Contrail Gaps and other Questions
There was an interesting post over on the New York SkyWatch blog, which raised many of the common questions that people have about various contrail anomalies. I’ve attempted to answer all of the questions here:
Question #1, why [do] jet contrails appear as if the jet engine is being deliberately turned on and off?
It’s because the jet is flying through uneven areas of temperature and humidity. Explained here
Question #2, Explain why jet aircraft are leaving persistent contrails in grid patterns?
Because some jets fly north-south, and some east-west on airways that are several miles wide, and where they cross you get a grid. Winds at altitude blow at around 90mph, and these blow the trails across the sky, increasing the size of the grid.
Question #3, Shouldn’t the entire sky be filled with contrails? Would we ever see any truly blue sky again if all jets left persistent contrails behind?
Sometimes there are a lot of contrails, and they do spread out and cover the sky. Sometimes there are only a few. Sometimes there are none. It depends on the weather. There are only a certain number of jets flying overhead every day. They have to be at the right altitude for contrails to form. In some weather conditions this is limited to only the highest jets, or sometimes just jets in a narrow band of humid air. On very cold humid days you will see a lot of contrails, but no more than the number of jet at altitude.
Question #4, I know that contrails are formed under certain weather conditions and altitudes. However, there are times when conditions do not exist for contrails to persist?
Then they will not persist. The problem here is that it is incredibly difficult to know what the humidity is at a specific time, altitude and location. Humidity measurements are done by sending up a balloon every 12 hours from weather stations 300 miles apart, the balloon can be blown hundreds of miles in a random direction during its ascent. How can you get an accurate local humidity reading at a specific time and place from a balloon reading 6 hours ago and 300 miles away, when humidity can vary enough for contrails to form or not form in as little as half a mile (as you can see from the broken contrails), and humidity can vary by 50% over the course of a day?
Question #5, Certain contrails even look like they are laden with chemicals. You know the ones I mean. The ones that appear to drip by the weight of their own substance, mushrooming along the bottom edge of the trail. C’mon what’s in this stuff. It doesn’t even look like ordinary condensation to me?
They are called “pendules”, as seen in this pre-1991 photo, and described by Schaefer and Day in 1981. When a plane flies through the air at 500mph it creates wake turbulance, which is made up of wake vortices, (whirlpools of air), at regular intervals. These vortices make the contrail clump up in areas of greater and lesser density. In a dense persistent contrail, the vortices will produce the clumping pendules seen in the first photo. If the contrail is thin or not persistent, then they can leave interesting patterns which can resemble smoke rings. The type and visibility of the vortices will depend on the the size, shape and speed of the jet, as well as the turbulence and density of the air it is moving through.
Question #6, Speaking of abnormal, I have seen jets emitting contrails that are dark in appearance. I assumed that it might be the lighting conditions until I saw the black and white contrails side by side - check out this video?
I covered this in the “dark lines” article. It is the lighting conditions, the dark contrail is in shadow, and when you see contrails “side by side”, the lighter contrail could well be ten miles behind (or a mile above) the darker contrail, and so not in shadow.
Question #7, Another interesting aspect to these dark trails is that the material drifts to the ground in clouds that resemble the black smoke from a nearby fire. I have observed this process several times in the fall. I haven’t seen them since the beginning of the year?
Precipitation falling from clouds will look dark if it is in shadow, which is probably will be if the shadow is caused at sunset by a hill or cloud bank.
Question #8, And then there’s the other trails that appear to swallow up other trails and clouds. One of my YouTube videos shows this quite clearly. My first impression was that someone had a HUGE washcloth and scrubbed a portion of the sky. And then I saw jets going through the cloud mass and the contrails that were left created lines in the mass that expanded and left the cloud in sections.
