For a contrail enthusiast, I picked the wrong place to live. We hardly ever get persistent contrails here in the summer, but things have been picking up a bit as we go into fall, and today we had this:

A very nice triple set of contrails of three planes that, within about 10-15 minutes of each other flew north along the same flight path.  This was taken today, October 26th, 2009, at around 11:20AM in Santa Monica, California, looking east.

It’s actually a 180 degree panoramic shot, the trails are NOT curved, they were straight, and are just distorted because of the nature of the photo (it’s stitched together from about 10 individual images).  It looks a lot stranger in this photo than it did in real-life.

There’s a couple of interesting things about this photo.  Firstly the middle trail peters out on the right of the photo (the south).  This is probably to do with the jet changing altitude.

Secondly there’s a trail in the bottom right corner that crosses the other two at right angles.  This was from a jet that was flying in a westerly direction, probably towards Hawaii.

Note the large amount of Cirrus clouds,  that usually indicates a change in the weather due to a new weather system bringing in a moisture laden front at high altitude.  It’s often a precursor to rain.   Indeed the weather is set to change.  Today in Santa Monica, the high was 83F, tomorrow it drops suddenly to 63F.  Quite a dramatic change

Contrail season in Los Angeles is also the start of the local “Chemtrail” season, where people see these trails, and figure it’s part of some secret government spraying program – not realizing it’s only the weather.

  246 Responses to “Contrail Season in Los Angeles”

  • And the next day, it is indeed rather cold, and windy too, as a cold front rolls into town:

  • : ) You are a contrail enthusiast? And you have a thing especially for persisting ones? If you are trying to debunk chemtrails you should be careful how you say things because this sounds like a poorly executed government cover up. And that is what I am going to argue in my research paper, using this post as proof. It just sounds soooo fake!

    If I die soon, the government has killed me for honing in on the chemtrail conspiracy. hahah! Seriously tho, im telling everyone this just in case.

  • You should start a contrail enthusiast club! I bet it would catch fire.

    I swear this is the best proof I have had of a cover up yet.

    Your right about the curved lines though. Well, at least I have never witnessed them outside of an air race. I feel curved chemtrails would just look too out of place. One would ask, “why is a jet, en route, flying in circles?”
    So this is what you do: you make the grids, and X’s. That way they can be explained as the procedural NAS flight patterns. You turn the sprayer on, fly over a certain area, then turn it off.

    What are these chemicals though? Tell me, is it to increase the effects of global dimming? I prefer the lighter theories as to why.

  • “I prefer the lighter theories as to why.”

    I’ll bet you do…

  • What does this, above me, mean? Why did you say this?

    I prefer the lighter theories as to why chemtrails exist because I do not feel that chemtrails have interfered with me living my life; and I remain devoted to my government trusting whatever is going on is not harmful to my health. Why did you say this, “I’ll bet you do…?” Why did you also bet on me to reject facts before they were laid out? You quote me so I will quote you, “I understand the mistakes you are making uin your thinking and could easily explain the facts to you. But, I don’t expect that you will believe me.” Why do you think you know me when you do not?

  • Austin,

    I have dealt with so many people who “believe” in “chemtrails” that I can spot the behavior right out of the gate. It seems from your posts that even though you are acknowledging some of the information here as factual, you are still trying to convince people here that “chemtrails” are real. Honestly, I don’t believe you are writing a “research paper”, I think you are here to debunk the debunkers. I could be wrong, but so far, it looks that way to me. Please keep in mind that it is YOU who is trying to debunk persistent contrails. Some evidence for your position is all that those of us who disagree with you are asking for.

    Here are the things that would make/help ME believe in “chemtrails”.

    1) Proof that here are chemicals in ANY of the long lasting trails not associated with combustion through the jet engine.

    2) proof that all of this spraying, and remember there are millions of these things worldwide, have contributed any appreciable level of ANY chemical in the atmosphere. Please keep in mind that the water cycle moves everything we do down here, up there and back again. It’s very difficult to pinpoint a source of chemical contamination. But, given that there are so many lines in the sky, something should be spiking off the charts at some of the thousands of independent air quality monitoring stations.

    3) proof that these planes we see in the sky, leaving these long lasting trails, are NOT passenger/commercial planes filled with people or cargo. The claim that these are military planes disguised to look like passenger jets is hilarious.

    4) a BELIEVABLE reason as to why these plans are spraying whatever it is they are spraying. I have read/heard everything from “dumbing down chemicals” to geoengineering to nanobots to swine flu. No two chemtards believe these jets are doing the same thing.

    5) lastly, I want the people who make these ridiculous claims about “chemtrails” to show that they have studied atmospheric science, from legitimate sources (VERY important), and have the qualifications to REJECT the science that proves them so unbelievably wrong!

    Again, good luck in your quest for truth.

  • http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html

    Interesting that here cloud simulation is 1) done in a tank and 2) advertised on the internet. No secrecy here. Also the recent NASA experiment in which a dust cloud has been fired into the upper atmosphere can also be read about on their website http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/CARE.html.

    No doubt, regardless of the transparency here, those who believe in the chemtrail cover up will find a way to make this information fit their theory. ‘Camouflage by limited disclosure’ is a favorite, I believe. How do we know it’s not just disclosure?

    You can’t win.

  • None of them have studied legitimate science. That’s why they believe in the existence of chemtrails. I know about this because I live with someone who believes this crap. They spend all their time looking at youtube ‘evidence’ and become aggressive if anyone disagrees with them. It’s like a religious conversion. No scientist is to be believed. The only belief is in the miserable notion that we are being ‘sprayed’ by an evil elite.

  • “No scientist is to be believed. The only belief is in the miserable notion that we are being ’sprayed’ by an evil elite.”

    Which is why it’s impossible to help these poor people.

  • Hi, I like this web and I’m sceptical about chemtrails theories but what do you think about this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuiwDfwW3cg

  • What about it?! It’s just a persistent contrail. Just like every trail in every youtube “chemtrail” video.

  • Looks like a fairly standard aerodynamic contrail…as opposed to an exhaust contrail.

