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?

See this post for a full discussion.

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 right. 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.

  185 Responses to “Contrail Gaps and other Questions”

  • 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 (see CONDENSATION 8), a vapour trail.

    1945 Sat. Even. Post 13 Jan. 18 With no wind and intense cold, taxiing planes leave ice-crystal contrails behind them, just as Fortresses do at 30,000 feet over Germany. 1952 M. TRIPP Faith is Windsock vi. 94 White aircraft contrails feathered against azure blue. 1960 People 20 Nov. 9/2 The boffins’ name for aeroplane clouds is ‘contrails’. 1965 R. HEINLEIN Farnham’s Freehold iv. 61 No sign..of man{em}not a building, a road, a path, no contrails in the sky.
  • 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:

    Why haven’t the contrails/chemtrails themselves been independently tested to see what is in them?

    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, which suggests you think there is some kind of conspiracy going 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.

  • 1.what exactly has changed since 1999 that makes contrails so thick, fluffy and goddamn visible and able to collectively blot out the sun?

    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/

    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?

    They are not there when the humidity does not support their formation, obviously. See question 4, above. Also see Myth #2, here.

    3.why is it these trails are only seen over land and usually population centres?

    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

    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.

    It was at a different altitude.

    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?

    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.

    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!

    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?

  • 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

    Not true at all, simply a myth spread by chemtrail theorists. Quote from 1970 (with photos):

    The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

    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 ludicrous Chemtrail theory that has been orchestrated by people with either very very very little scientific knowledge of basic principals of weather and the atmosphere, or very little education in general.

    Chemtrail theorists aggravate me to no end after taking a meteorology course as well as several other environmental courses in University.

  • 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 [sic]

    For example: [BROKEN LINK]

  • I’m surprised that “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 unconscionable.

  • 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

  • On question #10:

    On a movie from Carnicom I saw this “undenieable proof” that chemtrails exist:

    http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8554/767bhn8.png
    The trails seem to come from the tail, so it must be chemicals they’re spraying!

    Well, actually, no. If you look at the blue line in front of the stabilizer you see that the condensation starts just ahead.

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Vietnam-Airlines/Boeing-777-2Q8-ER/1033356/L/
    I took this image, resized it to webcam resolution and added some blurr.
    This is the result:
    http://c.imagehost.org/0314/777.jpg

  • “Where are the bees” wrote

    this is really a vapor trail [NOT condensation TRAIL]

    “Vapor trail”, “condensation trail”, and “contrail” are all words used for the exact same thing, see for example, this encyclopedia article:

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/623212/vapour-trail

    vapour trail
    also called Condensation Trail, or Contrail,

    streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

    And the dictionary
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vapor%20trail

    vapor trail
    One entry found.
    Main Entry:
    vapor trail
    Function:
    noun
    Date:
    1941

    : contrail

  • In response to Q. 10: Galley and lavatory drains sometimes produce thin contrails as waste fluids are emitted from them. The flight attendents dump old pots of coffee, half empty soda cans, glasses of melted ice, and other liquid wastes down the galley drains. Lavatory sink drains are sometimes connected to the galley drains as well and plumbed to an overboard, heated drain mast or two on the belly of the aircraft. These wastes can create a thin, wispy contrail from the mast.

    Some aircraft like older Boeings have an open-ended tube as a drain mast, allowing wastes to flow freely. Aircraft like the Airbus store the waste fluid until a predetermined level is reached then dump it all at once.

  • I’ve been thinking about the on/off contrails and what it means to the chemtrail conspiracy.

    It strikes me that, if there is a method by which to switch the trail on or off, then whatever the supposed chemical is cannot be in the fuel. There has to be a seperate container for this trail chemical. If it was in the fuel you would have no control over when it trailed and when it didn’t. In fact it would trail ALL the time.

    So, therefore, if someone believes that the chemical is in the fuel then how is it possible for them to explain the on/off trails? If they believe it’s in the fuel then they cannot believe in the trails being switched on or off. But chances are they believe both without considering how one negates the other.

    Unless you bring in some other bizarre external force. Chances are it’d just get blamed on HAARP or something.

    Also, from observations I have had some other thoughts that I was hoping people here could confirm…..

    I’ve seen quite a few planes recently that appeared (operative word) to be at cruising altitude but not leaving a contrail (and I mean a non persistent contrail, a contrail that both sides can agree on). At the same time there are planes leaving contrails (non persistent contrails). There didn’t appear to be any persistent contrails.

    I read a lot here about the humidity and temperature having an effect on a trail’s persistence, but these observations also lead me to believe that the amount of water than the plane produces from it’s engine to also effect the persistance of the trail. Is this definitely the case?

