Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.

You don't need help crying Sally, you do just fine on your own.

But since your here, let's see if you can answer this. What would a commercial sized airliner deploying sulphur dioxide 30 miles above the earth look like. Could it be confused with an everyday contrail?
Just so you know, I personally do not think every trail in the sky is laced with chemicals nor do I think every contrail from the exhaust of a plane is a chemtrail. Some people have went a little overboard with this misconception.

I don't think anyone can answer that question without much speculation . . .

I do however know that Geoengineering is real, it has been and is being tested, and the agenda of the top billionaires along with leading climate scientists are pushing this for approval on a grand scale. Fact

I already know they can't answer.

And you can?

Never said anyone could Sally. Just pointing out the fact that no one could distinguish between the two.

Not even you two Contards.

30 miles or 48km plus or 150,000 feet plus . . . That is up there . . . However, to be effective the altitude can be much lower . . . It has to do with the fall rates, particulate size and atmospheric density . . .

That is not what you said, Sparky...

What did I say Fake Airlines?

This?
"Could a full sized aircraft deploying sulfur dioxide 30 miles above the earth be confused with normal contrails? Not even your eyes could tell the difference at that altitude."

:C - Atmosphere:

This George;
A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, [see footnote] are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.

Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.

According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.

The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.

Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.

Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.

"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.

"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."

"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.

The scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."

"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.

"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.".

Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I."

• This article was amended on 8 February 2012. The original stated that Phil Rasch worked for Intellectual Ventures. This has been corrected. This article was further amended on 13 February 2012. Prof Caldeira has asked us to make clear that the fact that he advocates research into geoengineering does not mean he advocates geoengineering.

:Earth 2 Space Tr:

George understands it...

It's you that doesn't...

Is the "commercial sized airliner" going to carry it's own Oxygen to "30 miles" too?

It would take less particulate . . . The lower the altitude . . . The issue is how long aerosols stay aloft . . . And thus how frequently the need for a new loading . . . Presently with known technology . . . 40,000 feet might be practical . . . Above that would be much more problematic . . . That is why I am more inclined to buy sulfur spiked fuel with occasional booster shots from dedicated aircraft targeting jet streams for maximum effect . .

Nothing in that text-wall shows that the trails in the sky are anything more than contrails.

Great, so does that mean planes which DON'T leave trails behind them could also be leaving behind sulfur compounds? Because, if you think the white trails wee see are white BECAUSE of the sulfur, then you are sadly mistaken.

Great..."geoengineering" is real...I don't GIVE A SHIT and I'm not arguing about "geoengineering".

I see no EVIDENCE that it's going on, and the trails are NOT evidence of it.

You want to whine about geoengineering? GREAT! But, this thread is about the misunderstandings about contrails...nothing more.

Have you read the "About" section of that government run shilling site? If you believe those idiots, let's just say you're an idiot.

Chemtrail History and Information - Alan Watt [Full]



[link to www.youtube.com]

How do you know without knowing the atmospheric data . . . ?

I didn't say YOU stated it, I'm saying that many chemtards make the claim...when referring to the trails in the sky.

And I'm referring to EACH plane load...not the total which scientists say...Now, explain to me how much sulfur dioxide it would take to make a VISIBLE trails of this substance...miles long and wide. Fucking idiot...

I never said "all contrails are only contrails"...stupid. I have made the claim that no chemtard has shown that a single trail referred to as a chemtrail, is anything more than a contrail...Get it? There is a clear distinction! Fucking idiot...

I don't need the atmospheric data...

I'm not making any claim.


I'm just pointing out that planes with NO visible trail could EASILY be spraying something...and we wouldn't know it. So just because we see trails...doesn't mean it's indicative of a plane participating in a "spray program".

If you think that its a shill site...then you are a paranoid retard. Show me anything on that site which isn't a reflection of the known aviation principles or atmospheric science.

How could that be a shill site when all the information is that which has been understood for close to 9 decades...

fucking paranoid idiot!

So????? Changes nothing . . . Vapor trails are vapor trails, no matter what they contain . . .

I said no such thing. I stated they are pushing to do it fuck tard and they are. I provided specific names and their plan to combat global warming. Then i asked could the two be confused with each other and what would it look like at 30 miles up. Can you read English? Where did I say all white trails = sulphur. More of you bullshit Taco Boy.

He doesn't need data, he uses his eyes and that's good enough for him. Just not everyone else.......right Taco Libre?

Uh oh!

More facts that Noble's buddy will ignore...

Atmospheric Sulphur has been declining since the 70's in NA, and early 80's in EU...

Just one example:

www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd99/pdfs/Chapter7.pdf