This effect was observed in 1944, it’s basically a distrail, which is the opposite of a contrail, the cloud contains moisture, and the added moisture, particulates and turbulence of the jet passing through makes the amount of moisture in the air too great for it to exist as a cloud, so it precipitates as snow or rain. This wipes away the cloud where the contrail has been. This can also happen with cloud layers that are below the contrail, as precipitation from the contrail falls on the cloud layer. This is also known as “hole punch clouds” and “fallstreak holes“. Distrails can combine with the vortices of question 5, as in the photo on the right.
I hope I’ve answered all these questions. If you feel there is still something unclear, or you have extra questions, then please leave a comment below.
*UPDATE* Some more questions were raised in the comments, and I’ll add them here, with answers.
Question #9, On your website you have a picture of one jet leaving a “chemtrail” with another jet at the same altitude in the background is not leaving one. I have seen jets side by side and one leaving a normal contrail and another leaving a chemtrail?
There are two possibilities. either the jets are not at the same altitude, and just look like they are because of the viewing angle, or they have different engines with different exhaust characteristics. The more efficient an engine is, the more likely it is to leave a lasting contrail, as there is more water in the exhaust. The photo on the right shows an Airbus A340 (maiden flight: 1991) on the left, leaving contrails, and a Boeing 707 (maiden flight: 1957) not leaving contrails. Both are flying at 33,000 feet (part of a German test to study contrail formation), but the newer engines of the A340 produce more water vapor.
Questions #10, How do you explain pictures of aircraft spraying chemtrails from ports other than the engines?
It’s an optical illusion. The contrails come from the engines. Engine exhausts contain a lot of water, which (combined with the water in the air), condenses, freezes and causing the contrail. Because it’s hot when it exits the engine, it takes a fraction of a second to condense and freeze (in 40 below temperatures). So it begins to freezes about 100 feet behind the engines, which makes it look like it’s coming from the ends of the tail section. This illusion is stronger on a shorter two-engine plane - look at the inner engines on the picture on the left. Since it’s a four engined 747 (240 foot long), the contrails form before the tail section, but with shorter planes such as a 767-300 (180 foot long) the contrails would be forming about at the tips of the tail section when viewed from below (although they are actually well underneath the tail, as you can see in the close-up).
In very humid conditions, the turbulence caused by the aircraft itself can cause moisture in the air to condense, and hence freeze. This happens in areas of low pressure above the wing, and in the wingtip vortices, so you can get what looks like a solid sheet of contrail from the wing, and thin streamers from the wing tips (and maybe the tail), combined a bit further back with the engine contrails, as in the photo on the right. These low-pressure wing contrails can form at any altitude, given the right humidity, and account for the tales of planes landing “still spraying”.
Question #11, How do you explain scientists testing the fallout and finding aluminum, barium, nano particles, fungus, molds, viruses, etc in the mix?
They did not test contrails, they just tested some stuff they found on the ground, with no indication that it was connected with contrails (it would take several days for aerosolized matter to reach the ground, and by that time it would have been spread hundreds of miles from the original site). Most of the things they claim to have found are things that naturally occur in air and dirt.
Saturday 09 Jun 2007 | Uncinus | contrails
Interesting site you have. There is always more to learn…
Made a permanent link from my site to yours.
raoul
There are 3 very important items your website doesn’t address:
1) You do not give a plausible reason why the “contrails” linger for hours and disperse into clouds. If, as you say, these are moisture and temperature differences then they would normalize almost as fast as normal contrails. Any difference in temperature or moisture would not be enough of a difference to make any significant difference. Obviously, there are other materials involved that do not dissipate as rapidly. These materials appear more like crop dusting or sky writing but because of their characteristics. Since weather control and modification has been around for many decades I do not see why the government does not admit what is going on. Unless there is something to hid in the makeup of the materials. Which is why you have this misdirection propaganda website.
2) Why didn’t we see these “contrails” 20 or 30 years ago? An argument there are more jets now doesn’t hold facts. More jets would not cause these conditions based on the facts given. More jets in the air would not account for the moisture and temperature differences.
3) On your website you have a picture of one jet leaving a “chemtrail” with another jet at the same altitude in the background is not leaving one.