    Because, if so, then it’s not hard to see that on a different day (i.e. different conditions up there, namely the conditions for persistent contrails) then those planes that were leaving no trails would be the ones leaving the contrails and those planes that were leaving contrails would be the ones leaving persistent contrails.

    It would also be another reason why some planes leave persistent contrails and others don’t, even if they ARE at the same altitude. They could even be the same plane. Maybe one plane is lighter than the other, which would mean it needs to burn less fuel, which would mean less water is produced by the engines. Again, this is my own logic that I’ve not confirmed anywhere but it makes sense to me. Could do with others confirming it though?

    Hopefully that makes sense.

  • That does make sense, different planes leave different (or no) contrails. Look up “contrail factor” for the science.

    I think though that the altitude plays more of a role in the observations people report. It only takes a few hundred feet to make a difference, and “cruising altitude” can be anywhere from 25,000 to 42,000 feet. Have a look at the altitudes on FlightAware

    http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KLAX

    Click on the small map. The altitude is the first number on the second line next to a plane in 100s of feet. So 95 would be 9500, and 380 would be 38,000. You can change the map to your local airport in the US and match it with what you actually see. It’s actually rather rare to find two planes at the exact same altitude. Right now I see 336, 370, 260,283, 263 as the high planes about the LA area.

  • I live in the UK. Is that site any use?

    I just mean that on persistent contrailing days you either see persitent contrails or contrails.

    On non persistent contrail days you either see contrails or no trails.

    I would be interested to know the height of the planes producing no trails at all. The weird thing is that it’s these planes that I would’ve thought would be more sinister to the chemtrail theorists.

  • Sorry, I don’t know of a UK site. If you are really interested you can calculate the height using a camera, providing you can identify the plane correctly.

    http://contrailscience.com/measuring-the-height-of-contrails/

    It’s a bit fiddly though, and you need a reasonable zoom to be sure.

  • Been reading a bit about contrail factor.

    Hard going. The chemistry’s a bit beyond me. But…

    This means that the wake parcel approaches ambient conditions along a line with a slope equal to the ratio of the water vapor added by engine exhaust to the increase in temperature caused by the heat added to the parcel by the jet engine

    … suggests to me that the amount of water produced by the engines is important as to what type of contrail you’ll get.

    Can’t get my head around the graph, mind.

    What I’m interested in now is what kind of things would effect how much water an engine produces, trying to consider how two identical planes might be able to produce different trails in the same conditions. Weight’s the obvious one to me.

  • MyMatesBrainwashed, yes, weight might be a factor, since more weight would require more thrust, and hence more water would be produced over the same distance.

  • I am curious as to your thoughts about the ARM program.

    It was started back in 1989.

    http://acrf-campaign.arm.gov/isdac/

    This about the indirect and semi direct aerosol campaign where the government is admitting they are spraying chemicals into the atmosphere.

    They seem to indicate aerosol spraying is limited in where it is sprayed and that it was as recent as 2004, however if this is related to national security, I doubt it’s the whole story.

    A: to test ground equipments ability to sense it
    B: to try and determine effect of aerosols on clouds

  • Brian, that’s a program to MEASURE aerosols. It has absolutely zero to do with deliberately spraying aerosols in the air.

    Do you know where aerosols come from, and why they might be studied? Have a look at this:

    http://www.rap.ucar.edu/staff/tardif/Documents/CUprojects/ATOC5600/aerosol_properties.htm

    and

    http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/aerosols/

    And if you prefer, here’s a bunch of movies and images showing sources of aerosols:

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010300/a010386/

  • virga said –

    The trails seem to come from the tail, so it must be chemicals they’re spraying!

    Well, actually, no. If you look at the blue line in front of the stabilizer you see that the condensation starts just ahead.

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Vietnam-Airlines/Boeing-777-2Q8-ER/1033356/L/
    I took this image, resized it to webcam resolution and added some blurr.
    This is the result:
    http://c.imagehost.org/0314/777.jpg

    If we’re talking about the same thing (extending in front of the lower engine), then what you’re seeing in front of that engine IS the lower edge of the crescent moon. Look closely and you’ll see it.

  • notice in many digitally animated kids movies the only thing you see in the sky is chemtrails.. never regular clouds.. Over the Hedge for example. Watch it.. And I also heard that they talk about chemtrails in grade 2 science books in some states saying they are protecting us from harmful UV rays… I’ve also heard many confessions from air traffic controllers saying they are ordered to route flights under these “climate modification” experiments.. I’ve personally heard from x military people who know exactly whats in it. including boron and molybdenum .. the cats outta the bag!

  • Obama’s nazi administration has already admitted to “geo-engineering” the environment.. soo you may now delete this website. :)

  • Pinecone, two points:

    1) Nobody has admitted to actual doing any deliberate geoengineering. People do cloud seeding, but they have been doing that for decades, with NO secrecy.

