Persisting and Spreading Contrails
Do contrails sometimes persist and spread out?
Yes, see the Encyclopædia Britannica article on vapour trails (contrails):
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.
vapour trail. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica.Retrieved May 4, 2007,from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074829
Also see “A Field Guide to the Atmosphere“, by Schaefer and Day, 1981:
“Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“ (Page 137)
Are spreading contrails a relatively new thing?
No, it has been exactly the same for decades, the only change has been the size of jet engines (producing bigger contrails), engine efficiency (burning fuel more efficiently creates more water vapor) and the amount of air traffic (producing more contrails).
See, for example, all these articles on contrails. In particular the one titled “Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget“, from 1970:
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.
[....]
Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks. Fig. 1 is a typical example of midmorning contrails that occured on 17 December 1969 northwest of Boulder. By midafternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2 an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.
Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget
Peter M. Kuhn
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970) pp. 937–942
(Click on any of the images in this article for a larger view)
Then a few years later, in 1975, we have the article : Multiple Contrail Streamers Observed by Radar, which again has photos (taken in 1971) of spreading and persisting contrails, as well as extensive discussion of these observations.

Multiple Contrail Streamers Observed by Radar.
Konrad TG, Howard JC (1974)
Journal of Applied Meteorology:
Vol. 13, No. 5 pp. 563–572
Here’s a description from 1970, from a local newspaper, the Arcadia Tribune, April 29, 1970:
Aircraft contrails begin to streak the normally bright Arizona sky at dawn. Through the day, as air traffic peaks, these contrails gradually merge into and almost solid interlaced sheet of cirrus cloud - an artificial cirrus cloud that is frequently as much as 500 meters deep.
One of the earliest reference to contrails covering the sky is from the Mansfield News Journal, August 11, 1957, Page 29:
“Within the past few years, the weather bureau has begun to report the trails as actual cloud layers when there are sufficient trails to cover a portion of the sky.”
But even earlier, and with a perfect description of what “chemtrail” theorist claim cannot happen comes this account from 1944:
The News, Frederick, MD, March 7, 1944
“Contrails frequently have a tendency to cause a complete overcast and cause rain. In Idaho I have seen contrails formed in a perfectly clear sky and four hours later a complete overcast resulted“
Below is the entire top of the page of that newspaper, in case you want to look it up.

