Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations

[justanairlinepilot]

The tropopause is a boundary. You are either above it (in the stratosphere), or below it (in the the troposphere). You can't fly in it. QUOTE]


http://www.enotes.com/troposphere-tropopause-reference/troposphere-tropopause

Under normal atmospheric conditions, the standard lapse rate describes decreasing temperatures encountered with increased altitude within the troposphere. The standard temperature lapse rate means that temperature decreases with altitude at a fairly uniform rate. Because the atmosphere is warmed by conduction from Earth's surface, this lapse or reduction in temperature is normal with increasing distance from the conductive source. The tropopause is specifically defined as that upper boundary layer of the troposphere where the thermal lapse rate no longer exists and temperature exhibit stability prior to increasing within the stratosphere.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/atmos-U2.htm

The tropopause has been defined as a thin zone of transition between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Before World War II, it was believed that the tropopause was a single unbroken layer extending from the Equator to the poles with the height sloping downward toward the poles. However, data gathered during and after the war disproved this idea. The new data shows three or more distinct tropopauses, which occur as leaf-like, overlapping structures. Cells of maximum winds are found among the overlapping leaves. Figure 2�7 illustrates the relationship among the three primary leaves of the tropopause.

021. Characteristics of the tropopause
The tropopause is one of the most important boundaries in the atmosphere. Below it is the troposphere in which we find all of our weather. The tropopause is of interest to weather journeymen and radar operators who are trying to make determinations about the severity of thunderstorms. This we discuss in more detail later. In this lesson, we look at the characteristics of the tropopause leafs.

Predominant (conventional) tropopause
The predominant (conventional) tropopause is the lowest height (at or between 500 and 30mb) where the lapse rate decreases to 2�C or less per kilometer. Also, it must maintain this average lapse rate for at least 2 km above the point

The tropopause a boundary "layer" and you can fly in it. It is defined as the layer of atmosphere between the troposphere and stratosphere and is determined as to show a standard laps rate of 2 degrees C/1000m.
If you look over radiosonde data, there usually is a layer where the laps rate subsides to less than 2C/1km for a period of accent.

Assuming a commercial aircraft can reach the stratosphere, what would the purpose be, besides burn more fuel. Maybe to top some ominous weather but it would be short lived, and most likely would be a private jet.

 

[justanairlinepilot]

Example:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014006/article

Commercial passenger airplanes, which routinely fly at cruise altitudes between 9 and 13 km, encounter elevated ozone when they cross the tropopause.

Content from External Source

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014006/article

Moreover, tropopause height can fluctuate over short periods owing to meteorological processes (NRC 2002, Holton et al 1995) that cause stratosphere-to-troposphere exchange (STE).

This I would agree with.

 

[George B]

Me thinks the Tropopause is not necessarily a barrier but a sweet spot . . .to routinely fly above it would require a mission to perform. . .

The Tropopause: Finding the Sweet Spot


Have you noticed how so many airliners tend to level off near 35,000 ft (“F[light] L[evel] 350” in aviation parlance)? This popular flight level is far from coincidence. The most congested altitudes for enroute airliners result from the performance advantages associated with the Tropopause.
The Tropopause is the boundary between the Troposphere, the lowest atmospheric layer, and the Stratosphere. Its height varies with the earth’s curvature, ranging from around 24,000 ft at the poles to approximately 56,000 ft near the equator. In the Contiguous 48 US States, the average Tropopause height is roughly 36,000 ft. A few benefits of operating near this altitude include lack of general aviation (slow) traffic and the ability to summit most weather. However, the performance advantages of Tropopause-area flight are the primary reasons for the deluge of jets at these heights.
Atmospheric Pressure: As you probably know, atmospheric pressure decreases as altitude increases. This decrease in pressure diminishes engine performance, but results in two significant advantages: 1. Total aerodynamic drag on the aircraft decreases, and 2. The lower the air density, the less fuel is required by the engines. Operating in these fuel-efficient altitudes saves airlines several million dollars each year in fuel expenses alone.
Temperature: While I’ve stated that decreased atmospheric pressure does diminish aircraft performance, this engine-robbing reduction in pressure is partially offset by the cooler temperatures aloft. Cold air, with its relatively low energy, tends to condense. As temperatures decrease with increases in altitude, the natural tendency of this cool air to compress helps counteract the overall rate of decreasing atmospheric pressure. This cooling of air with increases in altitude is a significant benefit for jets, but is only an option up to the Tropopause.