    2) This website is not about geoengineering, it’s about contrails and the “chemtrail” theory.

  • Chemtrails are how they’re geoengineering the environment.

  • “Chemtrails” are just persistent contrails. Have you looked at the history of contrails? Persistent contrails were first observed in 1921, and they have been the same ever since.

  • When planes fly over on a clear day and spray aerosols they simply don’t go away. Eventually the whole sky becomes blanketed.. This is a daily thing. All the clouds in the sky come from these military tankers. I have filmed these planes and there are no windows on them confirming they are not commercial flights. Ask any air traffic controller.. they’ve been instructed to route flights under these “Climate modification experiments”. Simple observation of the sky undeniably confirms that our clouds are coming from these planes. Have a look for yourself.. Lately I’ve seen 2 planes one flying closely behind the other one leaving a long trail and the other none at all.. It is scientificly impossible for this to occur as the difference in temperature would not differ so greatly in such a small area..

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-government-is-already-geo-engineering-the-environment.html

  • Pinecone, you haven’t read one thing on this site…and if you have, you didn’t bother to really digest any of it.

    Everything can be explained:

    Persistent contrails have been known and observed for more than 70 years, the increase in air travel and the advent of more powerful engines has made the persistent contrails more prominent.

    Yes, persistent contrails spread out into high cirrus clouds, no one is denying that. However, with the exception of those, clouds as you see them are exactly the same as they have been since the turn of the century and before. Look up the book “Cloud Studies” for pictures of “wave clouds” and wispy cirrus clouds identical to those the chemtrailers have dubbed “chemclouds”.

    The reason you don’t see windows on the airplanes is that the sensors in cameras aren’t good enough to register something two feet tall by one foot wide at 30,000 feet away. When you SEE a “chemtrail” go to http://flightaware.com/ and see if you can track the flight. If it’s a commercial flight, it should be on there.

    Two planes flying “closely” have to be at least 1000 feet apart, they are more than likely flying at different altitudes and as we all know, different altitudes could possibly have different temperatures and humidity.

    By Pinecone – “Simple observation of the sky undeniably confirms that our clouds are coming from these planes.”

    Simple observation also tells us that the Sun orbits the Earth and that WE are the center of our Solar System. Science explains the truth. If these planes are spraying chemicals, why doesn’t the “chemical stream” start RIGHT at the engine…why does the cloud appear 100 feet behind the airplane before you can even see it?

    One more thing, please describe the characteristics and visual differences between persisting contrails and “chemtrails”.

  • Simple observation of the sky undeniably confirms that our clouds are coming from these planes. Have a look for yourself.. Lately I’ve seen 2 planes one flying closely behind the other one leaving a long trail and the other none at all.. It is scientificly impossible for this to occur as the difference in temperature would not differ so greatly in such a small area..

    “scientifically impossible for that to occur” ????

    then how do you explain the photo on this very webpage?? the photo in Question #9….

    It IS possible- different engines have different exhaust signatures resulting in different contrail behavior in the exact same sky. Plenty of research has been done to show how this is quite possible…and in fact, historical precedent over the last 40yrs has shown this to be true.

    Contrails can and do form clouds…no one is denying that.

    But 2 planes in the exact same sky can have different contrails…

    If you base your observations on a foundation of ignorance, you are bound to draw false conclusions.

  • I’m starting to think you really believe this and you are just that stupid.. haha you and your family are breathing the air too. Keep up the good work ! I have checked the flight paths over my town and you know what I found? No planes fly over my community. None. Explain that.. and explain why planes do complete 180′s over my town.. oh they must have got lost… and I have heard testimony’s from pilots who fly these planes and they say they are doing it to help “fix” the planet. They insist the government is doing this for our own good. Of course they too are being lied to.

  • And what happened to hectors link? tisk tisk I detect foul play..

  • None? Really, where do you live? Have you checked FlightAware when you see planes?

    http://flightaware.com/live/airport/CYEG

    Pilots do 180s generally for training or test reasons. Perhaps it’s Canadian air force?

    Where is the “testimony”?

  • It was a link from 2007. It broke. The original link was: https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=829 [Broken] There was a later link to: http://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=967 which might be similar.

  • I’m wasting my time here anyway.. the US openly expressed some time ago that they wanted to control weather by 2025.. and they figured it out. All weather is controlled now.. and did you call HAARP a conspiracy?

    http://willthomasonline.net/willthomasonline/Chemtrails_Timeline_1.html 1987 Haarp was patented. USA has been attacking Chinese underground bases and other targets with Haarp and chemtrails. Read up on it the science is fascinating! Too bad its used for evil.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKMTSDzU1Z4

    I’m done here tho.. it was fun

  • William Thomas seems a little confused, on the one hand he claims “Chemtrails” are for controlling the weather, and then he start talking about an energy weapon that can cause earthquakes on the other side of the world. What do the chemtrails have to do with the earthquake?

