Chemtrails Part 3 - Geoengineering Our Sky

     

     To conclude this three-part chemtrail blog series, I would like to address geoengineering. Of the various issues raised by chemtrail proponents that I've heard, this is the only one that actually has some factual basis. Yet, people still run a bit too wild with it. While I don’t support the geoengineering of our sky, the idea is nothing new, and typically refers to one of two things. It can refer to the spraying of aerosols into the troposphere (lower atmosphere) in order to cause the formation of clouds (through condensation). While this could be a means of generating rain, it has most recently been proposed as a means of reflecting sunlight in order to offset the temperature increases from climate change. Geoengineering can also refer to the spraying of sulfate particles (or precursor gases) into the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) in order to reflect light, the purpose again being to cool the planet.

      In the first case, while some small-scale field experiments have probably taken place, for the most part we are talking about proposals, not actual spraying. And if such experiments have taken place, the relative risk to human health of such spraying would be negligible compared to other sources of chemical pollution in the environment, especially considering the altitude of spraying (as described in my last blog). That being said, we’ve all probably seen a condensation trail spread out across the sky and create a thin layer of cloud, or maybe grow into a cloud. This is not due to a special type of contrail (a “chemtrail”). Rather, it is the result of emitting water vapor and pollutants into an atmosphere that is already saturated with water. When an atmosphere is saturated, emitted water vapor will condense and hang around for a while (a visible contrail). When an atmosphere is supersaturated, not only will this vapor condense, but surrounding water vapor will be triggered to condense, spreading into a cloud-like layer. This is precisely the same physics that would make geoengineering possible, should such proposals be adopted. That is, under certain atmospheric conditions the release of particles into the air will facilitate the condensation of surrounding water vapor and in turn create cloud cover.

      In the case of condensation trails, however, such trails do not exist because they were designed to exist. Airplanes could release almost ANY mixture of particles and water vapor and it would cause the formation of trails under the right conditions. Such chemical mixtures, however, need not be special. They are collectively called “air pollution.”  So yes, airplanes do pollutant the skies. But they do so by releasing air pollutants characteristic of any combustion engine. And they sometimes do manipulate the weather, because releasing particle pollution and water vapor all over the atmosphere all day every day is bound to do so. This is unfortunate for those of us who enjoy clear skies, but it is not conspiracy. It is an inevitable byproduct of airplane traffic.

      As for stratospheric geoengineering, exposure to sulfate particles through this type of spraying is not realistic. Not only is the stratosphere over 30,000 feet above ground, but this region of the atmosphere is incredibly stable to vertical mixing. In other words, particles that are released there will stay there for long periods. This is precisely why the stratosphere has been identified as the target for such spraying. In addition, it is important to realize that sulfate pollution is already one of the greatest air pollutants in and around our communities. What is the major source you ask? Fossil fuel combustion! So if our concern is sulfate pollution, why in the world are we worrying about proposed sulfate particles being released 30,000 feet above earth’s surface when there are literally millions of tons of sulfur pollution being poured into our air at ground level by the fossil fuel industry each year? Instead of waving our fingers at the sky, how about we wave them at our utility companies and pressure them to adopt cleaner means of producing electricity? Or better yet, how about we pay slightly more for the green energy options that most electric companies already offer, and in turn shift demand? And what about putting solar panels on our roofs? That’s an option too!
      This third article concludes my blog series on chemtrails. If you still have unanswered questions relating to the topic, I welcome them in the comments sections below where I will do my best to answer them in a timely manner.  

If you found this article informative, please support me by joining my blog!  Simply click the “join this site” button at the top right of the page, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!!

                                                                                                                     -Shahir Masri, M.S.