Chemtrail Debunkers....

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Tecumte

 

You're absolutely correct and it's called Shortwave Climate Engiineering

www2.novim.org...

the study focused the research agenda on one particular SWCE concept—stratospheric aerosol injection—and in doing so developed several conceptual frameworks and methods valuable for assessing any SWCE proposal.

So they developed methods for assessing SWCE should SWCE ever be proposed.

So:

1/ no trails of any kind
2/ no aircraft
3/ not even any experiments
4/ not even any ideas how to DO SWCE - just ideas how to assess it.

Here's another quote from it:

In a one-week study, the authors of this report conducted a technical review and evaluation of proposed climate engineering concepts that might serve as a rapid palliative response to such climate emergency scenarios.

So in 1 week they looked at CONCEPTS and reviewed and evaluated them.

Hmm.. where's the aircraft? where's the chemicals? where's the spraying?

Oh - there's none.......well never mind ...accurate information is not on Matty's priority list

Yet another Matty miss

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Here you go.

The Physics of clouds

THE PHYSICS OF CLOUD MODIFICATION

You should actually read about Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Shortwave Climate Engineering (SWCE)

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You obviously didn't read the whole report. See the little blue button in at the bottom of the page I linked to?

How long did it take you to learn how to tie your shoes? You don't learn very fast do you?

You go ahead just keep pasting little laughing smiley's, you're becoming more ignorant with each post.

Here let me help you since you seem to be so incompetent

arxiv.org...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Here you go.

The Physics of clouds

THE PHYSICS OF CLOUD MODIFICATION

You should actually read about Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Shortwave Climate Engineering (SWCE)

Your links are only about old-fashioned cloud seeding. I didn't think that's what we are discussing here.

I thought 'Tecumte' was talking about his assumptions that there has been further developments in weather modification -- namely creating artificial rain clouds that would already be ripe for seeding.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You obviously didn't read the whole report. See the little blue button in at the bottom of the page I linked to?

How long did it take you to learn how to tie your shoes? You don't learn very fast do you?

You go ahead just keep pasting little laughing smiley's, you're becoming more ignorant with each post.

Here let me help you since you seem to be so incompetent

arxiv.org...

Sigh - apart from the stupid insults, why do you repeat teh same drivel?

Here's ANOTHER quote from the executive summary of the report at that site which shows that you have no idea what it is you are posting:

This report does not attempt to evaluate whether stratospheric aerosol (or any other) SWCE
systems should be developed or deployed—or even whether any parts of the outlined research
program should be pursued. Such questions are the subject of an intense ongoing debate,
involving socio-political and economic issues beyond the scope of this study. This report aims to
better inform that debate by elucidating the technical research agenda that would be necessary to
reduce the uncertainty in POTENTIAL SWCE interventions.

Yet again:

1/ no aeroplanes
2/ No chemicals
3/ no tests or experimetns

But here's a new one for you that might help you realise what it's all about - a thought exercise in what would be required if anything was to be done.

You really do have a problem with the idea that people can imagine that such things might be done, and therefore seek to put controls and evaluation methods in place before they actually happen, don't you!!

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Tecumte
....In any case as I've said we know cloud seeding exists, we are aware of some of the older more open techniques, to actually create clouds for ready seeding shouldn't be such a drastic mental jump for these guys other than that maybe they have to have some guy in a white coat spoon feed them in order to even consider it.

Perhaps I do need to be spoon-fed. So please tell me how to create a rain cloud that is ready for seeding.

You ignored my questions that I asked first.

Can't you answer them?

I answered these before a few days ago (maybe on one of the other myriads of threads this video appeared on).

The answer is that I don't know how far apart the planes are -- and neither do you. However, it is a known fact that a couple thousand feet of altitude could make a difference in trail persistence. I don't know if these two planes are at different altitudes, but it would be SOP to do so, rather than have them flying so close together at the same altitude.

So the bottom line is that the altitudes are unknown, so this video is not evidence for the chemtrail theory, nor is it evidence for people who say contrails could be different at different altitudes. In short this video is meaningless for both sides.


...now your turn:
if artificially creating a rain cloud that is ripe for seeding is so easy, please explain to me how it is done.

