Volcano Clears the Skies of Contrails

Volcano ash cloud clears the skies of contrails and "chemtrails"

The cloud of volcanic ash from Eyjafjallajökull has prompted the most significant air-traffic shutdown in European history.  This will provide a unique opportunity to study the effects of a contrail-less sky.  But we must be careful how quickly we draw conclusions from the immediate data.

Take the two images above,  the first, dated April 10th 2010, before the volcano erupted, shows a large amount of contrails, and lots of cirrus clouds, many of which are probably contrail induced cirrus.  That was taken before the volcano erupted.  The second image, dated April 17th, shows no contrails at all.  The simple conclusion here is that removing air traffic made for vastly clearer skies over the UK.

Cause and effect?  Sure, there were no high altitude flights on the 17th, so no contrails. But contrails are not the only variable in the two photos.  There’s a lot of cloud cover on the 17th that’s entirely unrelated to the volcano.  The questions to ask are:  what would April 10th look like without the high altitude flights, and what would April 17th look like with normal air traffic.

Now I was somewhat selective with the photos I chose above.  April 10th had by far the most contrails, and April 17th was the clearest day during the shutdown.  Let’s pick another two days with the same traffic/no-traffic variable:

Here we’ve still got a before and after comparison, April 8th had normal air traffic, and April 18th had no air traffic.  But here the images are much more similar in terms of the cloud cover, and very few contrails are visible on the April 8th image.

The key point here is that you can’t take any one image, and hold it up as representative of what is going on every day.  The normal day to day variances are far greater in effect than the variance caused by the absence of air traffic.

That said, of course the April 10th image would have looked very different had there been no air traffic.  Contrails do often have a significant effect on cloud cover.  But how different would the April 8th image have looked without air traffic?  And what would the April 18th image have looked like with air traffic?

154 comments on “Volcano Clears the Skies of Contrails”

  1. Well, research takes effort, Uncinus… 🙂 I think people like being spoon fed information and take things at face value. That’s also another reason why people come here and will take it or leave it at face value and not validate anything for themselves. It is just easier to call you a shill. I have to say, I noticed more white smiles in the US, but also Americans smile a lot anyways and may afford more dental care than other places. Anyways thanks for more off topic input ))))

  2. LOL!!! He denies them his essence))))))))))))))))))))) Yes, fear can bring out some funny responses, Kubrick parodied that quite well.

  3. It still is to some degree. These things tend not to go away once they have attained a sufficient amount of traction, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Look at more modern things like Electrosensitivity etc.

  4. Please learn about “virga”.

    I never understood the “sylph” thing. It seems that people made up a word for something that already had a word and it stuck. I guess “sylph” is now slang for virga.

  5. The more esoteric theorists think “sylphs” are elemental spirits or angels that are vacuuming up the “chemtrails”.

    But they are just clouds. Usually some kind of high level ice precipitation.

  6. So you guys are telling me the looniness, straight jacket, ear biting madness gets worse than just believing the government is trying to poison them through polluting the entire atmosphere? Now there are Chemtrail Fairies “Sylphs” that sprinkle magic dust and make all the bad things go away? I wish my parents told me such bed time stories. lol…. xD

  7. Sylphs are direct result of aircraft dispersal. Their trails turn into the “sylphs”
    Which make it seem that sylphs are eating the chemtrail, or whatever you may want to believe.

  8. “You will never see contrails from planes going to of from an airport ten miles away. The planes will not be at a high enough altitude. That’s a scientific fact.” -uncinus

    i think pics and satellite pics would disagree here in st.george utah. would you not? hey uncinus where can i find the planes that flew in the past and their altitudes so i can connect them with pictures of trails under 5000ft and within hundreds of yards around the airport over the counties.

  9. imakeopsname2,

    What you see at low altitudes is the engine exhaust from taking off or landing plane, like in this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9cR758e3XA

    But, unless it is really cold outside, this is just a smoke of soot and incompletely burnt fuel, not the condensed water vapor, so this is not a condensation trail.

