posted 03-21-2002 07:13 PM            

LETS ASSUME for one minute that there are no such thing as chemtrails, and all these lines in the sky are just normal commercial and military aircraft going about their daily business.

Does it not concern you that your natural blue sky is being covered up by all these lines in the sky, blocking the sunlight you would normally receive, making your day gloomier and cloudier then it would normally be, and ultimately altering the forces of nature becuase areas that would receive sunlight are being blocked by the contrails from the planes???

Wouldn't you like to see a restoration to clear blue skies??

Wouldn't it be nice to go outside and look up and see only the clouds that nature put up there??

So, please, answer me that question.. I'm just dieing to know what all you debunkers think, and what sort of solutions you would propose for clearing our skys up..

posted 03-21-2002 10:07 PM            

If you look at the ratio of how much sky there actually is, and how much space the contrails take up, when the actually happen (they only happen when conditions are right), it's only a small amount of actual sky taken up.

posted 03-21-2002 10:56 PM            

First, with the increased contrails, we get increasing overcast as more and more trails tend to coalesce into more and more cloud cover. Although I'm not a meteorologist, I know that cloudy nights tend to be warmer because radiated heat from the Earth cannot get out into space. And, of course, all other things equal, I'd assume that cloudy days would be cooler because the increased albedo bounces back some of the light from the sun.

Therefore, I would expect to see a smaller temperature delta, or difference, over a 24-hour period. I am not sure that such would automatically lead to bad climate, but my guess is that there would be bad side effects, since (a) localized biota is adapted for a certain temperature delta, and (b) the weather-engine that drives climate would probably be impacted by the smaller delta.

Second, as an outdoorsman and amateur astronomer, I consider contrails, while dramatic and beautiful at sunset, merely something that gets in the way of seeing the stars at night. Sometimes night-time esthetics mean a lot, expecially if you've luggged an eight-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain a hundred miles out of town, merely to observe the underside of a jet's contrail (or ten).

Third, if you consider fuel dumping as 'chemtrails', then the increase in such, I believe, is not a healthy thing for the land, critters, or people if some of the less volatile formulations actually reach the ground before evaporating. I think taht the health dangers from this kind of "fallout" are much, much less than the health hazards merely around an airport; nonetheless, it is a potential concern.

posted 03-22-2002 05:39 PM            

I'm not sure what could be done to prevent them.

My theory is that since they are able to predict the climate conditions, and contrail formulation more accurately then ever before, the altitude levels of the airplanes could be adjusted, so they fly at an altitude which does not leave contrails. Also, planes should be routed on more efficient paths which did not cause the formulations to occur.

Since I know nothing about aircraft control, I'm sure an aircraft controller would lothe this message that I just wrote... It can't be easy keeping the traffic where it is today, imagine having to route around preventing contrails from occuring.

posted 03-22-2002 05:42 PM            

While I can respect the fact that you are definding the industry that you work in, and earn your livlihood from, I don't think you are really seeing the whole picture. You're looking at contrails from the sky down, instead of from the ground up.. So you see a sky that is only 10% covered in aircraft contrails.. Small percentage, on a scale of 1-100%, yes..

But from the ground, what we see is an otherwise 100% blue sky day is suddently completely covered in aircraft contrails. And let's not forget that just because the little plane leaves a line behind it, doesn't mean that line won't spread out into a huge cloud covering a large portion of the sky.

Today is a perfect example, it is partly cloudy outside today, from the natural weather.. but when you throw the contrails into the loop, we are about 70% covered.. Doesn't look partly cloudy any more to me... Mostly cloudy.

posted 03-23-2002 12:58 AM            

You said to Mr. coli, an airline pilot, "While I can respect the fact that you are definding the industry that you work in, and earn your livlihood from, I don't think you are really seeing the whole picture." Bear in mind that I, although not a commercial pilot, am an employee of The Boeing Company (although I do not speak for my company in any capacity) so it is my living as well.

You said to me, "My theory is that since they are able to predict the climate conditions, and contrail formulation more accurately then ever before, the altitude levels of the airplanes could be adjusted, so they fly at an altitude which does not leave contrails. Also, planes should be routed on more efficient paths which did not cause the formulations to occur."

Actually, we cannot, unfortunately, predict climate, although we can predict weather. There are simply too many variables for us to predict something long-term like climate. Bear in mind that it was only ten years or so ago that we even knew about the impact of El Niño or La Niña; and our understanding of the role of sunspots in weather, although good, lacks the long-term historicity that would make us better able to predict correlations between solar flare activity and resultant weather.