Plus, the spreading trails that some people call chemtrails are cirrus clouds -- but cirrus clouds are not rain clouds. So if you are saying the purpose of chemtrails is to produce clouds ready for seeding to create rain, then why are they producing cirrus clouds?

edit on 4/20/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Wait a minute SG, not so fast, I think a more thorough examination of this video CAN tell us something, you see what we need to know first is if we really DO find atmsopheric condtions so stratified and completely different just by a few' thousand feet apart that they would be ABLE to alone explain the difference in THESE two planes plumes.

What we need is a PLAUSIBLE temperature difference and relative humidity difference that we could find in the real atmospheric environment that could explain this. Do you see what I'm getting at? If we CAN find it then fine. let's lay out what the temps would have to be for each of the planes and what the relative humidity would have to be for each of the planes and see if these condtions really do exist in the real world in close proximity and if the mixing of air at such a distance could or couldn't allow for these complete stratifications to exist. You see if the exact differences of conditons aren't plausible in the first place to alone cause this then we need to look elsewhere or at other factors. Logical?

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Your inability to answer my question directly looks evasive.

What exactly has caused the difference in these two trails?

Give me the exact altitude, relative humidity and temperature differences that would explain the huge disparity.

The inability for anyone to answer the question is directly relative to all of the missing variables.

For one, and most vivid, is the height difference btween the 2 trails in the photo. One can speculate that there is probably a 4 or 5 thousand foot difference between the 2, and if you believe that is insignificant, I think you should reconsider that, especially when it comes to water, water vapor, and condensation.

One of the greatest forces working on water in the atmosphere and what should be taken into account here is density and density altitude and the equations that define such. As well as virtual temperature, saturation pressure, actual pressure and how that factors into it also.

To put things in perspective, I'm not sure precisely how familiar you are with constant height upper air readings, as well as geopotential height readings, but they are also very significant in this discussion.

If you look at THESE 2 images take today from UNISYS for constant height upper air velocity at constants of 3000 feet and 6000 feet (roughly my assumption of the height difference between the 2 trail photos) something should become painfully obvious. The velocity difference at like locations, as well as air pattern variances.

3000 feet:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f526923b27db.gif[/atsimg]

and 6000 feet:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c4ba070d1dec.gif[/atsimg]

The properties of air density at the higher altitude differ exponentially as does the vapor ability to crystallize or not.

Next consider the formulas for air density, which effect greatly the movement (or "spread" as you put it) of the trails themselves.

Trying not to be too technical, which is impossible in how it seems is the only way to get a point across here, the force applied to the trails at the higher altitude should be resolved by using the appropriate formulas for:

Ideal gas law -

P*V = n*R*T

where: P = pressure
V = volume
n = number of moles
R = gas constant
T = temperature

Density is simply the number of molecules of the ideal gas in a certain volume, in this case a molar volume, which may be mathematically expressed as:

D = n / V

where: D = density
n = number of molecules
V = volume

By combining the 2 equations, density becomes

D = P / R * T

where: D = density, kg/m3
P = pressure, Pascals ( multiply mb by 100 to get Pascals)
R = gas constant , J/(kg*degK) = 287.05 for dry air
T = temperature, deg K = deg C + 273.15

Now, far too much is unknown, most especially the ACTUAL pressure at both heights. One of air density's useful functions is to determine force applied on wings or spoilers or such, but the same principles apply to vapor as they do any other mass. At higher altitudes, that force will act TOTALLY different (due to atmospheric difference, such as the 2 images Ive provided as well as the calculations of the density formulas) to the degree that they would appear to be different compositions. Yet, they are not.

Simply put, the lower altitude trail is evaporating quickly because of the atmospheric difference and the higher altitude trail is not...it is simply too cold and the density of the air at that altitude won't allow it, and the air is MOVING differently at same geographical locations, but different altitudes.

Tecumte in hte Tropospher the rule of thumb is that the temperature drops by about 2 deg C per 1000 feet in altitude.

So if they are 2000 feet apart you would generally expect there to be something like a 4 deg C difference in temperature, if 5000 feet then 10 Deg C.

humidity is harder to guague - impossible really, except by soundings.

This site - www.btinternet.com... - has soundings for some sites in hte UK. By clicking a spot on the map you can see the latest sounding. By clicking a point on the lines on the graph you can see eth temperature and humidity values at various altitudes.