I have seen jets side by side and one leaving a normal contrail and another leaving a chemtrail. There is no way around it. The government with cooperation from the airlines is putting toxic chemicals in the atmosphere.
You should be ashamed of yourself for participating in this crime against humanity.
I also noticed you have your website ownership hidden. Who are you really?
1 & 2 - See http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
2- also: http://contrailscience.com/contrail-confusion-is-nothing-new/
3 - They are not at the same altitude. It’s three dimensional. One is above the other.
It is funny how the only new thing you have offered are some photos from 1969. That is a lot earlier than anyone has ever noticed them. Are you sure they are not government test photos? Since people have checked even back issues of magizines and have found them in 1984 it seems strange you can come up with photos from a place which looks like it is on a mountain top in Colorado in 1969. It is consitant with other data on your site that I am still scratching my head as to where you got it.
Most people noticed them in the late 1990s for the first time. That is reported as when the project was stepped up. I spent a lot of time in my youth outdoors and didn’t see them in the 60s, 70s or 80s.
I even made several trips across the US and to Alaska. Worked for an outfitter in British Columbia and logged in Montana for years. I didn’t see any during that time.
How do you explain pictures of aircraft spraying chemtrails from ports other than the engines? How do you explain scientists testing the fallout and finding aluminum, barium, nao particles, fungus, molds, viruses, etc in the mix?
You know, anybody that wants any credibility on these subjects should have some bio in the about and not appear to be hiding.
Jake, the 1969 photos are from a meteorology journal - I’ve put links to the sources in the article.
Thanks for your other questions, I’m going to append them to the above article, and maybe write about the “two planes” question in detail later.
Why do you prefer the politcally-correct term “contrail” when it’s impossible for jets to create these trails without engines that burn and dispense jet fuel into their paths? The last I checked, jet fuel is a chemical. Are you trying to assert that residual jet fuel chemicals aren’t mingled with the condensed water vapor as the jet flies by?
A chemical, is a chemical. If the vapor trail contains chemicals it is, by definition, a chemtrail regardless how those chemcials got there, or why they are there. Let’s not obfuscate the matter with provocative theories used to discredit real facts. The facts are clear - those are chemtrails. Whatever they spew into the air eventually ends up in our lungs, our soil and our water.
Because “contrail” has been in the dictionary for fifty years, and “chemtrail” is not in the dictionary.
“Contrail” is short for “condensation trail”, which is mostly what it is - condensed water.
Water is a chemical as well, H2O, or dihydrogen monoxide. Based on you argument we should be re-naming everything to include the prefix “chem”.
Contrails are no more nefarious than car exhausts - and you get a lot more car exhaust chemicals in your lungs.
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition
Contrail, n.
[f.CON(DENSATION + TRAIL n.1]
A condensation trail (seeCONDENSATION 8), a vapour trail.
Yes. Exactly. That IS my point.
But, since we’re not talking about everything here - just vapor trails - I’m focusing on airplane chemtrails. The intermingling of poisonous jet fuel exhaust with existing water vapor.
I agree car exhaust is nefarious, and that we get lots of it in our lungs. Secondhand smoke, lead in the baby toys, mercury in the water, etc. That’s a huge leap of logic to assume I’m o.k. with any of it.
I’m not just picking on avio-pollution. I don’t appreciate breathing poison, regardless where it comes from. And sure, water is a chemcial - the whole universe - is made of chemcials. Some support human life, others kill it. Would it help you if I differentiated and called them “Deadly Chemtrails?”
The quote from the 1945 Saturday Evening post is ironic. It’s common knowledge the U.S. military sprayed anti-radar chaff in mass quantities over Germany during WWII. In fact, none of the other quotes contain anything to debunk covert spraying operations. The writers of those quotes had no knowledge of what was in those trails. They just repeated the Party line, unknowingly perpetuating the politcally-correct term instead of asking questions.
