Adam, of course, would say these are really chem-trails and the scientists are hiding this fact.

Scientists have studied hole-punch clouds since the 1940s and have long suspected that planes play a role in their formation.

Now, ice microphysicist Andrew Heymsfield and colleagues have found that aircraft really can create the odd clouds. Their research also uncovered something totally new: that aircraft can unleash precipitation by carving the cloud tunnels, which had never before been observed.
[…]
As planes push cloud temperatures past the tipping point at which supercooled water freezes, the aircraft “seed” the clouds with ice particles, the study says.

“If you introduce ice particles, water vapor will condense on them—like it does on a bathroom mirror that’s just a bit cooler than the room—and then snow out” or rain out, Heymsfield explained.
[…]
Heymsfield and colleagues flew smack-dab into the hole-punch discovery after having conducted a cloud study from a heavily instrumented turboprop plane near Denver International Airport in 2007. A later look at ground-based radar showed an unexplained band of snowfall in the area.
[…]
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration records show that another turboprop followed the same path in short order. The snow squall began five minutes after the second plane had passed. Snow fell for 45 minutes along a band 20 miles (32 kilometers) long and 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) wide, dropping some two inches (five centimeters) on the ground under the band.




  1. bobbo, our imaginations are always limited (anchored?) by out of date parameters says:

    Just as it is now revealed, the action of airplanes on weather “should be” well understood by anyone who “just looks.”

    Years ago when flying into Alaska at near dew point conditions it was/(is) well known that you only have one chance to land the airplane. You have still winds and unlimited visibility at 38 degrees. You approach and land without issue enjoying the sun on your face. If you miss the landing and power up to go around, the entire base will close due to low lying ground fog.

    Not all the time, not even “often” but just often enough that you are advised of the possibility.

    Knowing this alone, anything other than what this post says would be suspect.

    And then, at 800AM after a 22 hour work day, I went to the bar and had a beer for breakfast. Rather inured me to claims I was an alcoholic.

    And thats how this all got started.

  2. jbenson2 says:

    Here we go again with another one-sided report – oh my God! The planes are creating rain and snow sooner than normal! A classic Chicken Little story.

    But no reporting on the beneficial economic impact of plane traffic. And is an earlier-than-expected snowfall really a disaster? What is the alternative? Just the sounds of crickets.

  3. jbenson2 says:

    Bobbo’s anecdotal flight story must have been done before all those new-fangled instruments were invented that permitted IFR flights (instrument flight rules).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_flight_rules

  4. The Wrong Guy says:

    #2: Huh? It’s a story on research into a scientific phenomenon, ie, how it works. Has nothing to do with economics, etc. Get a grip, dude.

  5. jbenson2 says:

    #4 Get a grip?

    Tell that to the Global Warmers, Al Gore, and the other enviro-nutcases who will add this article to their grab bag of other half-cocked stories to “prove” man is the cause of climate change.

  6. bobbo, junior Red Baron says:

    JB–if you put it in context, I’m saying “Yes, it happens, but very rarely. conditions have to be “just right.”

    While technically possible, thick ground fog is not overcome by IFR. Even on IFR and automated landings, you have to be able to see the ground for that last 100 feet.

    So JB==wrong on every point you make but you can learn, and thats a good thing.

  7. Father says:

    Adam’s chemtrail theory ignores two basic problems:

    1) airplanes have a very limited payload capacity, so any chemicals they would spray at 35,000 ft would be extremely dilute and far away from ground level.

    2) it would be a whole lot easier to put Adam’s evil chemicals in the propellent of aerosol spray cans, like shaving cream et al, than to fly them in planes.

  8. Lou Minatti says:

    The likelihood of a conspiracy being genuine decreases the more Adam touts it.

  9. Dallas says:

    Planes affecting local weather patterns is neither new nor of any significance to global warming.

    What is significant (due to lg size of the herd) is the Republisheep associating inconsequential things like this with the very significant and complex issue of global warming.

  10. jescott418 says:

    Let’s blame the planes for the so called “Global Warming” too.

  11. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Set your Tivo’s for Book TV this morning at 400AM: “Merchants of Doubt” with Erik Conway. He is a “science historian.”

    The troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.

    He knows his AGW. Good for one and all.

  12. deowll says:

    I’m sure all this information has been taken into account in the most recent climate modals and can be used to accurately predict how it impacts climate trends over the next 100 years.

    Or more honestly for none believers this is just one of countless reasons your weather forecast isn’t going to be right unpleasantly often.

    Now just for fun the temp as provided by the government weather service says 91 in Lawrenceburg but I checked two different exterior thermometers and got ~75 even though I live in Lawrenceburg. All I can come up with is I just don’t have enough asphalt, concrete, etc, and I have to much green.

  13. bobbo, libertarianism fails when its Dogma blinds them to the rising threat of Corporations that can only be held in check by Government thru the will of the people says:

    #13–Hampster Brain==you can’t be this stupid? Yes, temp gauges at airports tend to be hotter than in the rural wasteland. But guess what? The temp record over the last 20 years and the next 100 years FROM THE SAME LOCATION is whats relevant. Did you check the temperature in your refrigerator as well?

    What a dolt.

  14. Glenn E. says:

    So we’re one step closer to blaming the airline industry on the bad weather. Great! Finally someone with deep pockets to sue over record snowfalls and floods. But natch the FAA and NWS will bend over backward to keep the industry blameless. Just as the EPA has, for keeping the Airlines’ contribution to air pollution, off the books. Do we really think that 37,000 flights a day does nothing to the sky?! After 9-11 there was a significant measured effect, from the absence of US commercial aircraft, for three days. But big corporations always manage to be blameless. Just like the big banks are now.

  15. laxdude says:

    I don’t think that chemtrails are a real thing, but if you wanted to do it you would put it in the jetfuel – since it is the only application that does not require extra equipment to be installed, and a small reduction energy density could be explained away by a new blend. If you tally up the tons of jet fuel that are burned and vented into the atmosphere everyday one could see where even a small percentage of that total would go a long way.

    Just as I don’t doubt that air travel influence weather, I also don’t doubt that wide scale adoption of solar – but more so wind and tidal energy would also have an effect on local weather.

    I am not sold on man made global warming. The deficiencies in weather stations has been shown, airports are now bigger and more paved than ever (bigger heat reservoirs) so their historical temperatures are less relevant than ever.

    I also think that global warming will probably be better for Canada, Russian, China, and Northern Europe – which I think explains the inaction of Russia and China.

  16. bobbo, demonstrating the value of Sophistry by being so poor at it says:

    Soundwash–just in case you make it back here==calling localized atmospheric effects “weather” is a bit of a stretch==but that 911 incident shows it should be quantifiable, measurable and testable. All good things.

    Aren’t “premanent magnets” creating a magnetic field without the flow of electric current? I learned that in grade school? Kinda throws a damper ((electric gate?===hah, hah!!)) on your whole credibility as Mr. Electric?

    Keep the good stuff coming.

  17. soundwash says:

    doh..did it again.

    Will the OP please close the strong statement after “sciences”

    ie: the negative effects it had on the whole of our sciences

    thanks,
    -s


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5555 access attempts in the last 7 days.