How does a chemtrailer explain this?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: smurfy

but I think it is safe to say that that what goes in, is not what comes out, novel chemistry is at work in the high temperatures of a jet engine.

But this is combustion, not alchemy. I don't think any elements are being transmuted in a jet.

If you don't think so, ask.

Your claim, your legwork.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

No, I mean that they persist when they wouldn't previously. If you watch contrails not persisting for a week, and suddenly they start persisting, then that's a damn good clue that a front is moving in.

That's weather watch, all well and good, it's now't to do with a contrail per se, the subject here, which, as given is a ambiguous photograph, along with a dodgy prognosis.
I don't often disagree with Soylent, who does a lot a deal of infoseeking, as well as what he already knows. The difficulty I have is that the sentence of Soylent's I quoted is in a different paragraph than the one dealing with weather fronts, that could be misleading.
As for persistence, yes, they could be more persistent all according to the conditions that prevailed before, there is no wouldn't to advance specifically.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: smurfy

but I think it is safe to say that that what goes in, is not what comes out, novel chemistry is at work in the high temperatures of a jet engine.

But this is combustion, not alchemy. I don't think any elements are being transmuted in a jet.

Abstract,

"EXCAVATE was conducted at Langley Research Center in late January, 2002, and focused upon assaying the production of aerosols and aerosol precursors by a modern commercial aircraft, the Langley B757, during ground-based operation. The experiment was motivated by remaining uncertainties in the post-combustion fate of jet fuel sulfur contaminants and the need to obtain observations for evaluating the impact of terminal area aircraft operations upon local air quality. Sponsored by NASA‘s Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project (AEAP) and the Ultra Effect Engine Technology (UEET) Program, EXCAVATE objectives included determining exhaust black carbon levels and gas ion densities as a function of plume age and engine power; the fraction of fuel S converted from S(IV) to S(VI) as a function of engine power and fuel S level; the concentration and speciation of volatile aerosols and gas-phase acids as functions of engine power, fuel S, and plume age. To accomplish these objectives, participants from NASA Langley, NASA Glen, the Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerodyne, and the University of Minnesota, placed fast-response instruments downstream of well characterized aerosol and gas sample inlets and acquired measurements behind both the Langley T-38 (J85-GE engine) and B757 (RB211) aircraft at sampling distances ranging from 1 to 35 meters as the engines burned fuels of various sulfur concentrations and ran their engines at settings ranging from idle to near take-off power. Preliminary observations indicate that chemion densities were very high in the exhaust of both aircraft, consistent with values that are presently being used in microphysical models of aerosol formation in exhaust plumes. Both aircraft were found to emit high concentrations of organic aerosols, particularly at low power settings and to produce black carbon concentrations that increased with engine power. Although observed aerosol size distributions and number densities were highly dependent upon the sample dilution ratio, total particle emission indices for the B757 were typically a factor of 10 higher at 25 to 35 meters than at 1 meter behind the engine. The concentration of sulfate aerosol were directly dependent upon the fuel sulfur level and increased considerably as sampling took place progressively further downstream of the exhaust plane, suggesting that sulfate particles form and undergo rapid growth within aircraft exhaust plumes. Our observations also indicate that aerosol concentrations and characteristics take several minutes to reach equilibrium values after changes in engine power. This was particularly notable when the engines were reduced from high to low power, a situation that would be found during aircraft taxi and landing cycle."

The important bits are aerosols, organics and chemions, and post-combustion fate of jet fuel, the formers more than suggest that polymers can be formed in the exhaust processes through accretion, that the dynamics are pluralised all according to engine settings and perhaps sophistication of the engine, or engines et al.

a reply to: smurfy
Where is the part about elements changing to other elements or unidentifiables in the exhaust?

Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I get the impression you're trying to rationalize a lack of ''chemtrail'' juice evidence in exhaust. No?

a reply to: visitedbythem

I live in Orange County, Ca, and I can confirm that around 2011 through 2013 I used to see multiple jets in the same quadrant of the sky making grid patterns with the con/chemtrails. They would always fan out in to clouds and it was usually followed by a light drizzle during the night.

a reply to: Voyaging

The weather was already coming. Weather shapes contrails, not the other way around.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well that does make perfect sense based on what I witnessed. However, the strangeness for me, comes from the fact that during those times it was common to see up to 8 planes all trailing the sky in massive grids. I have not noticed any plane activity like that in years.