Ever wonder why “chemtrail” is not in the dictionary? Even the most die-hard debunker would have to concede that many of the “contrails” actually contain dangerous chemicals from jet exhaust and are, by definition, chemtrails. Why are people so freaked out by that word?
And why are people so quick to remove the obvious, and admitted, chemtrail activity from the discussion? Cropdusters, anti-radar chaff, weather modification and others ARE part of the chemtrail problem. By trying to pigeonhole the discussion into mind-control experiments and other more creative theories, you seem to be missing the overall point - we don’t want pollution dropped on our soil, into our water or inhaled into our lungs. That’s not so much to ask.
As soon as researchers provide incontrovertible proof of chemtrails (as above), there is always some skeptic raising the burden of proof by switching theories. Certainly you don’t expect the government to voluntarily release information on top secret projects that have yet to be “proven” do you? Exactly how do you think independent chemtrail reearchers are supposed to get access to the payload manifest of a top secret mission if it were, in fact, spraying some crazy mind-control chemicals, for example?
I appreciate the work you’ve done here, and enjoy all the science. I guess I just disagree with the limited premise of your argument.
Your argument seems somewhat semantic. Sure, there ARE crop dusters spraying poison, anti-radar chaff is real, cloud seeding is real, unburnt hydrocarbons in jet exhausts are real . I agree with all that, and if you want to generalize and call those things “chemtrails”, well that’s fine too. Language is evolving.
My argument is not “chemtrails do not exist”, since you can get around that by simply modifying the definition of “chemtrails” to include things that obviously do exist, as you just did.
My argument is rather that the contrails seen in the skies every day are all explainable as normal aircraft emissions, and there is no evidence of anything nefarious going on. I’m not “switching theories” here, I actually address each theory individually and precisely on this site. If you could posit a theory, and point at some evidence, then I would be very happy to focus on your theory until you are satisfied.
My question is in regard to the response for Question #11
Question #11, How do you explain scientists testing the fallout and finding aluminum, barium, nano particles, fungus, molds, viruses, etc in the mix?
A: They did not test contrails, they just tested some stuff they found on the ground, with no indication that it was connected with contrails (it would take several days for aerosolized matter to reach the ground, and by that time it would have been spread hundreds of miles from the original site). Most of the things they claim to have found are things that naturally occur in air and dirt.
Why haven’t the contrails/chemtrails themselves been independently tested to see what is in them?
Have you looked into the story that was in the Idaho Observer about the family that collected samples of “dust” from all around their home following a heavy rain? According to the story, a lab found bacteria, viruses, vaccines, sedatives, among other things. Viruses, bacteria, and some chemicals may normally be found in the air and dirt, but certainly not sedatives or vaccines.
That’s reasonable. I consider “normal aircraft emissions” dangerous chemtrails, you don’t. That IS a matter of semantics, but I think logic is on my side on that one. No biggie. You just didn’t strike me as one of those politcally-correct type.
I don’t have theories or rumors. I’m keeping it simple:
1. Jet exhaust is poisonous
2. Crop dust is poisonous
3. Radar chaff is poisonous
4. Poisoning humans without their knowledge and permission is nefarious
Even if those are the ONLY things going on in the sky, I am concerned.
When you include our military’s capabilities and historical precendence for conducting secretive projects that kill people, I become more concerned. When you include our government’s gross incompentence at doing much of anything correctly, safely or with the permission of the people you can see why so many people are interested in watching the sky.
How could you possibly know everything the government is doing in secrecy? If you don’t know everything, and given the circumstances above, I can’t figure out why you turn a blind eye to the myriad other possibilities.
Sure, there are myriad possibilities, but just because something is possible, does not mean it is happening.
I really don’t know what you are trying to say John. What exactly do you think are the problems, and what should be done about them? Are you simply campaigning to ban crop dusting and chaff, and to make normal aircraft emission safer? Or is there something else specific?
