Chemtrails: Debunking the Peristent Contrail myth

According to the many scientist in question, yes.



Sources please!



I have no idea is i am not in fact claiming to be a expert at anything other than reading very large volumes of material and coming to conclusions that many people do not like for reasons they can not ever seem to explain by resorting to facts and figures.



And while i might be using the information in a misleading way ( it happens even to experts) i am not sure which parts are 'false' or according to who



How do you know that the world meteorological organization does not recognize those articles ( how does that work any ways?) or the information in them? What sources will you introduce to dispute what is contained in the 'official' sources i have worked from so far?



How can that be and considered faulty and by who?













I could go on but i believe i made my point and would just like you to explain why you disagree with all of those statements. I AM interested because if what you say is true that just further undermines the claims that contrails are well understood and that we are likely to find anything as persistent, as i observed, on a more than once or twice yearly basis.



By who and what papers have they published to show up the false data that so many other scientist and organizations seems to be using?



All that the data that you can introduce to support your claims will get as fair a evaluation as i can make! I have no vested interested in believing in chem trails and i would much rather be wrong ( i little 'ego' involved here and i can easily afford being proven wrong) about them than being forced to accept their reality based on my current evidence and observations.



That seems like a claim you can easily support by quoting from the manufacturers page and it will certainly leave relatively large holes in the credibility of the people who wrote the papers i cited. Any sourced claims you can provide can but help me closer to the 'truth'!

Stellar

[edit on 30-10-2007 by StellarX]

reply to post by StellarX

---

I work for The Australian Bureau if Meteorology at Darwin Meteorological Office. If you dont believe me I can post a link to our webpage and will U2U my work email and IP address so you can check it out. Launching upper air weather balloons is my job. Everything we do has to adhere with World Meteorological Organisational Guidelines. So know disrespect but I know a hell of a lot more about upper air weather than most people on this site

reply to post by StellarX

---

Any by the way I dont disagree with all your data. I retract what I said about it all being crap. I went a little over the top and some of what I said was confusing (I also confused myself), and i apolgise to you for that. The contrail explanation you quoted was perfect. Here's our Aviation departments explanation and some of my own added input

Water vapour in air chages constantly. It condenses into water droplets and the water droplets evaporate. When evaporation exceeds condensation, the air becomes clear and dry. When condensation exceeds evaporation, clouds form. The rate of evaporation is related to the temperature as, when the temperature falls, so does the evaporation rate. Eventually a temperature is reached where two rates are the same, this is called dewpoint and at this temperature we have 100% humidity and the air is supersaturated.

Sometimes the air is clean and there are very few nuclei onto which the water particles can condense or freeze. So enter one aeroplane with engines pumping out billions of particles in exhaust gases (mainly water particles, which is the main by-product of aviation fuel) and instant condensation therefore forming clouds

The winds at the heights that jets fly is very strong, sometimes in excess of 200knots in jet streams. So if someone was pumping poisons or chemicals into the air if byu some miraculous chance they fell to the earth, the chemicals would land a very long way way from the release point. For example, something rleased above Sydney on the East coast of Australia would probably land over the ocean or somewhere in New Zealand. Its more likely to be dispersed in the air than even reach the ground which in my opininon is a very inefficent way of poisoning someone

Chemtrails or just a lot of folk flying in to London from the USA?

(taken 07.20z 3rd Nov)





A close up taken half an hour later:




[edit on 3-11-2007 by Essan]

I am happy simply looking at the data you present; working in a given field does not make your assumptions the 'truth' any ways.



I suppose it should if they are going to be measuring world wide climate change so why are you telling me what is automatically presumed? Does the WMO dictate to you what the current climatic 'truth' is and how your standards should be adapted to come up with the same measurements?



Knowing more about a given subject matter is a great start but if much of the knowledge you have is based on 'standards' that were handed down to you it is NOT a guarantee of anything.



It's not MY data your disagreeing with but since apologies are so rare i'll claim this one.



We are all prone to becoming a little fanatical when we are acting in defense of standards and facts we have never had reason to question. Thanks for admitting that are in fact human.



I would appreciate it if you can tell me which parts of the last three paragraphs are 'official' and which parts were added by yourself. As i understand Patrick Minnus, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, the amount of water is very significant :



But the following gives me pause :





Presuming that the chemicals are primarily intended to reach the ground to achieve the desired result. You may not know what i think the purpose of chem trails are but i can assure you that any health effects are in my opinion incidental to the primary motivation.

Stellar

Still waiting for someone to debunk these photos of persistent contrails and show that they are really chemtrails (or else, explain the difference )

Taken 08z this morning:

Contrails or chemtrails?

This is the scene half an hour later (08.30z). Looks like those contrails are spreading out across the sky .....

I'd post some photos of Malaysian "chemtrails" too, but it's the monsoon season right now (actually it's almost always monsoon season) so there are more cumulus clouds than there are cirrus.

reply to post by Essan

---

I'm not educated in this field, but my concern with the trails is that they form deliberate patterns. These don't seem to have been created by commercial aircraft over my area, because we don't have that much traffic. I've observed these trails being crafted over my city sometimes for an entire day, then nothing for a few days, then they're back. Just makes me wonder...

reply to post by Essan

---

now, normally, i'm one of the first to say, "thats just a contrail"

BUT

I know that a company close to where I work develops wargame solutions using a powdered metal instead of the much larger chaff, and I also know from talking to a friend who works for the Met office that these war games off the south coast of the UK often show up suddenly as a very dense cloud formation and then dissapear completely within 20 minutes dependant on other weather factors...