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: visitedbythem

I live in Orange County, Ca, and I can confirm that around 2011 through 2013 I used to see multiple jets in the same quadrant of the sky making grid patterns with the con/chemtrails. They would always fan out in to clouds and it was usually followed by a light drizzle during the night.

And two days earlier, the weather satellites, weather radars, and other items used for tracking weather most likely would have shown the weather front out in the Pacific Ocean moving generally eastwards toward California.

The rainy weather was already out there, and was being tracked as it headed your way. The contrail didn't spontaneously "poof" that weather into existence.

Meteorologists track weather -- it's what they do. They would know if weather was appearing out of nowhere, rather than appearing the normal way -- i.e., moving in from a direction generally west (in the U.S., most weather tracks generally from west to east, for the most part).

a reply to: Voyaging

Some of it was military traffic, tankers meeting up with receivers, others were the increased commercial traffic.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I also, keep myself up to date on the day by day weather. There usually wasn't any storm or clouds forecasted, even as early as that morning or the day before. All I'm saying is I know what I witnessed; I'm also intelligent enough not to just buy in to fear mongering b.s. I'm not saying something dastardly was being conspired against the population. I'm just saying I know what I witnessed, and it seemed out of the ordinary.

a reply to: Voyaging

It doesn't necessarily have to be a storm. Just a frontal system. The moisture in the air around it would cause the contrails to persist. Sometimes it becomes a storm further in, other times it just moves along and doesn't become anything.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand what your saying, and it very well could have been. I don't take your opinions lightly on matters like these either. However, I just cant comfortably say that I 100% agree that it was just increased commercial traffic mixed with high military traffic. It definitely could be though. Man, telepathy would be invaluable for these situations if it was a thing. I could just transmit the image I saw straight to your mind lol.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: smurfy
Where is the part about elements changing to other elements or unidentifiables in the exhaust?

Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I get the impression you're trying to rationalize a lack of ''chemtrail'' juice evidence in exhaust. No?

Far from it, the chemtrail 'juice' is there in abundance, it's just generally underplayed in some quarters for PR reasons.

a reply to: Voyaging

It was most likely mostly military. There are several MOAs off the Orange County area, and a lot of military activity goes on around there with the NTC, Edwards, and surrounding activities.

originally posted by: network dude

In this picture, you see a big cirrus deck. The cirrus clouds existed before the contrails. Now the contrails are forming and persisting all around the cirrus clouds. But not in the rest of the sky. This was Saturday at about noon.

How is it possible that the contrail that persist are ONLY doing so around the cirrus clouds? If it was spray, as chemtrail lore would have you believe, then this is impossible. I suspect that chemtrail people will willfully ignore this as they do most proof that goes against their cult belief. But at least this thread is on record and exists to show a good example of why and how contrails form and act.

Something of a rather savage thread starter but never-the-less, perhaps it might help if we could agree on a rule of thumb about how to distinguish a chem trail from a contrail.

A contrail, as a rule, tends to be short in length and dissipates as in disappears, rather quickly whereas a chem trail is usually very long, hangs in the sky for a long time, dissipates very slowly, in fact, it never really goes away but flattened out until the sky is covered by a grayish indistinct cloud.

Might this distinction help in the contrail - chem trail argument ??

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: network dude

In this picture, you see a big cirrus deck. The cirrus clouds existed before the contrails. Now the contrails are forming and persisting all around the cirrus clouds. But not in the rest of the sky. This was Saturday at about noon.

How is it possible that the contrail that persist are ONLY doing so around the cirrus clouds? If it was spray, as chemtrail lore would have you believe, then this is impossible. I suspect that chemtrail people will willfully ignore this as they do most proof that goes against their cult belief. But at least this thread is on record and exists to show a good example of why and how contrails form and act.

Something of a rather savage thread starter but never-the-less, perhaps it might help if we could agree on a rule of thumb about how to distinguish a chem trail from a contrail.