Amy, if you mean this:
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060704.htm
Than it looks like nonsense to me. Take “2 cancers” for example. What’s that? There’s no such substance as a “cancer”. Perhaps they meant carcinogens. But anyway, normal rainwater collected from the ground has a vast amount of chemicals (and bacteria) in it. I’d have to see the lab report before commenting on if it’s actually unusual.
I’m sure the military occasionally drops chaff in the wrong area, but this “analysis” just sounds like an urban legend. Where are the figures? See this for an actual look at the numbers in a similar claim:
http://contrailscience.com/chemical-analysis-of-contrails/
Amy, sorry I missed the first part of your question:
There have been lots of tests of what makes up contrails. search for “contrail sampling”. Of course a lot of it is NASA, which might make conspiracy theorists suspicious. But there is a lot in other countries, and several academic studies in the US.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999JGR…10412077P
But the reason that there is no “independent” testing of the kind you are looking for, is that no real scientist gives the “chemtrail” theory much credence, certainly not enough to raise the $10,000+ needed for such a test, or the millions needed to actually demonstrate anything conclusively.
There is simply not enough evidence to justify the expense.
Hey U - yeah, that’s basically it. I guess you could call this campaigning for cleaner air. I started simply researching the phenomena. I’m really open-minded, and fairly skeptical.
If we can’t collectively agree that there are dangerous chemicals in the vapor trails, we’ve got no basis for a debate though. How can we get to the juicy topics like HAARP, geoengineering and others if we can’t agree on something so self-evident as those things that have been openly admitted?
Are you in disagreement over ANY of this (below) ?
1. Jet exhaust is poisonous
2. Crop dust is poisonous
3. Radar chaff is poisonous
4. Poisoning humans without their knowledge and permission is nefarious
I’m especially curious what your reply to number 4 is. I’m not asking if we poison people other ways, worse ways, or more overt way. I’m not asking for a comparison to other forms of atmospheric damage. I’m interested to see where your conscience lies.
For 1-3, that’s a bit of a trick question, as it depends on what’s actually in each thing. Jet exhaust is mostly water and CO2, neither of which is poisonous except in extreme local quantities. There’s other stuff in there, NOx, CO, SO2 and unburnt hydrocarbons. Yes, here you could say it’s “poisonous”, but when you use the word “poisonous” that implies something like arsenic, or anthrax. I’d describe it as pollution.
Crop dust, again, depends on what it is, as there are lots of forms of aerial ag spraying, many of which target only plants. Some of them are actually seeding.
Chaff is usually fiberglass or plastic coated with aluminium. I don’t see how that’s “poisonous” any more than a coke can.
4. Yes, I don’t want to be poisoned. But again you are using emotionally loaded terms. Is all pollution a form of poisoning? Maybe you could define it that way, but then you get into a lot more than “chemtrails”.
I think you need to define your problem a bit better. You seem to be saying there is too much pollution. But then you take a turn into HAARP, whcih suggests you think there is some kind of conspiracy goning on.
Are you just saying there is corruption involved in the covering up of pollution (which is poisonous), or are you saying that there is DELIBERATE poisoning of people via contrails.
ok then, lets get to the nitty gritty, riddle me this you coverup clown?
1.what exactly has changed since 1999 that makes contrails so thick, fluffy and goddamn visible and able to collectively blot out the sun?
2.how come, since around this time when contrails/chemtrails (semantics anyhoo, what are you lot? taxonomists?) suddenly became so visible and prevalent in the lower atmosphere -and on days when the humidity of the air should not allow their formation- are they there?
3.why is it these trails are only seen over land and usually population centres?
4.why on the same day as i observed a grid of unfading, sun hazing &blocking cuntrails (my own addition to the semantic debate) did i observe a contrail like those i saw in my youth- one that faded at around the same rate as the plane leaving it was travelling, appearing in the sky as a constant length “ribbon” behind the plane.
5.why are there documents and admissions from governments since the war, proposing weather modifications to combat climate issues, drought problems and as a military weapon/tool and as you would have us believe they have not been carried out?