I'm looking at the one for Nottingham (the red dot in hte middle of England), and the humidity recorded at about 29,400 ft is 55%, but at 30,200 feet it is 73% - 18% in only 800 feet. At about 34,200 ft it is only 48% - it has dropped 25% in the next 4000 feet.

reply to post by alphabetaone

If you look at THESE 2 images take today from UNISYS for constant height upper air velocity at constants of 3000 feet and 6000 feet (roughly my assumption of the height difference between the 2 trail photos) something should become painfully obvious. The velocity difference at like locations, as well as air pattern variances.

Gee your post looked technical and all, but it made no valid points in regards to this situation.

Why would you choose those altitudes?

Those altitudes are much too low for the trails in the video.

Maybe you chose those altitudes because you don't want to show the data from a more accurate altitude in relation to the video. At least show some data from above 10,000 feet. to 20,000 feet

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

If you look at THESE 2 images take today from UNISYS for constant height upper air velocity at constants of 3000 feet and 6000 feet (roughly my assumption of the height difference between the 2 trail photos) something should become painfully obvious. The velocity difference at like locations, as well as air pattern variances.

Gee your post looked technical and all, but it made no valid points in regards to this situation.

Why would you choose those altitudes?

Those altitudes are much too low for the trails in the video.

Maybe you chose those altitudes because you don't want to show the data from a more accurate altitude in relation to the video. At least show some data from above 10,000 feet. to 20,000 feet

I agree Mathias, the 'explanation' I got looked liked alot of sophistry based upon generalities,

What I wanted to see was something along the lines of a *hypothetical* set of variables that would explain exactly the difference in THESE plumes It's really not that hard. For starters: Example:

Let's call the plane leaving the quickly disapating trail plane A and the plane leaving the huge smokey looking spreading trail plane B. Let's attempt to fill in the blanks.

Plane A- hypothetical: altitude _____ air temperature_____ relative humidity____

Plane B- hypothetical: altitude _____ air temperature_____ relative humidity ____

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Gee your post looked technical and all, but it made no valid points in regards to this situation.

Why would you choose those altitudes?

Those altitudes are much too low for the trails in the video.

Maybe you chose those altitudes because you don't want to show the data from a more accurate altitude in relation to the video. At least show some data from above 10,000 feet. to 20,000 feet

Well this is precisely part of the problem...you say those altitudes are much too low.... which is wholly possible, so tell us exactly what the altitudes are, so we can make calculations to give you the proof you are asking for.

And you're wrong about it making no valid points in this situation with one exception, that no information CAN be derived without specifics. Upper air is dynamic if it weren't, meteorologists would have a much easier job. But the physics that affect liquid and gas.... those properties do not change.

Air density, saturation pressure, actual pressure, humidity, all play a vital role on how the liquids and gases are acted upon at a particular altitude. In fact, for those of you who are knowledgeable in flight, most altimeters are pressure altimeters so ironically they need to be constantly monitored and constantly re-gauged as they don't measure altitude at all.

I chose those altitudes because they were the first 2 available, but the variance between 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet in air velocity is even far greater than 3000 to 6000, I can post them if you like too, but unless you ask me to, I wont... or you could simply go look for yourself, either way.

You assume my post has no validity because I think you simply do not know any better, but anyone with a modicum of upper air physics and dynamics knows precisely how they affect the liquids and gases contained in them.

reply to post by Tecumte


I see what you're looking for, but you have to know that it can't possibly be answered. *My* post was to give guidance on the WHY it may seem different. Not to calculate any factual data, as there is a lack of factual data, that much is apparent in this entire thread but most specifically in those images. We all know camera perspective can be incredibly deceiving.

There would only be one way, given some of the formulas to actually give you the answers you are looking for. (You are assuming that by plugging in random values we can show a trend of why it would happen, but that much can be shown just as easily as one can say oh yea, there are chemicals in there too by the way, so it's of little value).

That would be by knowing:

The Actual Pressure at both altitudes of those trails.
The Actual Temperature surrounding both trails
The Velocity of the Air at both altitudes
The Altitudes themselves
The saturation pressure (this is critical as it would determine the movement of those trails aka GAS)
The Air density at the time surrounding both those trails.