I think the problem with the whole chemtrails phenomena is that a lot of people just don't know what the hell they're looking at and because of this they assume its something really bad, where in reality, perhaps 1 time in 1000 ( I don't have a basis for that figure) they are seeing someone doing some dodgy chemical discharge - probably just to see where it goes!

The thing we need to establish here is:

what *is* a chem trail.

a)are we going to call anything coming out of a plane that isn't an actual contrail a chem trail? (be it fuel, water, chaff, micro chaff, wee(?) paratroopers)

or

b) does it have to be a specific act of spraying some noxious chemical deliberately into the air for nefarious reasons as yet unknown?


If we call it a) then yes, i'll hold my hands up and say that chemtrails are common

if we call it b) then i'm going to stand my ground here and say that no, i don't believe chemtrails are common enough to warrant any mass concern.


[edit on 8/2/08 by rat256]

hmmm... a company around here got a *major* wrist slapping a while ago for doing a 50/50 cut jetA with a low grade heating kero!!! they were putting it in passenger planes too! Thats terrifying!

First, it comes to mind that if these are simply a persistent version of a jet contrail, then it means something has significantly changed in the composition of our upper atmospheric layers. To investigate this idea, it would then necessitate an enquiry into global models built on sampling data and recorded temperatures et cetera inter et alia and see if something could explain "persistence", "billowing", and "doubling" of the contrail volume.

Most are unware of the direct, semi-direct, and indirect 'air campaigns' that are going on, and they are most likely (a) what people are seeing in the 'chemtrail' phenomena or (b) a clever cover for the nefarious purposes of world elites -- which is nothing new really, as the British government engaged in aerial spraying of all sorts of horrible stuff upon the Queen's subjects and her realms of England, Scotland, and Wales. Common knowledge now, but for years people raised a cry about the same only to be told that spraying was not happening or accusations were made that the observers were either insane, troublemakers, or communists. No, in the end, it was revealed that the British government was engaged in the insane causing great trouble and hardship for the ordinary people and demonstrated themselves to be a far greater threat that any communist every had been.

Here is a link to one of the arial aersol spraying campaign websites: A.R.M. - Field Campaign

Well, the real problem is that everything coming out of a place that is an actual contrail is called a chemtrail - hence the ongoing problem of how to identify a chemtrail when alleged chemtrails always look and act exactly the same as normal contrails.

The spectrographic analysis of Contrails confirms that they are actually
"chemtrails" and not just water vapor or ice crystals as the persistent
debunker's claim.

omega.twoday.net...

portland.indymedia.org...

[edit on 11-2-2008 by whaaa]

[edit on 11-2-2008 by whaaa]

I think we could safely say that no-one says chem trails don't exsist. but when people read about chemtrails, look up and see real contrails they panic. that isn't helpful and is sending parts of this board into hysteria.

can we just say that 99% of 'things you see in the sky coming out of planes' are con trails and largely harmless and 1% are something else for reasons yet unknown.

people shouldn't stop enquiring, but should stop panicking.

please?

You cant debunk the TRUTH. Chemtrails are real... but they arent Chemical... they are glass!

Chemtrails: The Truth Is Here!

Once again, anything that comes out of the tailpipes of these aircrafts and is being left behind in our atmosphere as ‘persistent’ contrails should be investigated and tested to make sure ground-level is safe, too. But I do not know of any scientific data to debunk this persistent contrail myth. I wonder why. Hmmm.

Not sure what you mean? There is a lot is scientific research into persistent contrails and means of preventing them from forming. They don't affect the ground (they're 6 miles above our heads and subject to strong jet stream winds) but they do affect our climate and possibly our weather - inadvertently though it may be.

ie www.livescience.com...

reply to post by rat256

---

Kerosene, Diesel, and Jet Fuel are pretty much interchangeable as they are all different cuts of Kerosene anyway. The biggest difference is that Jet Fuel has additives to prevent gumming, static electricity, icing, and bacteria. It would not be a good idea to use normal Kerosene or diesel in a jet, but you can certainly use Jet fuel in a Diesel. If I recall correctly the main difference in many of the dyed Kerosene’s is the sulfur content and the taxes. You can guess which one the government got upset over:

The average temp in the U.S.( also known as the diurnal range) went up a little bit more than one degree at one point during the time when all the planes were grounded for the three days after 9/11.

P.S. that one degree in three days is staggering.

This suggests that contrails/chemtrails have a dimming affect (blocking out the sun). And that they are helping to cool the earth.

So, therefor the earth should be getting much cooler because of this but its not it is getting hotter for some reason.

When they took samples of the upper atmosphere they found that the reason why its not getting cooler is because of pollution. All those particles in the air collecting bits of water, holding in heat like a green house effect.

So it goes like this contrails/chemtrails are trying to cool the earth and pollution is trying to warm the earth and the pollution is winning.

This is why I believe the government is spraying chemtrails.

1. They want to slow or control global warming

2. The government knows that contrails cool the earth.

3. Contrails would be way more effective if they could stay in the atmosphere much longer.

Therefore they create long lasting contrails called chemtrails in order to achieve this.

Prof. Veerabhadran Ramanathan is considered to be the leading climatologist in the world. He won the Buys Ballot Medal in 1995 The prize is awarded around every ten years to an individual that has made significant contributions to meteorology.

Here is what he has to say about this. Global Dimming

[edit on 4/14/2008 by Alien Abduct]