dj, I appreciate and understand your concern for your family and for our environment because of what you perceive to be "chemtrails" and sincerely
feel and believe that they are causing you and them harm.
However, I do not understand your reluctance to post citations to authority until you have had a chance to better understand them. Shouldn't you
withhold any reference at all until
you understand them or have an opportunity to discuss them with someone who does?
Posting your interpretation before
a better understanding, is only asking for criticism.
You are also going to face a challenge that you have deliberately
misrepresented these articles and even the potential for a charge of
plagiarism if you quote certain passages without attribution.
Let me point out some examples in your posts concerning ice nucleation at upper-tropospheric levels.
Originally posted by djcarlosa
I have looked at a paper which was on a experiment done in 1995 which states that contrail's will become cirrus clouds after an hour and as
another report here has stated that it would take many contrail's to create a visual cirrus cloud so my question to you is how can one plane create a
cirrus cloud all by itself that lasts for 6 hours which has been disproved by a report your side has used to debunk us.
First, your "source" does not state a specific time period for cirrus formation from contrails. As has long been established, contrails
cirrus clouds, by definition. Nor is there any specific limitation on the time for persistence - they have been observed by
satellites to persist as long as 17 hours - it is a matter of circumstances and conditions.
Also I would like to point out that one of the main factors that effect how long a contrail can last is the aerosol content produced by the
plane's engines as these liquid volatile aerosols (mainly composed of H2SO4/H2O), leads to the nucleation of ice crystals so it would follow that in
order for a contrail to persist for over 2 hours the aerosol content must be greatly increased.
Here, you have confused the papers' observations of natural cirrus and wave clouds as compared to jet-engine contrails, and the conditions for their
Almost all studies of cirrus have recognized that the major cause of ice crystal (cirrus) formation is the presence of naturally
sulfuric acid/water solutions suspended in supercooled air. They have also examined black soot, dust and organics as substrates for
ice crystal nucleation.
No papers, including your source, state that jet engines must increase aerosols beyond the normal the products of combustion for contrail formation or
persistence! NOT ONE. These studies clearly state that the most important factors in this regard are air temperature and relative humidity, NOT the
composition of the vapors subjected to them.
Again, if you'd taken the time to consider the premises and conclusions of these papers, you would know that they focused on conditions for natural
cirrus formation, taking into consideration contrail and "orographic wave cloud" formation as well. None of them, going back to the 1950s and
extending to the present, discuss the necessity for adding to the processes that ordinarily cause these cloud formations.
Maybe you didn't even stop to think WHY they performed these studies to begin with? To better understand clouds and how they interact with climate!
Originally posted by djcarlosa
... my post is from a scientific experiment carried out in 1995 and has more information than the link you posted me. also it states that
the saturation level must be at 100% and not the 70 % that is often posted here.
That is completely false
Even your "source" recognized in 1995, with limited capabilities and scope, that the effective humidity ranged from super-saturation, to
water-saturation (100%RH) to 66%RH, all dependent upon temperature
, not the composition of the nuclei.
An expression is given for the peak RH with respect to water in the wave clouds (RHhn), which decreases from 100% above −39°C to 73% at
−56°C; RHhn represents the condition required for ice nucleation in the wave clouds and is shown to be more consistent with the homogeneous
freezing of sulfuric acid solution droplets than ammonium sulfate solution droplets.
Aircraft measurements made in cirrus during FIRE II show highly ice-supersaturated regions in clear air, placing a lower bound on the RH
required for cirrus formation approximately equal to (RHhn–10)%.
(73%RH - (10%) = 66%RH)
If a jet was only producing water without the aerosol then you would not get a contrail.
Jet engines DO NOT "only produce water!" They emit the ordinary products of hydrocarbon fuel combustion; that is all it takes for ice crystal
nucleation at the temperature and humidity ranges studied.
Also worth noting, is that some of these studies go back to the 1950s, '60s, '70s and '80s; long before the "chemtrails" hysteria began.
More importantly, NOT ONE the the dozens of studies of cirrus and contrails even so much as mentions "chemtrail" or any ill effects on people or
So, I have to ask: "Did you just not understand, or were you deliberately misrepresenting the reports?"
If you want to see the follow-up study to yours, and the dozens of others since then that DO NOT REPORT "CHEMTRAILS," check these sources:
Relative Humidity and Temperature Influences on
Cirrus Formation and Evolution
(your source and 48 recent cites to it)
ICE NUCLEATION - A REVIEW
Ice Formation Processes in Upper Tropospheric Conditions
And, your "source"'s own follow-up, which found they underestimated the lower humidity bounds!
humidity observations and implications for cirrus ice nucleation
You might want to look at the programs that produced the data for these studies:
SUCCESS (the "Subsonic aircraft: Contrail and Cloud Effects Special Study" experiment)
FIRE-II (the “First ISCCP Research Experiment, Phase II”)
edit on 5-4-2011 by jdub297 because: closed quote