6.there are proposed military advantages to weather modification, aerosol operations to aid/block communication and to block enemy satellite imagery, now considering this and the nature of the american military complex’s fervour for all that is warlike, are you to have us believe that they are not? interested in possibly the most powerful weapon the earth has to offer?
pull the other one its got bells on mate!
now i suggest you stop wasting your time debunking one of the stories that is already general knowledge and get on with covering up your secret little club instead, cos frankly i cant be bothered.
oh and where are your scientific credentials? identity? supporters for your viewpoint? everyone on this site is questioning you, your theories, your political stance, i dont see any scientific luminaries jumping in to defend your standpoint.
may you live in interesting times.
one more thing. it is in evidence and in plain sight that these trails, whatever they may be, consistently have a very severe effect on the weather, turning the sky from crystal blue to hazed over resulting in complete “cloud” cover- synthetic or otherwise -in just a matter of hours.
so to logic point 1:
whether this is a manipulated phenomena or an observed one, it is evident and indisputable that it happens.
logic point 2:
the phenomena is either manipulated or an accidental effect of aircraft exhausts
logic point 3:
if the phenomena is manipulated and intentional -if not in the public domain its a cover up
logic point 4:
if the phenomena is accidental every aviation and airforce employee and scientist are amazingly stupid
logic point 5:
if folk are messing with the weather we should know about it and do cos we can see it.
logic point 6:
it would be advisable to take this site down cos noones buying the “its just water vapour” bollocks - AS WE CAN SEE THE TRAILS CHANGING THE WEATHER.
(anyway CONtrails are not not “vapour” as such, as that would imply steam, they are actually ice crystals which is why they are so visible and why they used to disperse at a fairly constant rate, unlike what we see nowadays with the aerosol operations stuff they disperse but mingle and create “cloud cover”.
also back to the points made by jake 59 above about how no photographic documentation exists of this phenomena of persistent trails before around 84 and then it is very sparse, a boom in 1999 specifically of this activity- to my knowledge they didnt change all the aircraft engines or jetfuel simultaneously in this year, and its funny how this doesnt happen in every country in the world- only those affiliated with the western military industrial complex. the US, the UK, Canada etc. dont see much documentation of these trails over eastern europe of africa? and dont try and sell me the one about “it only happens where the weather is right” cos that wouldnt be science much like most of the gobbledygookj on this page.
scientific readers of this page would do well to read the paper on the left “contrail uncertainties” while not the greatest of papers admittedly it draws the conclusion and a pretty definite one at that, that CIRRUS CLOUD FORMATION CAN BE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT CONTRAILS, now with this accepted as a scientific truth we can go one of two ways.
1.
we can control, monitor and manipulate flight plans (altitude,path engine temp/design etc.)and use this phenomena to an advantage- a particular humanistic tool developed from this would be the ability to cool desert areas for drought prevention or a more global approach would be the ability to control the temperature and sun penetration over the entire earth and bring an end to global warming.
or 2.
we can control, monitor and manipulate flight plans and not tell the public cos it might scare em and there may be some distinct military advantage to be gained from this and besides we could add some more stuff to the exhaust and get all sorts of different effects!
but were not sure what, so because of our nefarious military and political motives we thought wed test it out before we told anyone. we could play it off the ionosphere manipulator we’ve built in alaska too and see if we can really fuck the earth up.besides if we control the skies we can drug/poison or go to biological war with anyone we like if we can make it rain where and when we want to with little or no detection. we run the earth in ways you silly sheep will never find out about etc etc etc cue mad despotic laughter.
now with a familiarity of world history and human nature what do you think they did? when they figured out that HUMANITY CAN CONTROL THE EARTHS WEATHER!
even though the paper ive cited is very vague on the upshot of this knowledge and its possible uses- fact is AEROPLANES CAN CAUSE CLOUDS AND MANIPULATE THE ATMOSPHERE! so why dont we know who the orchestrators are? oh sorry we do my bad.
