The Chemtrail Myth

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I think I can imagine what would happen. So where back to contrails needing to be cold to form? I never denied that.

You claimed that it lingers for you so a video of that would make a difference in my thought but the videos I found of below freezing level just looked like normal condensation more concentrated then breath.

In Alaska do jets form persistent contrails at much lower altitudes?

EDIT: If it's that easy, in that discovery chemtrail documentary, they should have made a box with climate control and showed the way temperature effects how long condensation persists. Instead of proving that putting crap in the fuel ruins the plane(who could have guessed:lol

I WANT to be proven wrong here. If it could be shown that lower temperature = longer condensation life then that would be pretty much an end to the contrail conspiracy.

The summer oppose to winder thing doesn't really prove much.

[edit on 4/18/2008 by Bumr055]

Originally posted by interestedalways
***Yawn***

Don't feed the trolls!!!

How many threads are you going to make with the exact same content?

What a waste of ats space.

You are the only person on the thread that is derailing and thus trolling in any fashion. I am a little tired of hearing the rest of us accused of things because we do not subscribe to your personal delusions.

Originally posted by interestedalways
***Yawn***

Don't feed the trolls!!!

How many threads are you going to make with the exact same content?

What a waste of ats space.

Agreed. This thread has offered little new except for teaching me about the black lines now.

Honestly; claiming that the black lines are 'shadows' of vapor?

Do you people realize there is no such thing as 'invisible' vapor? We call vapor in the sky 'clouds' or even contrails. And they are not invisible. Because it's water vapor. In the air.

It kind of boggles my mind to see people twist logic and science to satisfy their own skepticism. I've read enough weak explanations, it's just not worth discussing anymore.

reply to post by Bumr055


Contrail formation, and how long it lasts, is dependent on temperature, relative humidity and air pressure. Work continues to refine methods of calculating this.

You may find these papers interesting

ams.allenpress.com...

ams.allenpress.com...

ams.allenpress.com...

ams.allenpress.com...

Hopefully they will demonstrate that this is a complex subject which is mucg studied ...... odd that so much effort would be taken to try and understand chemtrails, don't you think

(especially when such research has been going on since the 1940s)

Originally posted by NewWorldOver


Honestly; claiming that the black lines are 'shadows' of vapor?

No, they are shadows of ice crystals Which are subject to the same physical laws as you and I, no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


OzWeatherman can you explain what I mentioned in my post on page 3?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We have a government sponsored report on mitigating the effects of global warming using geoengineering in 1992 & U.S congress 1st draft mentioning the term chemtrails.

So they certainly had it as an option in 1992 & a lot can be done in the space of 7 years when they were 1st mentioned on Art Bell's show.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by mclarenmp4]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Do you people realize there is no such thing as 'invisible' vapor?

I hope that was just mis-typed....otherwise, I'd like to know what you think you're walking around inhaling and exhaling.

reply to post by mclarenmp4


I can.

The bill was speculative in nature. Just because someone proposes something in a bill - which can cover just about any subject - does not mean its real. If Kunich had included "anti-fairie rifles" in his bill, would you be asking about those? Probably not.

Now then, to address some other stuff in this thread.

The first thing is respect.

ATS thrives on respect, in fact ATS all but demands respect. Courtesy is Mandatory

Just because you do not agree with something a poster has said does not imply that they are a "disinfo" agent Put your D-Ego in check and accept that you may very well be wrong. Go away and do some proper unbiased reading on the subject - and when I say unbiased I mean read from both sides of the argument. We're here to Deny Ignorance, and thats done through education and not by the use of deliberate obtuseness.

Now the site message is out of the way, the second issue is atmospheric science.

If you want to look up at the sky and say "the sky is falling chicken little" without knowing what you are discussing, then you are going to come off second best talking to a meteorologist. The conditions you experience at ground level are nothing - not one bit - like the conditions an aircraft flying at 30,000ft is experiencing. The atmosphere is not a constant. There are areas of differing temperatures, there are areas of differing moisture content, there are layers of air that are rising and falling and they are all moving at different speeds. The atmosphere is layered like an onion skin. There is a poster above who says "these things are flying over me and I can taste it" - well I'm sorry but thats just your imagination - or you are tasting the air pollution from ground-based sources because a plane at 30,000ft is 5.68 miles away from you in a vertical direction, where the windspeed can be anything from 75-200mph and moving constantly, so even if it was "spraying" there is no way in hell you are ever going to get the effects of that directly below the plane, and thats before the effetcs of atmospheric dispersal take place. In real terms its like claiming you can smell the smoke from a camp fire from 5 miles off while the wind is blowing away from you.