    For more details see here:

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JAS2767.1

    and

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JAS2768.1

    and

    http://contrailscience.com/aerodynamic-and-rainbow-contrails/

    …I see a lot of videos now highlighting A-D contrails as the real “proof”of “chemtrails”….which is funny….because before it was the big, white puffy trails that were the “evidence” …and now it has morphed into the barely visible, sporadic pressure trail….

    Torture the data until it confesses I guess.

    The propaganda of these videos is getting quite good- with fancy editing and menacing sound tracks…its no wonder that it is easier to believe them then to actually study atmospheric physics.

  • PS: I was referring to the small, sporadic trail in the middle of the normal, persistent contrail that was highlighted by the film makers.

  • Washing up water? :)

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8

    How do you explain the two differences in this utube? If Its not “chemtrials” then why are they so different looking side by side and filmed at exactly the same time under the same weather conditions? At least Im assuming ……..this is not my video.

    Thanks,still Undecided

  • Yes, you ARE assuming.

    They aren’t “same time” and they aren’t “same height”.

    But ANY TWO passenger planes could have been flying together, and could have been SWAPPED without the slightest change in the size of the trail generated in each particular position.

    One trail passes through a colder damper air layer than the other. There the moisture of the trail has picked up more water from the saturated water vapor in its particular layer.

    As both layers are equally transparent and invisible, so without prior understanding it does look as if they are different trails. But essentially they are NOT.

  • SR1419: Yeah, it’s very easy to make impressive chemtrail video and I just want to educate myself with real facts, because I’m not expert. Here, in Czech Republic, are also chemtrail-believers and it’s not easy argue against them, because they’re very fanatic :)
    I’m just open-minded guy, but still keeping his common sense.

  • In case you read this Unicus, I thought this was interesting in explaining peoples false memory of contrails:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/137156.php

  • On the chemtrail Central website, this guy thinks that The government is building towers to do mind control on people, that work with “chemtrails”.

    http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread11291.html

  • I have come to believe that this site is indeed put together by someone or something trying to ‘de-legitimize’ the existence of chemtrails.

    And I am by no means prone to conspiracy.

    But having a relatively strong knowledge of flight and a decent knowledge of weather, and having seen the so-called contrails countless times over Los Angeles, I have to say that your ‘proof’ is sorely lacking. I know what I see. And taking all things in to consideration including altitude, flight patterns and dissipation rates there is no question in my mind that these ‘contrails’ are being positioned purposefully.

    The picture you showed? Contrails.

    The view of the sky over Los Angeles at 4:45 p.m. yesterday? Chemtrails.

  • Cloudy-

    what is the visible difference between a “chemtrail” and a contrail?

    What is your knowledge of atmospheric physics and contrail formation and persistence?

    You “know” what you see until you learn otherwise.

  • Cloudy:

    “having a relatively strong knowledge of flight” – Why do planes fly high?

    “having a decent knowledge of weather” – What is the unique feature of the tropopause?

    “having seen the so-called contrails countless times over Los Angeles” – What proportion of all your overhead plane traffic showed temporary trails, and what proportion showed persistent trails? How many aircraft overflew you each day?

    “your ‘proof’ is sorely lacking” – What ‘proof’ of what?

    “I know what I see” – Does “knowing” mean “understanding” for you. For engineers like me, SCIENCE is “understanding”, really because it QUANTIFIES things. If you lack scientific understanding, what is it that you “know”? Is the Earth flat, and does the Sun go round it?

    “considering altitude” – What altitude WAS that?

    “considering flight patterns” – What flight patterns WERE they?

    “considering dissipation rates” – What was the numerical VALUE of the “dissipation”? How much trail (by weight) was “dissipating”. What do you MEAN by “dissipation?

    “And I am by no means prone to conspiracy” – “these ‘contrails’ are being positioned purposefully” – Well, you really must make up your mind here.

    “I have come to believe that this site is indeed put together by someone or something trying to ‘de-legitimize’ the existence of chemtrails” – I have come to believe that your post was indeed put together by someone or something trying to ‘legitimize’ the existence of chemtrails by bluster, ad hominem, but by NO TRACE OF ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

    I have come to believe that you have put together your post here like a sort of graffiti, with no intention of proper debate. Otherwise you would have supplied some quantifiable and testable justification for the claim you make.

    Our “proof” of contrails – “Contrails to Cirrus” – is both corroborated and quantified, and available to you here, with dozens of similar research findings listed in its appendix.

    Where is your proof of “chemtrails”?

  • What a joke this website is. Debunking chemtrails… Wake up sleepy heads, have you not noticed that persistent contrails is a very new phenomenon? Have you not noticed that the phenomenon of persistent trails has been happening quite often since the late 90′s? Have you not noticed the cloud cover associated with persistent contrails?? I very much remember a time when there was NO persistent contrails. and NO cloud cover muck created by the persistent contrails. Telling me otherwise is wasting your energy, and having me listening to the BS only hightense my sense of self consciousness to what I am seeing before my eyes. I am very aware of the “chemtrail” program. The proof you debunkers seek is in the sky, in the air you breathe, and if you cant see it. I would advise you to wise up.

  • You can’t be serious….right?

    How do you explain the scientific research, the photographs, videos and even memories of persistent contrails dating back over 50 years? Are you just going to wave it away as “disinfo” ?

    How do you explain the physics that dictates that is the atmosphere is saturated with respect to ice, contrails can persist and spread?

    How do you explain the concept of contrail cirrus as delineated by atmospheric scientists from around the World for over 50 years?

    Seriously?

  • Ian Bryant,
    I have seen them all of my life and I am 44 years old. To say they haven’t always been in the sky is admitting you grew up in the sticks. So you didn’t have air traffic over your house as a kid…or you couldn’t be bothered to look up…that means they didn’t exist? Just because YOU didn’t see them? Hogwash!!!

    I wish you people would understand the importance of “evidence”. Oh well…..There is no convincing a chemtard.