Originally posted by Tecumte
What I wanted to see was something along the lines of a *hypothetical* set of variables that would explain exactly the difference in THESE plumes It's really not that hard. For starters: Example:

Let's call the plane leaving the quickly disapating trail plane A and the plane leaving the huge smokey looking spreading trail plane B. Let's attempt to fill in the blanks.

Plane A- hypothetical: altitude _____ air temperature_____ relative humidity____

Plane B- hypothetical: altitude _____ air temperature_____ relative humidity ____

You asked for hypotheticals, considering we don't know the soundings from the place the planes were flying in that video), so here is a hypothetical set of soundings. This hypothetical example is from ACTUAL soundings, just not the soundings from the time and place in the video.

hPa*****alt.******Temp****dewpt***RH

220****11656****-55.1****-58.6****65
200****12260****-57.1****-63.1****46

at an altitude of 11656 meters (37,942 feet) the air pressure is 220 hPa, temperature is -55.1, the relative humidity is 65%, and the dew point is -58.6. The difference between the temperature and the dew point is 3.5 degrees

at an altitude of 12260 meters (40,223 feet) the air pressure is 200 hPa, temperature is -57.1, the relative humidity is 46%, and the dew point is -63.1. The difference between the temperature and the dew point is 6 degrees

Note the difference between dewpoint and temperature. As a GENERAL rule (although not gospel, because other factors may contribute) a difference of temperature -vs- dewpoint of above 5 degrees generally indicates that contrails will not persist. A difference below 5 degrees means that contrails probably will persist. Dew points, by the way, are calculated using relative humidity and temperature.

In the case of these soundings, a difference of 2281 feet makes all the difference between very favorable and unfavorable contrail persistence conditions (3.5 degree difference in Temp to dew point versus a 6 degree difference. The difference in relative humidity between these two soundings is 19%, which (along with the temperature) accounts for the big difference in dew points.

Therefore, it is possible that those planes are flying at 37,942 feet and 40,223 feet.

That 40,223-foot altitude may seem relatively high, but it is not uncommon for a long-duration flight to fly at around 40,000 feet, 747s on long flights are known to often cruise at 40,000 feet. Of course, these are only hypothetical altitudes of the planes in the video, but these are based on real-world data.

I'm not a weather expert, so if someone (such as Essan) who is a weather expert wants to correct anything I posted here, please feel free.

SG I have a VERY hard time believing the modest hypothetical descrepencies you gave would (*asuming* they were even close to accurate) explain the night and day difference of one plane leaving NO real lingering trail and the other the huge smokey looking lingering spreading trail we actually see in THIS video..

Sure your figures MIGHT explain a small theoretical difference (I would have to look much more into them further and I likely will) but c'mon I don't buy it for a second that this can be the ONLY factors. Look at that video again, why is it that the MOST likely explanation IMO of the planes putting out a much different chemical composition based plume doesn't even register in your potential thought process.

Originally posted by Tecumte
SG I have a VERY hard time believing the modest hypothetical descrepencies you gave would (*asuming* they were even close to accurate) explain the night and day difference of one plane leaving NO real lingering trail and the other the huge smokey looking lingering spreading trail we actually see in THIS video..

I wouldn't call a 19% difference in relative humidity "modest".

Look at that video again, why is it that the MOST likely explanation IMO of the planes putting out a much different chemical composition based plume doesn't even register in your potential thought process.

Who said it "doesn't even register in [my] potential thought process"?

If I see a quaking bird that looks like a duck floating on a lake, I suppose it may register in my potential thought process that it is in the realm of possibility that the bird is a mutant sparrow with laryngitis enjoying a swim -- I mean I suppose it isn't impossible, but a much more reasonable explanation is that it is a duck.

I know what ducks look like, and I know for a fact that ducks make quacking noises and often floats on lakes. Therefore a reasonable explanation for that quacking floating duck-looking bird is that it is most likely a duck. I know for a fact that it is very common for planes at different altitudes (i.e., different weather and pressure conditions) to create different contrails -- one persistent and one not. Therefore, if I see two planes with different contrails, a reasonable explanation is that they are most likely at different altitudes.

