Global Temperatures Would
Be Cooler Without Contrails
Drew Picklyk gets it half-wrong. Most clouds do not fit the definition of contrails
Put simply: Most clouds are water droplets in the lower troposphere that frequently produce rain.
Contrails are ice crystals created by water vapor formed by the incomplete combustion of jet fuel.
A Cirrus cloud is closest to approximating a contrail since it is also formed by ice crystals at high altitude. But a Cirrus cloud and a contrail are not interchangeable in chemical and physical makeup. They are only similar in that both are capable of trapping heat in the lower troposphere.
Cirrus clouds and contrails are cited in technical literature as behaving in a way to cause a net warming of the earth’s surface. In other words, cirrus clouds and contrails are partly responsible for global warming even before the carbon dioxide from jet engine combustion is considered.
Of course the article goes on to call chemtrails a conspiracy theory…yawn.
IPCC scientist, Joyce Penner wrote the paper concluding contrails warm the climate in 1999 – 2 years before 9/11 – So the science behind contrails warming the climate was already established before aircraft were grounded for the 9/11 False Flag.
The post 9/11 observation that the “diurnal temperature range averaged across the United States was increased during the aircraft-grounded period” does NOT disagree with Penner’s conclusion that contrails drive global warming.
For example, the temperature “range” (hot to cold) can increase while the average of those temperatures is found by investigators to be cooler than without the contrails.
This fact is usually ignored or presented in such a way as to be intentionally confusing to the general public.
The post 9/11 diurnal measurement is a statement about temperature “range” rather than how the temperature becomes cooler. Here’s the science — (PDF)