An explanation of those white lines in the sky behind planes.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: jbowenh

If it hung in the air it was not a fuel spillage. If it was you'd have seen it fall and then vanish into nothing in under a minute (being generous even at that).

I don't know what you saw. The possibilities are that you seriously underestimated the height of a contrail (not being condescending, it is possible due to the vast size a contrail can be, making it look far lower then it really is) or you did see something different and which doesn't conform to contrails (unless it was below minus 20 degrees and very humid at 1000ft when you saw it).

As a one off I don't think either of us can be more specific than that. If it reoccurs pictures and either FR24 data, or a time date and location within two weeks of the event (when FR24 data is deleted) would be useful.

Exactly. I truly appreciate your feedback.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: InTheLight
From your source

Contrails consist of ice particles that mainly nucleate on exhaust soot and volatile plume aerosol particles. Contrail formation is caused by the increase in relative humidity (RH) that occurs in the engine plume as a result of mixing of warm and moist exhaust gases with colder and less humid ambient air (Schmidt, 1941; Appleman, 1953).

What exactly are you trying to not understand about that?

Contrails are not just water vapour (as some are putting forth here) but may have a mix of chemicals absorbed within the mix, so contrails may indeed be classified as chemtrails in the future, once scientists find a way to accurately measure the chemical makeup.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: InTheLight
From your source

Contrails consist of ice particles that mainly nucleate on exhaust soot and volatile plume aerosol particles. Contrail formation is caused by the increase in relative humidity (RH) that occurs in the engine plume as a result of mixing of warm and moist exhaust gases with colder and less humid ambient air (Schmidt, 1941; Appleman, 1953).

What exactly are you trying to not understand about that?

Contrails are not just water vapour (as some are putting forth here) but may have a mix of chemicals absorbed within the mix, so contrails may indeed be classified as chemtrails in the future, once scientists find a way to accurately measure the chemical makeup.

I hope you can get mid air samples one day so you will finally have the answers to this difficult question. From the small amount of research done, (about 100 years worth) we have determined that the part of the trail that you see is largely water ice. When I say largely, I mean a good bit more than 99%. As has been explained a few times now, the exhaust that contains the pollutants, is present the entire time the engine runs and is largely invisible. But if you measured the trail immediately after it came out of the engine, it would contain all the nasty stuff as well as the water. After a few hundred feet, the pollution would dissipate, while the trail would move wherever the wind took it. Just as an automobile does in cold weather.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: InTheLight
From your source

Contrails consist of ice particles that mainly nucleate on exhaust soot and volatile plume aerosol particles. Contrail formation is caused by the increase in relative humidity (RH) that occurs in the engine plume as a result of mixing of warm and moist exhaust gases with colder and less humid ambient air (Schmidt, 1941; Appleman, 1953).

What exactly are you trying to not understand about that?

Contrails are not just water vapour (as some are putting forth here) but may have a mix of chemicals absorbed within the mix, so contrails may indeed be classified as chemtrails in the future, once scientists find a way to accurately measure the chemical makeup.

Then why not call anything that contains chemicals a chemtrail? Why pick on airliners, when they only provide about 2% of the overall pollution? There are many industries spewing all sorts of junk into the air. Here is a top 10 of the most polluting industries, and aviation is not among them.

I don't know if you drive a car, but if you do, rest assured that you are 'chemtrailing' the neighbourhood as you drive along.

This doesn't mean that aircraft emissions shouldn't be reduced to an absolute minimum. I just don't understand the kind of hypocrisy coming from the chemtrail camp. You're not the first person trying to move the goalposts of the chemtrail belief. It seems anything is allowed in order to justify your beliefs that there are 'chemtrails' out there, even if it means renaming a known phenomenon, namely pollution.

a reply to: payt69

It is not just a matter of water vapour transforming (with perhaps soot being the core of the ice crystal) into a contrail , but that the chemical pollution directly from plane exhaust contributes to contrail formation via extra condensation nuclei, thereby creating ever-increasing cloud cover, which, in turn, contributes to climate change. It is all part and parcel of toxic skies and changing climate.