draw your own conclusions folks but if i was in govt and someone told me they could control weather systems using a mode of transport already in use and easily manipulate this function secretly via air traffic controllers, who are preoccupied mainly with keeping planes in the sky! and never see the whole picture anyway because of military flights adding to and being part of the effect.
you’d just say ok we’ll just let the aircraft companies deal with the weather shall we? could be the most important discovery since the atom bomb but hey theyre just contrails, hide it away in a climate paper and forget about it.yeah right and my left nutsack has his own condo and goes to mexico for the weekend with jonny the magical spacedragon in his flying invisible car.
Nothing has changed, they always did this, there are reports of this happening as far back as 1944, see:
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
They are not there when the humidity does not support their formation, obviously. See question 4, above. Also see Myth #2, here.
Because thats where the people are to see them. If you look at satellite photos, you see they are everywhere that planes fly. For example:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images_topic.php3?topic=atmosphere&img_id=16528
It was at a different altitude.
Who knows what the military is doing? But those same documents also say they are very unlikely to try large scale weather modifications. They also are talking about weather modification to gain localized tactical battlefield advantage of the course of days and hours. Totally different from spraying the entire US in peacetime. Besides, it’s simply speculation, and there is no evidence of chemtrails.
Why would the US Military seed clouds over the US? For decades. It makes no sense, and there is no evidence that they are doing it. What do you base this outlandish theory on?
Not true at all, simply a myth spread by chemtrail theorists. Quote from 1970 (with photos):
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
It was a familiar sight in 1970.
And yes, contrails change the weather. This has been known and observed for decades in hundred of published studies and papers. There’s no secret there.
But it’s not deliberate any more than global warming is deliberate.
Sorry Joe, your comment #20 got marked as spam, which is why it did not show up for a while.
You omit a far more obvious choice 3) Do nothing in particular, since it’s not a major issue.
The problem with what you are suggesting in 1) is really one of economics. Sure, contrails affect the weather to a degree - but it’s a small degree, a few percent here and there on various variables. The effort required to adjust this either way would be enormous, hugely expensive, and of doubtful outcome.
Still - it’s certainly an issue - in the same way that sulfur emissions from power stations were an issue - eventually the economics of the situation might force more action. It’s an unfortunate side-effect of capitalism that environmental factors are not a factor in the market action until the damage has been done.
Uncinus,
Thank you for debunking this ludacris Chemtrail theory that has been orchistrated by people with either very very very little scientific knoldge of basic principals of weather and the atmosphere, or very little education in general.
Chemtrail theorists aggrovate me to no end after taking a meteorology course aswell as several other environmental courses in University.
For example: https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=829
I’m surprised Chemtrails are DUMB knew there was a ‘b’ on the end of the word “dumb”. He spends his post insulting the smarts of the majority of posters to this page, yet misspells new fewer than four words.
It would seem he’s taken a page out of Karl Rove’s playbook: blame the messenger.
I’ve come to this page in a search to find out what’s going on in the sky above my Firebird. The t-tops allow me to see more than most. I noticed this phenomenon a few years ago independently. To find this page, I didn’t search for chemtrails. I searched for contrail science.
I also don’t remember these almost daily persistent contrails from my own youth, and I’m 34. Your supposition that it’s all due to more efficient jet engines dispersing more water seemed feasible, until I checked out the link Hector left above.
God bless you, Hector.
Now I’m convinced there really IS something going on, and the fact we’re not being told about it is unconscienable.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GScDvyLFXlM
they are controlling the amount of heat entering our planet by blocking Infrared rays given off by the sun and reflecting them back to outer space, this is really a vapor trail [NOT condensation TRAIL] they mix the chemical with jet fuel and vaporize it over the free world, It appears they mix this stuff in several places around the USA, my sciences friend told me It is a albumin base product that creates micro fine mist. Hope this Helps