No Longer a Conspiracy Theory: CIA Director Admits Plans of Aerosol Spraying for Geoengineering

a reply to: Zaphod58

A low or medium bypass turbofan required a much narrower window to leave contrails and have them be persistent.

I have to disagree.
Under marginal contrail forming conditions, a high bypass engine can produce contrails when others won't for the reason you explained.

But it is the ambient conditions which determine persistence. Primarily humidity relative to ice. If the air is not saturated, the ice particles will sublimate and the contrail will dissipate. If the air is saturated, the ice particles cannot sublimate and the contrail will persist.

Simply put, if the air is saturated with respect to ice, contrails will persist no matter what engine type produced them.

a reply to: Phage

And there are times when a high bypass turbofan is leaving a contrail where the atmosphere is close to saturation, where an older engine wouldn't leave a contrail at all.

We've been around on this before. High bypass turbofans leave more contrails and more persistent contrails than any other engine used prior to them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And there are times when a high bypass turbofan is leaving a contrail where the atmosphere is close to saturation, where an older engine wouldn't leave a contrail at all.

No. If the humidity is that high, both will produce contrails. Those are not marginal conditions.

a reply to: Phage

Ok, you know, you're right. Again. High bypass turbofans don't leave more persistent contrails than older engines.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Contrails can form and develop into cirrus clouds when T < −39°C and Rhi > 100% because, in many instances, aircraft exhaust temporarily raises the local Rh above 100% as it mixes with the ambient air causing nucleation of liquid droplets that freeze instantly. Therefore, contrails can add to the natural cirrus coverage when T < −39°C and Rhi > 100% and no natural cirrus cloud is already present (Fig. 1). If Rhi < 100%, contrails can form but will not persist.

journals.ametsoc.org...(2004)017%3C1671:CCTAC%3E2.0.CO;2

So what i am getting from this thread is --It is ok for a plane to cover up a lovely summer day for all below it


But little old me lights up one smoke and people look at you like the devil

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Dear sir/maddam

You are wrong.

Kind regards

Mr Chadwickus
C/O Abovetopsecret.com LLC

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

The sky has been filled with geo-engineering (spraying) for years. It is a daily practice in the North East especially prior to any storms. There is a lot more to just blocking the sun they are manipulating the weather for other than honorable reasons, U.N. agenda for control of the masses. Figures don't lie but liars figure. The younger generation sees the chem-trails as normal activity it has been there all of their lives. Perception is reality

a reply to: gimcrackery

"Especially prior to any storms"?

You have cause and effect backwards. It is the approaching storm that causes the contrails to form and persist, by raising the humidity. You might as well say that the sound of engines causes traffic, because you can hear the cars before you see them!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Phage

Ok, you know, you're right. Again. High bypass turbofans don't leave more persistent contrails than older engines.

I agree with Phage Zap. The high bypass engine WILL create a contrail where a low bypass one won't, as per the NASA experiment with a 707 and a A340 that we are familiar with. But that is nothing to do with persistence.

Once a contrail has formed it will either sublimate, or persist, or persist and spread, according to ambient atmospheric conditions. These conditions cannot be affected by the engine type, they are the atmosphere itself.

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Well when you respond to me in a arrogant and condescending tone I'm not apt to take anything you say seriously. So try again in a polite manner while making a clear and consise argument and perhaps I will entertain your opinion. Have a great day

Regardless of whether you think he's being rude, he's right

So chemtrails always existed, no one happened to notice them... 20 years ago. We stared at the sky and took photos daily. Dont call me a liar.

If you got proof that the jet technology is differ now, then upload it in the form of a pdf file from the turbine manufacturers, AND STOP YAPPING.

a reply to: BigBangWasAnEcho

Old:
JT8D

New:
PW4000-112

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
We stared at the sky and took photos daily.

Hence the photos showing persistent contrails in the sky going all the way back to WWII

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
So chemtrails always existed, no one happened to notice them... 20 years ago. We stared at the sky and took photos daily. Dont call me a liar.

If you got proof that the jet technology is differ now, then upload it in the form of a pdf file from the turbine manufacturers, AND STOP YAPPING.

Are you seriously suggesting that jet engine technology has not changed in over 20 years?

And let's say the huge amount of easily Google-able info on aeroplane engines makes you understand how wrong you were, is it really so inconceivable that changing engines might affect the contrails they form ?

I mean..makes sense to me.

Before jumping to a global conspiracy on an unprecedented scale that has gone on leak free for 20 years, maybe you should first wonder if newer, more efficient engines are more likely to leave trails. Or maybe less likely (its the former by the way)

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
So chemtrails always existed, no one happened to notice them... 20 years ago. We stared at the sky and took photos daily. Dont call me a liar.

this one is from 1963.

Gov admitting its for GEOENGINEERING renders chemtrails are likely suspect of other 'real' reason.

Afterall, why be chemtrailing for decades as you were and now only so much later 'admit' something about it?

In other words, they hid any reason at all for decades, that now that they're giving a supposed reason, it is thus highly suspect - of being disinfo.

It still does not even remotely mean Contrails are Chemtrails.

Really that's all there is to it.

a reply to: Planette

There still isn't any evidence that it's been going on for decades, or is even going on now.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

If we knew the answer to that, it wouldn't be classified.

Or it could be pure speculation and we're all wrong. I think the conspiracy 'theory' business has been around so long, half of us are bewildered by it's provocation.