  • Dear Shilltastic & SR1419,
    Shilltastic, I grew up Southern California. A fortunate enough place to be blessed with clear skies over 300 days a year since the dawning of the sun. I grew up with crystal clear skies especially when the Santa Ana winds were blowing, I witnessed contrails during those times, and 100% of the time they would evaporate within minutes, leaving no trace of any “contrail cirrus” that SR1419 speaks about. Allow me to reinstate myself, no trace of any “contrail cirrus”, ever, until the 90′s to be precise. Over the last few days, here in So Cal there has been a nice Santa Ana wind blowing, but something is different about this wind. The brilliant blue I was once familiar with was enthralled with a massive aerial display of suspect clouds, literally being created by the hundreds of flybys by airplanes. Evidence on the matter is over my head, floating, looking back at me, not knowing the brilliant blue of the past, mocking everything that I grew up to know. Santa Ana winds are bone dry, and clouds have a hard time producing in such an arid environment. Keep on telling me otherwise though. It only adds fuel to my fire.

  • Ian,

    you asked to be bombarded with reason and logic. I can see why, as you are impermeable to it.

    So let’s try again.

    The stratosphere (where the aircraft are flying) is ABOVE the troposphere (which is what you call “the weather”, and where you’ll find the Santa Ana winds). Because it is ABOVE “the weather” it is relatively INDEPENDENT of it, mixing with it ONLY at “cell boundaries”, only THREE of which exist in each hemisphere. As you are a long way from a boundary, it is unlikely you’ll spot much cirrus.

    But that cirrus would have been there on occasion. It simply ISN’T POSSIBLE that you never saw cirrus cloud when you were younger. It is possible, however, that you DID see it without registering the fact.

    The combustion of aviation fuel puts around 300,000,000 tons of water into the stratosphere annually. Compared with the amount of water already dissolved up there this is a drop in the bucket, but you must remember that it is ALL PLACED WHERE OTHER PLANES FLY THROUGH IT, and must diffuse away in order not to affect subsequent flights through it. Above a certain density of flights this isn’t going to happen.

    Then the stratosphere layers affected are going to become wetter. When they become more than 100% saturated, heavy trails are going to precipitate.

    When they HAVE become more than 100% saturated, they do this because the remaining air the water is dissolved in is CLEAN, and there is literally NOTHING for the water molecules to condense onto.

    It is this very CLEANLINESS which allows SUPERSATURATION.

    So the conditions up there are the REVERSE of what you believe. CLEAN, before the trails are formed.

    The trail contents, being diluted 10,000 to 1 by PURE WATER VAPOR, are probably cleaner than your tap water. CLEAN, AFTER the trails are formed.

    So the increase in aviation (fifty-fold in fifty years) has merely TEMPORARILY brought into view WATER VAPOR which would otherwise have remained invisible.

    We are happy to tell you about any parts of the world you are too lazy to read up and research for yourself. Good luck with reason and logic.

  • Totally belive you now thanks.

  • Dear Ian-

    I respect that you do not remember seeing contrails persist before the 90s’. Yet, surely you do not expect your memory to adequately address the topic that is quite technical in nature.

    …as such, you neglected to address a single query of mine- to which I am greatly interested:

    Thus, I respectfully repeat the questions:

    How do you explain the scientific research, the photographs, videos, news reports and even memories of persistent contrails dating back over 80 years?

    How do you explain the physics that dictates that is the atmosphere is saturated with respect to ice, contrails can persist and spread?

    How do you explain the concept of contrail cirrus as delineated by atmospheric scientists from around the World for over 50 years?

    Thanks in advance.

  • Why should I answer, you guys are so right.

  • You don’t answer, because you don’t know. And we KNOW you don’t know.

    “chemtarsils” are a hoax. The science that explains the lines in the sky is basic and simple. Ignorance of scientific fact doesn’t change the facts.

  • Please I beg your pardon. You are right. I’ve realized that I am wrong. Having you think what I have acknowledge is a waste of your energy. Mind yourself.

  • Mind YOURself.

  • That was me, posting on another computer. Please, mind yourself again.

  • No, mind YOURSELF. You spread your ignorance like a virus/cancer….and those of us who CARE about the truth and love the aviation industry will do what it takes to slow the spread of your disease. Again, mind YOURSELF.

  • Ian, I know.

  • Great. Keep up your fabulous work.

  • I will. Until the day I die, I will fight ignorance.

  • Hello Contrail enthusiasts –
    Even assuming you are correct and the persistent contrails of today are “normal” and increased in size and frequency, I still think they are unattractive and potentially harmful to the weather and therefore living things.
    I think there ought to be a law against them. They are unnatural and should be prohibited. Planes should be required to fly at altitudes and with engines do not produce persistent contrails. The perpetrators should be fined enormously to compensate the public at large for the aesthetic damage done to our priceless skies.
    Thanks for reading my comment.

  • PS I concur with Ian Bryant’s description of contrails of 30/40 years ago vs contrails of today. I’ve always been observant of airplanes and distinctly recall the excitement of seeing a contrail form only to dissipate within 10 minutes. Although I do believe persistent contrails may have been observed back then, they were not the widespread daily occurrence they are today. Assuming this change is due to changes in technology (engines & fuel) as opposed to changes in the atmosphere, please refer to my comment of 7:10 PM.
    Thanks again.
    JSG

  • jsg, could it not be that there are many more flights today that 30 years ago? There are probably at least ten times as many flights now.

    I understand you think they are unattractive – but most people don’t seem to mind them.

  • Hmm, I see it “seems” that “most people” here on planet earth have Uncinus to speak on thier behalf, and decide that they do not mind them. Now, do you have evidence to back up your claim? Im just wondering.

  • Since I love to read my own script ill just post this again…

    “I grew up Southern California. A fortunate enough place to be blessed with clear skies over 300 days a year since the dawning of the sun. I grew up with crystal clear skies especially when the Santa Ana winds were blowing, I witnessed contrails during those times, and 100% of the time they would evaporate within minutes, leaving no trace of any “contrail cirrus” that SR1419 speaks about. Allow me to reinstate myself, no trace of any “contrail cirrus”, ever, until the 90’s to be precise. Over the last few days, here in So Cal there has been a nice Santa Ana wind blowing, but something is different about this wind. The brilliant blue I was once familiar with was enthralled with a massive aerial display of suspect clouds, literally being created by the hundreds of flybys by airplanes. Evidence on the matter is over my head, floating, looking back at me, not knowing the brilliant blue of the past, mocking everything that I grew up to know. Santa Ana winds are bone dry, and clouds have a hard time producing in such an arid environment. Keep on telling me otherwise though.”