Thirdly, if you come into an argument like this without knowing about air lanes, stacking patterns, airport feeds and flight sciences then you need to do a whole load of research on those issues. It would also help you to know about aerodynamics and centres of gravity, and the weights and measures invoved in getting an aircraft airborne. You can't just strap things onto a civil airliner and expect the pilots and ground crews not to notice - even if you could sneak something in during maintenance the way the aircraft handles would be different. Ground staff calculate fuel loads and luggage loads before the plane takes off to ensure that it has not exceeded capacity. Sneaking several thousand gallons of aerosol dispersant on board is NOT going to be possible without someone noticing the weight increase. Unless people are seriously suggesting that every major airline and its operatives are in on this, then we're into science fiction.

Lets deny some ignorance here, not embrace it.

[edit on 18/0408/08 by neformore]

Not trying to be mean but...Just because you are a meteorologist I don't feel you are MORE QUALIFIED Than the growing number of Scientist that are backing up that they ARE REAL.

Maybe since you don't believe in them you don't research them as much as those of us who do.

There is more evidence to support them every day.

I have to feel with all the other things the government is doing why is it so hard to believe?

I surely wouldn't sing to the top of my lungs that they are "NOT REAL" with just my opinion.

I have looked at the possible connection of chemtrails and Morgellons.Now that is horribly scary.

I would never offer a strong opinion without looking at ALL THE PROOF AVAILABLE.

We have some kind of expert telling us everything is o.k. every day.BUT ...WE KNOW EVERYTHING IS NOT O.K. RIGHT ???

Originally posted by sapphirearaidia
the growing number of Scientist that are backing up that they ARE REAL.

Here at ATS, we ( me and my mouse ) expect assertions like that to be backed up with some support....do you have some sources that the readers can use for verification?

I'd like to see that. It would certainly help in my efforts to research. Please, pointing out what you perceive as a lack of research by other's is good, but guiding people to resources they may have missed, is better.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by sapphirearaidia
There is more evidence to support them every day

Show us. Give us links, point us at literature. All you're giving us is rhetoric at the moment, and rhetoric proves nothing at all.

Originally posted by sapphirearaidia


Not trying to be mean but...Just because you are a meteorologist I don't feel you are MORE QUALIFIED Than the growing number of Scientist that are backing up that they ARE REAL.

Which scientists? I could list dozens who are actively involved in studying what you call 'chemtrails'. And every one of them knows they are just contrails.

Maybe since you don't believe in them you don't research them as much as those of us who do.

I don't call watching videos on Youtube research And neither would any of those who have spent many years studying the atmosphere!

There is more evidence to support them every day.

There is still exactly nil evidence that what are claimed to be chemtrails are anything of the sort.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


NWO,

Please go learn, check Wiki...look up water vapor.

Water that evaporates is invisible, it is all around you in the air!!

When you see a cloud, or dew on the grass, or your windshield fogs up, that is water vapor, previously invisible, condensing into visible moisture.

Really, go out and learn something, you'll enjoy it.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Good point. Can you cast a shadow on fog? Easy to try

And what are broken spectres and glories?

www.atoptics.co.uk...

www.atoptics.co.uk...

How did these form? Maybe for the past hundred years chemtrails have been spread at low level around mountains as well in order to perpetuate the conspiracy?

I understand completely.. And yes I agree that there is a chance that what I was seeing is just shadows. (but.. in the one my friend took the sun was to his back and in the one I took the sun was above the contrails which by that point had completely blotted the sun out.)
Anyways, lets stop talking about the black lines for minute, you keep ignoring the other 90% of my overall message. What about the fact that the skies over my house (and many other place all over the world) are being completely covered with contrails. (Yes I used the word contrails because I understand what they are.) And the fact that the government knows that it is a major environmental problem but they are doing nothing about it. Since you guys know exactly whats going on.. and are very reputable why don't you use all this effort you put into telling everyone thats it's normal thing into trying to get the government to put some regulations on what altitudes planes can fly at when the conditions are right for contrails. If you got them to stop you would completely debunk "The Chemtrail Myth" (if they didnt stop that would be a different story.)

This is all from air traffic.. no real clouds in the sky at all. (It keeps going for miles past the horizon.) Ive got soo many more pics than this too.. some are a lot worse.



Ok now I would like to bring up something that I noticed a few nights ago after a long day of air traffic making persistent spreading trails.. that stayed all day and all night. Actually.. 2 nights in a row I noticed this.. (the first night I thought it was my eyes.) There was a bright white ring around the moon.. (I know that is created by the light passing through ice crystals in the air.) but also there was a very definite orange disk around the moon also and actually another lighter orange disc in between the white halo and the orange disc.
I took pictures of it but none of it came out right.. Here is a pic I found on the net of just a white halo. link to the site I got it from


I added what I saw to this image so you can get an idea of what Im talking about.


