxation of air travel and the inclusion of aviation in an emissions trading scheme, with a view to ensuring that the total external costs of aviation are taken into account.
Like all human activities involving combustion, most forms of aviation release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the earth’s atmosphere, very likely contributing to the acceleration of global warming. In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as JP-4 and JP-8, Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports, as well as through emissions generated by the production of energy used in airport buildings, the manufacture of aircraft and the construction of airport infrastructure.
While the principal greenhouse gas emission from powered aircraft in flight is CO2, other emissions may include nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, (together termed oxides of nitrogen or NOx), water vapour and particulates (soot and sulfate particles), sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide (which bonds with oxygen to become CO2 immediately upon release), incompletely-burned hydrocarbons, tetra-ethyl lead (piston aircraft only), and radicals such as hydroxyl, depending on the type of aircraft in use. The contribution of civil aircraft-in-flight to global CO2 emissions has been estimated at around 2%. However, in the case of high-altitude airliners which frequently fly near or in the stratosphere, non-CO2 altitude-sensitive effects may increase the total impact on anthropogenic (man-made) climate change significantly — this problem is not present for aircraft that routinely operate at lower altitudes well inside the troposphere, such as balloons, airships, helicopters, most light aircraft, and many commuter aircraft.
Subsonic aircraft contribute when aloft to climate change in four ways:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO2 emissions from aircraft-in-flight are the most significant and best understood element of aviation’s total contribution to climate change. The level and effects of CO2 emissions are currently believed to be broadly the same regardless of altitude (i.e they have the same atmospheric effects as ground based emissions). In 1992, emissions of CO2 from aircraft were estimated at around 2% of all such anthropogenic emissions, though CO2 concentration attributable to aviation in 1992 was around 1% of the total anthropogenic increase, because emissions occurred only in the last 50 years.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
At the high altitudes flown by large jet airliners around the tropopause, emissions of NOx are particularly effective in forming ozone (O3) in the upper troposphere. High altitude (8-13km) NOx emissions result in greater concentrations of O3 than surface NOx emissions, and these in turn have a greater global warming effect. The effect of O3 concentrations are regional and local (as opposed to CO2 emissions, which are global).
NOx emissions also reduce ambient levels of methane, another greenhouse gas, resulting in a climate cooling effect. This effect does not, however, offset the O3 forming effect of NOx emissions. It is now believed that aircraft sulfur and water emissions in the stratosphere tend to deplete O3, partially offsetting the NOx-induced O3 increases. These effects have not been quantified. This problem does not apply to aircraft that fly lower in the troposphere, such as light aircraft or many commuter aircraft.
Water vapor (H2O) Contrails
Aiircraft in flight at high altitudes emit water vapor, a greenhouse gas, which under certain atmospheric conditions forms condensation trails, or contrails. Contrails are visible line clouds that form in cold, humid atmospheres and are thought to have a global warming effect (though one less significant than either CO2 emissions or NOx induced effects). Contrails are extremely rare from lower-altitude aircraft, or from propeller aircraft or rotorcraft.
Cirrus clouds have been observed to develop after the persistent formation of contrails and have been found to have a global warming effect over-and-above that of contrail formation alone. There is a degree of scientific uncertainty over the contribution of contrail and cirrus cloud formation to global warming and attempts to estimate aviation’s overall climate change contribution do not tend to include its effects on cirrus cloud enhancement.
Least significant is the release of soot and sulfate particles. Soot absorbs heat and has a warming effect; sulfate particles reflect radiation and have a small cooling effect. In addition, they can influence the formation and properties of clouds. All aircraft powered by combustion will release some amount of soot.
In attempting to aggregate and quantify these effects the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation’s total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement). This is measured as radiative forcing. While there is uncertainty about the exact level of impact of NOx and water vapour, governments have accepted the broad scientific view that they do have an effect. Accordingly, more recent UK government policy statements have stressed the need for aviation to address its total climate change impacts and not simply the impact of CO2.
The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. The IPCC has produced scenarios estimating what this figure could be in 2050. The central case estimate is that aviation’s contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050 if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%. Moreover, if other industries achieve significant cuts in their own greenhouse gas emissions, aviation’s share as a proportion of the remaining emissions could also rise. Per passenger kilometre, figures from British Airways suggest carbon dioxide emissions of 0.1kg for large jet airliners (a figure which does not account for the production of other pollutants or condensation trails).
The radiative forcing units are in watts per metre squared. The total positive forcing (on the right) amounts to 0.045 W/m2.
This must be compared with the world average insolation of 1330W/m2. It is 0.34 millionths of it.
Insolation values range from 800 to 950 kWh/(kWp·y) in Norway to up to 2,900 in Australia.
A large volcanic eruption would seriously lower this insolation.
VOSTOCK CORE SAMPLES
This is a plot of CO2 concentration, ambient temperature, CH4 concentration, insolation, running backwards in time for 420,000 years. CO2 can be seen to LAG ambient temperature.
Modern jet aircraft are significantly more fuel efficient (and thus emit less CO2 per unit power) than 30 years ago. Moreover, manufacturers have forecast and are committed to achieving reductions in both CO2 and NOx emissions with each new generation of design of aircraft and engine. The accelerated introduction of more modern aircraft therefore represents a major opportunity to reduce emissions per passenger kilometre flown.
Other opportunities arise from the optimisation of airline timetables, route networks and flight frequencies to increase load factors (minimise the number of empty seats flown), together with the optimisation of airspace. Another possible reduction of the climate-change impact is the limitation of cruise altitude of aircraft.
This would lead to a significant reduction in high-altitude contrails for a marginal trade-off of increased flight time and an estimated 4% increase in CO2 emissions. Drawbacks of this solution include very limited airspace capacity to do this, especially in Europe and North America and increased fuel burn due to jet aircraft being less efficient at lower cruise altitudes. However, the total number of passenger kilometres is growing at a faster rate than manufacturers can reduce emissions, and at present there is no readily available alternative to burning kerosene.