  10. um i did and my mind is still the same. if i think it three times its stronger how about 99 times. how much al is required for departure from such thoughts

  11. uncinus says no contrails within miles. show me the pictures, show me the altitudes, show me the unlisted planes doing the “grip circuit racing” tracks over the city no more than 2000 ft with billowing misty white lumenescent persistent contrails falling to the ground on one such night flightoccasionbefore the airportwas shutdown just around this last newyear

  12. andi kno for a fact “persistent contrails” dont form under 30000, except on antarctica and anywhere housing the -40 degreetemp. 38000ft or so according to data here in ut. utah is very dry may i remind you. however weve had two 100 year floods in the past 5 years the first being more devastating. it wouldnt surprise me to see this and unseen aerial activity affecting our climate so.

  13. I’ve seen your pictures that Uncinus posted elswhere in this blog. There is nothing to support your words, sorry. I’d like to ask you again: show your evidence for a contrail from a plane flying at a low altitude. Not smoke from engines, but a proper condensation trail that even for a short contrail is many times longer than the plane itself.

  14. ok now with that in mind and my situation. Persistent contrails “chemtrails” under 5000 ft. Physically impossible. Saint george utah home to high deserts and the second driest state of the 50. 4-prop and earlier dual propellor planes in this act. Scientifically impossible, yet not. Chemicals and biological agents possibly even military/civilian patent designer molecules to change “us”. Over and around the airport which “was” located in the center of town on a plateau for private aircraft. Sky west. Now in 2011 new year there is an international airport although to what activity there is i have not noticed. Simply the typical high altitude aircraft undetectable. A king well guarded. But we have your queen with low alt spraying. Theres not misinterpretation here guy. Listen to me buddy its no “black” exhaust, its white misty luminescent “death”. Your the worst end of the defense i must say next to alot of other bullshit conspirists.

  15. Oh wow a single prop just left the “inactive airport” white underside. looks capable of nice turns. like a fighter from wwII all shiny and new just flew over my house from the plateau “Inactive airport” happens once in a blue moon since it “shutdown”

  16. makethat two. and the flights just started comin i n over my house but thats fine. its just the flight path from california to east and las vegas too…

  17. oh it didnt need to be just a contrail it was extremely persistent. in your eyes it would look like a persistent contrail for no more than 2 hours dropped at under 5000ft waaay under. and fall to the ground after making a racetrack from “persistent contrail” appearance to expanding and falling to the ground and interconnecting and be illuminating as to the light of the city and moon. you would picture persistent contrail “racetrack” and see it spread and fall to the ground like your “fog”.

  18. According to the St George Municipal Airport website, private owners have 60 days from the closing of the old St George Airfield (13 January) to shift their a/c to the new one – so it isn’t quite inactive yet – see http://www.flysgu.com/about.php

    The new airport shows on the map view of St George, but not eh satellite view yet.

    There’s a nice article about the old airport here – http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/UT/Airfields_UT_SW.htm – on the 2nd half of the page

  19. I don’t understand why you can’t get daytime photos of these activities – even on a cell phone.

  20. because thats over and past and i dont know what happened to the ones that did. but the no longer fly the spray ops at low alt since it closed down.

    i know im not hullucinating. but do u? the chemtrails did what i say. whats the reason the gov. and contracted companies might do this? perhaps the chemicals are other possibly designer molecules are used to control us through electricity in our brain? this is all related to the chmetrail subject.

  21. How would you know if you were hallucinating or not??

    Have you asked the local authorities who is still using the old airport?

  22. Great info re: the St George Municipal Airport, MikeC. That’s something that has impressed me about this site for a while. Many of you guys (and gals) take the time to study whatever phenomenon people are describing and go out of your way to find logical answers. It is really a shame that logic is not taught in school anymore.

    To; imakeopsname2 ~ I also don’t understand why you can’t get pictures of what you’re claiming? I’m sure you could pick up a used videocam for practically nothing right now on craigslist. Heck, I’ve got a couple old-school videocams just sitting in my basement which I’d be glad to part with. No resale value, but for gosh sakes, you could at least document what you keep trying to describe?