    Thomas needs to get his facts straight, how can people take him at all seriously when he has things like :

    http://willthomasonline.net/willthomasonline/Chemtrails_Updates_June_2008.html

    Louisiana News 12 TV carried a story on chemtrails story that included lab tests showing barium falling from the sky at 3-times toxic levels set by EPA.

    on his web site? The reporter admitted that test was wrong over a year ago.

    One thing being wrong does not make everything else wrong, but the presence of obvious uncorrected errors shows that Thomas is not concerned with the truth, and is only concerned with pushing his theory. (And it is his to a large degree, as he’s responsible for pushing it in the late 90s).

    I would be happy to read up on any science concerning contrails, but I don’t see any on his site.

  • Ugh, another YouTube “Science” lesson.
    When YouTube is taken seriously for more than informational entertainment, we are all out of luck.
    Please people, use a book every now and then, maybe even go to a library. Ooooo radical.

  • Please address why you are ignoring weather modification and other documented “tests” that directly refute your implied claim that chemtrails are not a problem.

  • Could you be a bit more specific? I’ve certainly not ignored weather modification, I discuss it all the time in the comments section. I’ve also covered a lot of “tests”, which are you referring to?

  • http://www.infowars.com/time-article-pushes-geo-engineering-agenda/

    The sheer fact that this website defends to the death something as simple as jet contrails gives it away!
    If we were all nuts no one would give us the time of the day!
    A lot of effort is being put into this because of course they aren’t just contrails..

  • I don’t think that assuming that if people disagree with you them you must be right is a very sound foundation for your arguments. I mean, people disagree with Obama on health reform – does that mean he’s right about it?

    Anyway, you say “of course they aren’t contrails”, yet they look and act exactly like them.

    Have there ever been any tests done to detect this sulfur that your article suggests are in contrails?

  • http://www.libertyforlife.com/military-war/nigeria_forcesdown_chemtrail.htm

    OOOOOOH and tha cats outa the bag ! AAgain!! They’re goin down!! hahaha

  • …ummm….best read that “news” with a extremely critical eye…look who the author is:

    Sorcha Faal

    …this person – if real- is a notorious internet shyster who has written article after article of utterly nonsensical “news” for years…

    See here for more background:

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sorchafaaldisinfo15mar08.shtml

    Just a quick look at some of “her” more recent articles suggest a severe problem with credibility…:

    http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index632.htm

    …and so Drac…what does a “normal” contrail look like?

  • Draconian:

    OOOOOOH and tha cats outa the bag ! AAgain!! They’re goin down!! hahaha

    “Not told by Sorcha herself alone, but by the Children of Winter themselves, who at 6 years of age the weather had no effect upon them as they walked naked in the snows of winter. Who at 10 years of age could walk thorough boiling water with no burns or discomfort of any kind. Who at 15 years of age could travel the vast distances of space in but a single thought. Who at 20 years of age could heal all illness with but a touch of their hand. Who at 30 years of age could literally move mountains by just their thoughts alone.”

    Yes. Yes! Yes! YES! YESSS!!!! ……….. Er, NO

  • I was wondering the same thing abut that exhaust. Thansk for the info.

  • Seriously? People still believe there is something going on with regards to contrails in the vein of poisoning or weather control? I’ve seen no one present any credible research to support those claims. Look chicken littles, I lived right in the landing approach zone of a major international airport for 20 years growing up. From 1970 on, I saw a lot of airplane activity, and it included contrails from as far back as I recall.

    I believe these rumours started to explode post-9/11, when every conspiracy theorist felt it was open season to run their mouths about EVERYTHING they’ve been holding on to for the past 20 years from The FBI Blew Up WTC & Pentagon to The Mafia Killed Kennedy (oh wait, that one IS true…J/K!)

    Urban Legends are fun for a while, but this one seems to have become a Hydra. Come up with some hard evidence from a credible source about these ridiculous claims and maybe people may take you serously. Otherwise, Uncinus has the answer right.

  • A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies

    http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm

    [EDITED by Uncinus - link to original source - no big cut-and-paste please]

  • Which of those are in use, and what does that use look like?

    If it’s so secret, why did they patent it?

    Weather modification is not new you know, why is it surprising there are weather modification patents? You know there are also lots of starship patents, but nobody is flying to the stars.

  • Ha, shows how well read you are.
    In fact the origins of “mankind” are extraterrestrial.
    Study all the ancient histories of the world…they all overlap.

  • Now I think we perhaps wander a bit off topic. Maybe we could get back to what evidence you have that contrails have changed, and why you ignore the vast amount of evidence that they have not.