  • lovely anecdote.

    I guess that proves you right. Contrails never persisted before you noticed them.

  • That is a false statement SR1419.

  • It was sarcasm, literally false, but in intended meaning true.

    Quite obviously contrails persisted before the 90s, there is ample record and testimony of them doing so.

    In addition there is the rather huge fact that if they did in fact seem to have changed from non-persistent to persistent, then nobody seems to have noticed.

    Ian, how do you explain the contradiction between, on the one hand, science and history of contrails, and on the other hand, your personal memories?

    Let’s take another example. Nowadays you see dark spots on the sidewalk. Do you remember seeing those before the 90s?

  • Just Some Guy:

    I think they are unattractive
    I agree with you.

    and potentially harmful to the weather and therefore living things
    They will NEVER be that. They amount to only 3% of all human combustion activities, and scientifically are “in the noise”, or below mathematical significance, when accounting for weather “forcing”.

    I think there ought to be a law against them. They are unnatural and should be prohibited.
    They are natural, really. Unless you would argue a cooking fire is “unnatural”.

    Planes should be required to fly at altitudes and with engines do not produce persistent contrails
    It might be a good idea to restrict aviation to the troposphere (or the higher stratosphere) and avoid the tropopause and lower stratosphere when flying OVER LAND. However there would be a greater danger and discomfort involved to a possibly unacceptable degree. More planes would be lost to turbulence, ice, and loss of visiblity. The tropopause and lower stratosphere are the safest places to be while flying.

    Assuming this change is due to changes in technology (engines & fuel)
    It’s due to a fifty-fold increase in passenger aviation since the mid-fifties. That IS a big increase!

    As aviation is dependent on kerosine, which is distilled from our rapidly-diminishing petroleum reserves, I expect the whole business of contrails whiteing out the sky to be rather academic twenty years from now…

  • Nice one JazzRoc, come in quick with the agreement. As for Unicinus, shame on you.

  • Shame on me? Huh? I was attempting to address one of the most common questions behind the theory – why don’t people remember seeing persistent contrails?

    Part of the answer is simply that people don’t remember things before they first notice them. I give the spots on the sidewalk as an example. You can’t remember seeing them if you’ve never noticed them before. When did these spots first start showing up?

    When you combine the vast amount of evidence of pre-90′s persisting contrails with this simple observation, then I think it explains the situation quite well.

  • jsg, could it not be that there are many more flights today that 30 years ago?
    it could be but I guarantee there is a much higher percentage of total flights today that leave persistent contrails. I am an observant person who never misses an opportunity to watch a plane and during the time of my youth I did not notice any persistent contrails but I noticed many non-persistent (lasting They are natural, really.
    So you are saying that chunks of metal weighing tons and moving hundreds of miles per hour occur naturally in the atmosphere? I don’t accept the concept that the results of human activity are natural. By definition, they are not.

    > Unless you would argue a cooking fire is “unnatural”.
    Do you even realize that most American municipalities place a legal limit on the size and scope of cooking fires? Why isn’t the same done for persistent contrails? Just wait.

    > More planes would be lost to turbulence, ice, and loss of visiblity.
    They can revert back to whatever technology and altitude were prominent in the 70′s. Somehow those airlines were able to make a profit without muddying up the skies across the whole country every day.

    > It’s due to a fifty-fold increase in passenger aviation since the mid-fifties.
    You know it’s more than sheer numbers – there have been changes to engines and fuel that contribute to the problem, and yes it is a problem that more and more people are becoming aware of. You might not believe it but yes there were virtually NO persistent contrails in the 70′s. A few isolated examples cited on this site don’t come close to comparing to the near constant coverage by hundreds of persistent contrails over the San Fernando valley.

    Be on the lookout for many more “Clear Sky Enthusiasts” joining our ranks.
    Kind regards.

  • You might not believe it but yes there were virtually NO persistent contrails in the 70’s. A few isolated examples cited on this site don’t come close to comparing to the near constant coverage by hundreds of persistent contrails over the San Fernando valley.

    That’s simply untrue. I live near the Valley, and I know how much contrail cover it gets now. It get practically ZERO contrail cover in the summer. Sure, right now we’ve had a few weeks of contrails (not every day, but fairly often), but it’s nothing like constant.

    It varies greatly by the weather. Some parts of the country have more contrails year round. Look at these example:

    http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

    How are they “isolated examples” – back in the 70s they were reported as “frequent” and “a familiar sight”

    Now I don’t know how much air traffic they was over the Valley in the 70s – maybe not so much. Remember any traffic to and from LAX would NOT leave contrails over the Valley – so, back in the 70s, what would that leave? Probably not a lot.

  • there were virtually NO persistent contrails in the 70’s

    I do not consider that an accurate statement. I remember them. I have family photos with persistent contrails in them. They are seen in old TV shows and movies.

    When scientists of the time who were studying them at the time refer to the as “often” and “familiar”, I tend to believe them

    Just because YOU do not remember noticing them doesn’t mean they were not there.

    There certainly ARE a lot more now- for many reasons as you pointed. Flight traffic is a large part of that. approx 25,000 flights per day now.

    according to this site- there were approx 4.7 million departures in 1975 vs 12.5 million in 2007- so about 3x as many

    http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/

    And they are finding that newer engines are producing contrails at a wider range of variables than previously understood.

    But as these papers can attest- they were common enough in the 70s to warrant study.

    Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget
    Peter M. Kuhn
    Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
    Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970)

    “The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a FAMILIAR site”

    Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
    R.G. Knollenberg
    Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
    Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972)

    “It is OFTEN observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”

    ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WEATHER MODIFICATION BY AIRCRAFT CONTRAILS
    WALLACE B. MURCRAY
    Monthly Weather Review
    Volume 98, Issue 10 (October 1970)

    “Aircraft contrails first attracted public attention during
    World War 11; but as air traffic has built up to its present
    level, they have come to be accepted as part of the environment.
    Even during World War 11, it was difficult to watch
    the cloud cover laid down by a large bomber formation
    without wondering what it might be doing to the weather;
    at present, there is widespread belief among the general
    public and some feeling among scientists (Fletcher 1969,
    Reinking 1968, Livingston 1969, and Schaefer 1969) that
    contrails are increasing cloudiness, if nothing more, in
    some regions. The writer himself has seen instances in
    which a single contrail seemed to grow until it became an
    overcast covering the whole sky.”

