This is an actual photo, not photoshopped.
The stork is not at the same altitude as the contrail, it’s actually quite a bit lower. It’s the same thing when you see two planes, one making a contrail, and one not – they are just at different altitudes.
That bird is working for the CIA!!!
4 Planes Chasing each other and spraying in formation
I vowed not to come back to this site but after seeing this clip I thought it needed to be shared and for Uncinus to come up with the reason for this “normal” activity, something that has always happened we just weren’t paying attention to in the past.
Please explain this to us uneducated masses
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1uDwikHguwY
It’s a video of four planes that seem to flying in formation leaving contrails. It’s not something you see very often. So what is it evidence of?
Here’s some things I think we can agree on:
A) Military planes sometimes fly in formation
B) Planes sometimes leave long contrails
C) People sometimes see A and B happen at the same time, and video it.
It’s also possible that they might be commercial jets at different altitudes flying along the same airway. Lined up by coincidence. (remember this is something the cameraman has never seen in his life before, so maybe it’s an unlikely event).
Cueball
Many people saw that 4 plane contrail formation on clear November 14th morning, it also flew over central London.
It was 4x Italian Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft flying home together after a visit in UK.
Military fighter planes often fly in close formations, because military pilots are taught to do that.
ha ha. Brilliant response and TOTALLY unexpected. Yeah it is probably just some high flying military jets over hertfordshire in england!!!! Maybe a bit of recon?
Better still, maybe just some commercial jets at different altitudes flying along the same airway!! Doesn’t look dangerous to fly so close at that speed and altitude over highly populated areas.
Get real!
How about, it’s chemtrailers who really don’t give a damn about who knows now as people like you try to defend their actions as normal events. I understand why you want to remain anonymous now.
@rudedog
Jim Phelps?
Even hard-core conspiracy theorists don’t believe in his theories, should he actually exist…
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/jimphelpschemtrailarticle15apr05.shtml
@Cueball
As Andrius points out, that’s exactly what it was.
These are highly trained military pilots. They fly in that sort of formation ALL THE TIME.
Watch this vid, taking particular note of 1:45 – 2:10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaM-0bLW
Cueball and rudedog, you both omitted to mention that the videocamera shows conclusive proof that the Sun goes round the Earth.
Forget what the scientists have told you – you only have to use your eyes to see the truth. Just look up…
Watch out for open manholes, though.
Andrius – when you post comments like that it is best to provide some kind of evidence to back it up. Stating that “many people saw that…” is not very scientific. Who did? Where is your evidence? The fact that many people saw it isn’t really a surprise though is it, because there were 4 huge long lasting chemtrails in parallel flying for miles above hertfordshire!!!
As for your comment about it being 4 Eurofighters from Italy on a visit to the UK. Again where is your evidence for this??? What sort of visit were they on?? Just popped over for an espresso did they, or come to chat-up some English ladies?
All you do with unsubstantiated comments like that is fuel Mr Debunker, who I notice immediately went over to the YouTube link and posted your comments as his alter ego “Epoxynous”, which apparently he doesn’t use anymore!!!
Couple of right debunkers you two are. And Uncinus I would have thought better of you, when you have a go at anyone that doesn’t use Science to back up there claim, and then you will just go and copy and paste a random comment like Andrius.
As I’ve thought all along, this site isn’t scientific at all and you are in it up to your neck!
As for Rudedog’s post. Very interesting and well researched. No doubt Mr Debunk will attempt to derail you. Keep posting and keep researching.
Uncinus’ only claim that it has always been like this and we just haven’t noticed before really isn’t washing with anyone.
What have you got left Unc?? What line are they feeding you now to tell us?
this is not correct ,pls see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767#USAF_lease_and_cancellation
thanks
rudedog posted the same post several times, so I deleted all but one copy, which can be found here:
https://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-myths/comment-page-6/#comment-6703
Cueball, have you hear of Occam’s Razor? It goes:
It’s a useful rule of thumb to use when judging the merits of an argument. Arguments that introduce new entities are far less likely to be correct than those that do not.
For example, you walk into the kitchen and notice the fridge is open, and you don’t remember leaving it open. What is more likely:
A) You left it open
B) Someone else in the house left it open
C) A ghost opened it.
Now, A and B contain only entities (object, people, forces and events) that you know exist in the house, and are familiar with. Option C introduces a new entity, the ghost. Applying Occam’s razor would lead you to favor A or B, regardless of if you feel that scientists have yet to disprove the existence of ghosts.
Now in a similar vein, you see four planes flying in formation leaving contrails. Do you assume:
A) It’s four military jets flying in deliberate formation, leaving contrails
B) It’s four commercial jets flying in accidental formation, leaving contrails
C) It’s four tankers on a secret spraying mission
Now again, A and B contain only things you know exist, and events you know do happen. C, on the other hand, introduces this new entity – the secret spraying mission – which in turn introduces a whole host of necessary other entities – the conspiracy, the cover-up, the secret budget, etc. Occam’s razor would hence tend to give weight to A and B. Refining further – you’ve seen military planes flying in formation before, but probably never seen four commercial planes flying in formation. This makes option A the one that introduces the fewest new things.
Of course, this is not “proof” that these trails are simply contrails. You can’t prove the some contrails are not actually “chemtrails”, in just the same way that you can’t prove that aliens never visited the earth, or that you are not dreaming right now. You generally can’t prove that something didn’t happen.
What you can do, however, is look at the evidence FOR the chemtrail theory, and point out the flaws. Like this video – the narrator seems to suggest that it is incontrovertible proof that there is spraying going on. I’m simply pointing out that there are several other explanations for these four contrails, and that the other explanations better pass the test of Occam’s razor.
Uncinus,
Do you believe that NIST applied Occam’s Razor to their most recent analysis of Building 7 ?
It relates to contrails in this way. Government reports often are political pieces and not
pertinent to discovery of truth.
New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths. -George Bernard Shaw
As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. -Josh Billings
In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
-Mark Twain, Autobiography, 1959
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
-Bertrand Russell
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. ~Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Regards,
Bryan
Bryan, yes I think they essentially did. Occam asks that we do not introduce unnecessary entities. So the question would be: could the building have collapsed due to the impact damage and fire, or does the evidence necessitate something more (planted explosives). I’ve read the report, and it seems like they examined the evidence, and concluded there was no need for explosives in the sequence of events, and since there was no evidence of explosives, then the “controlled demolition” hypothesis could be cut.
Now remember, Occam’s Razor is just a rule of thumb (a “heuristic” in science-speak). It’s a useful tool that generally works. But it’s not a law, and blind application can potentially cause problems. Still, it’s very useful, and I’d recommend applying it to arguments, just to see what comes up.
Now, regarding your quotes. Science does not work on quotes, but I think yours illustrate another problem with the arguments of many in the conspiracy culture – the idea that somehow because their ideas are outside of mainstream science, even rejected by mainstream science, then that somehow makes them more valid than mainstream science.
Yes, all revolutionary ideas start out outside of mainstream science. Many of them are initially rejected, even laughed at. But only SOME of those revolutionary ideas turn out to be correct, and those are the ones you hear about.
Take, for example, “Koro”. This was a hypothesis that people genitals were shrinking into their bodies. Now there’s a lot of evidence put forth to support this theory – mostly eyewitness testimony. Yet the phenomenon is generally explained as mass hysteria. See:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/9/16/81843/6555
Do you feel that because Koro is a fringe theory, that it’s somehow valid? Does the fact that most scientists scoff at it somehow give the theory credence?
How do you choose what to believe?
Uncinus, regarding Occam’s Razor as a rule of thumb I agree.
I don’t agree with NISTs examination of evidence regarding 7. Occam’s Razor is demolition in that case. NIST has found otherwise. The amount of time it took them to come up with their answer shows that the most plausible hypothesis has
been discarded. Interestingly, they have also discarded a great deal of evidence (discarded because they direct us to do so) in coming to their final conclusion.
Conspiracy culture believing their ideas are somehow more valid than mainstream science is a good point. Many times the
conspiracy theorists never gain traction for many interesting reasons. The Koro illustration
made me think of the term hysterikos or hysteria, which is probably more a reflection of my own pathos lol.
Regarding what I choose to believe, I try to temper myself from ever thinking that I have arrived at truth, and I keep open
to the possibility that I may never, in my current form, arrive at a complete truth.
-Bryan
Occam’s Razor is sometimes misunderstood as “the simplest explanation is the best”, which is incorrect. It’s all about avoiding introducing new things. With Building 7, the “new thing” is the planned explosives. With “chemtrails”, the new thing is some kind of deliberate intent to create different trails on a massive scale and keep it a secret.