The Game Changer: Besides marking the top of virtually all weather, the Tropopause also denotes the end of decreasing temperatures with increases in altitude. Above the Tropopause, temperature actually increases with altitude, which rapidly diminishes aircraft/engine performance. Above the Tropopause, significant performance reductions eliminate virtually all benefits to be found at higher altitudes.
Overall, the Tropopause is the sweet spot for airline operations. Reduced aerodynamic drag, low fuel consumption, minimal (if any) weather, and the absence of slow aircraft all increase the efficiency of flight at this level. With this many benefits, it should come as no surprise when your captain announces, “We’ll be cruising along today at 35,000 ft.”


http://www.ifly.com/blog/from-the-cockpit/cruise-altitude/

Content from External Source

 

[justanairlinepilot]

Me thinks the Tropopause is not necessarily a barrier but a sweet spot . . .to routinely fly above it would require a mission to perform. . .

The Tropopause: Finding the Sweet Spot


Have you noticed how so many airliners tend to level off near 35,000 ft (“F[light] L[evel] 350” in aviation parlance)? This popular flight level is far from coincidence. The most congested altitudes for enroute airliners result from the performance advantages associated with the Tropopause.
The Tropopause is the boundary between the Troposphere, the lowest atmospheric layer, and the Stratosphere. Its height varies with the earth’s curvature, ranging from around 24,000 ft at the poles to approximately 56,000 ft near the equator. In the Contiguous 48 US States, the average Tropopause height is roughly 36,000 ft. A few benefits of operating near this altitude include lack of general aviation (slow) traffic and the ability to summit most weather. However, the performance advantages of Tropopause-area flight are the primary reasons for the deluge of jets at these heights.
Atmospheric Pressure: As you probably know, atmospheric pressure decreases as altitude increases. This decrease in pressure diminishes engine performance, but results in two significant advantages: 1. Total aerodynamic drag on the aircraft decreases, and 2. The lower the air density, the less fuel is required by the engines. Operating in these fuel-efficient altitudes saves airlines several million dollars each year in fuel expenses alone.
Temperature: While I’ve stated that decreased atmospheric pressure does diminish aircraft performance, this engine-robbing reduction in pressure is partially offset by the cooler temperatures aloft. Cold air, with its relatively low energy, tends to condense. As temperatures decrease with increases in altitude, the natural tendency of this cool air to compress helps counteract the overall rate of decreasing atmospheric pressure. This cooling of air with increases in altitude is a significant benefit for jets, but is only an option up to the Tropopause.


The Game Changer: Besides marking the top of virtually all weather, the Tropopause also denotes the end of decreasing temperatures with increases in altitude. Above the Tropopause, temperature actually increases with altitude, which rapidly diminishes aircraft/engine performance. Above the Tropopause, significant performance reductions eliminate virtually all benefits to be found at higher altitudes.
Overall, the Tropopause is the sweet spot for airline operations. Reduced aerodynamic drag, low fuel consumption, minimal (if any) weather, and the absence of slow aircraft all increase the efficiency of flight at this level. With this many benefits, it should come as no surprise when your captain announces, “We’ll be cruising along today at 35,000 ft.”


http://www.ifly.com/blog/from-the-cockpit/cruise-altitude/

Content from External Source

Yes, true, however, it depends on whether there is turbulence in the tropopause as a result of leaving the jet stream. Another possible scenario, if you are at 34,000 feet and you have a 130 kt tailwind, but decide to climb to 43,000 feet for fuel burn but then realize you've left the jet steam and now have a 40 kt tailwind...what is the advantage to that? Just want to point out some considerations that we pilots have to realize.

