A case for chemtrails?

reply to post by firepilot


That alst bit is obsolete now - Uncinus does not hide his identity - his name is on there, as is his photo.

Not quite an anonymouse govt shill ......

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Thanks for the link it was easy to read and really dumbed down but 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.
If a jet was only producing water without the aerosol then you would not get a contrail.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

The fuel additives are used for increasing cloud albedo SRM.

Sorry, wrong type of clouds. For that they need to be low level stratocumulus.

Anyway, I thought you were saying chemtrails are sprayed in the ionosphere, tens of miles above where even the very highest clouds form?

Do make up your mind

reply to post by djcarlosa


Have you posted a link to the paper so that we can read it?

Only given the technica nature of such things (I don't understand most of them!) it's easy to misunderstand what is being reported and/or misquote out of context. I'm guessing the paper concerned a particular study and was not referring to contrails as a whole.

reply to post by Essan


I have sent you the link via message the experiment in question was contrail's to cirrus clouds time spans and conditions happy reading
nothing I have posted from this report has been taken out of context and I have been studying this paper for 6 weeks and I do understand what is in the report which is why I have begun posting from it

reply to post by djcarlosa


Cheers

I'll have a good read of it later

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 or without 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 are 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 formation.

Almost all studies of cirrus have recognized that the major cause of ice crystal (cirrus) formation is the presence of naturally occurring 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)

journals.ametsoc.org...

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 the environment!

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!
Upper-tropospheric relative 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”)

deny ignorance
jw

edit on 5-4-2011 by jdub297 because: closed quote

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Essan

 

if you have read through that paper i have another one i'm working through as well
www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net...
curry.eas.gatech.edu...

edit on 6-4-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

How Funny! Both of these cite your 'secret source!'

AND, they go all the way back to the '50s for discussion of cirrus/contrails. AND, AND absolutely NO MENTION whatsoever, of "chemtrails!"

You finally find good science in the study of cirrus and contrails, and none of them even so much as mention "chemtrails."

Don't you wonder why?

jw

reply to post by djcarlosa

if you want them to persist then would it not follow that this would need more aerosol's to create more ice particles.

No, and even an elementary-school children's experiment proves this. You do not need a continuous introduction of nuclei once you have initiated crystallization.

Have you never grown crystals? Have you never seen or heard of experiments using supersaturated solutions and the introduction of a single "nucleus" to "grow" crystals? Hell, you can buy a kit for this at most toy/science stores; when I was a kid, they called it "Magic Rocks."

Despite the toy's name, dj, this is not magic. Once a supersaturated environment is "tripped" by the introduction of appropriate nuclei, the crystallization process can continue without the need for any new stimulus for so long as conditions permit.

Look it up.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


1.have i used the word chemtrail's in this thread once no
2.have i said the papers where on chemtrail's no
3.Have i posted about contrail's and how they are formed conditions and key elements yes
in fact i have dropped the use of chemtrail's until it becomes proven instead i have taken the time to get educated on contrail's and how they are formed and everything i have posted is from those papers because i was told to get educated and that is what i have done.
i still have an open mind and the ability to question what i see and what i know with the premise that i maybe wrong.
essan even though we sit on opposite sides of this debate we treat each other with respect which is more than i can say about you.
I think that it is bad that you can attack me when i'm trying so hard to prove my point by using sources that are not vids from u-tube.
So your attempts to make me look stupid are really counter productive and its people like you that pushes me back of the fence so to speak therefore i will no longer be wasting my time in replying to you.
As a side note the paper's you are quoting to me are not the paper i am reading and again its interesting that someone who is such an expert on this has the time to waste disproving what most think is a hoax this is not the action's of an intelligent person why not put that expertise to a better use for mankind.
After all if people like you stood up and said these contrail's are damaging our environment perhaps they would do something about it.

reply to post by djcarlosa
First, I never said that you linked the contrail studies to "chemtrails."

You seem to be the only one "on the other side of the fence" who actually reads and tries to understand the science, so I simply pointed out that none of the 50+ years of cirrus and contrail studies ever once so much as mentions "chemtrails." If anything, that should at least keep you "on" the fence, if not well over onto the other side.

I do fault you for stating things that are not in the reports, but which you seem to have interpreted them to say.
Post a quote, and let's look at it objectively.

See, I think the real problem here is a matter of sincerity versus objectivity.

I am certain that many people are very sincere in their belief and their intuition and their suspicion that airplanes are harming them, their families and our world. I don't fault anyone for sincerely held beliefs; that is what faith and religion depend upon - there is no "proof" of a Creator or Supreme Being, many of us just "know it is so."

The real problem is when people try to color their faith with objectivity. The beautiful thing about the most devout people is their complete rejection of objectivity - they don't have to prove their God for non-believers; their faith alone is sufficient for them.. When the faithful or devout become crusaders, they demand others accept their beliefs without proof as well. That is where the clashes arise.

When advocates try to clothe their faith with objectivity, they become defensive, and sometimes cruel, to those who show that objective consideration of the facts doesn't support what they offer.

In a different thread, someone stitched in a fake post from a scientist and offered "leading questions" to him to support their belief.
I posed a series of "yes, no, explain" questions that would allow the scientist to state his own position rather than assuming anything he would say in advance.

See the difference?

Posting clip after clip and trying to weave a thread into a blanket only offers opportunities to unravel the threads.

State a hypothesis, offer your support, then step back and test it. That is science. Most hypotheses are disproved. Some are incapable of proof. Those that withstand falsification stand as planks upon which we can build a theory.
Taking dozens of possible pieces and throwing them together will never help complete the puzzle.

You are consciously trying to find the basic information that will enable you to state your hypothesis. You do not need to color the facts with your belief. The facts will speak for themselves, and once you have gathered enough, you will know what you need to know. There may not be answers in them for your beliefs, but at least you know not to try to make them appear to.

After all if people like you stood up and said these contrail's are damaging our environment perhaps they would do something about it.

Did you read my thread? Did you read the posts?
Some people welcomed such an admission that the real boogeyman is right in front of us, and that we can face him down.

Others, chose to dismiss the truth and to continue to look for the "real" boogeyman of their faith, against whom we are helpless.

I do not understand why people are so eager to ignore obvious threats in favor of ephemeral ones, but that is human nature.

If you do not believe you ever can win, it is best to show that the game is unwinnable, no?

jw

reply to post by jdub297

In a different thread, someone stitched in a fake post from a scientist and offered "leading questions" to him to support their belief. I posed a series of "yes, no, explain" questions that would allow the scientist to state his own position rather than assuming anything he would say in advance.

The only thing fake around here are your statements and conclusions.

Why don't you post something besides your same old opinions that have already been proven to be wrong.