These new things do not automatically void a theory, they just raise warning flags, and point to where more evidence is required.
We are told by NIST that we are not to consider demolition because it would be too difficult to place charges. That should echo
in anyone’s head because Steven Coffee and dozens of others have offered 1st hand testimony of explosions from 7 that NIST pretends doesn’t exist. A symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical inputs (fires and asymmetrical damage from the towers collapsing) requires introducing a new thing that is most implausible. If this made any sense, it would not have taken NIST years to create their story. A design flaw allowing for a complete collapse in 7 is the new thing. NIST’s ever changing portrayal of
7 is the smoking gun of their myth-making.
I disagree, but I’m not going to get into it. I wasted too much time already discussing HAARP.
But one general point – an “every changing portrayal” sounds like good science to me – as more is known, then the theory changes to accommodate new facts. Much like the Appleman contrail formation criteria was revised after observations revealed inaccuracies. Science evolves.
True to evolution.
We can’t get into 7, not here, but one of several omissions of NIST is that they did NOT test for explosives residue as is typically done in building collapses for NYC. According to Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division James Quintiere in 2007 NIST lawyers went to work blocking key evidence and testimony, the exact opposite of what they should have done. There are multiple sources of a countdown prior to 7 falling and that unfortunately was also omitted. Prior to initiation of 7’s fall there were reports of explosions as well. Additionally, esteemed structural engineers do not agree with the NIST analysis. This is not as debunkers claim a lunatic fringe hysterically bent on truthing the issue. There is an actual cover up of evidence. I don’t know that explosives dropped the building, but I am certain that truth was not pursued by Dr. Sunder’s report. As he says in a recent interview, the purpose of NIST was not to find fault. If 7 fell the way NIST claims from random fires on 7 floors and a sizable hole, then Demolition teams should be lining up to learn how to save money when demolishing future buildings, no need to place charges after all.
HAARP was rewarding, you learned that HAARP’s function and purpose very likely far exceeds what it’s public facade website claims. It is Bernard Eastlund’s HAARP, for communications after a crippling pulse weapon attack, knocking out enemy communications and enemy missiles, naval communications applications, and it can map enemy terrain, and that it is not really as publicly claimed, an ionospheric tester (lol).
-Bryan
You seem quite convinced. I assume you are not a structural engineer, so you are basing your opinions on those of other structural engineers?
How do you choose which?
What’s the criteria?
I thought this post from parallelnormal.com was interesting:
http://parallelnormal.com/2008/12/21/keep-watching-the-skies/
Since I am not a structural engineer I look at the entire ‘dump’ of media coverage before that terrible day and the amount of official data, the amount of funding of the ‘science’ put forth by the US Govt. I look for omissions of data, blocked information, presidential verbage, laws passed, and military actions slammed through while everyone was still emotional. Additionally I look
for deviations in procedure and treatment of the crime scene from standard procedure. I look closely also at our Intell. work, CIA, funding to Pakistan’s ISI, FBI involvement, and Government interaction with Bin Ladens. I look at defense exercises and personnel and duty changes prior to and during 911. I look also at ties to Government of the investigations and even more closely at the oversight of the papers before they are released for evidence of true partiality or lack thereof. After careful scrutiny, since the majority of media stories are just that, the evidence is damning. There isn’t a doubt that we don’t have an accurate portrayal of events of that day, or that an independent investigation will bring to light a much more accurate picture of events of that day.
The vast amount of ‘debunking’ focuses on technical issues, ex. fall rate is not as the loon-nutjob conspiracists claim, or Rosie ODonnell has her info. wrong, but they do not debunk successfully the most damning evidence. Character assasination and
disinfo. pieces (whether intentional or not) such as Loose Change video work effectively to derail the re-investigation of
events quite effectively.
I leave out the technical data, exact rates of fall, crush down, crush up. Lets for one thing get a much more comprehensive
examination of the Twin Towers fall from sophisticated computer simulations since Bazants paper is simplified and we have only
his (and the few peers who reviewed it) word that his model is accurate (to a measure x2 or something)
Just for fun, graph out Northwestern Universities Science funding pre 2002 and since. Bazant’s ‘hobby’ appears to have been
a financial jackpot for Northwesterns Science/Engineering departments. I don’t consider this as evidence either way. I guess I have to just say it’s a heck of a coincidence lol.
Do you think that holds true for chemtrails? I try to address all the evidence presented, but I guess the standards of evidence vary – do you think I’m avoiding any particular area of chemtrail evidence?
I think you do address the evidence presented. I don’t see much not addressed by you. At times you seem to ‘perhaps’ be a bit more skeptical of evidence that has been presented than an average person. This of course drives the chemtrail theorists absolutely nuts. Ex.- If Rosalind Peterson finds consistent testing of ground samples showing high levels of say aluminum
I think you look first to every other potential causation and consider aerosols as the least plausible possibility. Your pointing out that linking ground samples to plane exhaust is unlikely is correct, but I think to a small degree you sometimes seem
a wee bit excessively dismissive of even the possibility of a link. I think your reasoning is overwhelmingly sound in the portrayal
of contrails though. Perhaps your thorough knowledge of contrail behavior makes you less open to possible nano aluminum
or other metal dispersal. If someone gives you hard data, I have every reason to believe that you would verify it and accept it.
What is the most likely motive for ANY possible chemtrail program I ask myself. I know the varying ‘theories’ but I can’t nail
it down myself. I don’t have sufficient evidence, not really a shred of evidence (beyond ancedotal) to build a case for a massive
spray campaign. Still looking, If I get good evidence I’ll post it here first.
-Regards Happy Holidays to all
-Bryan
I don’t see that much solid for a chemtrail case. There’s a large assortment of ancedotal stuff all of which you’ve seen. Kucinovich’s comments, Air Force weather paper, Teller, Eastlund, Espanola, Canada, Project cloverleaf, Morgellons. Something is missing though to make me believe that there is a widespread campaign. The information is too disjointed. I can’t build from one thing to the next, I don’t see it coming together enough yet. So I don’t think you are dis-servicing the situation by citing the scientific studies, or covering up something. I prefer studies that go back 10 years or more though because I think atmospheric research more recently is suspect to political oversight. I’ve tried looking at recent NASA studies for clues to changing the perception of reality, but I don’t see it enough yet to even make me suspicious. If they are trying to change the science to hide a program they are doing a very good job. The Counting contrails stuff they did for school kids made me suspicious originally but not so much anymore. If there is a chemtrail program it is impossible to tell from observation based upon the science that you, Jazzrock and others refer to. If there is a program they can hide it in plain (or plane) sight, because contrails have always been.
-Bryan
It would be more difficult to contain the major chemtrail websites if they acknowledged contrail behavior scientifically and from that starting point then tried to build a case. Are there any that do- have a link to a scientific contrail study? Actually Scott Stevens and Will Thomas have been pressed so hard by guys like you and Jazzbebop that they recently are backing off of their chemtrail claims. In the case of Will Thomas, he just won’t reply, but Stevens is now qualifying his chemtrail claims quite differently than at first.
-Bryan
Cueball,
If the planes in the video you linked to are spraying chemicals, why are they doing it at roughly 30.000 ft up? Wouldn’t a method like crop dusting be more “effective”? By releasing their alleged chemicals that high up, they cannot accurately predict where the chemicals will end up landing and that altitude would also result in the weakening/thinning of the chemicals before reaching the ground. Please explain how high-altitude dispersion is an effective tool for accomplishing whatever ruthless/diabolical goal they might be trying to achieve.
Thanks,
Jim
Jim,
Your statement is full of assumptions and negative rhetoric. First of all, if the goal is to achieve global saturation then high altitude dispersion would be the most logical and effective method to accomplish whatever it is that they might be trying to achieve. Common sense.
Rudedog, if the aim is to achieve “global saturation” then a fag-packet calculation suggests you need 3.4 MILLION tons of “methyl aluminum” and EIGHTY-THOUSAND (specially-engineered) tanker flights.
You would also need to to spread that “grid pattern” pretty evenly over the WHOLE of the Earth’s surface, but what do we see from space?
Strangely, “chemtrails” only coincide with humid stratospheric conditions and civil aviation routes. Sometimes these are plainly apparent over mid-ocean, and not at all over the continents, sometimes the reverse, sometimes neither, and sometimes both. What does that suggest to you?
To me that suggests (plainly) atmospheric conditions are the cause of persistent trails. It also suggests to me that you are not too rational. Does it NOT get colder with increasing altitude?
Why do you think that Uncinus and SR1419 and I have anything more in common than a reasonably scientific understanding of contrail formation and a different way of forming our conclusions?