 

[captfitch]

So to finish the tropo/strato/pause debate.

the altitude of the pause is indeed variable. The thickness of the pause is also variable. Modern aircraft do travel in the stratosphere. The debate here is really regarding semantics but essentially, in the aircraft, it's difficult to determine if you've reached the pause. The company I work for makes three temp read outs available in the cockpits of the aircraft we fly. TAT, or total air temperature which is actual air temp adjusted for speed(temp rise due to friction). SAT, which is just ambient air temp and ISA deviation. Which is a number based on two assumptions. One being an assumed lapse rate of -2c per 1000 feet of altitude gain and the height of the pause. If you pull up ISA deviation it would look like -5 or -6 or +5 or something like that deviation. If it shows +5, you would know that, for this altitude, the air temperature is 5C warmer than it should be according to the math of the lapse rate. You can then predict what type of performance you will get. In that case poorer performance. The catch is, the manufacturer can't know where the pause is all the time so they stop the math process at a selected altitude. In my case its 36000 feet. At that point and higher the assumed temp remains constant. So, if the pause was actually at 36000 and you climbed up through 36000 feet the ISA reading would stay constant as well. It would not show any worse than what you saw when you entered the pause. If, however, the pause was above 36000 today, as you crossed 36000 feet you would notice that your ISA deviation would begin to drop. Conversely, if the pause was below 360000 feet you would notice at some altitude that your ISA deviation would rapidly rise. If you did not have an ISA deviation readout there would really be know way of knowing when you had entered the pause except for the marked degradation of performance.

 

[George B]

So to finish the tropo/strato/pause debate.

the altitude of the pause is indeed variable. The thickness of the pause is also variable. Modern aircraft do travel in the stratosphere. The debate here is really regarding semantics but essentially, in the aircraft, it's difficult to determine if you've reached the pause. The company I work for makes three temp read outs available in the cockpits of the aircraft we fly. TAT, or total air temperature which is actual air temp adjusted for speed(temp rise due to friction). SAT, which is just ambient air temp and ISA deviation. Which is a number based on two assumptions. One being an assumed lapse rate of -2c per 1000 feet of altitude gain and the height of the pause. If you pull up ISA deviation it would look like -5 or -6 or +5 or something like that deviation. If it shows +5, you would know that, for this altitude, the air temperature is 5C warmer than it should be according to the math of the lapse rate. You can then predict what type of performance you will get. In that case poorer performance. The catch is, the manufacturer can't know where the pause is all the time so they stop the math process at a selected altitude. In my case its 36000 feet. At that point and higher the assumed temp remains constant. So, if the pause was actually at 36000 and you climbed up through 36000 feet the ISA reading would stay constant as well. It would not show any worse than what you saw when you entered the pause. If, however, the pause was above 36000 today, as you crossed 36000 feet you would notice that your ISA deviation would begin to drop. Conversely, if the pause was below 360000 feet you would notice at some altitude that your ISA deviation would rapidly rise. If you did not have an ISA deviation readout there would really be know way of knowing when you had entered the pause except for the marked degradation of performance.

Very interesting. . . what percentage of the time do you feel you cruise in or above the pause? And what is the normal performance deficit you pay to fly above the pause?

 

[captfitch]

The pause thickness is, like I said before, variable but not at all very thick in the grand scheme of the atmosphere. It is very, very thick if you are struggling to climb in it! You've been dragging a heavy bird up to altitude and all of a sudden it's climbing like a dog. The pause may only be two or three thousand feet thick but to the plane it might as well be endless. That is why you can call it a boundary layer and a zone. Much like the white line around a basketball court is an edge but has thickness. Who cares how thick it is until it really matters.

As far as cruising, once you've leveled off it really doesn't effect you very much if you enter or exit the pause but you would probably notice the temp changes and associated wind changes and fuel flow changes. Only occasionally would you feel a turbulent boundary as by this point in the atmosphere the airflow is fairly "laminar". Even in areas of large wind speed changes the boundary between those changes seems to be fairly benign.