Does that mean that it is totally 100% impossible that these can't be some sort of chemical spraying? Of course not -- there would be no way to be 100% sure that isn't the case unless I personally inspected those airplanes myself (and had know-how to do so). So of course there can always be "other possible explanations" other than "normal contrails". HOWEVER, just because other explanation technically are within the realm of possibility does not mean that all of those possibilities should be treated equally.

Not every explanation for a given phenomenon is equally valid. Some are more likely that others, especially when one of the explanations is known to be a valid one -- such as:
"floating, quacking bird = duck" and
"differing persistence of contrails = two planes flying through differing atmospheric conditions"

I am 39 years old. I have lived in a high air traffic area all my life. There are 3 major airports (Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose) and 2 Air force bases (Moffit Field and Travis AFB) in my area. I'm a nature lover and I have watched the skies quite a bit. Both in the day and at night. I have an eye for detail and a good memory.

Prior to 9/11 I used to watch planes from my backyard all the time. I lived about 10 minutes from the SFO airport. Until recently I have never ever before seen planes making a persistent spreading contrail. The most persistent contrails that I had previously ever seen never lasted more than 10 minutes. Usually they lasted about 2 minutes.

Now planes are making these persistent spreading contrails all the time. At all kinds of altitudes. I saw many of them in my area today. I only saw one plane making them. But there were persistent spreading contrails (chemtrails) to the North South East and West. The locations where I saw them made no sense in regards to air traffic and flight paths. They were however all placed conveniently downwind and next to other natural clouds. Some of the trails had gaps and spaces between them but they were obviously made by one plane.

I've read many many many papers and reports on this topic. I am normally a bit skeptical about these types of subjects, but after investigating this topic very thoroughly, when it comes to chemtrails, I am quite convinced that they are real. They are being used for all kinds of different purposes. Most of them are weather related. Most of them are not that bad when compared to other forms of pollution. There are however a few cases that are just sickening to say the least. I want my blue skies back and I want my night time stars back too.

STOP SPRAYING ALL THAT CRAP YOU A-HOLES

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I lived about 10 minutes from the SFO airport. Until recently I have never ever before seen planes making a persistent spreading contrail. The most persistent contrails that I had previously ever seen never lasted more than 10 minutes. Usually they lasted about 2 minutes....

Fair enough...that's you anecdotal memory of your experiences, but my anecdotal memory tells me that there HAS been contrail persistence in the past. I've mentioned before that I grew up near am agricultural area in the 1970s. I have always been interested in aeronautics, so I always took great interest when the TV farm reports made mention of the way contrails can create cloudy days. Because of my childhood interest in aeronautics, I remember the farmers lamenting the growing popularity of air travel and how that increase in air traffic has steadily been responsible for creating clouds due to contrail persistence and contrail spreading.

This was a hot-button issue in the early 1970s, because before that, the was not enough air travel for it to be a problem. Plus, the liberal political climate in the 1970s made the idea of creating rain (to help alleviate drought in starving third world countries) something scientist thought they could do -- and contrails seemed to be a starting point (although the research didn't pan out).

I also know persistent contrails existed in the past, because there were scientists who studied them. Robert Knollenberg was an atmospheric researcher who took to studying the persistence of contrails in the 1970s (because of the perceived threat to U.S. agriculture, due to the increase in clouds contrails produced -- U.S. farmer like sunny days for the most part). Although his studies were on how persistent contrails can [i[incidentally affect the weather, he also saw potentials for using persistent contrails to intentionally influence the weather. He noted that persistent contrails could carry moisture from one air level to a lower air level because the frozen condensed ice particles in the trail were more likely to "drop" than the non-condensed vapor in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, his research ultimately couldn't produce effective results -- persistent contrails can affect the weather, but there are too many variables involved with intentionally using persistent contrails to control the weather.

Now -- you may argue that we have a standoff -- your memory against mine. However, saying you DON'T remember there being persistent contrails is NOT the same as someone saying that they DO remember them. The person who does not remember persistent contrails could simply have had no real reason to take note of them/remember them in the first place.


...and, by the way, living 10 minutes from SFO would be meaningless when it comes to contrails. You would be too close to SFO for planes coming in and out of there to be producing contrails anyway. Contrails over your head 10 living minutes from SFO are from planes that originated/are landing someplace other than SFO. I live about 10 to 15 miles from a regional airport, but most of the contrails I see over my head are from planes going to or coming from the New York metro airports 100 miles away. The planes taking off from my regional airport have not yet had the chance to get to contrail altitudes as they pass over my house.