After all, we know Uncinus lives in California, I’m a Brit living in Spain, and I don’t know SR’s origin at all…
… actually, after the TROPOPAUSE (at 26,000 ft approx.) it DOES get warmer with increasing altitude. In the STRATOSPHERE, where these trails occur.
It is because it gets warmer (relatively – it’s warming from at least -40!) it is STABLE.
It is because of this stability that it is LAYERED, and suffers little VERTICAL MIXING.
It is because these layers don’t mix vertically, they possess differing humidities.
It is because these layers exist (like flat ribbons) they can fill with fine crystals of ice (when fed by jet engine combustion products of STEAM and CO2).
It is because they do this, that you do what YOU do.
rudedog,
Do you think 9/11 was an “inside job”?
Jim
Nano sized aluminum for fuels. Good science? http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090000186
This seems like evidence that aluminum could be added to the fuel of a jet (no special sprayer equipment necessary) Which means it doesn’t require Military planes to deliver a hypothetical spray campaign. I think there are only 5 or 6 companies world wide providing fuel for the majority of air traffic, so it might not be that hard to imagine…
Is there a way to compare albedo from prior contrails to contrails today? Just as an observation, the trails that I see are really
bright and reflective looking. If fresh trails have nano aluminum, titanium or barium as a component, it seems likely that they
would indeed be more brilliant looking.
I’m not claiming anything here, just pondering. I don’t have the data to back up a “brighter” contrail, just thinking.
Regards,
Bryan
That patent looks like a catch-all to me. Note they list just about ALL metals, and the range of particle sizes (1 to 990 nm) and concentrations (0.01 to 500 ppm) cover an incredibly huge range of combination. Sounds to me like they are just patenting broadly in the hope that someone will find a good mix of some metal, then they can sue them.
Fuel additives would be interesting from a patent point of view, as different burn characteristic can produce different contrails, altering the “contrail factor” of the engine system, like with high bypass engines, see:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1997)036%3C1725%3ACOACFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
I don’t know if you could tell if the albedo (diffuse reflection) of contrails has changed on average. But I’d suspect it has, with larger engines burning cleaner, hence resulting in more water, and less soot
That may be Uncinus. I wish there was a way to control that kind of patent filing,
or at least seperate it from ones that are straight shooting.
I don’t see the filing date for the patent on the page either which is annoying.
I don’t think this was caused by an airbus lol. Maybe especially robust ball lightning.
Not really related to contrails, but interesting that they haven’t found one of the blades.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/ufos/article2108149.ece
This is one of the websites I check every day, they often have atmospheric images
of sun dogs, pillars, green flashes, noctilucent, nacreous clouds etc. Occasionally they’ll show a contrail in front
of the full moon, or ice crystals from what maybe a contrail cloud.
http://www.spaceweather.com/
uncinus,
by refusing to post my comments, you are only confirming that your purpose on this blog is to spread disinformation and prevent the truth from becoming known to all. What are you afraid of? Just as well, because I can provide the information more effectively through a source that does not have a moderator with a conflict of interest. You are not fooling anyone by associating the word ‘science’ with the word contrail and the words ‘conspiracy’ and ‘theory’ with the word chemtrail. Your responses have become rhetorical and some of them are so pathetic that I feel sorry for the poor souls that would actually take you seriously. You have lost all credibility by hiding behind behind your username and selectively posting comments in order to deceive your viewers and manipulate their minds. A more appropriate name for this website would be “CONtrail CONspiracy” with emphasis on the syllable ‘Con’. What is going on is so blatently obvious that it is like being slapped in the face. It must be frustrating to you trying to convince everyone that this is not really happening when it seems like the perpetrators aren’t even making an effort to hide it anymore. Even worse, it is absolutely dumbfounding that there are so many clueless souls that have not even bothered to look up and wittness it. Unfortunately, that is your ace in the hole. I hope that hell is not as hot as they say it is, for your sake.
Your last comment was:
https://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/comment-page-4/#comment-7151
I don’t see any other comments from you since then. I’ve not deleted any comments in the last two weeks.
You asked me to “answer the question”. I responded that I thought I had, but wold be happy to do so if you could point out what question it was you wanted answering.
So, again, what is your question?
Rudedog, my ‘theory’ is that the atmosphere has changed a fair amount recently.
I haven’t developed it to a point of having a lot of data on it yet but I think along
with some of what Uncinus has said, more air traffic, newer engines, it is likely that
contrails do more often create overcast conditions now. You would agree
that you observe and scrutinize them more now than before you became aware
of ‘chemtrails’ right?
Data from NASA seems to indicate dramatic atmospheric changes on other planets
in our solar system, and it seems likely that this planet will also have changes
(dimming is one that is noted, I think that there are others as well)
I don’t rule out chemtrails as a possibility though.
-Bryan
Wonder how much the contrail characteristics of this fuel differs?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7817849.stm
Hard to say. Biodiesel can have higher Nitrous Oxide emissions that regular diesel, so that might hold true here. There are several factors at play in contrail formation. I’m sure that it will be different, but perhaps only slightly, maybe hardly measurable. Maybe a lot. More research needed.
Bryan:
They seem to be looking at automotive engines if you look closely.
As Uncinus says, it’s a catch-all patent scam. They even mention gold!
Pure water is a GOOD additive from the point-of-view of engine efficiency, getting you up to 15% more.
However the ambient water vapor rusts everything under the bonnet! 🙂
uncinus says:
The question that I am referring to is on the (“Chemtrail” Aircraft Photos) thread as you know.
My last comment on that thread was posted on 1/5/08 at 4:06pm. I said:
In regards to my comments not being posted:
Jazzroc posted a comment on this thread on 04 Jan 2009 at 6:10 pm in response to my comment that was posted immediatly before it.
I responded to jazzrocs comment on 05 Jan 2009 and it was never posted.
On 06 Jan 2009 I submitted the same comment again and asked why my previous one did not get posted. Still no response, but I noticed that 4 subsequent comments from other people had been posted from
05 Jan 2009 through 08 Jan 2009. So, I will attempt it one more time, in response to jazzroc on 04 Jan 2009, my response was:
jazzroc says:
Actually, the estimated amount that is suggested in the document titled: “GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE MANHATTAN PROJECT” is approximately 20 million tons. It also explains how it can be done by modifying commercial aircraft to disperse the particulate matter. I am guessing that there are enough commercial, military and private aircraft in existence to complete the project. The document is quite informative and explicit about modifying the earths atmosphere. If you care to read it, it is not hard to find by searching for it. However, I think for those who want more detail on the plan to modify the atmosphere by saturating it with aluminum dust and other particulate matter, I think you will find the information you seek in the publication titled: “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases” A 994 page study presented in 1992. It can be found here: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html
jazzroc also says:
This statement is completely false and deceptive and intended to mislead.
First of all, how could you possible know that all of the eyewittness reports from concerned people around the world are from aircraft flying in only humid stratospheric conditions? In addition, when anyone attempts to get information on the aircraft passing overhead that are not on any scheduled commercial routes, the existence of the aircraft are always denied by the authorities. Second, I personally wittness the sprayings regularly being conducted by unmarked jet aircraft that are not travelling the normal corridors and have even seen them make u-turns in order to continue the spraying over a particular area. They have even started and stopped the releases in order to confine the concentration over a particular area. When is the last time you saw a commercial airliner do anything other than depart from its origination and fly towards its destination? I dont think u-turns are part of their flight pattern and certainly there must be times when the stratospheric conditions are not consistent to the production of these ever expanding freaks that you want us to believe are just normal contrails. I think perhaps you are the one that needs a reality check.
The reason I associate you with uncinus is because you both use the same method of deception and spreading of misinformation. First, you throw in your scientific references to try and make your point legitimate and the other persons less credible. Second, you are obsessed with making sure that nobody’s personal accounts of their experiences with this disgusting act are to be believed. There must be some motivating factor for you to do this, especially when you cant possibly know that what is being reported is not true. Third, you regularly attack the character of the person reporting the details and attempt to discredit them as you have done to me on several occassions. This is not the behavior of an average person responding to a blog statement posted by people that are genuinely concerned about what is taking place and affecting them.
This website was obviously created for one purpose only. To debunk any mention of the horrible act that is being inflicted against innocent people around the world and you are a contributer.
Well, I hope you’ll understand that there are two questions there, and I answered the first one. Good job too, since you misstated the second one.