Interesting research is slowly taking root and new measurement models (and out of the box thinking) will, I'm sure, result in surprising future findings.

“Our study,” Nenes says, “shows that certain gas phase compounds tend to stick on particles, making them ‘soapier’ and promoting their ability to form cloud droplets. This mechanism has not been considered in climate models before.”

cheme.columbia.edu...

Along with the direct effect of the contrails themselves, it has been suggested that the extra condensation nuclei emitted in the exhausts might have a climatic influence once the contrails themselves have evaporated away. Their addition could cause the number of ice particles at the tropopause to increase so much that the later formation of natural cirrus clouds is made much more likely. These additional clouds can no longer be directly ascribed to the airplane emissions and hence are not included in studies of the contrail effects. The number of cirrus clouds observed in the last decades has increased however, which may be indicative of such an effect.

www.mpimet.mpg.de...

a reply to: InTheLight

Yes, and couple that with the fact that engines produce H2O as a by-product of the engine running and burning fuel. You have more water up there every day, and more aerosols for nucleation to occur. So looking at the science, it does appear that more flights equals more clouds and more contrails.

That is how this subject needs to be discussed.

Leave the fringe topics in fringe areas, and promote real discussion about real topics.

a reply to: InTheLight

Yes. Quite so. And there is 1.25t of water produced by combustion for every 1t of jet fuel burned, adding to the water already in the atmosphere and we don't know if this is a long term time bomb we are setting up.

BUT. it is not because of anything deliberately sprayed out from the aircraft. The aircraft have no function beyond air transportation, hopefully at a profit. It has already been explained to you how chemtrail conspiracy theory centres on a secret, deliberate operation to spray *something* from aeroplanes. Therefore what you are talking about is real, and is not chemtrails. Trying to nail it to the chemtrail mast does your position more harm than good. You either genuinely don't understand that if you dilute the term chemtrail as far as you are doing it becomes utterly meaningless, as every trail of any kind becomes a chemtrail, because it has a chemical composition, like a fart or a slug trail. Or you are so desperate to justify the term "chemtrail" that anything goes and you marginalise yourself into fruit loop territory.

Given that your above post is quite correct in its general outlook, that would be a great shame.

I will try and do this as a scientist would.. I have a hypothesis, i do the experiments and come up with theory. This filling in contrail science to dispove it(nano dispersion) has got to stop. To use one comment on how contrails do or do not persist to discredit geoengineering is also not right. Many of these people are not scientist in that field but have done there own experiments. Do any researchers/published reports actually have a legal obligation to tell the truth? Is the internet filtered? Is data manipulated? Think someone should start a topic on how this affects our reasoning and thought process. seems to be a big problem on this topic. It could be something as simple as the new biofuels airlines are using? Which is another issue seperate from contrails and aerosol trails. I am not a scientist clearly bbut i do know how the process of figuring this out works. I suggest the handfull of people who continously try to discredit everyone get togehter and run the experiments for themselves. I thought i was innocent until proven guilty but when i went to court it was just the opposite. Which seems to be the premise of this topic. So lets change tactics. Instead of needing proof of its military applications weather applications. Etc. I say dispove it. Show me i am wrong in my belief. I would appreciate it. Please some one anyone help me with this this.. Even if "chemtrails, aerosol spraying, nano dispersion does not exist. There is still a way to scientifically disprove which i have yet to see.. Just a thought.

good explanation....in the thread title.....but not for the aircraft flying out of tinker and Nebraska....now you know where to look

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
good explanation....in the thread title.....but not for the aircraft flying out of tinker and Nebraska....now you know where to look

So the planes fly out of Tinker AFB and cover the globe daily with chemtrails?

That's an amazing operation. No wonder it's been kept a complete secret for over 20 years with not a single leak.