The growth in the aviation sector is therefore likely to continue to generate an increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. However some scientists and companies such as GE Aviation and Virgin Fuels are researching biofuel technology for use in jet aircraft. As part of this test Virgin Atlantic Airways flew a Boeing 747 from London Heathrow Airport to Amsterdam Schiphol Airport on 24 February 2008, with one engine burning a combination of coconut oil and babassu oil. Greenpeace’s chief scientist Doug Parr said that the flight was “high-altitude greenwash” and that producing organic oils to make biofuel could lead to deforestation and a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
The majority of the world’s aircraft are not large jetliners but smaller piston aircraft, and many are capable of using ethanol as a fuel, with major modifications. While ethanol also releases CO2 during combustion, the plants cultivated to make it draw that same CO2 out of the atmosphere while they are growing, making the fuel closer to climate-change-neutral. The main problems with burning ethanol as a fuel are that it takes more energy to produce than is returned, it displaces food crops and thus raises the price of food and causes soil degradation.
While they are not suitable for long-haul or transoceanic flights, turboprop aircraft used for commuter flights bring two significant benefits: they often burn considerably less fuel per passenger mile, and they typically fly at lower altitudes, well inside the tropopause, where there are no concerns about ozone or contrail production. For even shorter flights, air taxi service using newer, fuel-efficient four- or six-seat light piston aircraft could provide an even lower environmental impact.
An alternative method for reducing the environmental impact of aviation is to constrain demand for air travel. The UK study Predict and Decide – Aviation, climate change and UK policy, notes that a 10 per cent increase in fares generates a 5 to 15 per cent reduction in demand, and recommends that the British government should manage demand rather than provide for it. This would be accomplished via a strategy that presumes “… against the expansion of UK airport capacity” and constrains demand by the use of economic instruments to price air travel less attractively. A study published by the campaign group Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) concludes that by levying £9 billion of additional taxes the annual rate of growth in demand in the UK for air travel would be reduced to 2 per cent. The ninth report of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee, published in July 2006, recommends that the British government rethinks its airport expansion policy and considers ways, particularly via increased taxation, in which future demand can be managed in line with industry performance in achieving fuel efficiencies, so that emissions are not allowed to increase in absolute terms.
Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel consumption in international aviation, in contrast to those from domestic aviation and from energy use by airports, are not assigned under the first round of the Kyoto Protocol, neither are the non-CO2 climate effects. In place of agreement, Governments agreed to work through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to limit or reduce emissions and to find a solution to the allocation of emissions from international aviation in time for the second round of Kyoto in 2009 in Copenhagen.
As part of that process the ICAO has endorsed the adoption of an open emissions trading system to meet CO2 emissions reduction objectives. Guidelines for the adoption and implementation of a global scheme are currently being developed, and will be presented to the ICAO Assembly in 2007, although the prospects of a comprehensive inter-governmental agreement on the adoption of such a scheme are uncertain.
Within the European Union, however, the European Commission has resolved to incorporate aviation in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). A new directive has been adopted by the European Parliament in July 2008 and approved by the Council in October 2008. It will enter into force on 1 January 2012.
Well, there you are… ….the most relevant aspect of this report is this:
Aviation is responsible for ONLY 3.5% of anthropic climate change, the existence of which is proven.
References for Understanding the Atmosphere
Battan, Louis J. 1979. Fundamentals of Meteorology. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bohren, C. P., and B. A. Albrecht. 1998. Environmental Science. Earth as a Living Planet. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Charlson, R. J., J. E. Lovelock, M. O. Andreae, and S. G. Warren. 1987. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulfur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature 326:655-61.
Fermi, E. 1956. Thermodynamics. New York: Dover Publications.
Gleick, P. H. 1996. Water Resources In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, S. H. Schneider, ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goody, R. M., and J. C. G. Walker. 1972 Atmospheres. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Hecht, E. 1996. Physics: Calculus. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks Cole Publishing Co.
Hess, S. L. 1959. Introduction to Theoretical Meteorology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Holton, James R. 1979. An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press Inc.
Lutgens, F. K. and E. J. Tarbuck. 2004. The Atmosphere – An Introduction to Meteorology. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Mason, B. J. 1957. The Physics of Clouds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McIlveen, Robin. 1986. Basic Meteorology: A Physical Outline. Berkshire, UK: Van Norstrand Company Ltd.
Penner, J. E., D. H. Lister, D. J. Griggs, D. J. Dokken, and M. McFarland, eds. 1999. Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Planck, M. 1945. Treatise on Thermodynamics. Translated by A. Ogg. New York: Dover Publications.
Rogers, R. R., and M. K. Yau. 1989. A Short Course on Cloud Physics. 3rd ed. Woburn, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Schlesinger, W. H. 1997. Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press.
U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
Wallace, J. M., and P. V. Hobbs. 1977. Atmospheric Science – An Introductory Survey. New York: Academic Press.
Wells, N. 1997. The Atmosphere and Ocean. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Written by JazzRoc
November 25, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Tagged with 228m, 4m, aerosol, air travel, aluminium, aluminum, arthritis, barium, breathing difficulties, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, climate change, contrails, emissions trading, environment, exhaust, filaments, foot-and-mouth disease, Gulf war, heavy haze, ice, kyoto protocol, lines in the sky, lung disease, mechanisms, metallic salts, million, morgellons, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, oxides of nitrogen, particulates, passengers, potential reductions, ptb, recession, reducing travel, rense, september 11, spraying, terminal, tic-tac-toe, total effect, UK airports, unnatural cloud, water, water vapor, webby material, whiteout, wikipedia
BAMBOOZLED – BALONEY DETECTION KIT – BOENOID – BARD OF ELY BLOG RESPONSE - A BLACK HOLE – BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING – CHEMTRAILERS WE LOVE YOU (NOT!)
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) – Carl Sagan
BALONEY DETECTION KIT
As a society it falls upon us as individuals to live our lives using the best judgement possible.
For each of us it wasn’t always that way: as children we instinctively believed what our parents told us, which was a powerful defense mechanism that generally kept us out of harm’s way.