The conditions for persistent contrails vary, because contrail formation is a complex process. You are probably familiar with Appleman chart which gives a rule of thumb for the critical temperature required for contrails to form. For persistent contrails, the air needs to be supersaturated with respect to ice. This all varies with pressure, humidity and the “contrail factor” of the engine, but it’s generally noted that persistent contrails usually form at -40 degrees or below and humidity of 70% or higher.
See here for a discussion of the derivation of the critical temperature, and some tables for different engine types:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1997)036%3C1725%3ACOACFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
For a contrail to spread out, it needs wind shear. this (1971) article discusses it somewhat:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=res-loc&uri=urn%3Aap%3Apdf%3Adoi%3A10.1175%2F1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Sorry your other comment did not appear, I’m not sure why it did not, as I never saw it.
Rudedog:
I don’t. But I can and do compare satellite pictures from space with known routes, which is what I was talking about.
“Blue light scattering” removes markings through seven miles of atmosphere. Check any telephoto picture you like which is taken from ground level. If the plane were to be painted BLACK, then from the ground it isn’t even VISIBLE.
If the stratosphere is in motion (that’s its normal state) then “normal corridors are spread across the sky as the hours pass.
They don’t make U-turns approaching Tenerife because the traffic is light here. However the US has the heaviest traffic in the world, with five thousand aircraft in the air at any one time. This makes it necessary to enter “stacks” near airports to land. In humid conditions the aircraft up in the cold air will be seen laying “U-turn” trails.
A couple things more: I cannot remember either Uncinus or even myself insulting you. Perhaps it’s a figment of your imagination. (I would cheerfully do so, but Uncinus’s gracious example consistently sets me straight.)
Also, there IS something glitchy about this server system: for example, the post above by “Anonymous” is actually mine. I filled in the prelims as usual, but when I posted it, it “blew away” in front of me and didn’t reappear when I “homed” and resought it either. That’s not the first time, either.
Don’t assume that people are out to get you, even if you’re…. 🙂
Rudedog:
Well, I said a fag-packet calculation…. 🙂
I based my figures on assuming a coverage of ONE MOLECULE of, say, methyl/barium per square centimetre of the Earth’s surface.
Changing the assumed coverage, or the materials employed, are bound to get you a different figure.
The point is the order of the business. You have to consider several millions of tons of expensive refined (and poisonous!) material being lifted more than seven miles up and transported thousands of miles by almost the most expensive means possible, in order to provide a temporary fix for what is supposed to be a problem.
It’s a good thing it is only a proposal…
Like many STUPID activities that have been proposed in the past, it will go the way of those: the ROUND BIN.
I would just like to say to the chemtrail believers, not all persistent contrails spread. I have seen non spreading persistent contrails in person too. I got this information from NASA’s Contrail education website.
Thanks
Jazzroc says:
“They don’t make U-turns approaching Tenerife because the traffic is light here. However the US has the heaviest traffic in the world, with five thousand aircraft in the air at any one time. This makes it necessary to enter “stacks” near airports to land. In humid conditions the aircraft up in the cold air will be seen laying “U-turn” trails.”
I do not live near any airport that service commercial airliners. There are no “stacks” maneuvers being conducted here. Humidity is not a factor for the formation of thick persistent trails here either. We are bombarded with year round in all weather conditions. In fact, Redding is known for having some of the hottest and dryest weather in the country at the peak of summer. It is not uncommon for it to reach 120+ degrees and a total lack of humidity for several weeks.
Your explanation is not valid.
Jazzroc says:
“The point is the order of the business. You have to consider several millions of tons of expensive refined (and poisonous!) material being lifted more than seven miles up and transported thousands of miles by almost the most expensive means possible, in order to provide a temporary fix for what is supposed to be a problem.
It’s a good thing it is only a proposal…”
When has cost overhead ever stopped a world power from persuing their goals? Of course it is expensive. I am sure that I am paying for a portion of it just like all of the other taxpayers that it is being used against. Compare it to the magnatude and the cost of the space program for example. Has it stopped us from sending multiple spacecraft to Mars? What is the cost of the space station and the amount of engineering and planning that has gone in to that? Many thought that would have been impossible at one time also. Just because a project is costly and requires a lot of engineering does not mean that it will prevent it from being done.
It was only a proposal over 10 years ago. Today it is a reality, as are many other projects that were proposed. All projects have to begin with a proposal. Or as you put it: “a stupid activity”
“I cannot remember either Uncinus or even myself insulting you. PERHAPS IT’S A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. (I WOULD CHEERFULLY DO SO, but Uncinus’s gracious example consistently sets me straight.)
DON’T ASSUME THAT PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET YOU, EVEN IF YOU’RE…. ”
I also recall you as refering to Bryansail as “Brains for Sale”. You are an arrogant and insulting person.
Need I say more? I rest my case on that subject.
RudeDog…
Do you really think that the weather at ground level is an indication of what the weather is 7 miles up??
Please think logically. Please learn about atmospheric processes. Please understand that whilst it can be 120 degrees on the ground, it can be 40-below and supersaturated with respect to ice at 40,000 feet- even at the peak of summer.
Moreover- if you live near Redding CA, you DO live near an airport that services commercial airlines- you are either ignorant of that or purposely lying to further your argument…which is it?
Remember- even the smallest of planes can leave persistent contrails.
http://ci.redding.ca.us/transeng/airports/rma.htm
Redding Municipal Airport
Airport ID: RDD
Passenger Airlines – Daily commercial airline passenger service is provided by Skywest Airlines, dba, United Express to San Francisco,and Horizon Air to Los Angeles, Eureka/Arcata and Portland.
Rudedog:
Whatever temperature Redding is at, 26,000 feet above it the temperature of the stratosphere is at -40 degrees or even less. When that fact sinks in for you (if it ever does), your cocksure statement is going to flag somewhat. In the meanwhile, everyone knows you pretend that the temperature and pressure up there is the same as at ground level. Fail.
Yes, of course, they are doing it, as well as fighting a war on two fronts, with their financial institutions winking out one by one. Not. Fail.
But somehow you haven’t recalled the preceding “Jazztwat”, “Jazzfunk”, “Jazzwhatever” he came up with. Selective or what? Fail.
SR1419 says:
“Do you really think that the weather at ground level is an indication of what the weather is 7 miles up??
Please think logically. Please learn about atmospheric processes. Please understand that whilst it can be 120 degrees on the ground, it can be 40-below and supersaturated with respect to ice at 40,000 feet- even at the peak of summer. ”
I am thinking logically. Logic tells me that a normal contrail will dissipate or evaporate before it sinks to the ground where the temperature is 100+ degrees. Even if your hypothetical explanation were possible, you are assuming that the air is supersaturated at 40,000 feet during the peak heat of summer when it is 120 degrees on the ground. Highly unlikely. Especially if there has been no precipitation 7 days prior or 7 days after the incident takes place. However, your theory still does not explain how the ice crystals manage to survive all the way to the ground in the 120 degree heat.
Your explanation lacks the ‘science’ that you claim to base your contrail theories on. Consequentially, it only further validates your purpose here. To dis-inform.
(sigh)…
RD said:
“Even if your hypothetical explanation were possible, you are assuming that the air is supersaturated at 40,000 feet during the peak heat of summer when it is 120 degrees on the ground.”
…hate to break it to you- but it is NOT hypothetical…it is Fact.
That you refuse to acknowledge it is your problem. That you refuse to believe the 100s of scientific papers written by scientists from around the World and reviewed by their peers is your problem. That you remain ignorant of what the atmospheric processes are that create contrails, allow them to persist and create man-made cirrus clouds is your problem.
I could include a link to several papers for for your edification but you would only disregard them – more than likely without actually reading any. If you want to look for yourself- look up “ice supersaturation”.
“Especially if there has been no precipitation 7 days prior or 7 days after the incident takes place”
This comment only elucidates your ignorance of the processes involved in the creation of persistent contrails.
If contrails truly are falling to the ground in 120 degree heat…then it should be quite simple to take a picture…and take a sample…for all to evaluate.
…and yet, your claim about no commercial aircraft near you was completely false…and thus, I have no option but to doubt this claim of yours also…
SR1419,
Where are these 100s of scientific papers written by scientists from around the world that explain how contrails always persist and create man made cirrus clouds no matter what the weather conditions are at ground level?
Does this mean that the air at cruising altitude is always a constant -40 degrees or less and super saturated at all times in all geographic locations no matter what the weather is like at ground level?
Are you saying that the atmospheric conditions never change at 40,000 feet even when the conditions at ground level go from one extreme to the other?
If not, then please explain yourself or provide these scientific papers that back up this ridiculous claim of yours.