    You claim call kinds of tings are going on that defy the laws of physics. Can you proved ONE photo or video that shows this, and quote the laws that are being defied?

    Or, if you like, show a photo of a weather condition that you claim did not used to happen?

  • have you even poked around
    WEATHERWARS.info
    ???
    tell me what you think.

  • And the other thing is…..
    Perhaps its not the question you keep asking that is important…
    You keep asking people to prove what has changed about CONTRIALS, right?
    Well of course lots has changed about them/fuel etc etc etc….
    The bigger question is WHAT HAS CHANGED THE ENVIRONMENT/ATMOSPHERE.
    If the atmosphere has changed..the contrails are also to the same forces.
    It is a FACT that “artificial cloud cover” has impacts on all life on the planet.
    I just learned about IRIDIUM SATELLITE GLARE that project the sun into our atmosphere by accident…
    very interesting…
    The mountain of evidence keeps stacking higher and higher…there are so many crazy things going on with electronic waves in our environment.
    What has changed? PLENTY!
    You dont need to look for the “change of contrails”…thats a documented fact..theres all sorts of different
    types of “augmented contrails”/”spray systems”.
    And yes…I have plenty of bizzare photos, I’m sure you’ll have a hard time with lots of them…
    but I’ve got to work, unless you want to sign me up for a CIA disinfo job??

  • “change of contrails” is not a documented fact. If it were, then you’d have no problem convincing people.

    Can you actually back up any of your claims with science? Actual evidence contains numbers, and references to demonstrate the validity of your claims. What are the numbers on which you base your claims? What has been measured? What could an ordinary person measure to verify the claims?

    I take it you accept that there are some persistent contrails? What else might you have been wrong about? Maybe you should do a review of your beliefs to make sure the science is good, and it’s not simply faith in your counter-culture that’s feeding those beliefs.

    I’d be happy to look at your photos, but you know you can do it yourself. Just compare them to historical images, like these from 1972:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudsOfTheWorld1972?feat=embedwebsite#

    or these from the 1940s:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/WWIIContrails#

    or these from 1905:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925#

    Show me some photos that differ and are inexplicable. I’d be very interested in that.

  • Oh, and, you mean this?

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

    It does nothing. Just a small flash of light.

    Check your science. Don’t be a sheep.

  • Question EVERYTHING you ‘ve accepted without THINKING.
    Dont be a SHEEP.

  • I do. Do you?

    What investigation did you do? Was it simply enough that someone on infowars.com claimed something? Or did you actually check the science? Did you do the math? Did you ask scientists? Did you read about contrails?

  • I take it you accept that there are some persistent contrails? What else might you have been wrong about? Maybe you should do a review of your beliefs to make sure the science is good, and it’s not simply faith in your counter-culture that’s feeding those beliefs.

    WOW. READ man, READ what I write.

    I never said there “are no persistant contrails”.
    So I’m not “wrong” about anything.
    You are the IDIOT who is going out of your way
    to shoot down any and all potential criticism of (what you call) “natural persistant contrails”
    and their effect on ME or anyone else who gives a shit.
    Get it?

    I’m not willing to make ASSUMPTIONS that whats going on is not “BAD FOR MY HEALTH”….
    I choose many things which are different than “the majority” because I know about how
    UNHEALTHFUL many things are.
    When my mom was young in rural Pennsylvania they grew up running out behind “the bug truck”
    spraying DDT or whatever it was, because they didnt know any better.
    Know we know better. I know better.
    I RIDE A BICYCLE in LOS ANGELES man…
    dont talk to my about pollution…
    Thats about it for our conversation, its all a little too
    bizzare that you are running this site and choose to remain “anonymous” and “between jobs”.
    Shouldnt we meet and have a group discussion about this?
    Where do you want to meet?
    Lets do it Anon!

  • I’m not willing to make ASSUMPTIONS that whats going on is not “BAD FOR MY HEALTH”….

    But why would you assume that one thing – say contrails – is bad for your health, but another, say riding a bike in LA, is not?

    What’s the EVIDENCE?

    What’s the science on which you base your beliefs?

  • car exhaust
    plane exhaust
    evidence.

  • By CTYForganization:

    “I’m not willing to make ASSUMPTIONS that whats going on is not “BAD FOR MY HEALTH”…. I choose many things which are different than “the majority” because I know about how UNHEALTHFUL many things are.

    “I RIDE A BICYCLE in LOS ANGELES man…dont talk to my about pollution…”

    It looks to me like you’re a bit confused with regards to what is healthy and what isn’t. If you’re riding your bike in LA, I would assume that you’re dodging traffic and breathing exhaust. If so, you have a lot more immediate ways to die (or become ill) than any “chemtrail” (persistent contrail) could do to you five miles above your head.

    By CTYForganization:
    “I choose many things which are different than “the majority” because I know about how UNHEALTHFUL many things are.”