I hope we can put this issue to rest.

 

[captfitch]

Very interesting. . . what percentage of the time do you feel you cruise in or above the pause? And what is the normal performance deficit you pay to fly above the pause?

Tough to say. The two aircraft I routinely fly cruise in the mid to upper 40s but they are capable of 510 so the mid 40s isn't usually too much of a problem.

I would say 30% of the time we are in the pause. The hard part, like I said is figuring out where it is. I can think of a handful of times, in the climb, when I've thought "oh crap, this must be the boundary cause she just stopped climbing." I can think of many many times when I've noticed a marked change in temp while in cruise. A few times we have changed altitudes because of it.

 

[George B]

Tough to say. The two aircraft I routinely fly cruise in the mid to upper 40s but they are capable of 510 so the mid 40s isn't usually too much of a problem.

I would say 30% of the time we are in the pause. The hard part, like I said is figuring out where it is. I can think of a handful of times, in the climb, when I've thought "oh crap, this must be the boundary cause she just stopped climbing." I can think of many many times when I've noticed a marked change in temp while in cruise. A few times we have changed altitudes because of it.

May I ask what you fly. . . the ceiling you mention sounds like a Lear or Gluf Stream business jet . . . .?

 

[justanairlinepilot]

So to finish the tropo/strato/pause debate.

the altitude of the pause is indeed variable. The thickness of the pause is also variable. Modern aircraft do travel in the stratosphere. The debate here is really regarding semantics but essentially, in the aircraft, it's difficult to determine if you've reached the pause. The company I work for makes three temp read outs available in the cockpits of the aircraft we fly. TAT, or total air temperature which is actual air temp adjusted for speed(temp rise due to friction). SAT, which is just ambient air temp and ISA deviation. Which is a number based on two assumptions. One being an assumed lapse rate of -2c per 1000 feet of altitude gain and the height of the pause. If you pull up ISA deviation it would look like -5 or -6 or +5 or something like that deviation. If it shows +5, you would know that, for this altitude, the air temperature is 5C warmer than it should be according to the math of the lapse rate. You can then predict what type of performance you will get. In that case poorer performance. The catch is, the manufacturer can't know where the pause is all the time so they stop the math process at a selected altitude. In my case its 36000 feet. At that point and higher the assumed temp remains constant. So, if the pause was actually at 36000 and you climbed up through 36000 feet the ISA reading would stay constant as well. It would not show any worse than what you saw when you entered the pause. If, however, the pause was above 36000 today, as you crossed 36000 feet you would notice that your ISA deviation would begin to drop. Conversely, if the pause was below 360000 feet you would notice at some altitude that your ISA deviation would rapidly rise. If you did not have an ISA deviation readout there would really be know way of knowing when you had entered the pause except for the marked degradation of performance.

Captfitch, yes, the most important information you can have at high altitudes is the ISA dev. calculation. We use it all the time.

I want to point out that my comment about flying in the stratosphere limited to commercial aircraft. You are flying the global, correct? Way different aircraft. Private jet, with lots of power and less payload. Most commercial airliners, if not all, will not be flying in the stratosphere unless unintentional, as you find yourself in such scenarios that you are talking about.

I would say 30% of the time we are in the pause. The hard part, like I said is figuring out where it is. I can think of a handful of times, in the climb, when I've thought "oh crap, this must be the boundary cause she just stopped climbing." I can think of many many times when I've noticed a marked change in temp while in cruise. A few times we have changed altitudes because of it.

I have been in that scenario myself, it's not fun.

 

[George B]

Tough to say. The two aircraft I routinely fly cruise in the mid to upper 40s but they are capable of 510 so the mid 40s isn't usually too much of a problem.

I would say 30% of the time we are in the pause. The hard part, like I said is figuring out where it is. I can think of a handful of times, in the climb, when I've thought "oh crap, this must be the boundary cause she just stopped climbing." I can think of many many times when I've noticed a marked change in temp while in cruise. A few times we have changed altitudes because of it.