  • > Just because YOU do not remember noticing them doesn’t mean they were not there.
    Correct. However, the amounts considered “frequent” and “a familiar sight” by the sources you cite had no comparison to today’s near-daily coverage. From personal experience, being someone who spends a decent amount of time outdoors and _always_ looks up at the sound of an airplane, or just observing cloud behavior on a cloudy day, I can tell you that persistent contrails in the 70s must have been EXTREMELY RARE by comparison to today. Even a decade ago, when the noticeable increase in persistent contrails became a nationwide phenomena, my recollection tells me there were much less than half the persistent contrails that appear now.

  • Wow. Who are you guys? JSG posts a message and two of you pounce on it within an hour… this just doesn’t pass the smell test, who is this freaking enthusiastic about contrails? Who is funding this propaganda operation?

  • GMAFB Where is the smoke from all the “cooking fires” in the backyard BBQs across the US on your satellite photos? I guarantee you any “cooking fire” producing the volume of smoke equal to a contrail (hundreds of km long, persisting hours) is illegal in the vast majority (if not all) of the USA.
    You guys are just as kooky as the people who are so ready & eager to believe the government is poisoning them.

  • So, CSE, your claim is that between 2000 and 2010 the amount of contrail cover has more than doubled.

    Don’t you think some scientist would have noticed this?

    I mean, they have been studying this kind of thing since the 1950s. There’s a HUGE amount if independent science focussed on climate change. You really think that it’s more likely that the entire scientific community is involved in a huge cover-up than simply you are mistaken in your recollection on the relative amount of contrails.

    Did you actually read this 1980 news story:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ki8dAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0J4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6789,6622896

    ?

  • As for who is funding this operation, assume that we are evil agents of the CIA. Then judge the evidence in that light. Does who I am affect the physics of contrail formation? Does it affect the newspaper reports from the 1970s? The science books?

  • > Does who I am affect the physics of contrail formation? Does it affect the newspaper reports from the 1970s? The science books?

    No but it sure as hell affects your efforts to cherry pick facts, twist logic, and stretch the truth to support whatever the hell it is that you believe.

    Let me put it bluntly.
    The newspaper reports and science books DO NOT prove that:
    A) the percentage of all contrails which is persistent has not risen significantly over the past 4 decades
    B) the number of contrails in the sky over the San Fernando Valley has not doubled over the past 10 years

    and your attempts to frame them as somehow proving such are blatantly dishonest. Your enthusiasm for contrails is beyond suspicious.

  • > More planes would be lost to turbulence, ice, and loss of visiblity
    hahaha planes lost to loss of visibility- good one! Are you saying the planes would fly through clouds and since the pilot can’t see they’d go into uncontrollable tailspins; or because people from the ground can’t see them, they’d get lost? Worst / funniest / most ridiculous excuse yet for allowing persistent contrails to persist. lost to loss of visibility – HA at least i can sleep with a smile tonight thinking about the joking clowns on this site. At least you propagandists are good for a laugh while you stick the knife in.

    > Nowadays you see dark spots on the sidewalk. Do you remember seeing those before the 90s?
    Oh hell yes, distinctly. And grass growing up between cracks in the pavement too. I remember all that shit, fool.

  • > Nowadays you see dark spots on the sidewalk. Do you remember seeing those before the 90s?
    For some reason those dark spots were much more prevalent in New York City back in the 70s than they were in most other places, I’m sure it’s a naturally occurring phenomena entirely unrelated to human activity. Either that or a sinister government plot to darken up our sidewalks. But seriously, haven’t you ever seen an old sign that says “no spitting on the sidewalk” why do you think they had that rule? Because people don’t like ugly black spots on their sidewalk. Same reason we need a new rule, no shitting in the sky, in other words, planes leaving persistent contrails are not welcome to fly through OUR skies.

  • Clear Skies Enthusiast:
    persistent contrails in the 70s must have been EXTREMELY RARE by comparison to today
    How about simply proportionately less by a factor of fifteen? (The ratio of the number af passengers then to the present date)?

    there were much less than half the persistent contrails that appear now.
    For the above reason.

    two of you pounce on it within an hour… this just doesn’t pass the smell test, who is this freaking enthusiastic about contrails?
    You are. I am. He is. And, by the way I don’t live in the States.

    Where is the smoke from all the “cooking fires” in the backyard BBQs across the US on your satellite photos?
    It’s typical that you don’t consider the rest of the world, which is FIFTY times greater in area and TWENTY times more populous than the States. Most of these people don’t get their power from a wall socket!

    You guys are just as kooky as the people who are so ready & eager to believe the government is poisoning them.
    Ha! At least we know what we’re talking about.

    The newspaper reports and science books DO NOT prove that the percentage of all contrails which is persistent has not risen significantly over the past 4 decades
    LOGIC does though…

    and your attempts to frame them as somehow proving such are blatantly dishonest. Your enthusiasm for contrails is beyond suspicious.
    Nobody is “framing” anyone. Your hypocrisy is shining through…

    Are you saying the planes would fly through clouds and since the pilot can’t see they’d go into uncontrollable tailspins
    The last time that happened was two years ago over the Pacific. Everyone died.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo4heTtX7sY

    or because people from the ground can’t see them, they’d get lost?
    Twent years ago it happened over New York. Some people escaped death.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S_Y84ZvCos

    I remember all that shit, fool. I’m sure it’s a naturally occurring phenomena entirely unrelated to human activity
    Or perhaps it was CHEWING GUM which was spat out by ex-smokers after an anti-smoking campaign.