    Maybe one of those things that you do differently could be learning a little bit about Meteorology and Aviation physics? At least it would help sort things out for you, rather than simply throwing all of your eggs into the conspiracy theory basket based on the say so of self appointed internet experts.

    By CTYForganization:
    “You are the IDIOT”

    “its all a little too bizzare that you are running this site and choose to remain “anonymous” and “between jobs”. Shouldnt we meet and have a group discussion about this? Where do you want to meet? Lets do it Anon!”

    The modus operandi of a chemtrailer, when your false beliefs are threatened by indisputable facts, attack the messenger.

    From Wiktionary
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem
    ad hominem (plural ad hominems)

    1. (logical fallacy) A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent’s idea by discrediting the opponent himself.

    2.A personal attack.

    With regards to Uncinus revealing his identity, please use an ounce of common sense. Do you really believe that, if Uncinus went public with his identity, people wouldn’t harass him or attempt to “silence the disinfo agent”? HE has nothing to do with the discussion, simply refute the information he presents by citing facts, studies and sources. Oh that’s right, chemtrailers beliefs are based on covert ops, government conspiracies and illuminati bogeymen.

    Maybe you could start presenting some facts as to how YOU can tell the difference between persistent contrails and “chemtrails”? If not, you’ll simply end up on the long list of chemtrailers that came here to spew uninformed internet nonsense, got frustrated and left.

  • actually i came here to find flight/weather data..links to good satellite feeds.
    you waste alot of time re-stating what seems obvious to you.
    Everything is not alright.

  • And you waste a lot of time talking so much bluster, but no time backing up your claims with legitimate studies or facts.

    Please start producing some visible differences between “chemtrails” and persistent contrails, unless *gasp* there aren’t any?

  • If after over 10 years of investigation, granted by grass roots efforts since all attempts to have the agencies that SHOULD be doing this work have been ignored and dismissed, and those agencies have been negligent, and in fact disruptive, ANYONE who has looked into the issue knows full well the difference between persistent contrails and so-called “Chemtrail”. The word chemtrail itself makes studying the issue harder since it makes it look like it’s only one thing. There is no definition of a “chemtrail”

    All anyone with fully functioning eyesight has to do is look up for more than 30 seconds. Illegal aerosol operations produce trails that in no way behave like normal contrails. Normal contrails do not “drip”, they do not spread, they are NOT normal contrails.

    If anyone is seriously interested in this issue, do the homework, or at least read up about it from those who have. NO ONE would want to believe such dangerous and frightening use of aerosols is happening. This would mean that there is something going on and it is sanctioned by the military/industrial complex of the globe. It would mean that the results of these programs are devastating to humans and all other life forms on the planet are considered collateral damage, and “they” just flat don’t care.

    You can sit back and scoff. You can sit back and be in denial. None of those things are going to stop these programs from continuing to harm you and ecological and biological systems. The programs will continue, and the damaging effects will as well. OR…you can catch up. Listen to all of these interviews and read all of the accompanying papers and then tell me there is no such thing as illegal aerosols being used on a global scale on this planet. Denial is a very comfortable place to live, but it’s not real, illegal aerosol use is.
    http://www.carnicominstitute.org/carnren.htm

    This is the way I saw it a few years ago and it hasn’t changed, the harvest has more than begun
    http://www.carnicom.com/lorie1.htm

  • By LorieK
    “All anyone with fully functioning eyesight has to do is look up for more than 30 seconds. Illegal aerosol operations produce trails that in no way behave like normal contrails. Normal contrails do not “drip”, they do not spread, they are NOT normal contrails.”

    Everything you have said here is 100% false, all of these things are attributes of persistent contrails. Ignorance is also a very comfortable place to live, but it is not real, science is.

    For some interesting information, check out the link below. It gives links to articles regarding observed contrail behavior that pre-dates WWII.

    http://contrailscience.com/pre-wwii-contrails/

    This link shows 12 Life Magazine cover photos between 1940 and 1980, all of these have persisting contrails in them. http://contrailscience.com/life-magazine-contrail-photos/

  • Normal contrails do “drip”, see “Clouds of the World”, 1970:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudsOfTheWorld1972?feat=embedwebsite#5363662395558839778
    (click the arrows above the image to navigate, read the text, look at image 11.2.5 on the next page))

  • “Normal contrails do not “drip”, they do not spread, they are NOT normal contrails. ”

    Why do so many have such a distorted and ignorant perception of the facts. I see this claim made over and over and over and all it’s serves to do is PROVE the ignorance of the individual making the claim! I read this an immediately understand that the person who wrote it has “learned” about the subject of “chemtrails” from online fear mongers and hasn’t bothered to take the time to learn about persistent contrails. It’s an admission of ignorance on the subject.