Theoretically . . . would it be more difficult to climb above the pause lets us say at FL350 over Arizona or FL280 over Nothern Canada?

 

[captfitch]

More difficult at FL 350. And yes, George, Lear 60 and global. The former can have a power to weight ratio of .6 to 1 at low weights. So going up is no problem.

 

[George B]

More difficult at FL 350. And yes, George, Lear 60 and global. The former can have a power to weight ratio of .6 to 1 at low weights. So going up is no problem.

Good information captifitch . . . Thanks!!

 

[George B]

More difficult at FL 350. And yes, George, Lear 60 and global. The former can have a power to weight ratio of .6 to 1 at low weights. So going up is no problem.

If I may captifitch . . . since you spend some time in the stratosphere . . . have you noticed any persistent contrails from other craft while at those altitudes? Or for that matter from your own aircraft . . . or would you have a way to know if you were leaving a contrail?

 

[captfitch]

So, since we are usually up that high there's two issues. One, it's empty up there so there's not many planes to see contrails. Second, because we are up there basically in an empty sky, it's very often direct routing with very few, if any turns. So if you are making a contrail you wouldn't be able to see it. We have recently installed cameras that can see all directions including behind the aircraft but its a semi-fisheye lens so it tough to tell what's really going on back there.

But I would say that occasionally I'll notice a persistent contrail at but almost never above me. I can't think of any time I have ever seen a persistent contrail above FL450. Ever. In my mind I picture it as extremely dry up that high. You know, way above the weather.

 

[George B]

So, since we are usually up that high there's two issues. One, it's empty up there so there's not many planes to see contrails. Second, because we are up there basically in an empty sky, it's very often direct routing with very few, if any turns. So if you are making a contrail you wouldn't be able to see it. We have recently installed cameras that can see all directions including behind the aircraft but its a semi-fisheye lens so it tough to tell what's really going on back there.

But I would say that occasionally I'll notice a persistent contrail at but almost never above me. I can't think of any time I have ever seen a persistent contrail above FL450. Ever. In my mind I picture it as extremely dry up that high. You know, way above the weather.

That is what I suspected and what I have read but it is nice to have some validation . . .

 

[George B]

So, since we are usually up that high there's two issues. One, it's empty up there so there's not many planes to see contrails. Second, because we are up there basically in an empty sky, it's very often direct routing with very few, if any turns. So if you are making a contrail you wouldn't be able to see it. We have recently installed cameras that can see all directions including behind the aircraft but its a semi-fisheye lens so it tough to tell what's really going on back there.

But I would say that occasionally I'll notice a persistent contrail at but almost never above me. I can't think of any time I have ever seen a persistent contrail above FL450. Ever. In my mind I picture it as extremely dry up that high. You know, way above the weather.

As you are most likely aware persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus are theorized to have a net warming effect on the climate . . . have you ever heard anyone within aviation talk about mitigating persistent contrails or how that might be accomplished?

 

[captfitch]

That's why whenever I see a claim of trails being left at altitudes way above "normal traffic" I instantly get suspicious. Those claims aren't made too often as it doesn't really serve the CT.

Same with claims that aircraft "don't fly that way" or "make turns like that" or "travel over this area because of charted routes". Those are all red flag statements. If someone can't even get that part right how can they get the rest of it?

 

[captfitch]

As you are most likely aware persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus are theorized to have a net warming effect on the climate . . . have you ever heard anyone within aviation talk about mitigating persistent contrails or how that might be accomplished?

No. As a rule, aviation and climate sensitivity are mutually exclusive. If someone forced the issue of contrail mitigation through, say, regulation we might do something but its doubtful.
I could just claim ignorance, safety of flight or in the interest of commerce to avoid any mitigating policies.

