It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What I think Of Chemtrails

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: waynos

I actually disagree with this particular conclusion. If RHI is low, ain't no engine gonna make a trail at all, much less make one persist. The high bypass engine is more likely to create a contrail than a turbojet, where conditions are borderline, simply because the bypass engine is pumping out more water in a cooler, more voluminous exhaust. But if the weather conditions are such that any jet trails are quickly sublimating, so will the trail from the bypass engine because they don't use different physics. When trails persist, they all do (different conditions at different levels notwithstanding)


This conclusion was based on the fact, that under the right conditions of course, an actual contrail IS formed, it would dissipate slower, than before the engine upgrade.
As I understand it from the quote of stosh64, ice crystals are more transparent and are thus less heated by the sun, taking longer to melt. Tell me if this wrong.



I agree generally, though looking at it logically, not quite so much as, on days conducive to trails persisting and spreading, it's impossible to say there wouldn't have been a covering of natural cirrus even if planes were all gliders.


Believe it or not, I can distinguish naturally formed cirrus from aircraft formed cirrus, which isn't that hard.
On days with a clear blue sky, I've watched planes create contrails in straight lines. Nothing wrong with that, however after a while they spread out and get slightly thinner until they touch each other.
Wait a while longer and you can't seperate individual lines anymore, because they now form a uniform cover, which looks like natural cirrus, but was in fact artificially created hrs before by aircraft.
Again, this is just a matter of simple observation if you're patient enough or spend alot of time outside like me. Don't tell me you haven't spotted this yourself at least once, as how I've described it.
Lastly, I would like to thank you for your time to respond in a civil way, unlike some others who often sound pompeous and/or patronizing imo.




posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Nothing is more subject to change than science imo. What is proven today, might be disproven ,or reevaluated tomorrow, based upon new discoveries.
What I'm trying to say is nothing is set in stone and the way I sometimes see how science is used in debate, reminds me of how religious people defend their beliefs.
I was talking in general here, no need to apply this on the contrails discussion in this thread.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

I was wondering, if contrails have indeed ever been tested reliably by independant researchers, if only to rule out the chemtrail theory?



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79

Thanks for your considered reply. Hope this isn't too rushed but I'm on a break.

When a contrail dissipates the ice crystals don't melt. The temperatures in the region where contrails form are always in the region of minus 40 to minus 50 degrees or thereabouts, it is impossible to melt water ice at this temperature.

What is happening is called sublimation. The trail sublimates back into the air and this happens because the relative humidity is at a level (below 100%) where the ice and moisture are basically absorbed, (for want of a better word in a hurry).

When a trail persists it is because RHI is over 100% and sublimation is not possible, the air is "full" of moisture if you like. When RHI is this high moisture can nucleate and freeze out of the air and this is what is happening when a trail spreads. It's not really spreading out as such, new ice is forming.

Must go now, but will return to this when I have time.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Continued from above.

This is why different engine types don't make trails last longer, if the ice is able to sublimate, it will. However it was created. So persistence is completely reliant upon ambient conditions. However in conditions where a turbojet or low bypass engine isn't putting out enough moisture to form a trail, a high bypass engine may be just over the level required so a contrail will form, but you don't get a persistant spreading trail from a Trent or a GENX in the same conditions that a Conway or JT8D Only leaves a short one.

This leads into the second part of your reply. When you say you are able to tell the difference between naturally formed cirrus and cirrus created by aircraft (a neat trick in itself, I can't and don't know anyone who can) I don't think you quite understood the point I was making.

However clear and blue the sky is to begin with, a contrail will only persist and spread if the RHI is high enough. All blue skies get clouds in them eventually and this did not begin when planes were invented
If a contrail can cause a cover of cirrus though spreading, the conditions exist (must exist) for natural cirrus to form as well. I'm not saying you can't identify when cirrus cover was triggered by a plane, this is fairly self evident as you say. An aircraft may well have triggered the process, but even if no aircraft flew over there are millions of nucleation particles in the air naturally and its impossible to say that cirrus wouldn't have formed all by itself on that particular day.
edit on 22-10-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: waynos

I was wondering, if contrails have indeed ever been tested reliably by independant researchers, if only to rule out the chemtrail theory?



But independent of whom? Contrail testing has been carried out by various organisations, independent of each other, and for different reasons, but if one is of the opinion that a mysterious PTB is in charge of everything then not very much is going to be convincing. Nobody in aviation (as far as I know) has tested specifically for chemtrails because everyone I know in the field regards chemtrails as lunacy and believers as idiots, lacking the brains they were born with. Harsh (even in my opinion) but there it is.

I always come back to the question of why though. Why would anyone be looking?

Looking at contrails for chemtrails, when claims of chemtrails depend upon the lie that contrails cannot persist, is like looking at the DNA of all horses for evidence of Unicorns or all the people that have lived in the Arctic circle to see if they are Santa Claus.