As we grow up this gullibility has to be exchanged for a healthy cynicism and sound judgment which will afford some protection from the intentional deception of sociopaths.
This is a comment posted at Uncinus’s excellent site Contrailscience late Sept 2009. It is rare to find such professionalism and terse accuracy in “chemtrailer” writing, and here is an experienced and technically competent writer presenting an opposite point of view. No surprise, there:
For what it is worth, I am a Boeing engineer with 20 years of experience in the aerospace industry.
* There are no special tanks anywhere on our airplanes to hold chemicals to be sprayed out.
* There are no spray nozzles on the airplanes either, unless you count the emergency fuel dump nozzles on the widebody jets.
* This can be readily ascertained by simply looking through an airplane before the interior wall panels are installed. Here is a list of all the tanks which are on a jetliner:
** Fuel, potable water, waste water, engine fire suppressant (Halon + other stuff), cargo fire suppressant (just Halon), hydraulic reservoirs. On the new airplanes you will also see tank-like devices which generate nitrogen to inert the fuel tanks.
* Further, there is no room for such stuff to get installed. You would have to carry TONS of liquid to make spray trails independent of the exhaust condensation, and the only liquid we carry tons of is Jet-A fuel.
* In Everett Washington, the Seattle flight museum has a restoration center where you can go see dismantled airplanes being readied for display in the museum. The work is done almost entirely by volunteers. I assume other flight museums have similar workshops. If you can find one where you live, go to the restoration center and see the planes up close. There’s no where to hide a sprayer system where it wouldn’t be seen by maintenance crews.
* The Boeing final assembly plant is open for tours by the public, and VIPs from all over the world can get close-up tours. The airplanes are built in a staggered sequence, so that two airplanes side-by-side are usually being made for two different airlines.
* The majority of Boeing’s production is sold overseas. In fact, the company is the nation’s largest exporter.
* Thus, if a domestic airplane was modified for “chemtrail production” in the factory, it would be as easy as pie for a foreign VIP to walk over and say, “What are these fancy tanks and sprayers on the American plane which aren’t on my airplane?”
* If any airplane WAS modified for chemtrail to add chemtrail sprayers, the thousands of Boeing employees would have to know. I don’t work in Fuels, and I can identify every tank and tube in the wing area.
* If thousands of Boeing employees knew, then so would thousands of supplier employees who go through our factories, thousands of airlines employees who go through our factories, and all the FAA and NTSB and DOT people as well. Also, our airplanes and factories are inspected by the Aviation Authorities of foreign countries (like EASA from Europe) and they would also need to be in on the conspiracy.
* There would simply be too many people involved to prevent this from leaking out. If the chem trail sprayers were being added in the factory, the secret would be out.
* So what if the chemtrail sprayers were being added by an aftermarket shop?
* You’re back to the same problem. It takes hundreds of people to design, build, and install a major modification on a jetliner, and the mod shops are just as open as Boeing is. You wouldn’t be able to keep the secret.
* Further, most airlines have their planes maintained by outside suppliers, who would have to be in on the conspiracy. Those who do their own maintenance do the work in open bays that again would make it easy to view the modification.
* And you have the same problem that you need to get thousands of maintenance people, suppliers, and certification authorities in on the conspiracy. It would have leaked by now. All it takes is one guy with a cell phone camera, and the world would know.
* So what if they somehow managed to do all this stuff anyway? Now you have to realize that somebody, somewhere, has to be pumping TONS of chemtrail chemicals into these mysterious hidden tanks on the airplanes. You would need a fill valve, and a distribution system, and special trucks carrying the chemicals disguised as fuel trucks. That would take thousands more people to be in on the conspiracy.
* One giveaway would be two fuel trucks pulling up to the same jetliner – one with the fuel and one with the chemicals. Remember, we’re talking about tons of liquid here.
* It just doesn’t work – you would need independent chemical fill ports, and somebody, somewhere, would notice.
* And while we’re talking about it, remember that every jetliner pilot has to check the weight of the plane and calculate a talk off runway length and other factors. The charts are the same for every jetliner of a given type, but if there really were chemtrail sprayers, then the charts for those airplanes would have to be different to account for the tons of chemicals that might be on the airplane.
* So, I really don’t think there is any way to hide the sprayers on jetliners. Too many people would have to know, and it would be too easy to detect by passerby.
* So, what if the chemtrail chemicals are in the jet fuel? This wouldn’t require ANY visible modifications to the airplanes, and far fewer people would have to know about the conspiracy.
* This would be harder to refute, BUT, you would have to discard the “on and off” contrails as being caused by pilots turning sprayers on and off. All the fuel on the plane came from the same fuel trucks and the same fuel tanks, so the supposed chemtrail would have to be continuous from takeoff until landing. I think that would have been noticed by now.
* So to my mind, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of using jetliners to create chemtrails.
* Which means you have to be using military jets, and thousands of them, flying unnoticed back and forth on normal commercial routes. So now you have to have all the air traffic controllers in on the conspiracy as well.
* And the planes will again need special tanks for the chemicals, and special fill ports, and special sprayers, and special tanker trucks filling the chemical tanks on the planes, special non-military suppliers delivering the stuff, and you’re right back to the same issue of needing to keep thousands of people from talking.
You would need a special delivery system on the airplanes.
You would need a special fill system.
You would need independent tanker trucks.
You would need a separate supply chain.
You would need thousands and thousands of people to hold their tongues, and never have even ONE person leave any incriminating evidence in a safe deposit box to be discovered after their deaths.
It ain’t happening.
BARD OF ELY BLOG – A RESPONSE
“Although chemtrails are conspicuous in our skies and thousands of sites exist about the menace the mainstream media and the authorities are very quiet about the matter or ignore and deny their existence. This of course, adds fuel to the conspiracy theories!
But it’s not just the media and the officials that are silent because there is a similar wall of silence from successful singer-songwriters and rock stars as well as celebrities in general! What does this mean? is there some memo that gets circulated warning that if you mention chemtrails your contract is terminated? Are people too scared to mention such stuff in public? What is going on?