 

[George B]

No. As a rule, aviation and climate sensitivity are mutually exclusive. If someone forced the issue of contrail mitigation through, say, regulation we might do something but its doubtful.
I could just claim ignorance, safety of flight or in the interest of commerce to avoid any mitigating policies.

captfitch . . . thanks for your honesty . . . is that the reason it is easier to reduce greenhouse emissions of CO2, NOx, and get more miles per pound for fuel but little thought to reduce contrails, etc. ? The research seems to indicate about a 2% increase in fuel use (on certain days) could reduce up to 70% of persistent contrails and would only be enforced when persistent contrails would form in about 17% of your flight paths . . .

 

[captfitch]

I guess partly. I just don't see the industry ever getting on board contrail mitigation. Heck, the only reason e engines have become so much more efficient is because of money. Aviation doesn't care so much about carbon foot print. 2% increase on an airline-wide scale is huge. Money-wise, that is.

 

[George B]

I guess partly. I just don't see the industry ever getting on board contrail mitigation. Heck, the only reason e engines have become so much more efficient is because of money. Aviation doesn't care so much about carbon foot print. 2% increase on an airline-wide scale is huge. Money-wise, that is.

captfitch, have you ever heard another pilot speculate on the possibility of chemtrails or geoengineering . . .?

 

[captfitch]

It's a running joke around the pilot circles. TBH, most consider it too far below the realm of reality to even bother addressing. Imagine discussing mythical sea creatures you saw on an old, old map to a modern ship captain. Despite what you occasionally see, I can confidently say that absolutely no active, professional, ATP level pilot considered this conspiracy real.

 

[George B]

It's a running joke around the pilot circles. TBH, most consider it too far below the realm of reality to even bother addressing. Imagine discussing mythical sea creatures you saw on an old, old map to a modern ship captain. Despite what you occasionally see, I can confidently say that absolutely no active, professional, ATP level pilot considered this conspiracy real.

Remove Chemtrails from the question . . . how about geoengineering as in the non-visible aerosol injection of reflective materials into the stratosphere . . . ?

 

[captfitch]

Nope. Absolutely no discussion that I have ever in my career heard about that. In context- I interact with about twenty different pilots per week, every week. I'm not with just two guys all the time.

I am required to know much more about my aircraft than the average pilot. I am involved in advisory groups, online groups, daily conversational interaction with pilots, mechanics, operators and even passengers. I am deeper into my field than virtually any line pilot or regular guy.

 

[George B]

Nope. Absolutely no discussion that I have ever in my career heard about that. In context- I interact with about twenty different pilots per week, every week. I'm not with just two guys all the time.

I am required to know much more about my aircraft than the average pilot. I am involved in advisory groups, online groups, daily conversational interaction with pilots, mechanics, operators and even passengers. I am deeper into my field than virtually any line pilot or regular guy.

Thanks! captfitch . . . you have added some very good information to this discussion . . . greatly appreciated . . . another question . . . if someone were to hire say about twenty flight crews at one time 747 or DC10 qualified would it be known to the pilot community . . .?

 

[captfitch]

Kind of depends. But, yes? If they are already qualified- and that term can mean number of things, then they probably already have a job and are not looking for another job so you would have to broadcast the hiring thought the usual public options which would raise a ton of flags in the community. New airline? Very exciting and hard to go unnoticed. There's. really no good plane to do a large scale hiring event since most plane communities are pretty tight knit except for maybe the regional jet guys and those operating 73s or whatever. There's just no good way to do that covertly. We all gossip too much!

 

[George B]

Kind of depends. But, yes? If they are already qualified- and that term can mean number of things, then they probably already have a job and are not looking for another job so you would have to broadcast the hiring thought the usual public options which would raise a ton of flags in the community. New airline? Very exciting and hard to go unnoticed. There's. really no good plane to do a large scale hiring event since most plane communities are pretty tight knit except for maybe the regional jet guys and those operating 73s or whatever. There's just no good way to do that covertly. We all gossip too much!

Let's say some agency (Federal or otherwise) went to UPS, Fedx, or other large body carriers and wanted them to hire some people for them . . . sort of used them as a hiring agency . . . if condition of hiring was to keep the arrangement quiet . . . could it be done?