I understand that I am looking at one "Moon ring" and 2 "moon coronas" But from the small amount of research Ive done in the past few days I have come to understand that there had to be 3 different sized particles spread evenly in the air for there to be 3 defined rings. For example: the ice crystals making the white ring were 20 microns with a hexagonal shape, the inner orange circle was cause by particles (water, dust, or something else.) that were 12 microns, and the middle orange ring was created by particles (water, dust, or something else.) that were 16 microns. (complete guess.. just using those numbers to explain.)
What I'm thinking is that the exact size of the rings and color will tell exactly what is in the sky at that time.
Im not saying that there are definitely chemicals in the air.. just that there are 3 different sized particles and if I can figure out the formula to tell what the size and shape of the particles are I can figure out exactly whats in the air. (for or against "the chemtrail myth".. I don't care I just want to know whats in my skies.)

Peace


[edit on 18-4-2008 by danman23]

I'm less convinced that it is a major environmental problem than you and others are. I've seen studies that say contrails may increase a heat blanket effect at night, and I've seen studies that say contrails may be reflecting solar radiation keeping temperatures down. Other studies say they may be reflecting solar radiation increasing upper atmosphere temperature, but not lower. Other studies say contrails may be modifying the properties of cirrus clouds. Another study says that volcanos have had the same observable effect and that air craft emmisions are probably negligable in scale.
Alot of maybe's. I'm not married to any particular of the theories above. When solid scientific evidence is produced one way or another, then my views are open to change. There are alot of things about the atmosphere which are difficult to predict and hard to observe. None of the studies has said anything about chemicals not found in engine exhaust, however, or that anyone has observably dumped chemicals into the air at altitude to produce "chemtrails"
The reason planes fly at altitude for cruise is fuel economy (except propeller planes which generally are more efficient at a lower altitude). So dollars and sense [sic] so to speak say that commercial aviation is going to continue to fly at altitudes which produce contrails until there is irrefutable evidence that it is harmful.

reply to post by _Del_


This is what NASA has to say

"A recent investigation focuses on how aircraft
can avoid creating vapor trails, also known as
contrails. These spindly threads of condensation
may not seem important but some persist for
hours and behave in the same way as high
altitude cirrus clouds, trapping warmth in the
atmosphere and exacerbating global warming.

Air travel is currently growing at between 3
and 5% per year and cargo transportation by
air is increasing by 7% per year. Researchers
at Imperial College London are combining
predictions from climate change models with air
traffic simulations to predict contrail formation
and identify ways of reducing it.
As the climate changes, so will the general
condition of the atmosphere and the new work
aims to understand how this will affect contrail
formation. They have already found that aircraft
could generally minimize contrail formation by flying lower in the atmosphere. Their
work suggests that in the summer, when the air is warmer, restricting jets to an
altitude of 31,000 feet could be beneficial. In winter, when the air cools, and contrail
formation becomes more likely, the ceiling should be no more then 24,000 feet."

So.. in 2005 they said its bad.. and they have a solution to fix it. But nothing has been done. If anything it has gotten much worse.
They actually had a "Count-A-Thon" in 2004 too

What does National Geographic have to say about it?
Airplane Contrails Boost Global Warming, Study Suggests - National Geographic

Wow


Peace

[edit on 18-4-2008 by danman23]

The IPCC says the data/studies are pretty inconclusive as it regards to significant impact. Before you jump on the fact you have several studies and I only quoted the IPCC, please realize that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would seem to have a vested interest in "proving" man-made connections to global warming (which in my opinion, not that you asked, is not as foregone a conclusion as is presented either). It's pretty much a pick your poison issue. I didn't say no one said it was an issue. I said there are conflicting studies.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by interestedalways
***Yawn***

Don't feed the trolls!!!

How many threads are you going to make with the exact same content?

What a waste of ats space.

You are the only person on the thread that is derailing and thus trolling in any fashion. I am a little tired of hearing the rest of us accused of things because we do not subscribe to your personal delusions.

"the rest of us" I like how you flush yourself out of the crowd.

My personal delusions? I didn't know you were a comedian, defcon.

reply to post by danman23


Nice halo picture. You have what called a 22 degree halo.

I cant really see the different rings you are talking about. It seems as though the light source from the moon is affecting what we are seeing. Its like when you shine a torch and the brightest part will be in the centre and it will gradually get darker the further from the centre. I also couldnt see the orange colour but if it was there I would expect it to be haze.

Heres a couple of links that may explain it better than I can

www.atoptics.co.uk...

www.atoptics.co.uk...