A contrail, as a rule, tends to be short in length and dissipates as in disappears, rather quickly whereas a chem trail is usually very long, hangs in the sky for a long time, dissipates very slowly, in fact, it never really goes away but flattened out until the sky is covered by a grayish indistinct cloud.

This is where the chemtrail conspiracy begins and very quickly ends. There is no rule that says a contrail cannot persist for hours and spread across the sky. This has been known for decades and the science is pretty well understood.

Unless of course you can be the first ever person to come up with a valid reason why contrails cannot persist and spread?

a reply to: Azureblue

hi - i shall simply re-cylcle a reply from another thread [ it was unanswered there ] :

ok :

please explain the mechanics of :

1 - contrail formatiom

2 - cloud formation

i dont want 10 thousand word essays - just a couple of sentences that explains the science

ETA :

oh and just to hammer it home - can you tag on an extra sentence to cover :

a - contrail dissapation

b - cloud dissapation

these 4 answers will - i hope clarify for you why the claim ` contrails do not persist ` is utter bollox

a reply to: Azureblue

perhaps it might help if we could agree on a rule of thumb about how to distinguish a chem trail from a contrail.

But first you need to show proof that chemtrails exist, then you agree on anything you want.

A contrail, as a rule, tends to be short in length and dissipates as in disappears, rather quickly whereas a chem trail is usually very long, hangs in the sky for a long time, dissipates very slowly, in fact, it never really goes away but flattened out until the sky is covered by a grayish indistinct cloud.

Oh my!

www.faa.gov...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

journals.ametsoc.org...

You cannot be serious.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Azureblue

perhaps it might help if we could agree on a rule of thumb about how to distinguish a chem trail from a contrail.

But first you need to show proof that chemtrails exist, then you agree on anything you want.

A contrail, as a rule, tends to be short in length and dissipates as in disappears, rather quickly whereas a chem trail is usually very long, hangs in the sky for a long time, dissipates very slowly, in fact, it never really goes away but flattened out until the sky is covered by a grayish indistinct cloud.

Oh my!

www.faa.gov...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

journals.ametsoc.org...

You cannot be serious.

And exactly whose rule are you referring to, because that so called rule has been debunked since the 1920's?

originally posted by: smurfy


You know very well that I have posted on the subject many, many times since 2009, and enough to know that your picture means nothing, perhaps not even truthful in essence. Anybody that says contrails, or chemtrails for that matter, cannot produce clouding is talking through their nether regions. So stop this silliness once and for all, and instead try looking for alternative reasons for why a contrail should be easily a chemtrail...more than that, what is so innocent about a 'contrail' anyway? You will have a long trail ahead yourself, much more than in your quarterly same posts here.

Absract,

"Condensation trails (contrails) are aircraft induced cirrus clouds, which may persist and
grow to large cirrus cover in ice-supersaturated air, and may cause a warming of the atmosphere.
This paper describes the formation, occurrence, properties and climatic effects of contrails. The global
cover by lined-shaped contrails and the radiative impact of line-shaped contrails is smaller than assessed
in an international assessment in 1999.
Contrails trigger contrail cirrus with far larger coverage than observed for line-shaped contrails, but still unknown radiative properties. Some model simulations indicate an impact of particles and particle precursors emitted from aircraft engines on cirrus
clouds properties. "

Polymers?

the picture means nothing? So it doesn't show a bank of cirrus clouds with persistent contrails all around it?

You've been here posting since 2009 and you still can't grasp the repeated science we have been saying since then and before? Do you not read any of our posts? Or are they to difficult to comprehend?

Contrails (as your post showed) are man made cirrus clouds. So if you have a patch of cirrus clouds at the same altitude planes are flying, there is a very good chance that the plane flying there, will leave persistent trails. (As you can see by the picture) In this instance, it proves exactly what we have been saying. Now please don't play the martyr card, it's very unbecoming.

And there isn't a way to define 'chemtrail' since my belief is they are misidentified contrails. I haven't seen ONE poster be able to back up a claim that anything seen in the sky is anything other than a contrail. have you come into some new super powers that allow you to spectrum analyze clouds from 6 miles away?