Chuck Norris and chemtrails

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
geo-engineering has been openly discussed and patents have been issued in relation to it

this is one theory I believe has merits

Oh ok... you must be new around here.

This has been discussed at great length on this forum. The problem is:

1: Geo-engineering is indeed being proposed as a last ditch effort to save the planet. But it's not being done in any of it's forms right now. Even if it were, it wouldn't look like white lines in the sky, because those are contrails.

2: Patents only mean that someone has an idea on how to make a certain device. What you need to show is that the device has been buiilt, is functional and in use. None of this has been done in regard to chemtrails yet. Instead, all we've seen are misidentified known devices such as pylon drains, flap fairings, jet engines, pitot tubes, static dischargers, etc.

This is because generally chemtrail believers know very little of aviation or meterology. Yet they are staunch believers that the government/illuminati/aliens/whatever are out to get us, and will cling to anything that will confirm this bias. So sadly we're still stuck with this silliest of beliefs, despite a complete lack of evidence.

btw this just came to me: maybe Chuck Norris should now be renamed to 'Chuck Noory'.

I thought that was really clever

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Newt22

However, a contrail (or "chemtrails" as some people call those white trails behind high-altitude aircraft) is NOT engine exhaust. Those white trails are the moisture in the air (and some water from the exhaust) freezing into ice crystals. The ice crystals form in the super-cold air at altitude due to the warm, moist exhaust (and some small amounts of soot) creating nucleation points onto which the moisture in the air can attach onto, then freeze, which turns the previously invisible water vapor into visible ice crystals.

As network dude mentioned above, it's like a man-made cirrus cloud. Cirrus clouds are also made of visible ice crystals that have condensed out of the invisible moisture in the air.

That is a good point... I can see how compression and warm exhaust, with ambient moisture alone can cause this ice crystal formation , and at altitude it remains frozen. It is the preponderance, just like Network said (thought not this exact point) 4000+ increase in jet use... I know engines, seen what 'fast' eats on just on drag motorcycles. That is exhaust is also invisible here on the ground, as well, to a point... Jet exhaust directly correlates to fuel used... 4000+ increase in jet use.... 4000 times more exhaust,. Invisible does not mean absent. What is 'just that' pollution (every rain drop needs a dirt particle) doing cloud forming? Clouds are not innocuous fluffy bunnies... they are a manifestation of a very violent gas that reacts to heat... Sometime they turn into 'the fingers of God'... Are we completely cognizant of repercussions of this activity? High level particulates. That alone makes me want to study. Chem-trails... Who knows... Pollution? I remember the 70's very well before we started cleaning up the place so to speak. China also shows... pollution kills, even here, on the ground...And if it gets thick enough, you can see it. My lakes are cleaner then ever now, but, what of my high skies? What is a 4000+ increase doing?

edit on 6-5-2016 by Newt22 because: Spelling

a reply to: Newt22

But if your concerns lead you to study chemtrails, you will end up in a cul de sac of wild theory and baseless belief systems.

Better, perhaps, to take the genuine path of looking at the effects of pollution and the different sources thereof. Pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is a very serious topic. Chemtrails is a folly.

I will say that, high bypass engines produce up to 90 per cent of their power by simply compressing uncombusted air, with combustion producing the other ten per cent. With aircraft carrying up to 500 people per journey, this makes them the most efficient and least polluting form of powered transport.

Why are cars, buses, ships etc ignored while you concentrate on aircraft? It's not because you see those white contrail lines in the sky is it?

Then what of industry and power generation plants?

But planes are the big problem. Ummm ok.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Newt22



Better, perhaps, to take the genuine path of looking at the effects of pollution and the different sources thereof. Pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is a very serious topic. Chemtrails is a folly.

That is a good point, and, something to think about. I remember back in the 90's, when global warming was just 'warming up'. I could see the lines between Global Warming and Air Pollution were decoupling the argument of Air Pollution from our common dialogue... We stopped talking about one to argue about the other.

It, again, is the preponderance. Did the skies milk out before, when traffic was lower? If there is an increase, how does that affect our (natures) very delicate balance? Like 1000 square acres of corn (mono-culture agriculture kills off wildlife)... a wildlife desert saved for a very specific few. If it were the old days of small family farms, bordered, we would not have the same issue - even with the same output... there would be farmstead borders and breaks, tractor accesses... the corn desert effect seems to only happen when there is so MUCH of that one thing... the size changes the game. What is a 4000% increase doing? It is speculated that the size of the Buffalo Herds of the Midwest were so vast that they 'Terra-formed' the earth. Like the Airliners in the sky, the preponderance was the catalyst.

originally posted by: Newt22

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Newt22



Better, perhaps, to take the genuine path of looking at the effects of pollution and the different sources thereof. Pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is a very serious topic. Chemtrails is a folly.

It, again, is the preponderance. Did the skies milk out before, when traffic was lower?

Yes they did and they effects were being studied as far back as 1970

www.researchgate.net...

If there is an increase, how does that affect our (natures) very delicate balance? Like 1000 square acres of corn (mono-culture agriculture kills off wildlife)... a wildlife desert saved for a very specific few. If it were the old days of small family farms, bordered, we would not have the same issue - even with the same output... there would be farmstead borders and breaks, tractor accesses... the corn desert effect seems to only happen when there is so MUCH of that one thing... the size changes the game. What is a 4000% increase doing? It is speculated that the size of the Buffalo Herds of the Midwest were so vast that they 'Terra-formed' the earth. Like the Airliners in the sky, the preponderance was the catalyst.