 

[captfitch]

Well sure, I suppose it could be done but good luck with that! The union representing the existing pilot group would be all over that in a heart beat. I can see the uproar now! No, the only way to grab a sufficiently large group of pilots would be to do it all ab initio in house. couldc

 

[George B]

Well sure, I suppose it could be done but good luck with that! The union representing the existing pilot group would be all over that in a heart beat. I can see the uproar now! No, the only way to grab a sufficiently large group of pilots would be to do it all ab initio in house. couldc

Hmmm . . . difficult but not impossible . . . ?

 

[captfitch]

you're killing me here George but no- not impossible. much like many things in life I suppose it is possible.

 

[George B]

you're killing me here George but no- not impossible. much like many things in life I suppose it is possible.

Sorry. . . that was a rhetorical question . . . the inquisition is over

 

[Spongebob]

Check your fingernails after all that clawing...

 

[justanairlinepilot]

There's. really no good plane to do a large scale hiring event since most plane communities are pretty tight knit except for maybe the regional jet guys and those operating 73s or whatever.

Um, curious...can you explain this comment?

 

[justanairlinepilot]

George, I'm curious about your belief of geoengineering at this point. There was a lot of dialogue in this thread and I'm interested with what you know now and what you believe now.

 

[justanairlinepilot]

Anyone reading this may shutter at the frustration and feel like beating a dead horse but I was on a mission to answer a few of my own questions. I found one reference about how thick the tropopause is. I went to the extent of emailing one of my former meteorology professors (yesterday) to get an answer (http://www.atmos.und.edu/People/Grainger.aspx), haven't heard back yet.

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/clima/atmosph/astxt.htm

The four inner spheres of the atmosphere connect at zones of transition that are about a mile thick. A transition zone is called a pause, because a pause in normal behavior occurs there. Therefore, the tropopause marks the border between the tropopause and the stratosphere and so on for the stratopause and the mesopause.

Content from External Source

 

[captfitch]

Um, curious...can you explain this comment?

well, my assumption is, since its such a massive number of pilots in those two groups, someone hiring 25 pilots might not make it on the radar. I'm a little hesitant about the regional jets because i also assume that since there's so many still who want to break into that jet it would still get noticed. his was a rather odd question to begin with wouldn't you say?

 

[Cairenn]

In fact if you want to hire 25 pilots or anyone for something covert, you are going to need to interview many times more than that. You don't want anyone that is reveal your secret. That rules out a LOT of folks

 

[George B]

George, I'm curious about your belief of geoengineering at this point. There was a lot of dialogue in this thread and I'm interested with what you know now and what you believe now.

Reasonable question . . .

1) I am rather certain that sulfur compound stratospheric injection is the option of choice for a quick fix on global warming if something had to be done right now. . . .
2) I think it was thoroughly considered and researched, computer modeled, and cost benefit analyzed by both Lawerence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) and Raytheon Corporation many years ago. . .
3) Persistent contrail and contrail induced cirrus cloud bank Non-Mitigation as well as the refusal to push down the maximum sulfur concentration of aviation fuels from 3,000 ppm to 10 ppm as is now proposed for ground transportation is somehow connected to the puzzle. . . .
4) There are several places on the planet where stratospheric sulfur geoengineering could be staged from. . . .
5) In the 2000s the amount of primarily Sulfur compounds was higher than expected in the stratosphere than expected according to NOAA and may have halted global warming for a few years . . . and the single most definitive satellite which may have Identified the source of sulfur aerosols in the atmosphere failed to deploy in 2011. . . . a Raytheon instrument package by-the-way. . . .
6) while I see from an aircraft industry point of view, the support of such a program may be more problematic than I first imagined . . . I still think it possible. . . just more difficult . . . Because the people I think could be responsible for geoengineering were and are probably the most intelligent, capable, connected, funded, and covert capable people the world has ever known. . . .

 

[George B]

In fact if you want to hire 25 pilots or anyone for something covert, you are going to need to interview many times more than that. You don't want anyone that is reveal your secret. That rules out a LOT of folks

Why. . . ? You don't tell them anything until you offer them a position. . .