I have more mundane reasons for not believing, such as the weight of a contrail being far greater than the lifting capacity of any existing aeroplane (for something to have been sprayed from a plane, it must have been carried within it, and contrails are truly massive and often hundreds of miles long) and that only water in the atmosphere can behave or look like what are supposed to be chemtrails. Not to mention that there is no logistical evidence whatsoever of an operation that would need to be massive and employ thousands. Chemtrail theory is defeated by common sense, for anyone in any way familiar with aviation. testing appears superfluous and merely pandering to the scammers, lending them a veneer of credibility they don't deserve.

Unless one is confusing chemtrails with geoengineering or cloud seeding? Which they are not, but that's another topic.
edit on 22-10-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79




What is proven today, might be disproven ,or reevaluated tomorrow, based upon new discoveries.


Well that leaves chemtrails out, as they have yet been proven to exist.



What I'm trying to say is nothing is set in stone and the way I sometimes see how science is used in debate, reminds me of how religious people defend their beliefs.


Much like those who believe in chemtrails...go figure.



I was talking in general here, no need to apply this on the contrails discussion in this thread.


Why not contrails are scientifically explainable...are chemtrails?

And this thread is about chemtrails correct?

Contrails are always called chemtrails, so by that fact we come back around to the scientifically explainable discussion, so how does it no apply to this thread?



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79




I was wondering, if contrails have indeed ever been tested reliably by independant researchers, if only to rule out the chemtrail theory?


Here you go...

www.dlr.de...#/gallery/3404



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I'm always fond of line by line nitpicking, if you didn't get my point then nevermind.



Why not contrails are scientifically explainable...are chemtrails?

And this thread is about chemtrails correct?


Where did I come off to you as an orthodox chemtrail zeolot in your eyes?
(subject line sure did attract some attention though, didn't it)
One of the reasons I started this thread is to state my observation of the sky and I still think it's not normal, call it contrail or chemtrail.
Thankfully I did learn some new stuff from people, who care to respond in an informative way.
Apparently even mentioning the sky in combination with airplanes sets off certain alarms, because I immediately get jumped by the "contrail" police, judging me for whatever.
Maybe in a few years, when people try to remember how blue skies use to look like in the past, will they regret not being more critical of their surroundings.
And that's all I'll say about that.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thank you for the link, much appreciated.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos


Nobody in aviation (as far as I know) has tested specifically for chemtrails because everyone I know in the field regards chemtrails as lunacy and believers as idiots, lacking the brains they were born with. Harsh (even in my opinion) but there it is


I totally agree, however as I've originally stated, that I can't remember contrails spreading and persisting as they do now, in contrast to when I was young, I would've thought that someone did want to take a closer look at it.
Unless you think my memory is faulty and it was the same in the 80's as now. (Apart from increased air traffic)
That was my observation point intended in my OP.
So in that light, I can't blame people for calling them chemtrails, because imo contrails are different than in the past.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos


If a contrail can cause a cover of cirrus though spreading, the conditions exist (must exist) for natural cirrus to form as well. I'm not saying you can't identify when cirrus cover was triggered by a plane, this is fairly self evident as you say. An aircraft may well have triggered the process, but even if no aircraft flew over there are millions of nucleation particles in the air naturally and its impossible to say that cirrus wouldn't have formed all by itself on that particular day.


This sounds somewhat contradictory to me.
Of course the conditions would be the same for natural cirrus as for airplane triggered cirrus.
My point in the first place was, that without the airplanes, the sky wouldn't be as painted as you can often see.
Or do you imply, that without the planes in my description, the sky would fill up naturally with cirrus in that way?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: waynos


If a contrail can cause a cover of cirrus though spreading, the conditions exist (must exist) for natural cirrus to form as well. I'm not saying you can't identify when cirrus cover was triggered by a plane, this is fairly self evident as you say. An aircraft may well have triggered the process, but even if no aircraft flew over there are millions of nucleation particles in the air naturally and its impossible to say that cirrus wouldn't have formed all by itself on that particular day.


This sounds somewhat contradictory to me.
Of course the conditions would be the same for natural cirrus as for airplane triggered cirrus.
My point in the first place was, that without the airplanes, the sky wouldn't be as painted as you can often see.
Or do you imply, that without the planes in my description, the sky would fill up naturally with cirrus in that way?