Friday 04 May 2007 | Uncinus | chemtrails, contrails, science


ok
So, are the right conditions for these persistent, spreading contrails cold and humid air? What if it’s warm and dry? Does this still happen?
Yes, it needs to be cold and humid, but see #4 here:
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-gaps-and-other-questions/
And Myth #2
http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-myths/
Obviously the temperature at 30,000+ft. is always cold regardless of the temp on the ground. So exactly how cold does it have to be for the contrails to persist and spread? I’m asking this because I’ve seen the sky full of persistent trails during 85 degree days and none at all during 30 degree days. It just seems like it would be warmer up there when it’s hot down here, and cooler up there when it’s cold down here. Wouldn’t it be more likely to see them on cold days as opposed to hot days?
It varies. Check:
http://www.usairnet.com/cgi-bin/Winds/Aloft.cgi?location=SAN&Submit=Get+Forecast&hour=06&course=azimuth
Temp aloft often has no relation to temp below, esp with overlapping air masses.
> Obviously the temperature at 30,000+ft. is always cold regardless of the temp on the ground.
Ah, yes, but is is cold enough?
see http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=1520-0450&volume=036&issue=12&page=1725
Sometimes its not cold enough, and then you won’t see contrails.
The same paper explains persistence of contrails.
[...] http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails [...]
These appear in our So. Cal. skies & spread as they fall toward the earth even during warm days, two planes flying at what appears to be simular altitudes ones condensation trail will disipate within seconds while the others trail will persist for nearly an hour as it gravitates toward the ground, this is no conspiracy…..
Chemtrails are REAL, as to what and why I really would like to know….. Flouridating our water supply, thimerosal perservatives in our vaccines & flu shots, why not poison in the skies, nothing seems to amaze me anymore.
I live in Hollywood and work from home - I often step outside to take breaks from work and am very familiar with the various flight paths visible from my house. When I see planes with ‘contrails’ that hang in the sky long after their departure, it is ALWAYS the case that these planes do not follow the standard flight paths over Hollywood - I really have no interest in the ’science’ of what this site proposes - what I do have an interest in is what I see with my own eyes on a very regular basis.
bigdoghat, I live about 15 miles from you, on the coast. Today (Jan 31) there are a lot of persistent spreading contrails, but I’m bamboozled as to how you can tell what a “standard flight path” is over this region - we have a very busy airspace, and a lot of traffic flies over us in many directions.
I suspect what you think are the “standard flight paths” are actually the traffic that is inbound and outbound to and from LAX (and maybe Burbank). That’s quite understandable. When I’m watching television, I can look up out of a window, and see planes flying into LAX on the exact same route, I also see planes departing LAX along a consistent set of paths.
However, those are not the planes that make the contrails. They are too low. The planes that make contrails are much higher up, going between different airports, and on a much less well defined path. They are also MUCH harder to see when they are not making contrails.
I understand your lack of interest in science. What you can see daily is obviously far more engaging. However, if at some point you want to actually understand what you are seeing, then it really helps if you can use a bit of science.
What about the projects the government has admitted to? The science explained here is fantastic, but none of it addresses the secret things the military admits to, but fails to fully disclose.
I’m not sure what you are referring to - but the government “admitting” to one thing has no baring on this subject. The basic facts are simply that these trails look exactly like contrails. Sure, anything is possible - but it does help to have some evidence on something before you start to believe it.
mp norman baker pressured uk gov they released report where they admited spraying all sorts bugs metals stuff that was seen by gov as chemical warefare, the gardian did a report on it and have recently removed the page, gov said it was SAFE, spokes person at porton down when asked results of project, said, its not our policy to comment on ongoing projects, it was in 2002, i must try and get a copy.
http://www.care2.com/news/member/733929969/444184
you can get most of the details from this vid,
Sxx
Or from the original article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html
Again, what does this have to do with “chemtrails”?
SoCalChems: “…Flouridating our water supply…”
General Jack D. Ripper: “Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. ”
Maybe it’s time to start plan-R
I have an offgrid PV power system in the Sierra foothills, and I’ve seen days
with (literally) SCORES of persistent criss-crossing contrails by noon.
By 2:00 PM, these have formed a layer of cirrus clouds that is reducing my
solar flux by at least 25% (I’m estimating here).
What effect does this have on a large solar power station like, say, Nevada
Solar One, which is probably seeing much the same sky as I am? What about
effects on the weather? I’ve read that cirrus clouds actually warm the earth,
because they trap more heat at night than they reflect during the day. Would
this tend to exacerbate global warming?
Would you expect all these effects to increase in the future, in keeping with the
increased number of contrails over the past several decades as mentioned above?
Good question, there is a lot of science related to that questions here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm
It will certainly increase if nothing is done about it. This has been discussed for decades, like in this paper from 1970:
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/27/6/pdf/i1520-0469-27-6-937.pdf
It does vary by location, with drier areas being less affected. But it’s certainly a factor for future solar power. The problem is it would take significant political will to create any kind of change.
Perhaps more of an issue is “Global Dimming”. Both man-made, and volcano made. Look up: decreased pan evaporation.
Thanks for the links. The IPCC article is particularly interesting–
apparently Feb/Mar is the worst time of year. I’ll keep reading!
interessting site! however, could u please elaborate some more on JP8 fuel and the use of additives such as aluminum and barium in millitary jetfuel? u see ive been to a local AFB and found a hughe emtpry tank there, next to the fuel-tank cars, and i retrived a sample of whatever was stuck on the bottom of the tank. it was a white sticky substance. it was obvious it had been used as an additive in the jetfuel and i live in an area with daily persistent trails (in europe that is) anyways, ive gotten the sample analysed and you can see the reults here:
http://internet.phobic.no/chemtrail.pdf unfortunatly i couldnt afford a full spectrum analysis, but at least they found what i was looking for.
I think the problem with your arguments is: “it was obvious it had been used as an additive in the jetfuel”. How exactly do you know this? Did you see it being added?
If this was an additive, then don’t you think that’s rather a minuscule amount of aluminum? After being added to the jet fuel, mixed in the atmosphere, and diluted by rain, the dilution would be FAR less than is found in ordinary ground water. Both aluminum and barium are naturally occurring minerals that are always found in the air and ground water to some degree.
When you say “stuck on the bottom of the tank”, do you mean the outside of the tank? What metal was the tank made from?
I suppose Uncinus will try to tell us that flouride is safe to ingest also. Is it just me, or does anyone see how obvious his agenda is on this blog? He has a misleading web link to refer to after every lie as if it is some kind of evidence to back up his explanation about what we are seeing. Very vigilant about attempting to debunk anything that does not conform to his false propaganda. How dare you try to tell me that what I see with my own eyes and physically experience on a daily basis is not really happening. You have made it obvious that you are going to stick to your ridiculous explanations even if the poison were sprayed directly in your face. The things that Uncinus says are so ridiculous that it is an insult to my intelligence. Perhaps Uncinus lives in an area that is chemtrail free and he actually believes what he says because he does not know any better. If so, then I want to know why his home is not subject to these chemical warfare attacks, which by the way are perfectly legal as a result of of this little gem:
PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 “CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM” “The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies. The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States].”
How does something as inhumane as this even become a topic of discussion yet alone a law? Did the public vote on this?
Rudedog, section 1520 was repealed in 1997. It has not been law since well before the chemtrail community came into existence.
The replacement law, 1520a, requires informed consent from all human test subjects.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/32/sections/section_1520a.html
I’m not saying that what you are seeing is not happening. I’m saying you are mis-interpreting it.