People from all over the world have been reporting this repeatedly, that this is exactly what is happening. The previously ABNORMAL trails that are being left by these mysterious jet airplanes (not the propeller driven commuter planes that fly out of Redding), are not only persisting, but continue to grow until a total whiteout is created after being systematically deposited in an obviously coordinated effort, no matter what the weather conditions are on the ground, no matter what month of the year it is and no matter where they are geographically located.
I guess you have no option but to doubt all of the other claims also since none of the countless reports from around the world could possibly be something other than a misinterpretation of a normal contrail, simply because you cant even consider the possibility that YOU could be misinterpreting what others are seeing with their own eyes and physically experiencing the effects of with their own bodies. And you call ME ignorant! Your ignorance is coupled with arrogance and I am afraid it has corrupted your ability to be objective and reasonable. Your insistance on calling us all ignorant or liars about our descriptions of our experiences that we are only reporting out of concern for ourselves and our fellow human beings amazes me since you were not there and have absolutely no way of actually knowing if the reports are true or not.
All I want to see is your proof that the atmospheric conditions at 40,000 feet remain a constant -40 degrees or less and super saturated at all times in all locations. Because this is what must be happening in order for all of the chemtrail reports to be nothing more than mere contrails (that always persist and never dissipate).
By the way, my statement about no commercial aircraft flying out of Redding was refering to the large ones with jet engines. You know, the ones that leave the trails in the sky. Although, I can see why you would want to focus your attention on that single statement and attempt to discredit me with it in order to distract from dealing with the real issues. Fortunately, it only works on the weak minded and easily manipulated individuals that you prey on. The rest of us are getting annoyed by you constantly trying to insult our intelligence.
RD-
“no matter what the weather conditions are on the ground, no matter what month of the year it is and no matter where they are geographically located”
Yes, persistent contrails can form no matter what the weather conditions are on the ground, no matter what month of the year it is and no matter where they are geographically located. This is observed fact. Disregard it if you must.
“Are you saying that the atmospheric conditions never change at 40,000 feet even when the conditions at ground level go from one extreme to the other?”
No- never said that. I said that weather conditions on the ground do not reflect the conditions in the atmosphere with respect to ice supersaturation. Stating that it is 120 degrees on the ground has no bearing on the conditions of the atmosphere at 40,000 feet.
“I guess you have no option but to doubt all of the other claims also since none of the countless reports from around the world could possibly be something other than a misinterpretation of a normal contrail, simply because you cant even consider the possibility that YOU could be misinterpreting what others are seeing”
I doubt what others claim they see because what they describe- persistent contrails that spread out into sheets of cirrus clouds- is EXACTLY the behavior of “normal” contrails…persistent contrails but normal nonetheless. Most “chemtrail” believers are under the ignorant belief that all “normal” contrails dissipate in a few minutes and thus when they see one that doesn’t they claim it is a “chemtrail” – This is a claim based on ignorance. The only “evidence” that is offered is just a description of normal contrail. To infer something else based on that “evidence” would be illogical and a leap of faith that just isn’t warranted.
“By the way, my statement about no commercial aircraft flying out of Redding was referring to the large ones with jet engines. You know, the ones that leave the trails in the sky”
You specifically stated no commercial aircraft flew near you. You were wrong. It doesn’t help your credibility. No you are implying that only “large ones with jet engines” can leave a contrail. Again, you are wrong. Propeller driven planes can and do leave contrails.
see here for photos: https://contrailscience.com/wwii-contrails/
…unfortunately, ignorance is part of the real issue….ignorance of atmospheric processes, ignorance of known contrail behavior, ignorance of types of aircraft that can leave contrails…ignorance of all the variables that go into any given contrail…
…and thus when faced with the reality of ignorance, it is easy to cling to myth.
Rudedog:
There are 4,490 responses to “aircraft exhaust contrail cirrus” on Google. What the hell is your problem?
At a constant -40 degrees or less – yes. Supersaturated at all times – no. Progressively saturated with each passage of aircraft – yes. (I don’t know exactly how many times you have been told this to date, but it’s approaching double figures.)
They change hardly at all. The tropopause (where the atmosphere is at its coldest) is a boundary between them. This boundary is a CONSTANT feature. Its altitude varies from 45,000 feet at the equator to 18,000 feet at the poles.
Myself (above):
When’s it going to sink in, Rudedog?
SR1419,
Once again you have failed to provide the requested information.
You claim that there are 100s of scientific papers written by scientists from around the world that explain how contrails always persist and create man made cirrus clouds no matter what the weather conditions are at ground level. I ask you to provide this information and you avoid the subject.
Once again you fail to answer the question directly. Instead you manipulate your answer to avoid the question that I asked. My question was:
Are you saying that the atmospheric conditions NEVER CHANGE at 40,000 feet even when the conditions at ground level go from one extreme to the other?
Your answer was:
Yes, persistent contrails CAN FORM no matter what the weather conditions are on the ground, no matter what month of the year it is and no matter where they are geographically located. This is observed fact. Disregard it if you must.
We all know that contrails CAN FORM under particular conditions. I wanted you to clarify if you are claiming that the atmospheric conditions at 40,000 feet are CONSTANTLY within the parameters that are necessary for contrail formation, WITHOUT EVER CHANGING, no matter what the conditions are at ground level. You failed to answer the question.
When I asked you:
Are you saying that the atmospheric conditions never change at 40,000 feet even when the conditions at ground level go from one extreme to the other?
You say “No- never said that”.
Again you missed the point completely. My point was that there are countless videos and photos of chemtrails that have been posted by people from all over the world, under all types of weather conditions, at various times of the year, in various geographic locations, etc… therefore, in order for all of them to be nothing more than mere contrails that persist and expand into a cirrus layer of cloud cover, the atmospheric conditions of all of them must have been -40 degrees or less and super saturated at 40,000 feet at the time of the incident, even though the conditions at ground level varied from one extreme to the other.
If this is not what you are saying, then explain how these persistent, ever-expanding freaks that you call contrails are forming unconditional to what the weather is at ground level, everywhere around the world.
You say:
“I doubt what others claim they see because what they describe- persistent contrails that spread out into sheets of cirrus clouds- is EXACTLY the behavior of “normal” contrails”
So, do you actually have any proof of that or just your interpretation of what you believe it is because you doubt what others claim.
All I am asking is, if normal contrails form and become persistent contrails that spread out into cirrus clouds no matter what the weather conditions are at ground level at all times and in all places, then produce the scientific documents that you are basing your claims on.
or
If contrails are forming and persisting and spreading out into cirrus clouds because the atmospheric conditions at 40,000 feet are constantly -40 degrees or less and super saturated at any given time and at any given location, then please provide the scientific evidence that proves it.
After all, in order for your claims to be correct, that all chemtrail claims are nothing more than normal contrails that persist and spread into cirrus clouds, it must be one or the other of the two scenerios above. Otherwise, it would not be possible for all of the chemtrail claims to be explained away as normal contrail activity due to the variable conditions under which they have been documented. Simple as that!
Your constant attempts to avoid the issues and your failures to adress the questions as they are presented to you once again reveals your true intentions to minipulate and decieve people. If these are not your true intentions, then why are you so determined to descredit every person and try to disprove every claim that is ever reported by people who are genuinely concerned about what they know are not normal contrails.
Why is it that you can not even consider that any of these claims could possibly have any merit to them? You insist that they are all what YOU claim they are and not what the actual witnesses are reporting, even though you are not anywhere near the scene of the incident. How is it that you are ultimately the one that is right and all of the actual witnesses are all wrong? The fact is, you have no way of actually knowing for sure if everyone is mistaken or not since you were not there. With that in mind, the fact that you are so bent on proving that everyone is wrong is even more reason to be concerned. Your motivation to do so is what concerns me. Does it make you proud to contribute to the destruction of the earth and all living things? Are you going to be spared as a reward for doing your part? What is your motivation to contribute to such a horrible deed?
I think, rudedog, the question you are trying to ask here is: “are there conditions at ground level that would preclude contrail formation and persistence at any altitude above that region?”
If the answer is yes, then all you have to do is document this occuring and you’ll have proof of chemtrails.
Unfortunately the answer is no, contrail persistence depends on the conditions at the altitude where they form, and not the conditions on the ground.
chemtrails programs are part of the aerospace defence program of U.S. army and N.A.T.O.the military aircraft that you see are spraying mostly barium and polimer. radar and satellite connections are used in combinations with military aerosols.the substances used are very toxic for the environment.
this is very secret military stuff, and is not normal jet exaust or normal contrail.