    Just maybe…

  • Let me put it bluntly.
    The newspaper reports and science books DO NOT prove that:
    A) the percentage of all contrails which is persistent has not risen significantly over the past 4 decades

    So, you claim that that ratio of persistent to non-persistent contrails has risen ove the past 4 decades. Now how exactly can you tell this? If there has been a 15x increase in air traffic, how exactly are you measuring the change in the ratio given that you don’t actually know how many contrails there are supposed to be in total?

    Reduce it to math. You’ve got the total number fo flights, call it A. Then you’ve got the flights which leave contrails: C, and the flights that are bare of contrails B, hence:

    A = B + C

    You’ve also got the ration of contrails to non-contrail flights:

    R = C/B

    Now your observations over the last 40 years show that C (contrails) has increased. Facts also shows us that A (total flights) has increased, by a factor of 15. Let’s denote the present day condition with a dash, like A’, B’. C’, R’, so A’ = 15A

    Occam’s Razor would lead to the conclusion that since A’ is now 15A, it seems reasonable that unless R’ is different from R, then B’ = 15B and C’=15C.

    R actually has changed though. Engines are more efficient now, creating more water vapor. It’s hard to say exactly how much though. R also varies from year to year and even decade to decade based entirely on the weather – which itself changes based on local multi-year quasiperiodic cycles like El Nino (an approximately 5 year cycle) or the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (multi-decades, as the name suggests).

    So it’s going to change for all these factors. It seems pretty clear though that the most noticeable change is going to be the 15x increase in air traffic.

    So you claim the R has increased. I don’t dispute that. I think it’s unlikely to be more that a fraction though, say 20% tops. If you could explain how you arrive at a higher figure, then I’d be happy to hear it.

  • yawn……

  • anyone who thinks chemtrails are anything other than contrails is a freakin idiot

  • BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

    This invention relates to a method for the reduction of global warming resulting from the greenhouse effect, and in particular to a method which involves the seeding of the earth’s stratosphere with Welsbach-like materials.

    Global warming has been a great concern of many environmental scientists. Scientists believe that the greenhouse effect is responsible for global warming. Greatly increased amounts of heat-trapping gases have been generated since the Industrial Revolution. These gases, such as CO.sub.2, CFC, and methane, accumulate in the atmosphere and allow sunlight to stream in freely but block heat from escaping (greenhouse effect). These gases are relatively transparent to sunshine but absorb strongly the long-wavelength infrared radiation released by the earth.

    Most current approaches to reduce global warming are to restrict the release of various greenhouse gases, such as CO.sub.2, CFC, and methane. These imply the need to establish new regulations and the need to monitor various gases and to enforce the regulations.

    One proposed solution to the problem of global warming involves the seeding of the atmosphere with metallic particles. One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude. While this method would increase the reflection of visible light incident from space, the metallic particles would trap the long wavelength blackbody radiation released from the earth. This could result in net increase in global warming.

    It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a method for reduction of global warming due to the greenhouse effect which permits heat to escape through the atmosphere.

    SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

    A method is disclosed for reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a greenhouse gases layer. The method comprises the step of seeding the greenhouse gas layer with a quantity of tiny particles of materials characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said materials have high emissivities in the visible and far infrared wavelength regions and low emissivity in the near infrared wavelength region. Such materials can include the class of materials known as Welsbach materials. The oxides of metal, e.g., aluminum oxide, are also suitable for the purpose. The greenhouse gases layer typically extends between about seven and thirteen kilometers above the earth’s surface. The seeding of the stratosphere occurs within this layer. The particles suspended in the stratosphere as a result of the seeding provide a mechanism for converting the blackbody radiation emitted by the earth at near infrared wavelengths into radiation in the visible and far infrared wavelength so that this heat energy may be reradiated out into space, thereby reducing the global warming due to the greenhouse effect.

  • Yes, the Welsbach patent is oft pointed to as “proof”- but is it? And seeding the atmosphere with heat blocking matter has been discussed as one mitigation technique.

    Because a patent exists does that mean that it definitely being put to use? Or will even work? Seriously.

    What evidence is available that the stratosphere is being injected with welsbach materials?

    The behavior of the trails have not changed- contrails have always had the ability to persist, spread and cover the sky in a haze of cirrus clouds. So, seeing a persistent trail is not evidence.

    Would the welsbach materials materials even be visible to the naked eye or cause the visible portion of the trail to persist?

    How would the particles survive combustion of the engine?

    According to the patent, planes would have to fly in the stratosphere, where only the very highest of commercial flights barely touch. That rules out all the low level “chemtrails” supposedly witnessed. Moreover, the authors of the patent suggest that the matter would stay suspended in the atmosphere and thus rule the supposed fall out “dripping” web-like material supposedly found on people…and of course, rule out any physiological effects of traill because the matter is still in the atmosphere right?

    I am sure you will roll you eyes and instantly label me a close minded “debunker” but these are all valid questions that need to be asked if you really want to the truth.

    Do you have any idea how many “patents” there are out there that are sheer lunacy?

    Does the fact that patent exist really- honestly- prove that “chemtrails” are actually being sprayed in a global, clandestine operation?

    Have a look at some other patents.

    http://www.patentoftheweek.com/

  • Good luck debunking…
    1st vid has DISSAPATING CONTRIAL+CHEMTRAILS
    4th video I took just about every photo…good luck.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUYbWrmxchc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WswbVJ2D-E
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5znMUWoq_s
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI0pMCRK3hY

  • When you see one contrail dissipate and another persist, then the most likely explanation is that the jets were at differing altitudes.

    Thanks for putting the date on, it makes it very easy to explain. Look at the satellite photo for that day.

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA5.2009282.aqua.250m

    Notice to the north of LA there are clear skies, and to the south there’s a lot of high altitude cirrus? That puts LA right in a perfect clear-sky contrail region. There’s water vapor there, just not enough for many cirrus clouds. Along comes some jets (at the right altitudes), and you get persistent contrails – which will last just as long as the cirrus clouds over Catalina.

  • No thats not exactly what I see. You’d need to be alot more descriptive.
    I see patterns, some seem to have/create “larger bands” of “clouds”.
    The funny thing is that even if this were somehow “artificial clouds”, in that very statement we have
    WEATHER MODIFICATION, by definition. Dont think I dont know about the more recent phenomenon of “global dimming”?
    And sorry…keep watching my videos. I’ve got photos that you wont be able to explain. And I also will
    check in coming months especially “summer” to make sure I prove the contrails vs chemtrails.