Of course not that all the traffic from SoCal airports (Los Angeles International, San Jose, San Diego, Santa Monica, Ontario, etc) heading up the coast going north to AK, OR and to the Pacific Rim, and that would go close to the bay area, would have anything to do with contrails overhead...

Naw...couldnt be.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Now planes are making these persistent spreading contrails all the time.

NO, they are not. When you write words like "all the time", then that implies, well...ALL THE TIME. This is obviously bogus, as anyone can see, day to day.

At all kinds of altitudes.

Again, not to be too pedantic, but....no, it is just not cold enough until above, usually, about 25,000 feet. At most temperate latitudes.

I saw many of them in my area today.

So? Did you bother to check the weather balloon readings?

(Haven't we travelled this road before?? Well, since people read, based on you getting a star....for some reason(?)...here):

Go to this site: weather.uwyo.edu...

From there, for today (well....you posted at just before midnight, 21 April....it is now about 13:40 PDT 22 April, but let's look anyway. Maybe you can find the OLDER readings, too....):

Radiosonde Observations Over OAKLAND, CA 22 April 2011 @ 1200Z (that is 0500 PDT)

Looking at the link above, we see this snippet:

308.7 9144 -40.2 -46.2 53
300.0 9340 -41.9 -47.9 52
250.0 10550 -52.3 -59.3 43
244.0 10706 -53.7 -60.7 42
200.0 11950 -64.1 -71.1 38...

(Extra numbers removed for clarity). The numbers we want to focus on are:

• Pressure
  
• Altitude that corresponds to that pressure (in meters)
  
• Temperature (Celsius)
  
• Dew Point (Celsius)
  
• Relative Humidity (%)

See it? Look, Look, Look. Conducive to contrail formation, there.....do you know how to read and use the Appleman Chart???

I'll walk you (and the readers) through an example --- look at 300 Mba. 9,340 meters = 30,643 feet.

THIS is a handy calculator site.


30,643 feet is close to 31,000 feet.....and THAT is an even altitude, and a commonly used cruising altitude. (FL 310). SO are FL 320, 330, 340....etc.....

So, for a jet flying at 31,000 feet over Oakland at that time (and I presume a few hours earlier, was much the same) the temperature was -42°C and RH was 52%.

IN the Chart....starting at the "300" mark on the left, draw a line horizontally to the right....and, also at the bottom where the temperature scale says "-42", draw a vertical line up.....see where those two lines INTERSECT. What does it say, there? "Maybe contrails"!!! See, the temperature is right....and the humidity?? Well, 52% is pretty high....so, that "maybe" is a good bet that there WILL be contrails. You SAW them!!!

I only saw one plane making them.

You are sadly mistaken.

How fast is a jet, at altitude again? (I've told you countless times). Figure about 7 to 8 miles per minute. Now....THINK it logically.....you said "many" contrails. Do you have any idea of the number of miles of sky, over your head, form horizon to horizon, as you look up? DO the math!

The locations where I saw them made no sense in regards to air traffic and flight paths.

Huh?? How do you know?? Have you even looked at aeronautical charts, yet? I've provided links, dozens of times. So, no excuse for uttering falsehoods, and rubbish like that.

They were however all placed conveniently downwind and next to other natural clouds.

"downwind"?? How did you determine the wind directions, seven or eight miles over your head?? (They are in the radiosonde data, BTW. GO, look....).

Oh, and the fact that there were other clouds?? That is a huge clue! To why the contrails persisted. Or, do you not realize that clouds can persist, too???

I've read many many many papers and reports on this topic.

Without comprehension, which is ever more apparent, here.

......when it comes to chemtrails, I am quite convinced that they are real.

Nope....still, still sadly mistaken....

reply to post by weedwhacker


What do you have to say about the use of sulfur-hexa-flouride as an atmospheric tracer?

What about hygroscopic salts in an aqueous solution sprayed into the atmosphere for cloud seeding?

And what about atmospheric barium releases ?

They are put into an aerosol generator and injected into the atmosphere from exterior nozzles on planes.

Then we have the use of chaff for atmospheric studies also.

They are all being used and are all part of what people call chemtrails.