    I was able to take pretty good pictures with my cell phone of persistent contrails in 2007. Can’t you, maybe, take a series of shots and tie them all together for people to look at? Maybe one every minute? GEEZ…I don’t know, but this discussion is currently not going anywhere.

  23. @ imakeopsname2 ~ I can tell you that where I live, on a very still day with no wind with conditions where persistent contrails are formed (and expand) they can tend to keep their shape as they get closer to ground. I live in Seattle, a little above sea level, and I have no way of measuring the altitude of contrails that sink slowly to earth on a still day. But I can tell you that I used to believe they were “low-altitude chemtrails”, if you catch my drift. But they are just contrails. It can take a long time for some of them to fall slowly towards the earth, but I have watched some of them for over an hour, easily. Apparently they dissipate when the reach an altitude where it is too warm for them to remain? I don’t know the answer to that, but suspect it’s somewhere on this site.

  24. Janet, while contrails do (on average) sink, I think it would be hard to see, as the motion of the contrail across the sky is vastly greater than the speed at which it sinks.

    Consider if a contrail is moving across the sky at 50-100+ mph, then how much are you going to detect a fall rate of maybe 1 mph?

    It seem more likely that when people say a contrail is “sinking”, what they really seeing is the contrail moving away from them, and hence closer to the horizon. Especially if they are looking towards raised ground (i.e. the contrail is “sinking” toward the top of a hill or mountain range).

    In imakeopsname2’s case, based on his photos, there’s some mountains behind the airport. The contrails you see – what are they “sinking” towards?

  25. Thank you Uncinus. That’s good info. There seems to be a north/south passage right over my head that when persistent contrails are able to form stays in the same location, but the persistent contrail SEEMS to sink slowly.

    I think maybe I’ll take my own advice, and get that on film!

  26. For references on the speed of falling contrails vs. wind, see “Contrails to Cirrus”

    http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf

    [img]http://contrailscience.com/skitch/www-pm.larc.nasa.gov_sass_pub_journals_atlas_JAMC2006.pdf-20110305-154051.jpg[/img]

    That shows fallstreaks from contrails. Fallstreaks are essentially high altitude snow, and will fall faster than a contrail will sink. The text notes a fall speed of 0.5 m/s, which is 1.1 mph. The crosswind component is only 14.5 mph, as the wind is blowing more parallel to the contrail, and not perpendicular. The actual wind speed was 45 mph.

  27. the reason its going nowhere is because you have blatantly disreguarded key information/description i have repeated and repeated. so before you respond once more id like to ask you to read first answer second.

    AND LISTEN. i saw the “persistent contrails” that had fallen to the ground for they became all around me and swept through my neighborhood. GET THAT

    who cares what my photos say listen to what IM saying. the formation of persistent contrails and impossible altitudes is all the proof i need to believe this conspiracy. just like all the proof i need for 911 having bombs detonated to bring down the towers is the temp kerosine and other jet fuels burn at and what temperature the steel constructed burns at.

  28. why dont you show me a graph that has to do with ice crystals or powder(materials whatever it is) at eye level that might be relevant

  29. You don’t accept anything that people say on here, even when they give much better evidence than you, – why are you surprised when people don’t accept stuff just on your say so??

    People here have bent over backwards to try to figure out what you saw based on the vague evidence you have provided – but you yourself have done very little – you’ve provided some completely useless photos, some vague descriptions that are little short of meaningless, and a lot of tantrums about what you want.

    As far as I can see you haven’t’ enquired of your local authorities or the FAA, you apparently never visited the airport when ops were taking place to see what might be going on, you took no samples.

    And yet you expect everyone here to provide you with answers that, I reckon, you could probably have found yourself with a little effort!

    In fact you probably could still do some of those things – like enquiring with your local authorities (the Airport company itself?) and/or the FAA for example.