And are still being studied

www.atmos-chem-phys.org...

a reply to: mrthumpy

Here's another study about how persistent contrails can cause an overcast, this one published in 1972.

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
(This links directly to a PDF file)


Excerpt:

... If sufficient air carrier traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in ice budget in individual contrails...

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

how did they do this study back in the early 70's? The skies never used to look like this when I was a kid.............

I am very hesitant to post a response on this one, but I also feel that there are certain things that need be said.
I'll not make a statement directly on the subject of this thread, but will give you a mathematical comparison.

Today, the average person, outside, receives in less than twenty minutes, the same amount of UV exposure, that back in the 1960s, a person would receive in approximately two hours and thirty minutes of exposure.

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: network dude

Yeah, I saw that too. Actually, I think the video I glanced at was titled something like "Did Merle Haggard and Prince die from the chemtrail flu"....

Sad state of affairs.
Celebrities cannot just die, everyone that is a victim of terrorism is a "crisis actor"...there is no violence in this world, no death....only butterflies, rainbows, unicorns, etc etc...

I always thought unicorns ATE butterflies? KILL the unicorns! They are decimating the butterfly population. That is why they are in a global decline.....that and those pesky chemtrails that poison them from 5 miles up.

originally posted by: flatbush71
I am very hesitant to post a response on this one, but I also feel that there are certain things that need be said.
I'll not make a statement directly on the subject of this thread, but will give you a mathematical comparison.

Today, the average person, outside, receives in less than twenty minutes, the same amount of UV exposure, that back in the 1960s, a person would receive in approximately two hours and thirty minutes of exposure.

Citation needed

According to NASA, UV exposure has increased since the 70s, but stabalised since the 90s:

www.nasa.gov...

According to Dane Wigington the current levels of UV received on earth are up to 4 times higher then you'd receive in space. But then science was never his forte

www.metabunk.org...

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Can't those chemtrail people ever get anything right? lol

a reply to: payt69

I guess "chemtrails" are now responsible for that ozone hole, which allowed more UV to reach the ground during that period? The ozone hole that resides above 30,000ft, by the way. So, does the chemicals released go UP or DOWN now?

I get confused playing this game of darts when someone keeps moving the dartboard in the middle of the game.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: payt69

I guess "chemtrails" are now responsible for that ozone hole, which allowed more UV to reach the ground during that period? The ozone hole that resides above 30,000ft, by the way. So, does the chemicals released go UP or DOWN now?

I get confused playing this game of darts when someone keeps moving the dartboard in the middle of the game.

You're doing it wrong. It's not about scientific facts, but about 'Looking up' and seeing that the 'chemtrails' are there. if you can't see them, you have blinders on and are one of the sheeple. That's how things work in the wonderful world of the chemtrailcult

a reply to: mrthumpy

Thanks for the replies Mr Humpy and Soylent G. I can't read past the first page of the first link without a sign in, but the 72 study is a nice start. Appreciate the links and the grown-up discussions... Will get back to you after more reading. I wonder what will shake out in those studies. If I do recall right, the science people had chosen 'Little Ice Age' as the flavor du jour up until the late 80's.

Arrgghh wait, I almost forgot (see)... those are my memories, so, I must be wrong... After all, Network and Krakatoa do not like to utilize their memories... Oh my, yes, so very special....

a reply to: Newt22

It was a joke. If you frequent the chemtrail threads, you see the same claims, over, and over, and over.
"The skies never used to look like that when I was a kid" and then you try to explain about the huge increase in air traffic, only to be called a shill, and ignored. But when you see just one person rise above the cult teachings and actually start to think for themselves and research this using real sites, it kind of makes it all worth while.

a reply to: network dude

Cool Network Dude... and you do see that ol' yarn a lot. "When I was a kid... " I was caught out and guilty using it! Pretty soon I am going to cough and talk/laugh at the same time... You know what they say ..."Once you wear black socks with shorts..." Well, yeah, got that to look forward to. Woo. Actually, I like different ideas and thoughts on stuff, just teasing back a little. To tell the truth, I don't know enough to know what on this subject... yet... All points shall be entertained... As it is, this is not even in the autodidact list so I probably won't have a conclusion for some time...

a reply to: Newt22

As long as you look at both sides, you will come out on the correct side.

You are gonna like the way you look, I guarantee it.

New to this website. Question to anyone that knows, what does cloud seeding look like then as opposed to a contrail? All i keep seeing mentioned by people in this thread is contrail but nothing regarding cloud seeding, which appears to be a real thing governements have for years admitted to doing in some capacity. Thank you.

a reply to: SelectStart



As you can see in the video, cloud seeding needs an existing could to be done. Contrails are man made cirrus clouds and they come from the back of the engines on the planes when conditions are right. Contrails can be made in a clear blue sky, or a cloudy one, but they are made, whereas cloud seeding must already have a cloud present and you likely won't see it taking place from the ground.

a reply to: SelectStart

It doesn't look like anything from the ground really. Most commonly, you'll see a light aircraft disappear behind a cloud and within 30 minutes it will rain. Even that could be a coincidence.

Which is likely why those who call contrails 'cloud seeding' are openly mocked.