REMEMBER,ANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS IS A LIE,
STOP AEROSOL OPERATIONS NOW
RDog-
I never claimed that. I said that there are 100s of papers detailing persistent contrails and ice supersaturation conditions…and that if you read them you would know that the conditions on the ground do not correlate to the conditions at 40K feet. I never said contrails “always” persist. I said they CAN persist no matter what the conditions on the ground.
No- atmospheric conditions can change at 40k feet. But the conditions on the ground offer no corollary- the conditions changing from one extreme to another do not mean that conditions at 40k are changing…and vice versa.
Correct. The altitude can be lower depending on the latitude.
Contrails can persist no matter what the conditions are on the ground, no matter what the time of year and no matter where on the globe. I never said “at all times” ….Clearly it is not at all times…some trails dissipate quickly, some trails never form. Some planes will create a trail under a given set of conditions while others will not. 2 planes can fly thru the exact same spot and one will leave a trail and the other will not.
…it is not at ALL times…but it can be anywhere, anytime, any place….no matter what the conditions are on the ground at the time.
Thus all the trails documented “under various conditions” refer to the conditions on the ground and not the conditions at 40k feet. Simple as that!
This is somewhat of an ad hominem attack and somewhat surprising as I have done nothing but directly address the issue- specifically addressing your questions. That you do not understand the answer is not my fault…at least not entirely 🙂 Moreover, accusing me of deception and manipulation is as outlandish as it is funny as I have not deceived anyone nor manipulated anyone…I put forth opinions based on facts.
Again, it gets back to ignorance…or perhaps lack of knowledge is a better way to phrase it- when you say “what they know are not normal contrails.” …I believe “they” DO NOT know what normal contrails are! If they believe that any contrail that does not dissipate after a few minutes is not a “normal” contrail- then they DO NOT know. If they believe that because it is 120 degrees on the ground then contrails cannot persist – then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. If they do not know that a contrail can spread out into sheets of cirrus clouds and even induce additional cirrus cloud formation then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. If they do not know that propeller driven planes can leave contrails then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. This is not deception on my part, not manipulation on my part…this is lack of knowledge on their part.
…it is because of this lack of knowledge about all the variables that go into any given contrail…from the highly complex atmospheric conditions such as relative humidity, updraft velocity, and crystal concentrations necessary for contrails to form and persist, from the condensation nuclei needed, from the concept of ice supersaturation, to the types of ice crystals involved, to the effect the type of plane that is leaving the trail, to the type of engine the plane is using, to the particular mix of fuel any given plane has, to the speed of the plane…that I am highly skeptical about claims of “chemtrails”
…seeing a persistent contrail….filming it and posting it on Youtube claiming it is a “chemtrail” being sprayed is an exercise size in speculation based ignorance. Not a combination that leads to credibility.
Without knowing that there can be pockets of supersaturation leading to gaps in trails or that multiple planes leaving persistent contrails on perpendicular flight paths can resemble “grid” formations…or that any given moment there are over 5000 planes in the sky above the US, or that it is virtually impossible to determine the altitude of plane simply by looking up much less determine its logo from 7 miles away- or that any trail you see above you will not fall on you but instead drift for 100s of mile with the upper winds…all this ignorance just adds fuel the speculative fire.
Given the fact that “normal” contrails often behave EXACTLY like “chemtrails” supposedly do, it is impossible to definitively know that you are looking at one just by seeing it. Without sampling the trail in situ one cannot know for sure…and yet the vast majority of claims are based solely on visual “evidence”.
…and so, being that persistence is the only “evidence” offered….and the fact that normal contrails can and do persist…and that most “chemtrail” believers are ignorant of a great deal of the information required to make an educated claim about what they think they see….it is easy to doubt their claims.
Do not worry about my motivation. Worry about facts. I am not out to “prove everyone is wrong”. I simply point out facts that are pertinent and show gaps in knowledge that – when filled- might lead to different conclusions and understanding. Insinuating that I somehow complicit in some evil act simply because I do not agree with you is not a healthy argument.
SR1419, the response you have made to RD above is so excellent that I have copied it into my blog, as a fine example of clarity, accuracy, and attention to detail. I hope you don’t mind. 🙂
SR1419,
If I understand you correctly, these are the facts as you see them regarding contrail formation:
*Contrails primarily consist of water vapor or ice crystals formed from water.
*In order for contrail to become persistent, the aircraft must be cruising at 40,000 feet or above.
*The ambient air temperature at that altitude must -40 degrees c or lower.
*The air must be ‘super saturated’ to create the contrail.
*Regardless if the conditions at ground level are 120 degrees and dry or 10 degrees with high relative humidity, it has no affect on the conditions at 40,000 feet.
*Contrails are also formed behind propeller driven airplanes as well.
In regards to the last one, I cant find any data that shows propeller planes traveling at 40,000 feet or higher. I assume it would be dangerous since it might interfere with the jet aircraft. Or perhaps they were not designed to operate at that altitude. In any case, I have never seen one leave a contrail and I do not believe that they are a contributing factor to the plague in our skies.
There are literally thousands of pictures and videos that have been posted on the internet from legitimately concerned people that are posting them because they believe them to be something other than normal contrails. They believe this because they remember watching contrails being formed since they were children and the recent ones (in the last 10 years or so) do not behave or look like the contrails that they have come to know. You contribute this to increased air traffic and you claim that all of these people just weren’t paying attention prior to this or they just don’t remember contrails as clear as they think they do. That is merely an assumption on your part that is lacking any kind of science so that assertion is completely invalid. It is simply your own opinion. I personally remember very clearly watching contrails as a child and was very interested in them at an early age and have always been an avid sky watcher as have many many others that resent the fact that you do not believe this to be true.
There are many places on the internet to find these photos and videos. You tube is not the only place although it has many available to view. There are thousands of pictures and videos that have been submitted as ‘chemtrails’ which vary in geographic location around the globe, spanning all 12 months of the year when filmed and done so under all types of weather conditions and submitted by people for no other reason than looking for the truth. Out of all of these photos and videos, you claim that every one of them are nothing more than normal contrails that persist and spread out into cirrus clouds. This in turn means that you are claiming that all of these thousands of pictures and videos all have in common the above mentioned criteria necessary for the formation of persisting, spreading contrails.
You are claiming that every one of these photos and videos were taken at 40,000 feet (or pertinent to the latitude) and the temperature was -40 degrees or less and the air was super saturated at that moment in time. PROVE IT!
Certainly you must have proof of this in order to make such an affirmative bold statement. To call all of these people liars and to present your contrail explanation as the true facts and to portray the claims of the actual witnesses who were physically present during the incident as conspiracy theories or cases of mistaken identity.
The fact is, you have no proof of this. As a matter of fact, I am sure that I will be able to prove that some of them were in fact NOT filmed or photographed under the conditions necessary for the formation of a persistent ever expanding contrail cirrus cloud mutation. I will begin by seeking out the ones that have documented the date, time and location of the incident. Through some careful research, I will find out what the conditions were at that time and location and if the conditions could have supported the formation of lingering persistent thick ever expanding contrails, especially on a large scale as we see in so many of the photos and videos.
In the mean time, continue on with your campaign to deceive and dis-inform the unsuspecting population as you do. It is only a matter of time before that spiel has so many holes in it that the bottom will fall out.
rudedog, you seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding here. Nobody said contrails only form above 40,000 feet. All that was said was that if it was 120F at ground level then it can still be -40F at 40,000 feet.
Contrails can actually form at sea level if it is cold enough. There is a critical temperature that is required for contrails to form. This varies based on air pressure, which varies based on altitude. This is sometimes called the MINTRA level. At sea level this is about -11F, and about -40F at 34,000 See MINTRA here:
http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/54
Super-saturation is only required for the contrail to spread out over several hours into a layer of cirrus cloud. No doubt the various different videos were filmed in various different conditions.
And contrails ARE also formed behind propeller driven airplanes, if they fly in a cold enough region. The first contrails were observed behind prop planes. Generally now though there’s not much point for a prop plane to fly high enough, so it’s unlikely that any contrails you see in the sky now are from prop planes (unless the weather is very cold).
RD-
Unicinus is correct…if it is cold enough contrails can form at ground level…much like exhaust from a car on a cold winter day…even persistent contrails can form at ground level.
“supersaturation” refers to the air being supersaturated with respect to ice…look up “ice supersaturation” for more information. Since ice supersaturation areas can be quite large, persistent contrails often occur in clusters where many planes leave trails.
I am sure “they” are legitimately concerned…that does not mean they can’t be wrong or can’t be ill-informed. Moreover, I never once called them liars. Do not put words in my mouth. I said they were ignorant of the information needed to truly know what they were looking at.