  30. ive already said my evidence presented was fail. i thought i told you to read first answer second. i give no basis of evidence other than my eye witness. if you cant explain it to me then thats YOUR fault. not mine. ive said what ive seen there is no more i can add to it if u simply say its false because i have no evidence and can no longer extract that evidence. i just hope someone can hear the truth of my words

  31. @ Uncinus; I see what you’re talking about. This afternoon I noticed some lingering contrails and they appeared to be low and close to my position. They didn’t change shape much, and slowly moved without changing shape much to the east of my location. But the air below them was very active with what I assume are Cumulus clouds rolling across the Puget Sound area, heading N x NE. I’m going to wait another month to get this phenomenon on video, because it really is an interesting thing to see.

    Very interesting. Thank you again.

  32. @ imakeopsname2; I will give you one of my old VHS camcorders for free, but there’s no way I’m paying to ship it. It’s an old clunker (I’m guessing 7 to 10 pds), but it takes very decent video. If you would like to take me up on that, I’ll weigh it and find out how much it would cost to ship. There’s no sound on it, and it’s got absolutely no resale value.. If you want to prove something, well dang it, you’ve got to prove it. Interested? [email protected]

  33. lolfree video camcorder to me doesnt need questioning but like i said earlier janet the low flying ops WITH the airport has shut down. just after this new year 2011

  34. @ imakeopsname2 ~ so does that mean the “chemtrail” program is over? If there’s not a problem, then what’s the problem.

    I can tell you I saw gremlins running in the woods yesterday. I didn’t, but I could. If I expected you to believe me, wouldn’t I offer some proof?

    BTW, you’re welcome.

  35. no it doesnt mean its over and i knew you would say that.

    it simply means they dont need to use local means to spray in a remote area not so remote anymore.

  36. @ imakeopsname2 ~ Since you’re able to predict what I’m going to say, I really wish you had covered the following so I didn’t have to post it ~ Since the “chemtrail” program is not over, in your mind, then surely you will want adequate tech so that you can create video evidence to show others in the event this happens again. I mean, right? Are you saying you have no need of a video camera so you can present adequate evidence in the future? If so, I’ll give them both to Goodwill.

  37. may i add that adding more high altitude contrails on the net wouldnt do much.. you can see it with your own eyes. i dont know much of high chemtrails but i do believe in contrail science and documenting it wouldnt do much but if i see anything else id be happy do ducument it with your camcorder including whether or not the plant conditions continue since the closing of the airport

  38. Thanks Uncinus and imakeopsname2 ~ Good point, Uncinus, that there are much better options available relatively cheap that aren’t so “old-school” that it’s a huge hassle. Thank you, imakeopsname2 ~ I’ll take these two VHS clunkers and donate them to Goodwill. I think someone might enjoy playing around with them, but I hadn’t even thought about how poorly they might perform for this subject matter.

  39. @ imakeopsname2 ~ This is what happens when I don’t read all of the entries and just pick up the last few. I apologize. I’m having a “bad day” today.

    I think Uncinus is right, that one of these big clunker old school video cams would probably not be what you’re looking for. Both of these things are late-80’s, and like I said, there is no audio on the one. I will weigh them both within a few days, but I suspect that the shipping amount will be prohibitive. But let me check that out and get back to you. Better, if you just contact me at [email protected], I won’t have to make another comment in a thread that is not about this subject.

    We’ve got some bad weather in Seattle today, and I have a leaky roof to take care of!

  40. >>Similarly, why are Americans living longer now, if we’ve somehow been systematically poisoned for the last two decades or so by “chemtrails”

    True, Americans are living slightly longer, but not necessarily healthier. Cancer rates are off the charts.

  41. Not true, most cancers are in decline, but a few rare cancers have shown slight increases.

    http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/news/News/annualreport-more-than-a-million-cancer-deaths-avoided-in-2-decades

    Newly published statistics from the American Cancer Society show that cancer death rates in the U.S. continue to decrease. Death rates continue to decline for lung, colon, breast and prostate cancers, which are responsible for the most cancer deaths. However, there has been an increase in the past decade of people developing some less common cancers, including pancreas, liver, thyroid, and kidney cancer.

    full figures:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.20138/full

Comments are closed.

Copyright Contrail Science 2017
Tech Nerd theme designed by FixedWidget