“Several speakers referred to widely debunked conspiracies about ‘chemtrails’ released from aircraft that some believe are laced with toxic chemicals spread by the government to control the weather or exercise mind control.
These are falsely confused with contrails, or the white streaks that appear behind an aircraft when water vapor condenses and freezes around the exhaust.”
Fact: Contrails formed from aircraft exhaust ARE chemtrails. They cannot be formed without chemicals. Contrails are formed by chemical particles from aircraft exhaust, allowing nucleation to happen (particles give water molecules something to rest on). This is how the trails are formed. The trails can then disperse into artificially induced cirrus clouds, which is why we see blue skies less often nowadays.
Proof that these contrails ARE geoengineering:
“The detected metallic compounds were all internally mixed with the soot particles…In addition, the emitted particles could act as Ice Nucleating Particles (INP) and affect natural clouds…The largest radiative forcing arises from the induced cirrus caused by the possible evolution of linear contrails into persisting cirrus clouds…These spreading cirrus clouds can become undistinguishable from naturally (e.g. synoptically or orographically) evolved cirrus clouds…”
Chemical characterization of freshly emitted particulate matter from aircraft exhaust using single particle mass spectrometry
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231016302424
“Creating persistent cooling contrails at scale may be considered as solar geoengineering…Avoiding persistent warming contrails at scale is not geoengineering but a significant mitigation opportunity”
Royal Aeronautical Society:
reports from the RAeS
‘Mitigating the climate impact of non-CO2’ conference
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/easy-does-it-for-greener-skies/
Sulfur as a fuel additive to create aerosol in planes is discussed here: “Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option.”
Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL039209
“Sulfuric acid (H2SO4), formed in commercial aircraft operations via fuel-S (goes to) SO2 (goes to) SO3 (goes to) H2SO4 plays an important role in the formation of contrails.”
NASA: Sulfur Oxidation and Contrail Precursor Chemistry
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20030055681
“Our simulations show that sulfur dioxide is converted into sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid…allowing a visible contrail to appear earlier.”
CFD simulation of contrail formation in the near field of a commercial aircraft: Effect of fuel sulfur content
https://www.schweizerbart.de/papers/metz/detail/26/87235/CFD_simulation_of_contrail_formation_in_the_near_field_of_a_commercial_aircraft_Effect_of_fuel_sulfur_content
The Register cites the following article to support their erroneous claim. However, this article does not support their claim- it actually debunks the Register’s claim. The article mentions chemicals emitted from aircraft exhaust. “Sulfur gases are also of potential interest because they lead to the formation of small particles. Particles suitable for water droplet formation are necessary for contrail formation.”
There you have it. The Register’s own sources prove them wrong. Contrails from aircraft exhaust ARE chemtrails. Chemicals are required for the formation of contrails. It goes on to read, “Initial contrail particles, however, can either be already present in the atmosphere [from where?] or formed in the exhaust gas [from aircraft].”
The Register mentions NOAA as a supporting source for their claim, yet NOAA talks openly about geoengineering:
“SRM deployments…could have substantial risks and unintended and unexpected consequences. Side effects of SRM are driven by complex chemical, radiative, and dynamical interactions, such as changes to the hydrologic cycle and clouds, or effects on ecosystems, agricultural production, and the carbon cycle. Additional impacts on the protective stratospheric ozone layer by SAI and alterations to the El Niño Southern Oscillation by MCB are also possible. The potential risks and benefits to human health and well-being and to ecosystems from SRM need to be evaluated and assessed…”
Solar radiation modification: NOAA State of the Science factsheet
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/solar-radiation-modification-noaa-state-science-factsheet
It’s astonishing that the Register has also missed NOAA’s requirement that anyone participating in geoengineering must register with NOAA.
Geoengineering projects in the U.S. are required to report them to NOAA ten days prior and ten days after activity. The reports are then made available soon after.
“Companies that intend to engage in weather modification activities within the United States are required by the Weather Modification Act of 1976…to provide a report to the Administrator of NOAA at least 10 days prior to undertaking the activity.
The Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1972, 15 U.S.C. § 330 et seq. requires that all persons who conduct weather modification activities within the United States or its territories report such activities to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce at least 10 days prior to and after undertaking the activities.
Weather modification activities are defined as ‘Any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere’ (see 15 CFR § 908.1). The following, when conducted as weather modification activities, shall be reported (see 15 CFR § 908.3):
- Seeding or dispersing of any substance into clouds or fog, to alter drop size distribution, produce ice crystals or coagulation of droplets, alter the development of hail or lightning, or influence in any way the natural development cycle of clouds or their environment…
- Using lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation; or
- Other activities undertaken with the intent to modify the weather or climate, including solar radiation management activities and experiments…
The following two forms are required for those conducting weather modification:
17-4 Initial Report on Weather Modification Activities…
17-4A Interim Activity Reports and Final Report…
Submissions will usually be available in the repository within two (2) months after the end of the fiscal quarter.”
‘NOAA Weather Modification Climate Reports’
https://library.noaa.gov/weather-climate/weather-modification-project-reports
How to obtain the NOAA reports to see who is performing geoengineering projects:
See § 908.12 Public disclosure of information in the document below.
“Any records or other information obtained by the Administrator under these rules or otherwise under the authority of Public Law 92-205 shall be made publicly available to the fullest practicable extent. Such records or information may be inspected on written request to the Administrator.”
These records are made available “To the public, if necessary to protect their health and safety…Certified copies of such reports and information, to the extent publicly disclosable, may be obtained from the Administrator at cost in accordance with the Department of Commerce implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.”
‘NOAA: Part 908- Maintaining Records and Submitting Reports on Weather Modification Activities’
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-IX/subchapter-A/part-908
It seems the Register tried steering attention away from well known geoengineering strategies such as Statospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Solar Radiation Management (SRM), Marine Cloud Brightening, and Cloud Seeding to focus on the aspects of geoengineering resulting from commercial aircraft, which did not go well for them.
Nice try, Register.
– Bill Hamilton