The FACT of the matter is persistent contrails DID EXIST when I, you and they were younger. The fact that you- as an “avid” skywatcher- do not remember them doesn’t mean it isn’t so. It was so. Unicinus’ many photos on this site should help clarify that. As this paper from 1970 will attest- persistent contrails that spread out, covering the sky in haze were very much a reality 30, 40, 50 years ago- perhaps not as common but very much a reality. Sorry if you do not remember them:
http://tinyurl.com/bypwmt
(click on the PDF to read the paper)
As the author says:
“The writer himself has seen instances in which a single contrail seemed to grow until it became an overcast covering the whole sky.”
So, clearly…it was happening even if you do not remember.
Also- since it has been shown that persistent contrails are a result of normal aircraft use and have been a reality as long as aircraft have flown…then it is up YOU to prove that what you see in the sky is otherwise. The burden of proof is not on me…it is on those who claim that persistent contrails are something other than a normal result of plane flight.
That is where that pesky “evidence” comes into play. If all those legitimately concerned citizens are posting video of contrails that persist simply because they do remember them persisting when they were younger and therefore they must be part of a nefarious “spraying campaign” because they read it on the internet….well, then they are sorely mistaken and ignorant of the facts.
Where have I deceived or “dis-informed” anyone??? Alas, it is the “unsuspecting public” that has been deceived and misinformed by “chemtrail” theorists – claiming that any contrail that doesn’t dissipate is a “chemtrail” ….and that contrails didn’t persist when they were younger. Those are utterly false claims.
Why do you keep trying to ascribe a motive to me? or why must I be out to deceive and “disinform”. Why can I not simply disagree with you?
SR1419,
You say:”The fact that you- as an “avid” skywatcher- do not remember them doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
If there was something to remember, I would remember it as clearly as I remember the other details of my lifelong experiences. So would everyone else that deliberately observed contrails in detail because they were fascinated by them.
You keep on insisting that every one of us have had some kind of blackout regarding contrail behavior when we were young. Tens of thousands of us have conveniently forgotten that particular part of our lifelong observances of jet contrails. One hell of a coincidence wouldn’t you say?
You attempt to debunk all chemtrail claims by referring to photos that uncinus has posted as so called evidence. The photos that you refer to are not convincing anyone that they have blocked that part of their memory out. They certainly are not ‘proof’ that what we are seeing today existed then either simply because you can not distinguish the difference. The fact of the matter is, they look like contrails by design. At least in the beginning stages anyway. If they did not resemble contrails do you think we would even be having this discussion? How is it that you can refer to a photo of something that you claim is a persistent spreading contrail from 30 or 40 years ago and then use that as your proof that there is no chemtrail spraying going on today? One has nothing to do with the other! Just because you say so doesn’t mean it is so.
Hypothetically speaking,
If a series of planes were to release millions of gallons a clear liquid chemical that resembled drops of water does that mean that what we are seeing is ordinary rain? Of course not.
If I were to use your logic then it must be ordinary rain because I can refer you to photos and documentation that says it has been raining just like that for my entire life. Since you can not tell the two apart by looking at photos or video, it means that to claim it is anything other than normal rainfall is a conspiracy theory.
Are you beginning to see how ridiculous your non-science is? Or are you just that ignorant of the fact that you or uncinus have not provided one shred of evidence that proves that any of the documentation submitted as chemtrails are nothing more than normal contrails. Just because you refer to a picture of a contrail does not make all things contrails. If they were just normal contrails this disinformation website would be non-existent.
I am afraid that the burden of proof is on YOU. People are providing photos and videos of the visual part of their chemtrail encounters and you are telling them that they are wrong. So where is your proof that they are all wrong? Shouldn’t you be able to back it up if you are going to contradict someone?
I don’t remember persistent contrails when I was a child.
In fact I really only remember them from around 2006, I can’t say I recall ever seeing them before that time.
Does that then mean that there were no persistent contrails before 2006?
rudedog, what year did you first notice them?
wow.
…not sure what to say to you RD…your twisted logic and refusal to acknowledge fact…and therefore reality…makes it hard to truly dialog.
Do you really believe that persistent contrails did not exist prior to you noticing them?
Did you read the paper I posted from 1970 where the author specifically describes contrails that persist, spread out and cover the sky in a haze? How do you reconcile that? Do you just ignore it? Was he lying? Is it planted disinfo??
What about this description also 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.”
or this comment from 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“”
or the time lapse photos posted here from 1970- showing exactly the persisting and spreading YOU CLAIM did not happen back then:
https://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
I use it as proof- along with the peer-reviewed scientific data from that time- that persistent contrails DID EXIST prior to you noticing them. It is not proof that “chemtrails” do not exist but it is PROOF that persistent, spreading contrails did exist prior to you noticing them….
…which leads to the basis of your claim. You allege that because you didn’t notice persistent contrails until recently that they did not exist back then…and that is proof that they are not persistent contrails but “chemtrails”.
…but THEY DID EXIST prior to you noticing them…and thus NOTHING is different now accept perhaps the frequency. The behavior of the trail in the sky now is exactly as they were described and photographed 40yrs ago…but you want to say that they are somehow different and thus is “evidence”. In fact, they are not different, they are identical and thus claims of “evidence” are dubious at best.
Your only “evidence” is videos of persistent contrails…but since they have always had the ability to persist, it isn’t really evidence at all but instead utter speculation based on ignorance.
Your analogy is false…an appropriate analogy would be if you said that the liquid coming out of the clouds is not rain but really powdered aluminum…and I asked you how you knew this and you said because you did not remember liquid falling from clouds before.
See how ridiculous your claim seems?
Because persistent, spreading contrails have been observed, studied and acknowledged for over 50 years the burden of proof is on YOU to show that they are really something other than the accepted scientific fact.
If you cannot acknowledge the fact that persistent contrails that spread out covering the sky in haze DID EXIST prior to you noticing them then we are at an impasse and your refusal to accept reality is a deal breaker as far as dialog is concerned.
Good luck with that.
You guys can talk all day about how a contrail can persist and spread into a cirrus cloud and it doesn’t even matter if it is true or false.
Once again,
It does not prove that it is what you are seeing on another persons video. You talk about screwed up logic. Where is the logic in that? There isn’t any. You offer a description of a contrail as you believe it to be, therefore all other things in pictures and videos that look similar to your description of a contrail can not be anything else but a contrail? Yeah, you are mister logical and we are all to whacked out to hold a conversation with. Hokey dokey mister logical. You are right about one thing. An intellectual conversation is not possible with you if that is your definition of logic. By the way, where does one go to study for his masters degree in contrail science? Oh, why am I asking you guys? I forgot, you are only here moderating this website because you like to look at clouds as a hobby or something. You just reminded me of being back in school, except in school the teachers actually had earned some sort of a degree to show that they had mastered the field that they are teaching and are competent to pass that knowledge on legitimately and with unquestionable integrity.
If you can refrain from giving lessons on contrail 101 and actual provide some actual proof that all of the chemtrail pics and videos are only contrails them maybe you might actually gain some integrity too.
So far all you have is that they look similar to contrails, which is to be expected.
Remember, just because you say they are does not make them so. Another redundant lesson on the history of contrails does not provide the proof that is necessary either. Please! Haven’t you beat that horse to death?
Like I said, if you are going to tell someone that they are wrong, then be able to prove it with something other than your personal opinion. It’s getting old.
Rudedog:
No, what’s getting old is your continued refusal to be scientific, yet make assumptions and pronouncements on what is essentially a science topic.
It is YOU that has to back up the claim that contrails are other than water, not WE that have to prove that your baseless claim is false.
We have all the proof that we need: scientific paper upon paper quantifying the contents of contrails. What’s more, so have you. You just aren’t reading it, or maybe you aren’t capable of comprehending it.
Just consider the AMOUNT of trail material recorded for a typical trail: 16Kg per meter – from the paper “Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties”
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 16 Kg per meter.”
That means a 5000 kilometer flight (THROUGH SATURATED AIR) would put down 80,000 tons of trail material…
Whoa! Wait a minute! Isn’t a jumbo’s fuel load about 250 tons?
So where does the rest come from? Answer = OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE
IT IS ICE OUT OF THE AIR, RUDEDOG. AND A LOT OF IT.
RudeDog-
I can appreciate what you are saying…just because I say they are not “chemtrails” doesn’t mean they are not. Fair enough.
Nor is the fact that contrails persist…and have as long as aircraft have flown high enough…”proof” that ‘chemtrails do not exist.
But your logic is backwards…the burden of proof is on those who claim that what they see is something different than accepted reality.
If I show you a glass of water…and you claim it is not a glass of water but really something else- then it is up to YOU to prove it. Provide some basis for your claim.