  • I feel the same way faithinscience. You know that they came directly from a “chemtrail” site without even looking up any scientific information on contrails.

  • to Suntour…100% false is quite a statement. To say there has been no look at “science” in 10+ years of research is just patently false.

    There’s plenty of science to be found here
    http://www.carnicom.com

    And specifically
    http://www.carnicom.com/corepulse.htm

    In addition, I have learned more “science” about atmospherics, weather and related topics than I ever wanted to know. How does one explain “contrail” formation when wind temps aloft are not sufficient for normal contrail formation, yet “contrails” are there? For 12 years now I have been saying that I wouldn’t spend another 30 seconds on this if it wasn’t “real”…I am still waiting to quit.

    There are THREE separate things here, not two…there are “normal” contrails, persistent contrails, and trails left from illegal aerosol operations. Please don’t think that either of the first two are the source of our concern.

    Myself and the others who have also learned and used plenty of “science” over the years have no problem if someone can explain what is happening, we would all like to be rid of the work and get our time and energy back to “normal”. No one WANTS this issue to be true, why would we? We are all on the same side here, the welfare of life on the planet. There is no need to be adversarial about any discussion, we are all in this together

  • And specifically
    http://www.carnicom.com/corepulse.htm

    The asymmetric pendules and “core tracks” (wingtip vortices) described by Carnicom were explained many years ago, such as in this example from 1972:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudsOfTheWorld1972?feat=embedwebsite#5363662395558839778

    Use the arrows above the image to get other pages form the chapter. It’s very interesting.

  • And by the way, those old links you showed me? I saw them, and more (sigh, too many more) years and years ago. That is about persistent contrails, and was comparative to 2nd grade in this investigation. So don’t presume others have not already found what you are sharing. But I do so encourage you to continue to investigate and read, and watch. There is nothing personal in this issue. I respect your intelligence to examine ALL the information and deduce for yourself. Heck, look at Clifford’s background….

    http://www.carnicominstitute.org/carnbio.htm

    this is not a guy that doesn’t work with and understand “science”. We’re not some Internet junkies with too much time on their hands. Read the papers, do the homework, we’ve saved you a lot of time by gathering the information for over a decade. PLEASE show if and where you find inaccuracies, every little bit helps. Check out the papers related to ELF, bloodwork, and environmental samples that were cultured over the last year. Specifically cultures related to the sample ignored by the EPA which has been held in custody since it was originally submitted. Don’t you think we don’t know this sounds like some bad science fiction movie? I wish to God I could walk out of the theater on this one. Not use or look at “science” , give me a break.

  • I also forgot to say….no the wing tip votices thing also does not apply. I don’t have time right now to dig out that one at the moment, but it doesn’t work as an explanation. When I can, I’ll come back about that, unless there’s going to be a bunch of ad hominum attack stuff coming back at me. Been there, done that, so over it.

  • Ok, I thought of where to grab one real quick, it’s not the thing I wanted, but I have got to go, so here’s a quick shot at it for you….wing tip vortices are mentioned, but I do have more regarding that subject.
    http://weatherwars.info/?page_id=147

    Have a nice evening.

  • How does one explain “contrail” formation when wind temps aloft are not sufficient for normal contrail formation, yet “contrails” are there?

    How would you explain the fact that the forecast and published temps aloft over the northern Texas area yesterday were substantially lower than what we actually experienced? This caught everyone off guard and we were all having to stop our climbs below our intended cruise altitude. I saw -42 at FL400. Pretty rare for this time of year. Then there was an inversion down through the 30s that wasn’t charted either.

    My point is that weather is just too fluid and often unpredictable. I see so many statements about the properties of the atmosphere that I fly in on a daily basis that are just too general and reveal a persons true understanding of the atmosphere.
    “It’s too dry up there to make contrails”
    “it’s not cold enough up there to make contrails”

    These statements are similar to the absolute statements people make about aircraft activity:
    “commercial jets just don’t do that”
    “aircraft can’t make those types of maneuvers”
    “I live in an area with virtually no aircraft traffic”
    “these are not normal flight patterns”
    “those are not normal markings”
    “commercial aircraft are never all white”

    Please keep in mind that I literally make my living and stake my life as well as my passengers lives based on my knowledge and understanding of the weather and I’m the first to admit that weather is tough to get! It’s always changing in ways we may never fully grasp.

  • Well then captfitch, you of all people will most appreciate the information….once you read it.

  • Ah, LorieK, Lorie Kramer, Vice President of the Carnicom Institute. Welcome.

    Okay, let’s stick with the pendules. Explain what the 1972 book fails to explain?