I'm not sure what part you find contradictory? Obviously contrails wouldn't be there at all without planes, I think we agree on that point. What I'm saying is that on days where those contrails spread out to completely cover the sky with cloud, how can it be said that clouds would not have formed naturally? This makes no sense to me as, when weather conditions aren't conducive to cloud cover, the contrails from the same number of planes going overhead simply disappear.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: waynos


Nobody in aviation (as far as I know) has tested specifically for chemtrails because everyone I know in the field regards chemtrails as lunacy and believers as idiots, lacking the brains they were born with. Harsh (even in my opinion) but there it is


I totally agree, however as I've originally stated, that I can't remember contrails spreading and persisting as they do now, in contrast to when I was young, I would've thought that someone did want to take a closer look at it.
Unless you think my memory is faulty and it was the same in the 80's as now. (Apart from increased air traffic)
That was my observation point intended in my OP.
So in that light, I can't blame people for calling them chemtrails, because imo contrails are different than in the past.


Everyone's memory is faulty to some degree. Memory is notoriously fickle and unreliable, this is a proven fact. Have you never been surprised with something that elicited the response "ooh, I don't remember that?". Being plane-mad from a very young age I remember noticing, and asking my dad why, some plane trails are short and some very long in the early 1970's. He didn't know, so I decided to find out for myself as soon as I could.

You seem to presume that the increase in size and number of persistant trails came as a surprise. It didn't. The first bypass engines were created fairly early in the jet age and the development and testing of high bypass engines started in the 1960's when development of the 747 and C-5 demanded more power. It was realised even then that ever bigger turbojets were NOT the way to go for very large aircraft. Factor in the first major fuel crisis in 1973 (that killed Concorde stone dead as a commercial prospect) combined with noise protests (you should have heard a Trident take off!!!) and it became increasingly obvious that the quieter, more efficient bypass engine was desirable across the airline fleets of the world, not just very large types. Starting from the 1980's through to today you now get aircraft in all classes powered by these engines. Even the Dornier 328JET is a turbofan conversion of an earlier propeller driven model, and it only seats 36 passengers. So it's not only the increased numbers of aircraft that are to blame, it's that this engine type is now almost universal. The quest for fuel savings pushes the bypass ratio and power rating ever upwards so that the 747, powered by FOUR RB211 or JT9 engines with a bypass of around 50% is largely replaced now by the similarly sized TWO engined 777-300 with a bypass of 90%. New types of engine that are even more efficient, and thus more likely to leave contrails, are flight testing right now.

I can't blame people who aren't familiar with any of this geekiness wondering what they are seeing, but I can blame them for believing agenda-led cash-generating websites that shout chemtrails loudly without doing proper research.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Apparently even mentioning the sky in combination with airplanes sets off certain alarms, because I immediately get jumped by the "contrail" police, judging me for whatever.



Oh well if it was an echo chamber you were after then maybe you should have posted your question on a chemtrail site or FB group where you're preconceived notions could be affirmed and any dissenting voices are censored




posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Nope sun is white because of spectral emission band change.

Sun is emitting more in the UV bands



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79




I'm always fond of line by line nitpicking, if you didn't get my point then nevermind.


Not nitpicking... I just comment on what I think needs commenting on.



Where did I come off to you as an orthodox chemtrail zeolot in your eyes?


Never said you were.



One of the reasons I started this thread is to state my observation of the sky and I still think it's not normal, call it contrail or chemtrail.


Well that's fine, but you disregard any explanation of what your seeing because to you it doesn't look normal...why is that?

And what exactly do you consider normal?



Apparently even mentioning the sky in combination with airplanes sets off certain alarms, because I immediately get jumped by the "contrail" police, judging me for whatever.


Because at ATS we know most won't create threads about contrails, so the only other thing is chemtrails...and nobody is judging you, they are trying to help inform you.



Maybe in a few years, when people try to remember how blue skies use to look like in the past, will they regret not being more critical of their surroundings.


And I bet they still blame it on chemtrails.



And that's all I'll say about that.


Feel better now that you talked about it?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

How brave of me then to post this thread on site like ATS, on a forum called Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails...



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Ok, no ill feelings.
What I consider normal is clear skies, when there oughta be clear skies and cloudy skies if nature creates them.


Feel better now that you talked about it?

Yes, I do. Thank you for asking.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

To clarify what I found contradictory:


This leads into the second part of your reply. When you say you are able to tell the difference between naturally formed cirrus and cirrus created by aircraft (a neat trick in itself, I can't and don't know anyone who can)

in combination with


I'm not saying you can't identify when cirrus cover was triggered by a plane, this is fairly self evident as you say.

Might be my mistake for not using more quotes in the reply.



This makes no sense to me as, when weather conditions aren't conducive to cloud cover, the contrails from the same number of planes going overhead simply disappear.

That's right, however if the planes weren't there (in the right cloud forming conditions), there would be clear skies.
So am I now just complaining about the presence of airplanes in the sky? (was just pondering that myself...)
Maybe, to a certain degree. But I still think, the way I see contrails form and spread nowadays in comparison to say 20-30 yrs ago, is very different and I'm not the only one who thinks so, after consulting lots of people about it.




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join