  • What you are seeing are called “Contrail Cirrus”. The contrail spreads out into a “larger band” of “clouds”. This behavior has been observed since 1921.

    Have you seen this 1972 book:

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

    It shows photos of things that look just like what you are seeing.

    If you’ve got a photo you would like me to explain, I’d appreciate if you could either email it to me ([email protected]) or upload it to Flickr or similar. Photos on videos are often hard to make out. If you only have it on video, then just post a link with the time, like, for 6 minutes 44 seconds, add #t=6m44s to the end of the link, like:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI0pMCRK3hY#t=6m44s

    (Shows distrails)

  • And yes, contrails do modify the weather slightly. But it’s being going on for many decades, and it’s not deliberate. Just an unfortunate by-product of aviation.

  • very quick response. What is your day job?
    also I’m sure you’ve seen this right?…
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382#

  • 22% drop in sunlight is not “small”. You must be working for the Gov’t.

  • Global dimming is thought to be caused by mostly by ground based pollution. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Probable_causes

    Note also global dimming has been reduced since around 1990, in line with reductions in pollution following various “Clean Air” acts. Air traffic, and hence contrails has increased since then.

  • Whats your day job? I’ll come visit and we can talk.

  • ALSO today in Los Angeles is a complete haze. Didnt start that way..100% plane aerosol….
    Seen it all day with my own eyes and lungs.
    Lets see the data. 100 white out there. I was awoken by trails in my window..the light blue lasted but for a few hours.
    This happens nomatter the season. Not normal.

  • wow…also read the WIKI:
    did you not read it?
    “Some climate scientists have theorized that aircraft contrails (also called vapor trails) are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic previously meant that this could not be tested. The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a unique opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C (1.8 °F) was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought.[26]“

  • I’m between jobs at the moment. So got a bunch of spare time.

    I had a look at your web site:

    http://ctyforganization.blogspot.com/

    You are mistaken about those two photos of clouds, they just show cirrus clouds – wich can be formed from contrails, but are still clouds nonetheless. You can see some 105 year old photos of the same types of cloud formation in this 1905 book:

    http://contrailscience.com/clouds-before-planes-cloud-studies-1905/

    Now, explain how these can be poison clouds if they are the same as clouds 105 years ago?

  • Of course I read it. This is NOTHING NEW. The climate effects of contrails have been discussed since the 1950s.

    But it’s all unintentional, a side effect. Like the soot particles from coal fires.

  • Lol. Between what jobs? If you’re just a simple contrail lover then it shouldnt be a big deal to disclose? right?
    My father is retired Regional director/Biologist, US Dept Fish/Wildlife, GA, VT, Arlington VA and ALASKA…and even he didnt know about all of this. He was in AK for 2 years and never heard of HAARP.
    There are lots of things that are not disclosed. Like I said..my observations are ongoing…I’m currently re-working
    a vid on “black beam” aka “contrail shadow” or “volumetric shadow” phenomenon….
    I dont 100% agree that its “normal”. There are things going on within the layers of our atmosphere some intentional and others unintentional.
    I dont drive and live in LA for health/ethical reasons.
    I ride bicycle. I have just as much of a reason to be concerned with pollution from “persistant contrails”
    (altering) the world we live in on all levels.

  • lol…you’re gunna love this one. I’m not so sure the thing i labeled “plane” is…

  • They are “posion clouds” only in that there are metallic salts being dispersed in an Aerosol.
    I dont refute the fact that “fake clouds” can act like “real clouds”.
    Something is really going on, ionosphere, troposphere, stratusphere etc…..

    Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, quoted as saying at a conference in April 1997, “Others are engaging even in an eco type of terrorism, whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes or volcanos remotely, through the use of electromagnetic waves.”

    H. R. 3445
    To establish the Weather Mitigation Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    August 3, 2007
    Mr. UDALL of Colorado introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
    A BILL
    To establish the Weather Mitigation Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the `Weather Mitigation Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2007′.
    SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
    It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather mitigation policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather mitigation research and development.
    SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
    In this Act:
    (1) BOARD- The term `Board’ means the Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board.
    (2) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- The term `Executive Director’ means the Executive Director of the Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board.
    (3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term `research and development’ means theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes.
    (4) WEATHER MITIGATION- The term `weather mitigation’ means changing or controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods the natural development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which occur in the troposphere. Examples include rain enhancement, snowpack augmentation, and hail suppression.

  • I’m not disclosing my job, because I’m anonymous. If you need a frame of reference, assume I work for the CIA as a disinformation operative. Just address the facts.

    Bird = Bird
    Plane = Bird, viewed from side. It look too high contrast to be a plane.
    Chemtrail = Contrail (looks exactly like the photos of contrails from 60 years ago)
    Orb = spot on windshield. If it was in the sky then millions of people would have been able to see it. Nobody did.

    Feb 2008 – No, every day does NOT like that. Sometimes it’s like that for a few days in a row. Sometimes we get clear skies for months. It depends on the weather.

    The orange sky in post 87 is the same contrails as in the previous link.

  • H. R. 3445 – can you explain why the government would NOT want to regulate weather modification? Weather modification has been done for a hundred years. See:

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

    William S. Cohen – Could you quote that in full context? I believe he was talking about the terrorism of fear, and how even just a suggested thread can create effects, and he was giving these as examples of suggested threats, and not actual threats.

    Metallic Salts are used in small quantities for various experiments. But not in a way that would create a persistent trail like in your videos.

    The trails in your videos and photos look EXACTLY like contrails. So why do you think they are not contrails?

  • Here it is:

    http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=674

    Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week’s scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B’nai Brith.

    A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we’ve learned in the intelligence community, we had something called — and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

    So the things he is discussing are the things found in the writing of Alvin Toeffler, not actual things. The overall context is the terrorism of fear, and those were examples.

  • Actually no, you’ve once again mis-quoted.

    He does not say that that “chemical weapons” are “only” in the context of Toefflers writing!