I say we need people who can get the media exposure to come forward on this matter! We need stars to talk about chemtrails on live TV and radio!
I believe we need protest songs about chemtrails! If anyone knows of any please let me know!”
There is no evidence that I have seen that trails in the sky are anything except the water and carbon dioxide (and trace amounts of NOX) left by the passage of gas turbines in the stratosphere.
Now water is drinkable, carbon dioxide is respired by plants to make sugar, and the NOX combines with water to form dilute nitric acid which forms nitrates on contact with soil, helping plants to grow.
The majority of trails in the skies of Earth cross the US continent, so it is they that will bear the brunt of this “contamination”. So be it. Their plants will grow a little better, is all. Although the daily burning of a million tons of kerosine seems massive to you, in relation to the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere it is NOTHING.
ALL of Man’s conflagrations, his best efforts annually, will raise the sea level by 0.0000000000001 per cent, for instance (approximately).
Now, as to whether STRANGE COMPOUNDS are surreptitiously being introduced into burning gas turbines, in order to distribute them as an aerosol throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, why on Earth would anyone do that? (It would HAVE to be THROUGH the turbine because spray devices external to the motor would have to be plainly visible).
It just doesn’t stand up to any logical consideration.
Your ignorance has lead to your paranoia.
I blame Western Culture as a whole for failing to instil a minimum but requisite standard of scientific knowledge for the technological conditions under which we live.
Desist this crap!
“I totally disagree! Please do some research Tony! I have been researching this for a long time! The planet is being geoengineered under Caps & Trade schemes. there are many things being done including weather modification which I have seen in the UK and here and is all known about if you dig deep! Try californiaskywatch.com for starters.”
Seeding clouds for rain with silver iodide crystals (or powdered tea!) is completely harmless. It IS NOT “weather modification”!
I have checked through the website above and NONE of the things mentioned bears ANY relationship to NATURAL VULCANISM, let alone the masses of the land, atmosphere and oceans.
The amount of ocean: imagine a cubic mile of ocean. One mile square, up to the height of Vilaflor from sea level. Got it?
Then imagine 500,000,000 of them.
Counting them at the rate of one per second will take you SIXTEEN years.
The ocean weighs 114,398,298,100,000,000 tons. One hundred and fourteen thousand trillion tons. That’s a HUGE dilution factor…
“you can watch trails that last and spread and no trails or old style contrails at the same time, you can watch planes with no trail start a trail and then stop. you can have a day or period of a day with old style normal clouds and blue sky followed by loads of chemtrails and a sky turned to a mass of fake clouds and haze”.
Contrails are a stratospheric phenomenon (not in the troposphere, where your weather is). The stratosphere is generally stable, layered (like an onion skin) with layers of water/air solutions at various temperatures and humidities. When they are moving in different directions to each other (and falling slightly) they form CIRRUS clouds. When they fall without any relative motion, they form CIRROSTRATUS clouds.
Sometimes the layers are supersaturated and only require flying through (say by glider wings) to condense out water and form clouds. They understandably may get somewhat upset when a clumping great turbofan whistles through them. Sometimes (when the layer is SATURATED) the upset is permanent, but in general the stratosphere is less than saturated, and you see a temporary contrail which trails the plane for say a mile or so, before being re-absorbed. On days when the layers are ALL saturated, the contrails will hang there ALL DAY.
Contrails are WATER, and you are not being sensible.
“you can have a day or period of a day with old style normal clouds and blue sky”.
What you are talking about here is the TROPOSPHERE, which is the air between the ground and the stratosphere.
This is the atmosphere as you experience it at ground level. It is THE BULK of the total atmosphere, half of which is to be found beneath twelve thousand feet.
The STRATOSPHERE is to be found at DOUBLE that height and above, to a height of sixty thousand feet. It is relatively rarefied, very cold (-80 deg F, colder than Mars) and TRANSPARENT.
It is the atmosphere beneath twelve thousand feet which is responsible for the blue in the sky (by scattering of white light – the blue “scatters” whilst the red continues straight on).
On bad days in the latter part of WWII, the stratosphere was supersaturated when USAF Flying fortresses set out to precision-bomb German targets in their thousands. The Germans could see them coming from three hundred miles away, without radar, and could adjust their fighter attacks with time to spare. Bad days, with hundreds of bombers littering the path back to Blighty.
Do you suppose those bombing raids were chemical attacks?
“listen Tony I don’t see why you feel the need to insult me!”
No insult intended. I DESCRIBED you.
“i didn’t start this argument and if you have nothing f—ing better to do with your time f— off”.
It’s not an argument. It’s a discussion. I consider it important to correct the foolishness of a friend.
“I know what I see and have the opinions of thousands of others who see likewise”.
You don’t “know” what you see. That’s the point. You’re blogging others down a foolish path. That I feel compelled to prevent. The opinions of other deluded people don’t count for much, do they? Nor should you help to delude them, should you? It would be harmful, even evil, wouldn’t it?
“i certainly don’t need to be insulted by someone I thought was a friend”.
Then don’t FEEL insulted. You’re not the only person that has been foolish in the world are you?
I have given you an accurate account of what it was you thought you had seen. You have been given the benefit of my scientific experience.
Would it have been kind to remain silent?
You should should consider yourself assisted, helped, loved, by this friend, and as a consequence GIVE THIS STUPIDITY UP!
A BLACK HOLE
BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING
It seems to be normal for chemtrailers not to understand why our skies are blue.
Where were these people in junior school, or in science class? Outside?
White light is a MIXTURE of visible light frequencies. The Sun (which is the main source of all light by which we see, is a very hot body which radiates photons of many frequencies, some of which are so energetic that they would harm us if they could pass through our atmosphere – but they cannot.
What does pass through is mainly a tight group of frequencies, spanning just over an octave, which our eyes can see.
Our eyes have evolved to make use of these frequencies – naturally.