As you probably know, air transportation is not an easy way to make money; airlines have to juggle seat-miles, routes, and many other things to keep from going broke. Flying at a lower altitude, although it would probably result in less contrails, would force the aircraft to fly through thicker air, seriously impacting the already pretty poor fuel economy figures. My guess is that the fuel costs would rise on the order of ten percent. Since fuel costs are a key driver in an airline’s ability to break even, factoring the additional fuel costs in would require the airlines to boost their ticket prices by a hefty amount, lowering the already pretty anemic number of full seats.

Also, a plane flying at 8000-10,000 meters can take advantage (at least one way) of the jet stream, which, at 125 miles per hour, really cuts the aircraft’s flight time (and fuel consumption) down. For example, a flight from LAX to Tokyo Narita is nine hours, since the plane flies above the Aleutians and Sea of Okhotsk to pick up the East-to-West stream. Flying back, even though the distance is about 400 miles less (since the plane doesn’t fly that far north, but more of a Great Circle route), the trip takes eleven hours!

I don’t know what a plane can do, given the need to fly at a high (read: cold) altitude. As long as you have water as a byproduct of jet engine operation, it’s going to freeze into ice crystals. And, if the temperature and humidity conditions are right, those crystals and other combustion byproducts can stick around for a long time and coalesce into clouds.

That doesn’t mean that I like the idea of increased cloud cover as a result of aircraft contrails! But, given the multi-billion dollar economy of aircraft travel, as well an the convenience that such travel instills in everyone today, I think the aircraft industry is going to need good, hard facts about the possible effects of additional cloud cover on long-term climatic conditions to make them seriously investigate alternatives to contrail-producing aircraft.

That, and a butt-kicking Congress, too, of course.

Regards.

posted 03-27-2002 08:27 AM            

XtromatriX is just mad because I forgot to invite him to the CIA picnic.

Sorry, X; I had just got off a ten-hour poisonplane flight and barely made it to the picnic myself. And besides, it was no fun anyway. One of the Reptoid Masters got p1$$ed because he came in third in the gunnysack race and ate a debunker and a sprayplane co-pilot.

posted 03-27-2002 11:40 AM            

I don’t have a problem with the grids or X’s, etc. Anyone who has looks at flight patterns can see that goes on all of the time. I don’t have a problem with naturally occurring contrails which form under certain atmospheric conditions. I live near an Air Force Base and a regional airport and have seen plenty of that all of my life. What I do question is the sudden onset three or four years ago of long-lasting trails that spread out and hang around all day. The trails I was used to seeing, and still see plenty of, don’t last more than a few minutes. Under certain temperature and atmospheric conditions they might hang around a little longer, but they don’t spread out and create a white haze that lasts all day long. You have to wonder why, and you want to know if whatever is going on is safe for the environment and for your health.

Given the fact that there is plenty of legitimate info on the web and elsewhere about experimentation by the government in the atmosphere for various reasons, it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that chemicals are in use and could be visible from the ground. And, given the fact that our government does not always see fit to inform the general public about these things, it gives rise to all sorts of speculation. There have been occasions in the past when this experimentation led to health and environment problems, so it’s not surprising that people should want to know what is going on.

Lets hope whatever is happening is a good thing and not a bad thing. Meanwhile, I don’t see a problem with looking for a fire when you keep seeing smoke….

posted 03-27-2002 01:19 PM            

Scanner, I can't argue with anything you said in the quote above. I agree with your first sentence in that is isn't "beyond the realm of possibility".

But there's a big difference between something being possible and something being even likely!

And you're right again when you say that since the government doesn't tell us what is going on (and I personally think a lot of that secrecy is unnecessary) people will speculate. I do, too.

But there's a big difference between speculating and using evidence to come up with a sound hypothesis and then testing it!

And it's not surprising that people would want to know what's going on. If there are answers to some of the anomalies we see and hear about, common sense will drive us to try and find out what those anomalies are.

But when we see reports that can't be verified -- by 'anonymous' reporters, or read lab test interpretations which are plainly fraudulent (even though the lab tests themselves might be on the up and up), then people will not know what is going on.

And if those same people accept any story which matches their preconceptions and dismiss out-of-hand any explanation which does not - they will never know.

Regards,