    Thats what “Toeffler” does…incase you dont know that…its THEORY+REALITY…its about FOR-SEEing this.
    He’s not saying “ELF weapons are fictional”…he’s saying that they are real, regardless of whether the “threat to use them” is warranted or not. get it?
    USAF “WEATHER AS A FORCE MULTIPLYER”
    http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

    good luck debunking this one.

    And yes…the “RUSSIAN WOODPECKER” was real, is real.
    These weapons have existed and will continue to.
    Re-read…the WHOLE paragraph: (HINT: you OMITTED the last part)

    “There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

    So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”

  • Also, CLOUD SEEDING is NOT the same thing as “weather modification”.
    Cloud seeding uses SILVER IODIDE. What is implied in BERNARD EASTLUNDS patent has nothing to do with
    seeding ALREADY EXISTING clouds.

    You really are a disinfo agent arent you?
    I was beginning to think you might be well-intentioned but you seem to be more concerned with
    “disproving” “chemtrails” than you are concerned with pollution/weather modification…(WHICH IS WHY
    PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED fyi)

  • This is why people believe “contrials” are “chemtrails”:
    DUH!

    In 2025, US aerospace forces can “own the weather” by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map.

    A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting commander in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1.

    Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future.

  • Well yes, “disproving” “chemtrails” IS my interest here. I’m interested in contrails. I’m not interested in conspiracy theories about weather modification. Let’s try to stick on topic.

    This site is about contrails and the chemtrail theory. People point to persisting spreading contrails and say they are “chemtrails” – i.e. not contrails. That’s entirely independent of possible government conspiracies.

    The problem here is that there is NO EVIDENCE that these trails are anything other than the normal contrails they resemble. Even if there was a weather modification conspiracy it would appear that they are doing it entirely without changing contrails, or creating “chemtrails”.

    Focus. What evidence do you have that the things you have been filming are not contrails? What evidence do you have that these types of clouds have not been showing up for decades? Leave the conspiracy aside for now. Think like a scientist. What exactly do your photos and videos show?

  • Actually – let’s assume, for the sake of the discussion, that there is a secret government weather modification program. Let’s say I agree to that assumption.

    Now, given that, what evidence do you have that the trails in your photos are not contrails? What about them does not look or act like a contrail?

  • When I get the chance to post the 100′s of pics that I have there will be plenty for you to examine.
    The thing is, you are assuming that I am saying there MUST be a Gov’t operation ongoing…not the case..
    in fact no one knows exactly what is going on. Something going on with the Earth?
    On the one hand we’ve got hr2997, 3445, WEATHER AS A FORCE MULTIPLYER, HUGHES AIRCRAFT ALUMINUM SEEDING PATENT, BERNARD EASTLUNDS PATENT, HAARP and the comparable facilities….
    yes you even have real phenomenon like MORGELLONS thrown in. There IS plenty of Evidence of the US
    spraying/testing its own people.

    Look, I only ride a bicycle…like a chliche’d environmentalist. So regardless of your
    agenda to “stay on topic” here with you site you’ve helped to open quite a can of worms.
    The “air pollution” whether you call it “contrails” or otherwise is my concern.
    I am a visual artist with a great memory…there must have been a change in FUEL or
    ENVIRONMENT or SOMETHING ELSE unknown.

    I watch the skies from sunrise on for the past 2 years in LA. What I’ve seen is
    MOST OFTEN there are PERSISTANT AEROSOL HAZY WHITE SKIES due to these trails. Only rarely
    are there “no contrials” or “rapidly dissapating contrails”.
    That has been my observation.
    Many of these trails do very very strange things that seem to defy certain physical laws.
    This leads me to believe that some sort of scalar wave technology could be the cause.

  • Many of these trails do very very strange things that seem to defy certain physical laws.

    What do they do? Which physical laws?

    And before you answer that, make sure they are not simply doing things that clouds did 100 years ago, as photographed here:

    http://contrailscience.com/clouds-before-planes-cloud-studies-1905/

  • I watch the skies from sunrise on for the past 2 years in LA. What I’ve seen is
    MOST OFTEN there are PERSISTANT AEROSOL HAZY WHITE SKIES due to these trails. Only rarely
    are there “no contrials” or “rapidly dissapating contrails”.
    That has been my observation.

    And did you watch the skies from sunrise on before two years ago? If not, then how do you know if things have changed?

    Do you know how much the weather varies from year to year? Is each year exactly the same as the last? You know that some years it rains a lot, some years it hardly rains at all. That’s why we get droughts, and floods. Have a look at this graph, showing the year-to-year variability.

    http://home.att.net/~station_climo/LACVPRCP.GIF

    Now, I think you would agree, based on that graph (and you can look up other figures to verify this), that the weather varies a lot from one year to the next?

    Look again at the graph. Notice that there are periods of YEARS when the rainfall is below average (like the 5 years from 1985-1990) and then years where it is above average (like the next two years).

    Let’s suppose it’s 1991. For the past seven years you’ve been getting about 10 inches of rain. You kind of get used to it. Then in 1991 you suddenly get 20 inches, then in 1992 you get 28 inches! What’s going on? Is someone modifying the weather? Is the government playing with cloud seeding?

    No, looking at the graph, obviously not. It’s just natural year-to-year variability. It’s random.

    Consider then the same discussion, but about contrails. We don’t really have such accurate figures about contrails – like how many persistent contrails there were on a particular year. But we do know a couple of facts. We know that air traffic has increased a lot, tripled, over the past 30 years. We also know, from science, that contrail formation and persistence depends on the weather.

    The weather, particularly the amount of moisture in the air, varies a lot from year to year – as evidenced by the rainfall totals. Hence the amount of persistent contrails will vary a lot from year to year.

    I don’t doubt what you are seeing. I disagree with your interpretation. Is what you are seeing an unexpected variation in the amount of persistent contrails? Or could it be that the amount of persistent contrails varies as the weather varies, and you perhaps notice them a lot more now as you are specifically looking for them?

  • Thinking reasonably takes a little practice, doesn’t it? :)

    Uncinus, you are (pick a compliment)… smooth, even, level-headed, wry, humorous, patient,………..reasonable.

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