Wikipedia: Rayleigh scattering
Rayleigh scattering causes the blue hue of the daytime sky and the reddening of the sun at sunset
It is more dramatic after sunset. This picture was taken about one hour after sunset at 500m altitude, looking at the horizon where the sun had set, showing the more intense scattering of blue light by the atmosphere relative to red light.
Rayleigh scattering (named after the English physicist Lord Rayleigh) is the elastic scattering of light or other electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light. It can occur when light travels in transparent solids and liquids, but is most prominently seen in gases.
Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in clear atmosphere is the main reason why the sky is blue: Rayleigh and cloud-mediated scattering contribute to diffuse light (direct light being sunrays).
For scattering by particles similar to or larger than a wavelength, see Mie theory or discrete dipole approximation (they apply to the Rayleigh regime as well).
Small size parameter approximation
The size of a scattering particle is parametrized by the ratio x of its characteristic dimension r and wavelength lambda:
Rayleigh scattering can be defined as scattering in the small size parameter regime x < 1. Scattering from larger spherical particles is explained by the Mie theory for an arbitrary size parameter x. The Mie theory reduces to the Rayleigh approximation.
The amount of Rayleigh scattering that occurs for a beam of light is dependent upon the size of the particles and the wavelength of the light (lambda). Specifically, the intensity of the scattered light varies as the sixth power of the particle size and varies inversely with the fourth power of the wavelength.
The intensity I of light scattered by a single small particle from a beam of unpolarized light of wavelength lambda and intensity I0 is given by:
where R is the distance to the particle, lambda is the scattering angle, n is the refractive index of the particle, and d is the diameter of the particle.
The angular distribution of Rayleigh scattering, governed by the (1 + cos^2*lambda) term, is symmetric about the plane normal to the incident direction of the light (i.e. about lambda = 90°), and so the forward scatter equals the backwards scatter. Integrating over the sphere surrounding the particle gives the Rayleigh scattering cross section.
The Rayleigh scattering coefficient for a group of scattering particles is the number of particles per unit volume N times the cross-section. As with all wave effects, for incoherent scattering the scattered powers add arithmetically, while for coherent scattering, such as if the particles are very near each other, the fields add arithmetically and the sum must be squared to obtain the total scattered power.
Rayleigh scattering from molecules
A 5 mW green laser pointer is visible at night due to Rayleigh scattering and airborne dust. Rayleigh scattering from molecules is also possible. An individual molecule does not have a well-defined refractive index and diameter. Instead, a molecule has a polarizability a, which describes how much the electrical charges on the molecule will move in an electric field. In this case, the Rayleigh scattering intensity for a single particle is given by
The amount of Rayleigh scattering from a single particle can also be expressed as a cross section s. For example, the major constituent of the atmosphere, nitrogen, has a Rayleigh cross section of 5.1×10^-31 m^2 at a wavelength of 532 nm (green light). This means that at atmospheric pressure, about a fraction 10^-5 of light will be scattered for every meter of travel.
The strong wavelength dependence of the scattering (~lambda-4) means that blue light is scattered much more readily than red light. In the atmosphere, this results in blue wavelengths being scattered to a greater extent than longer (red) wavelengths, and so one sees blue light coming from all regions of the sky. Direct radiation (by definition) is coming directly from the Sun. Rayleigh scattering is a good approximation to the manner in which light scattering occurs within various media for which scattering particles have a small size parameter.
Reason for the blue color of the sky
Rayleigh scattering is responsible for the blue color of the sky during the day. Rayleigh scattering is inversely proportional to the fourth power of wavelength, which means that the shorter wavelength of blue light will scatter more than the longer wavelengths of green and red light. This gives the sky a blue appearance.
Conversely, looking toward the sun, the colors that were not scattered away – the longer wavelengths such as red and yellow light – are visible. When the sun is near the horizon, the volume of air through which sunlight must pass is significantly greater than when the sun is high in the sky. Accordingly, the gradient from a red-yellow sun to the blue sky is considerably wider at sunrise and sunset.
Rayleigh scattering primarily occurs through light’s interaction with air molecules. Some of the scattering can also be from aerosols of sulfate particles. For years following large Plinian eruptions, the blue cast of the sky is notably brightened due to the persistent sulfate load of the stratospheric eruptive gases. Another source of scattering is from microscopic density fluctuations, resulting from the random motion of the air molecules. A region of higher or lower density has a slightly different refractive index than the surrounding medium, and therefore it acts like a short-lived particle that can scatter light.
Rayleigh scattering at Hyperphysics
Maarten Sneep and Wim Ubachs, Direct measurement of the Rayleigh scattering cross section in various gases. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 92, 293 (2005).
C.F. Bohren, D. Huffman, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles, John Wiley, New York 1983. Contains a good description of the asymptotic behavior of Mie theory for small size parameter (Rayleigh approximation).
Ditchburn, R.W. (1963). Light (2nd ed.). London: Blackie & Sons. pp. 582–585.
Chakraborti, Sayan (September 2007). “Verification of the Rayleigh scattering cross section”. American Journal of Physics 75 (9): 824-826. doi:10.1119/1.2752825.
Ahrens, C. Donald (1994). Meteorology Today: an introduction to weather, climate, and the environment (5th ed.). St. Paul MN: West Publishing Company. pp. 88–89.
And so when we see aircraft from the ground (this is a Syrian Air Boeing 747) we cannot expect to see its markings. They have been “scattered” away. You will only see its markings by taking pictures of it from up close.
CHEMTRAILERS WE LOVE YOU
It’s that moment when you have engaged your sophisticated and educated brain in a discussion with a chemtrailer and he suddenly starts talking about vertical “chemtrails” and challenges you to to justify those… You point out that only some fighter aircraft can travel vertically, and this guy says no, it was a “tanker aircraft” and while you are wondering what the hell, you realize that he doesn’t understand perspective at all, and he’s really talking about trails coming towards you and passing overhead you. Which means, of course, that you’re wasting your time with exotic explanations involving crossing shuttle routes.
Or when someone sends you a picture of a broken trail, and you can see that it had been a continuous trail before some crook had photoshopped it. So you tell him it’s a fraudulent picture, and so he sends you a color-processed copy so damned effective that you can see each individual photoshop spraying pass, thinking he has proved his point. I drew lines and arrows pointing exactly where it was occurring, and he still couldn’t see it.
Enough from me.
“I want information, not a video of some guy’s grass saying “chemtard” over and over. “
But, that is what this video IS! You are complaining because I didn’t give YOU what YOU want in this video?! Are you f*****g kidding me?! I didn’t force you to come here and make the assumption that I’m supposed to “teach” you something! I make it PERFECTLY clear in my videos that I’m not here to educate any lazy and ignorant chemtard! I tried that in the past… It wasn’t worth my time. Learn for yourself!
I even make it PERFECTLY clear in the “info” area that I don’t have time to be wasting on f*****g ignorant chemtards! Where do you see ANYTHING about me being an information booth?! Who said it’s MY f*****g job to educate YOU?!?
I must say he seems reasonable to me. Stars, save me…
Written by JazzRoc
November 16, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with acknowledge, aerosol, aluminium, aluminum, arthritis, atmosphere, attack, authorities, bamboozle, barium, blighty, breathing difficulties, caps & trade, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, chemical, cirrus, cloud, conflagration, conspicuous, conspiracy, contamination, contract, contrails, cubic mile, dilute nitric acid, dilution factor, Earth, fail, fake clouds, fighter, filaments, flying, fortresses, gas turbine, geoengineered, haze, heavy haze, history, ignorance, kerosine, lines in the sky, live TV, logical consideration, lung disease, mainstream, mass, menace, metallic salts, million tons, million tons of kerosine, morgellons, natural vulcanism, nitrates, nitric acid, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, NOX, oily clouds, onion skin, paranoia, phenomenon, plant, plants, precision-bomb, ptb, radar, radio, rain, rense, rock star, scattering, scientific knowledge, seeding, silence, silver iodide, singer-songwriters, site, skies, soil, spray device, spraying, standard, stratosphere, stratospheric, stratus, sugar, supersaturated, surreptitious, technological, temporary contrail, tic-tac-toe, transparent, troposphere, unnatural cloud, US continent, USAF, water, weather modification, webby material, western culture, whiteout, WWII
CONSPIRACY THEORIES – CONTRAIL FORECAST CHARTS – CONTRAIL FORMATION – CONTRAILS CON-TRICK
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails
A new conspiracy theory sweeping the Internet and radio talk shows has set parts of the federal government on edge.
The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace.
Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening.
It’s impossible to tell how many supporters these ideas have attracted, but the people who believe them say they’re tired of getting the brush-off from officials. And they’re tired of health problems they blame on “spraying.”
“This is blatant. This is in your face,” says Philip Marie Sr., a retired nuclear quality engineer from Bartlett, N.H., who says the sky above his quiet town is often crisscrossed with “spray” trails.
“No one will address it,” he says. “Everyone stonewalls this thing.”
The situation Marie and others describe is straight out of The X-Files. He and others report one day looking up at the sky and realizing that they were seeing abnormal contrails: contrails that lingered and spread into wispy clouds, multiple contrails arranged in tick-tack-toe-like grids or parallel lines, contrails being laid down by white planes without registration numbers.
Believers call these tracks “chemtrails.” They say they don’t know why the chemicals are being dropped, but that doesn’t stop them from speculating. Many guess that the federal government is trying to slow global warming with compounds that reflect sunlight into the sky. Some propose more ominous theories, such as a government campaign to weed out the old and sick.
Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents’ arguments point by point.
“If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it’s, ‘Well, you’re just part of the conspiracy,’ ” says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. “Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.”
Nothing is “out there” except water vapor and ice crystals, say irritated scientists who study contrails. Some, such as Minnis, are outraged enough by the claims of chemtrail believers that they have trolled Internet chat rooms to correct misinformation or have gotten into arguments with callers.
“Conspiracy nonsense,” snorts Kenneth Sassen, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Utah. “These things are at 30,000 to 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. They’re tiny particles of ice. They’re not going to affect anyone.”
The cloud-forming contrails that conspiracy theorists find so ominous are “perfectly natural,” Minnis says. The odd grid and parallel-line patterns are easily explained as contrails blown together by the wind, scientists say.
CONTRAIL FORECAST CHARTS
Normal contrails DO form in fairly high humidity. When formed in 100% humidity they will NEVER disappear. If the humidity of that particular stratospheric layer is REDUCED, then in exact proportion the life of that trail will be reduced. This CAN happen; the layer can be lifted from beneath by a rising CUMULUS cloud in the troposphere. But the typical way they disappear is that LOCAL to the trail, the humidity has already been increased by the processes forming the trail: over time the increased humidity “leaks” away from the locality by gaseous diffusion, allowing the trail (of ice crystals) to sublime back into water vapor. Otherwise generally over time, layers FALL, COOL, humidity rises, trails get bigger.
CONTRAILS CON TRICK
There is a new and ominous controversy concerning aircraft contrails and their supposed ill-effects. People with little or no scientific understanding are whipping up a furore over – nothing. This tends to leave all the real ills of the world unattended, and let’s face it, those we know of already are too great and too many to be sufferable. But how much worse it is when the (already!) deluded dream up new imaginary ills! With too much on our plates already, we are forced to concern ourselves with additional spurious delusions which, if they were to be taken seriously, would diminish our capacity to adapt to change, and ultimately to survive the upcoming onslaught.
A typical passenger transport plane (medium haul) burns 30 tons of fuel and thus unloads 30 tons of ice and 20 tons of gaseous oxides (mostly carbon dioxide) into the stratosphere every trip it makes.
The troposphere contains about 80% of the atmosphere and is the part of the atmosphere in which we live, and make weather observations. In this layer, average temperatures decrease with height. This is known as adiabatic cooling, i.e. a change in temperature caused by a decrease in pressure. Even so, it is still more prone to vertical mixing by convective and turbulent transfer, than other parts of the atmosphere. These vertical motions and the abundance of water vapour make it the home of all important weather phenomena. It is turbulent and unstable because it is at its warmest at its base. The troposphere’s thermal profile is largely the result of the heating of the Earth’s surface by incoming solar radiation. Heat is then transferred up through the troposphere by a combination of convective and turbulent transfer.
This is in direct contrast with the stratosphere, where warming is the result of the direct absorption of solar radiation. It is at its coldest at its base, and is stable and non-turbulent. If you have ever observed (or been in) a house fire, and looked up at the ceiling of a room with a fire in it, there you can see that the behaviour of the air is similar: the hottest part of the fire is against the ceiling, and the layers of air beneath (at decreasing temperatures) are stratified and somewhat mysteriously stable.
The troposphere is around 16 km high at the equator, with the temperature at the tropopause around –80 °C. At the poles, the troposphere reaches a height of around 8 km, with the temperature of the tropopause around –40 °C in summer and –60 °C in winter.
Annual passenger jet aircraft fuel consumption is estimated to be 300 million tons. That may seem a lot, but it’s a CUBE with sides a hundred yards long. in actual fact.
The weight of the atmosphere is 5.25 petatonnes.
One can see (using a quick calculation) that, as a proportion of the weight of the atmosphere, the burnt fuel comprises FIVE MILLIONTHS OF A PER CENT. It would take 200,000 years to half-fill the atmosphere with aircraft exhaust emissions at their present rate!
Now, the water, the gaseous oxides and sulphates may have a hardly appreciable effect on Global Warming (they are only 3.5% of anthropogenic combustion), but are as NOTHING when compared with the Earth’s volcanoes.
There are 1,500 active volcanoes on land and maybe TEN THOUSAND active volcanoes under the sea. Beneath are a few links:
The term “active” means “constantly emitting steam, gases, magma, and ash”. It is hard to quantify the total emitted by the land volcanoes, but let us assume they average a million tons of each per year. That will give us fifteen hundred million tons of steam, fifteen hundred million tons of gases, fifteen hundred million tons of magma, fifteen hundred million tons of ash.
“Hey”, you might say, “aren’t you making free with all those hundred millions of tons?” – and I would answer you thus: “A million tons of rock makes a cone 243 feet high. So I’m suggesting that the annual volcanic production of rock is equivalent to fifteen hundred of these rock cones. See what I mean?”
To put that estimate into perspective, the largest known eruption, Tambora, put 200 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere in a single event!
Getting back to the point, it can be reasonably argued that contrails are at least FIFTEEN TIMES LESS IMPORTANT THAN VOLCANOES when it comes to having an effect on our atmosphere, whether warming it or cooling it…
So forget ALL of this bullfish about contrails/chemtrails. Yadda barium, yadda aluminum, yadda cooling, yadda dimming, yadda morgellons, yadda toxins……..You can bet your boots that anyone who advocates this idea is an ignorant dupe, with NO IDEA of the magnitude of the Earth and the events that truly moderate its climate.
Written by JazzRoc
November 10, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with 300 million tons, abnormal contrail, adiabatic cooling, aerosol, air force, aluminium, aluminum, argument, arthritis, ash, atmosphere, atmospheric scientist, average temperature, barium, believer, blatant, breathing difficulties, bullfish, bureaucracies, carnicom, chem trail, chemical, condensed water vapor, conspiracy, conspiracy theories, contrails, convective, crisscrossed, cumulus, decrease in pressure, deluded, email, epa, equator, faa, federal government, filaments, furore, gaseous oxide, gases, global warming, government sprays, grid, health problem, heavy haze, high humidity, ice crystal, ill-effect, imaginary, incoming solar radiation, internet, lines in the sky, lung disease, magma, menace, metallic salts, misinformation, morgellons, NASA, no more blue skies, noaa, non-turbulent, normal contrail, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, ominous controversy, onslaught, parallel, passenger transport plane, patrick minnis, pole, ptb, radio talk show, rense, scientific understanding, spraying, stable, steam, stonewall, stratified, stratosphere, sulfur dioxide, supporter, temperature, theory, thermal profile, threatening, tic-tac-toe, tick-tack-toe, toxic substance, troposphere, turbulent, unnatural cloud, unstable, unsuspecting populace, vertical mixing, volcanoes, water vapor, weather observation, webby material, white plane, whiteout
DISINFO – DISINFO AND HOW TO PROPAGATE IT – DOCO – DOUBLEMEAT’S LIST – DRY DAYS – DYING
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
“disinfo” – once again well-known, well-reported ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE is DESCRIBED AS DISINFO.
“contrails do not remain” – BUT THEY CAN. The air has only to be SATURATED or SUPERSATURATED for them to REMAIN.
“if they do they’re a chemtrail” – IF THEY DO, THE AIR IS SATURATED. Unfortunately for ALL OF US, you take THAT as PROOF of a “chemtrail”. It’s the ONLY “PROOF” you have – so sad.
“Chemtrails remain because there is particulate matter in them” – DUSTS PUT JET ENGINES OUT -
“since not enough moisture to keep contrail present at high altitudes, disappears within a minute” – Ah, some detail in your ignorance. The fine ice crystal “smoke” of the contrail will SUBLIME into the -40 deg air if the air is NOT SATURATED. But the air may SATURATED or even SUPERSATURATED. There’s NO WAY YOU CAN TELL FROM THE GROUND, for ALL DEGREES OF SATURATION ARE TRANSPARENT.
“Your science is crap” – It isn’t MY science. It’s ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE.
DISINFO AND HOW TO PROPAGATE IT
The first thing you do is start with a common occurrence – an allergic reaction to cedar pollen. Then you “build in” the precursors (some direct lie) to throw the listener off-track. Then you can supply lots of misinformation (“yellow dusts sprayed from aircraft”) and propagate chemtrail disinformation. Here is a case in point:
This is a comment by WATCHER on the post “How long do contrails last?” by Uncinus in Contrailscience.com:
“In 2006 a plane dumped something in our area (Cedar Glen). It was a large yellow cloud that exploded leaving behind a sticky yellow reside on my car and property. Although it looked like cedar pollen, it was in Dec. so no chance of it being that.
Following that…there was a high rate of illness reported by doctors in the area. Paul Moyer on NBC 4 did a report on it as well, with no explanation other than “oh well….we’ll keep you posted”. I watched four days ago as the planes criss crossed in the sky, coloring the sky white. It rained the next day and I got the headaches that felt like an ice pick stabbing me in the inner ear. I have been around for a long time and do not remember anything like these planes trails or headaches of this severity when I was growing up until the late 90’s. I would never have paid attention until I noticed the illnesses in conjunction with the planes.”
“The disease cedar fever is not actually a fever. This disease is a kind of allergy. The allergic reaction is accompanied by watery and itchy eyes, runny nose, and sneezing. Most of the time, this also causes itchiness inside the ears. Cedar fever is caused by the pollen from the commonly known mountain cedar tree, although this tree is actually juniper (juniperus ashei). This disease is a seasonal disease. This means that many individuals get this disease on only certain seasons of the year.
The usual season for cedar fever would be December to January, when the cyclic pollination of trees occur. The pollens are released by the trees and scattered by the winds. Once the pollen from the tree is inhaled, it may cause an undesirable effect on cedar allergic persons.
Many persons are are prone to allergies. The allergic reactions to certain things are caused by an oversensitive immune system. The oversensitive immune system leads to an increased (but unnecessary) immune response. The body’s immune system usually protects itself against harmful chemicals, bacteria and viruses. The allergic reaction occurs when the immune system reacts to a stimulant (an allergen) that usually does not do harm most people.
As noted above, cedar fever involves an allergic reaction to pollen. A virtually identical reaction occurs with allergy to mold, dust, and other allergens that can be inhaled. Other small particles on the air, especially in polluted air, can greatly aggravate the disease of cedar fever.”
“make your own doco” – WATCH THIS SPACE.
“admitted chemtrails” – I’LL NEVER ADMIT TO A FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
“global dimming” – REQUIRES 3.6 MILLION TONS ALUMINA/BARIUM PER DAY. ALIENS REQUIRED. NO, NOT YOU.
“substances reflect sunlight” – THE ICE IN A CONTRAIL DOES THIS.
“So what if you’re sick” – YOUR DIET, CITY SMOGS, POLLENS DO THIS.
“depressed” – YOUR PARANOIA DOES THIS.
“fluoride” – HARDENS YOUR TEETH IN SMALL DOSES.
“prozac is a better name for it” – NOT AT ALL.
“Have a nice day” – I LIVE IN SUNSHINE AND CLEAR BLUE SKIES.
“your ignorance is disgusting and vile” – GET AWAY FROM THE MIRROR.
DOUBLEMEAT’S LIST (fantastic!)
“For days when it’s dry.” – Then you haven’t appreciated the fundamental difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere. The troposphere is frictionally-bound to the earth’s surface, and also locked by thermals which become cumulus clouds. The air in the troposphere is always turbulently mixing. It is the BOUNDARY LAYER of the surface of the Earth.
The stratosphere slides over it at greatly differing speeds and directions. Its overall ground speed is typically higher. Being layered, it gets its pressure potentials (its reason to move) from greater distances away, sometimes hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles away. That’s why particular layers are sometimes given the name JET STREAMS by pilots; when they stand out as having a particularly high speed and unusual direction.
From my description you can easily infer that what you experience in the troposphere has nothing whatsoever to do with what you see in the stratosphere. At their boundary the gases do not mix except at rates of normal gaseous diffusion.
And this condition remains even after “days when it’s dry”.
The absolute reverse can also be true: the conditions in the troposphere are violent, stormy and wet, while up above in the stratosphere the conditions are BONE DRY, AND THERE’S NO SIGN OF CONTRAILS ANYWHERE.
“People are dying” – And being born.
“Respiration problems, CANCERS/blah/DEATHS RISING” – The population’s rising
“persists” – People persist
“obvious cover up government/media” – Not so. Thinking people know that CONNECTING events isn’t THAT easy
“If you really had a clue when it came to Science, then you wouldn’t be posting this crap” – Take a look in the mirror before you write
“So the proof is what comes out of your mouth. You are an evil person for promoting what the government is doing to its citizens and you should be tried just like the Nazis were in the Nuremberg Trials for the atrocities you and others like you are trying to cover up”
And those LIES you write here in a continuous stream are the reason for my responses. Your INDUSTRIES are POISONING your groundwater, your FOOD is DENATURED and POLLUTED, your air is thick with POLLEN, AUTO FUMES, and PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOGS, RADIOACTIVE A-BOMB PRODUCTS, elevated levels of UV RADIATION, you live in IGNORANCE, LIES, FEAR, and STRESS, and instead of ADDRESSING THESE PRESSING PROBLEMS, your LOOSE THINKING connects with persistent vapor trails and CONCOCTS a massive genocidal goverment campaign, and an actionable libel to boot, all without a SHRED of EVIDENCE.
You really DO have the government you deserve…
Written by JazzRoc
November 7, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with actionable libel, aerosol, alien, alumina, aluminium, aluminum, arthritis, auto fumes, barium, boundary layer, breathing difficulties, carnicom, chem trail, chemtrail, cloud, concocts, contrails, cumulus, degrees of saturation, denatured, depressed, diet, disinfo, disinformation, dusts, established atmospheric science, fear, filaments, fluoride, food, fundamental difference, harden, heavy haze, ice, ignorance, industries, jet stream, lies, lines in the sky, loose thinking, lung disease, massive genocidal government campaign, metallic salts, moisture, morgellons, no more blue skies, normal gaseous diffusion, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, paranoia, photochemical smog, pilot, poisoning, pollen, polluted, prozac, ptb, radioactive a-bomb products, rense, saturated, shred of evidence, smog, spraying, stratosphere, stress, supersaturated, teeth, thermal, tic-tac-toe, transparent, tropospher, turbulently mixing, unnatural cloud, uv radiation, webby material, whiteout