To quote you; “Remember, just because you say they are does not make them so.”
Persistent contrails are the glass of water. The accepted scientific fact is that contrails can and do persist and spread out into a sheet of cirrus clouds (haze). This fact is not open to debate. It has been studied and proven and is a logical and known result of aircraft travel and atmospheric processes. This has been accepted FACT for over 50 years.
Oh but it does matter…greatly.
That is the starting point. All subsequent discussion about what one sees in the sky in the wake of an aircraft has to come from this point- this fact of reality.
Now, for people to claim that what they see in the wake of an aircraft is really something other than a contrail…then THEY need to provide evidence somehow.
…Just saying it is so doesn’t mean it is.
…just because they do not remember contrails persisting before doesn’t mean they didn’t…and thus, doesn’t mean that what they see persisting are “chemtrails”.
…just showing a video isn’t in any way evidence…because what it shows is behavior previously proven to be a result of normal aircraft/atmospheric behavior.
Actually, supposed “chemtrails” are IDENTICAL in looks and behavior to persistent contrails…not just similar…and thus there is a significant lack of evidence to suggest that they are anything else but contrails.
Just because a herd of like minded people congregate on the internet and speculate based on ignorance does not mean they are right.
Again- to reiterate:
*Persistent contrails exist. They can spread out into sheets of cirrus clouds. This is FACT.
*Persistent contrails have existed long before YOU remember them. This is FACT.
*Showing pictures or video of Persistent Contrails and claiming they are something else requires evidence or proof that would lend credibility to the claim.
*The fact that others believe the same thing as you doesn’t make you right.
*The burden of proof is on those who claim that persistent contrails are really something other than persistent contrails.
*So far, there is no evidence of such claims.
So, tell us RudeDog- how do YOU tell the difference between a persistent contrail and a “chemtrail” ?
Well, I saw a plane that left two trails, but one disappeared hours before the other.
The left trail was there for about 2 hours, while the right one was gone in minutes.
Explain that Mr. CIA.
That would be rather unusual. If you can see two trails, then that usually means the trails are not persisting. Usually if a trail is going to persist, the two trails will very quickly be combined into a single trails as they spread out.
There are many possibly explanations for what you saw. But they would all just be guesses, based on very little information. What do you think is most likely?
One possible explaination is that Unknown Commenter didn’t really witness said senario, but instead invented it to stump the skeptics. I am not claiming that to be the case, but it is one possibility.
For now we’ll go with the assumption that Unknown Commenter is not making this up but did indeed witness two trails, one that disappeared within minutes and another that persisted for hours.
My first question is, did you see these trails being made? How long did you observe the plane, from horizon to horizon or did you catch the plane later as it was moving away from you in the distance (with the trails mostly completed)
?
Unknown:
It could be a coincidence, where in your line-of-sight you were watching TWO aircraft flying the same course, one higher than the other (and faster, with its body obscured by the plane beneath.)
In fact, if it were painted a darker color it wouldn’t necessarily need to be obscured by the plane beneath, for “blue light scattering” would render it difficult, if not impossible, to see.
Heh, that’s the direction I was going as well, I just wanted to get a bit more information before suggesting it.
Once again I am in awe of Unc, Jazz, SR and the others. I lack the character to tolerate the kind of stupidity that surrounds those who claim to understand science and then immediately demand you prove a negative, or claim to understand logic and then immediately make a Post hoc ergo propter hoc error.
…or assume propellers and jet engines are mutually exclusive.
Sadly, what stands out is the failure of our school system. There is no excuse for high-school graduates not understanding the difference between belief and fact, measurement and perception, theory and hypothesis, or why we have an inherited error of pattern-seeking that makes us believe our own intution so much that we’ve had to come up with this thing called “science” in order to have a method of arriving at truly objective conclusions.
The other standout to me is that many people don’t quite grasp what the word “logic” means.
I can’t count the number of people I’ve met who tell me “simple logic” is enough to tell them the sun is the object heating the air around them, and thus they don’t need science to answer such questions. Simple logic indeed!
When I point out that it’s actually the earth that heats the air, not the sun (and thus why it’s colder at altitude) I’m called “moronic”.
I ask for proof.
I get charts showing it’s colder at night!
Which they think proves the sun gives off “heat”!
OH MY!
Thanks again, Unc/Jazz/SR/et al
Ruder than you, thus prouder of you,
-mm, ASEL
Well, to be fair, the sun IS directly responsible for a percentage of the heating of the atmosphere, mostly through the absorption of solar radiation by water vapor and particulates. The sun does give off heat, in the general sense of the word, but it’s probably more accurate to say it radiates, or gives off energy.
But yes, these are sometimes hard concepts for people to consider, especially if they lead to inconsitencies in their arguments.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Can’t you let a *little* unfairness creep in for the emperical side? It’s almost at the point where your resolute fairness is making _me_ suspicious!
But I realize I can be a little belittling on these subjects, which is why I keep complimenting you for your character.
My only point was that “logic” can suggest a more simple and direct connection between things, one that in this case wouldn’t lead one to naturally assume conduction is the more relevent explanation. The fact that it is cooler when no sun is in our sky can seem to “logically” support and entrench the original common sense conclusion, when in fact it’s wholly predicted and consistent under the radiation/conduction model as well. Thus “logic” (in this sense) is not the equivilent of truth, though it’s often purported to be by those who claim it as a tool equal to science.
But I’ll go back to my crabby tree and leave you to fight the good fight, making better points with your kindness than I can with mockery.
-mm
Indeed. Unfortunately logic, in the sense of predicate logic, is not particularly useful unless you start with sound axioms that cover all the variables. You can get anywhere you want if you can start anywhere you want.
Not, of course, that most people even use predicate logic when arguing pseudoscientifically. More often what is used is “common sense”, a highly malleable mental construction based on pre-existing ideas like “if bilderbergers are out to get us then what are those trails in the sky – common sense tells you they must be poison or global warming mitigation, or probably both”.
In Awe: The Sun is a self-sustained nuclear reaction, one million times the size of the Earth. The Sun emits a wide variety of radiation in all directions, including infrared radiation, which we experience as heat. Heat is the result of the excitation of molecules in a substance, whether that be the surface of the Earth, or the atmosphere (air) above it. In space, the energy travels unobstructed from its source until it strikes an object, such as the surface of the Earth, or the atmosphere above it. The energy itself is neither hot nor cold, but the amount of energy will determine how hot something gets when the energy interacts with matter.
So, yes, the surface of the Earth is warmer than the air above it, and a considerable amount of that heat in the air comes from the Earth, which is merely imparting residual heat energy that it collected from the Sun. The atmosphere becomes increasingly dense the closer you get to the surface of the Earth, and the surface of the Earth obviously is much denser than the air above it. The solar energy is absorbed by the Earth and is subsequently radiated back off. The Earth, itself, is not generating the heat – it is merely bleeding off energy that it receives from the Sun. Thinner air is not capable of retaining as much “heat” energy as denser air, or the ground, so air temperature drops as you climb higher in altitude…generally – roughly 4 degrees per 1000 feet.
We can feel the heat directly from the Sun as the energy raises the temperature of our skin, and we can feel the heat indirectly from the air around us imparting its heat energy on us as we come in contact with it.
You want proof that the Sun gives off heat? Go stand outside for a few minutes on a hot Summer day. Then go stand in the shade. It’s really not rocket science, though you could learn a lot about it just by following some NASA space shuttle and space station missions if you don’t feel like doing the study, yourself. I’m certainly no expert, but it is clear that the air, whether directly or indirectly, ultimately gets its heat from the Sun.
Well, yes. I’m sure In Awe is aware of that. He was just making that point the the heating of the atmosphere is mostly not from direct sunlight, but rather from convection from the earth. He did not mention that the earth is heated by the sun, perhaps a little too obvious. He also did not point out that some of the suns energy does actually directly heat the atmosphere, so I pointed that out.
Perhaps a diagram was needed.
This site is a farce and a FED hangout, honestly after reading all the responces from “hooked cloud” i am certianly convinced he is a government agent.
One does not need a degree in engineering to understand the concepts, your overpaid degree barely gives you an advantage to the hardened researcher, so seriously stick that mumbo jumbo up your…
“i am certianly convinced he is a government agent.”
Of course you are!
Chembuster in action
[img]https://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/P1020756.JPG[/img]
Built into a “point and deflect” camera 🙂
Ever seen the RAF flypast at the Trooping of the Colour in London? A yearly occurrence where military aircraft fly in close formation over central London.
That’s just using colored smoke though. Not contrails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW4_qWAeSXo