    And if you wish to digress, feel free to tackle this critique of Carnicom:

    http://contrailscience.com/chemical-analysis-of-contrails/

  • Well Lorie, I read as much of Carnicom website as I could. Too exhaustive, exhausting and it seemed like every page had something too unscientific to read. I looked over his bio. Impressive but I didn’t see any training in meteorology, atmospheric research or even anything related to aviation. Does he have any formal training in ANY of those fields. How about aerodynamics? It just seems like anyone who has any familiarity with that field would instantly see those wingtip vortices in the pics.

    And the weatherwars site is just plain stupid. All the same info and then someone there claims there’s a whole SECOND look-alike fleet of commercial aircraft doing the spraying!??!?!?! Seriously? Where are they hiding all these planes? The gov’t can’t even get a contract together on a tanker replacement program and you expect them to pull together another fleet of planes? Are they all drones?

    Finally, and I’ve raised this point before but- if I’m up there everyday getting direct contact with this stuff why do I feel so darn good? Are they spraying something that makes me healthier? If so I’m all for it! Spray away my government overlords!

  • If you want to get a quick judge of the quality of Carnicom’s science, then you can start with his article on “Contrail Physics”

    http://www.carnicom.com/model1.htm

    He bases the entire article on assuming the contrail vanishes because it is melted by sunlight. Besides this proving that clouds cannot exist, he also claims:

    The primary processes
    involved in contrail formation therefore appear to involve:

    1. The emission of water vapor from the aircraft.
    2. The freezing of the water vapor at sub-zero temperatures into ice
    crystals.
    3. The warming of the ice crystals to the melting point through solar
    radiation.
    4. The melting of the ice crystal with solar radiation to where the
    water vapor once again no longer is visible. This returns the water
    to the state from which it was emitted from the engine.
    [...]
    Consideration has also been given to the phenomenon of
    sublimation, and it has been found to be not applicable due to the
    extremely low atmospheric pressure requirements for sublimation to
    occur(P< .006atm).

    So the water exits the jet engine at 6000 degrees, cools down nearly instantly to sub freezing, then warms back up again and “melts”.

    How exactly did it freeze in the first place? And now it’s in the “state from which it was emitted from the engine”, why does it not freeze again?

    The 0.006atm figure he quotes is the “triple point” of water, the pressure below which water cannot exist in liquid state, but only in solid and gaseous forms.

    However, ice can sublime at sea level. The triple point has nothing to do with it – he’s misinterpreting the phase diagram of water to think that you can’t get from solid to vapor below the triple point pressure. Ice sublimes faster in low pressure dry air. It will ONLY sublime if the relative humidity with respect to ice is below 100% (meaning a relative humidity with respect to water of below 70%). And it does not require a rise in temperature. Contrail dissipation does in fact occur via sublimation, as any book on clouds, or a browse though hundreds of scientific papers, would tell him. Which, if he’d though about it, is why contrails behave almost exactly the same after sunset, when the sun is no longer warming them.

    One could go on, basically his science is not science at all, but a facsimile of science – equations and numbers and conclusions, some facts, but mostly errors and nonsense. If he can’t even get the basic physics of water right, then why would you read any further?

  • Uncinus:

    If he can’t even get the basic physics of water right, then why would you read any further?

    Indeed.
    “A facsimile of science” is right. If you check his vocabulary you’ll see it is very indirect. Good science always attempts the most direct and incontrovertible expressions, and these you will not find within his vocabulary.

  • I might add that Clifford Carnicom never uses the word “stratosphere”, even though this is where the majority of trails are made.

    The “stratosphere” is distinct from the troposphere (which we experience) by being LAMINAR, STABLE, very cold, and with a gradient of temperature which INCREASES with altitude.

    I cannot emphasize how great the difference is between the stratosphere and the troposphere to which we are accustomed.

    This difference accounts for the majority of ignorant claims made by “chemtrailers”.

    None of us, of course, accepts responsibilty for the ignorance of these people. How can we? We give them the best information we can, and they cannot or will not accept it.

    People without scientific understanding appear to believe that scientific truth is negotiable, rather as if it were a non-scientific subject.

    This isn’t the case…

  • I hate to quibble with you Jazz but all turbine powered aircraft travel in the troposphere and occasionally in the tropopause. We can’t make it to the stratosphere. Are you generalizing the troposphere into the stratosphere? I guess you could do that but we consider it a whole seperate layer because it doesn’t share the same properties. Frankly we don’t even know when we’ve made the switch into the tropopause most of the time. My plane’s computer defaults the tropopause at FL360 and stops computing for standard lapse rate but that’s all behind the scenes. In summer you can tell where it’s at because the storms stop there but that doesn’t always hold true either- sometimes they punch through.

We are no longer taking comments on Contrail Science
If you would like to comment, or ask questions about Contrails or The Chemtrail Theory,
then please head over to the contrail forum at our sister site:

METABUNK.ORG

   
© 2014 Contrail Science Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha