Dailymail UK Thread On Chemtrails: How Jet Trails Block Out The Sunshine

reply to post by Uncinus


nice try i will give you credit for trying i will quote you where i got it from i wish i could link it but that paper is no longer available via the internet so i am posting from my hard copy.
Quote:Contrails with progressively increasing age (from ATto U) obviously exhibit a continuous decrease of ice
crystal concentrations caused by plume dispersion. At the same time, their mean diameters increase from initially 1 mm to about 10 mm on the timescale of about 30 min
Typical ice crystal concentrations and specific surface areas of fresh contrails (age , 1 min) exceed a few
1000 cm23 and 10 4 mm 2 cm23, with mean diameters around 1 mm. During the aging process (up to 1 h) the
contrail ice crystal concentrations decrease by two to three orders of magnitude (specific surface areas only
by a factor of 2–3) while mean diameters increase up to about 9 mm, clearly demonstrating the transformation
of persistent contrails into ice clouds resembling young cirrus. Observed crystal concentrations, specific surface
areas, and mean crystal diameters (effective diameters) of young cirrus are typically up to 5 cm23, 2000 mm2
cm23, and about 10 mm (20 mm); for more developed cirrus, 1–2 cm23, 2000–7000 mm2 cm23, and about 20
mm (.30 mm), respectively. All observed cirrus clouds own a distinct haze mode with at least 4 particles cm23
in the size range between fine and coarse particle mode,supporting—together with the observed amorphous,
quasi-spherical replica images of ice crystals in young cirrus—the concept of freezing haze as an important
formation process of upper-tropospheric cirrus. Young cirrus and contrails aged on timescales of 1 h show
similar crystal size distributions with mean diameters around 10 mm. Computations of contrail crystal growth
using a simplified parcel model generally confirm these observations and identify relative humidity, updraft velocity, and crystal concentrations in fresh contrails as important parameters driving the microphysical transformation of the contrail core region into a young cirrus cloud
quote taken from:
J O U R N A L O F T H E A T M O S P H E R I C S C I E N C E S VOLUME 57
q 2000 American Meteorological Society
On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds

reply to post by djcarlosa


Okay, so that's a paper that says the size of the ice crystals in contrails grows from 1mm to 10mm over the first 30 minutes. So .... what is that telling us exactly? Contrails can last over 30 minutes? They act like clouds?

Here's the link On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Cloud

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus

 

30 seconds to an hour tops even after 30 mins a normal contrail becomes the same as a cirrus cloud and it would be hard to visible detect where as these persistent contrail's [2 - 8hours] that are easy to spot even after 4 hours as a contrail it keeps its shape as it expands across the sky water crystals in clouds do not act in this way so to say that these are just normal frozen water vapour is false.
Add to that the fact that clouds move across the skys with the wind and these trails do not dictates that they can not be made of just water vapour something in there is holding the trails in one area of the sky and the spreading is always sideways even if they are layed across the path of the wind direction.

Sorry but WTF.

You think there is something holding chemical vapour in 1 part of the sky?

what would be doing that then - invisible paddling pools?

Think about what you are saying -- how would you hold floating vapour in 1 place?

reply to post by Uncinus


read it through it states how long a normal contrail will last before it becomes a cirrus cloud and as such can not be easily to spot as a contrail and then follows the same rules as a cirrus cloud my point here is that these contrail's that last from 2-8 hours keep there shape and are easy to spot as contrail's because they have kept there shape and the way in which they spread [sidewards] no matter what direction the wind is blowing [as shown by normal cirrus clouds in the sky] shows that these are not normal contrails that contain only water.

Originally posted by djcarlosa

30 seconds to an hour tops even after 30 mins a normal contrail becomes the same as a cirrus cloud and it would be hard to visible detect where as these persistent contrail's [2 - 8hours] that are easy to spot even after 4 hours as a contrail it keeps its shape as it expands across the sky water crystals in clouds do not act in this way so to say that these are just normal frozen water vapour is false.

Ok, I think maybe you got this idea from the paper you quoted:

Contrails older than a few minutes proved to be dif-
ficult to sample in situ because such contrails, even if
visible from far below or aloft, are in most of the cases
difficult to recognize and thus to follow while flying on
the same level. In most of the cases the optical contrast
to the environment was very low. Following different
jet aircraft during more than 60 occasions, contrails older than about 10–15 min could only be identified and
sampled in very few cases.

But that's talking about finding old contrails from another plane

I'd very much like to see an example of a four hour old contrail (or supposed chemtrail) that keeps its shape. Are there any photos of videos of such a thing?

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus

 

read it through it states how long a normal contrail will last before it becomes a cirrus cloud and as such can not be easily to spot as a contrail and then follows the same rules as a cirrus cloud my point here is that these contrail's that last from 2-8 hours keep there shape and are easy to spot as contrail's because they have kept there shape and the way in which they spread [sidewards] no matter what direction the wind is blowing [as shown by normal cirrus clouds in the sky] shows that these are not normal contrails that contain only water.

Maybe that would be the 'haze' that everyone keeps saying these chemtrails are creating is huh?

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus

 

read it through it states how long a normal contrail will last before it becomes a cirrus cloud and as such can not be easily to spot as a contrail and then follows the same rules as a cirrus cloud my point here is that these contrail's that last from 2-8 hours keep there shape and are easy to spot as contrail's because they have kept there shape and the way in which they spread [sidewards] no matter what direction the wind is blowing [as shown by normal cirrus clouds in the sky] shows that these are not normal contrails that contain only water.

No. It states how long it is before the ice crystal size grows to the same size as the cirrus clouds.

How can a contrail simultaneously keeps its shape and spread out sideways? That's a contradiction.

reply to post by Uncinus


there have been many pics posted on these threads i have many pics on my fb page i have posted in another thread these do spread out sidewards and merge with other contrail's but not clouds the grid pattern and crosses are still visible 4 hours later.

reply to post by djcarlosa


Could you link to an example picture of a four hour old contrail?

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by NightGypsy
OP, the fact that there are a number individuals on ATS who jump on these topics or continuously post threads to debunk the chemtrail theories at any given time of the day or night and rarely show up in any other threads gives reason enough to believe there is something to be concerned about.

If a person thinks the chemtrail theories are pure nonsense, why would he bother? Why spend your day arguing with people you believe to speak nonsense? Why vehemently defend the government is there is truly nothing to defend? Why do they care what allegations people make about the government if the government has nothing to hide?

Either they are assisting in the cover-up, or it makes them feel important. Anyone with a shred of self-esteem wouldn't feel the need to spend so much time arguing an issue if they truly believed it was a joke.

I believe one would find the definition of such a person under the word "pathetic" in any dictionary of the English language.

YES! This same phenomenon of people being obsessed with that which they insist is not real occurs on other topics too, especially theism and creationism. People who don't believe in God seem unable to stop flaming and bashing every single thread or comment about it, they stay parked in the Religion section and travel around in gangs it seems. Pathetic or psychotic or whatever, it isn't healthy for people to focus on things they don't believe in.

edit on 22-6-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)

And i have seen plenty of religious people spam bible verses in a thread that was about something entirely different.

reply to post by Uncinus


No how is that a contradiction when say keep its shape what i mean is that it is still visible as a plane trail even though it has spread out sidewards which i thought i had explained in my earlier post perhaps i didn't explain it very well.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus

 

No how is that a contradiction when say keep its shape what i mean is that it is still visible as a plane trail even though it has spread out sidewards which i thought i had explained in my earlier post perhaps i didn't explain it very well.

Oh, Okay. So why would a contrail not do this?

reply to post by afw2121

Wait! An independent "source" actually trsacked an aircraft, in normal flight, and documentd persistent contrail.
Your "source:"

In a 2009 Met Office study into the effects of contrails, scientists from a number of UK institutions used a weather satellite to track a large military aircraft as it circled over the North Sea. The team expected high-level winds to disperse its contrails without trace. But instead they helped to form clouds, which the researchers were astonished to find eventually covered a massive 20,000 square miles.

You then turn around and insist that contrails can only last a few minutes.
Did you just decide to ignore the pre mise of the entire article and cherry-pick the parts you could distort, misinterpret or just flat-out lie about?

There is nothing in the subject aarticle that has any relevance to "chentrails." Your fabored comments are from the same fearmongers and fear-full ignorants who perpetuate a myth with no substance.

Please post an analysis of the observed and documented contrails that even possible supports any contentions of chemical poisons, mind control, et c that permeate your faith.

Deny ignorants.

jw

Originally posted by NightGypsy

There are many issues involved in this topic that have yet to be explained to disprove chemtrails.

To disprove "chemtrails?" Have you thought about first, offering proof?
Please post your hypothesis:
"Chemtrail" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?

OP, the fact that there are a number individuals on ATS who jump on these topics or continuously post threads to debunk the chemtrail theories at any given time of the day or night and rarely show up in any other threads gives reason enough to believe there is something to be concerned about.

I agree! Many of us are concerned about the integrity of ATS and the reputation of the site and its contributors. Too often, children and the gullible are allowed to post threads, speculation and imaginary scenatios as "fact" that ATS is noew looked upon as a refuge for quackery rahter than an exploration of the unknown or hidden.

Some of us joined when ATS was one of the few sites on the .net that permitted rational discussion of topics not found or followed-up on in the MSM.

"Chemtrail" hysteria does not help.

If a person thinks the chemtrail theories are pure nonsense, why would he bother? Why spend your day arguing with people you believe to speak nonsense? Why vehemently defend the government is there is truly nothing to defend? Why do they care what allegations people make about the government if the government has nothing to hide?

I know many teachers for whom these same questions are common subjects of peer conversations. Why try to invoke logic in the face of fantasy? Why attempt to explain the scientific method to the determinedly ignorant of and rejectors of science? The consensus? Some of us give a damn about rational understanding of the world, its people and processes.

Take your myths and falsr beliefs with you to your next job interview, to the public forum at your church, poker game or social event. "Chemtrail" faithful are an embarrassment unless ythey can support their beliefs.

Give me your hypothesis:"Chemtrail" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?

I believe one would find the definition of such a person under the word "pathetic" in any dictionary of the English language.

Rather, the persisters in myth and hysteria better fiut the definition than those who would seek to offer basic insight. Funny how you characterize teachers, clergy, first-responders, and the vast majority of the general public as "pathetic" for their insistence that some of you wake up and discover the world around you instead of some myth you are afraid of.

reply to post by djcarlosa

that article debunks itself minus 30 is not really cold enough for contrail's or cirrus clouds to form
quote:perse samples of the submicrometer aerosols (50–200 nm in diameter) to cirrusrelevant temperatures between –45 and –60◦C and a range of relative humidity above
ice-saturated conditions (RHi) to map out regions of RHi and temperature space where
significant ice nucleation rates occur.

I feel so sorry for you; does this quote actually make sense to you?

The article you've mis-quoted and completely misunderstand doesn't discuss the usual formation of contrails. It is a study of how airborne particles may affect cirrus formation. It isn't even a real-world study, but a laboratory attempt to replicate natural conditions most conducive to contrails.

I gave it to you and your buddy Matty among others to show that contrail formation and contents have been documented for more than 40 years.

"Chemtrails?" Zero.

Your credibility? Zero.

I see you've abandoned the "e e cummings" routine. Now try getting beyond W. C. Fields.

The subject study does not reference the ideal condoitions or the usual conditions, for contrail formation.
The article has absolutely nothing to do with "chemtrails."

Why don't you tell us what you believe?
Here, try:
"Chemtrail" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?

deny ignorance

jw

Whats really cool here in Tahoe..Is you can see planes flying high up and it"looks" like they're flying to cities on a flight pattern. You can see them all day..
UNTIL the OTHER planes start flying in a zigzag and cover the whole sky.
The OTHER planes haven't flown over Tahoe in at least four days. Supurb..Sun is out..blazing days, and all is good in the sky.
And yes..when the OTHER planes fly over and create those large contrails that LOOK like "coating"..they move across the sky with wind direction.
Guess what? Those planes keep on laying down errr creating more contrails..

I've said it more then once.. I have NO clue what they're doing up there.
I don't know if it's to block ultraviolet light, not allow satellites to read ground movement, or try and kill us with a slow painful death..
I have no clue.

I've seen some good pictures on some websites showing SOMETHING being dispersed or so it looks,and REALLY bad examples.

To say it's just a commercial jet and I don't know what I'm looking no longer deems a direct responce.

Another great clear sky today.

Kayake time anyone?

Originally posted by afw2121

The day begins clear and end-ups in a haze everyday.

That's because the air when cooling down -after a long clear day exposure- "releases" humidity, triggering cloud formation.

reply to post by DJW001

Since you continue to try to score childish points, let me ask you the same question: how do you know it's not a typo? And what difference would it make? Does the author of the article present himself as a meteorologist? Is this article intended to be cited in journals?

I could care less what the journalist's credentials are, nor does this article matter that much to me in the grand scheme, since it provides no new information on this topic that hasn't been written before, with the exception of the "30C" discrepancy, but for the sake of argument..........


Tell me why we should believe it to be a "typo" as opposed to faulty research if journalists must submit their articles for proofreading and editing prior to publication?

Are these childish points? Really?

The main argument from you debunkers is that chemtrail believers are making "assumptions" about something being sprayed in the air. You say these assumptions are baseless and then present your scientific evidence to support your belief that these are contrails and not chemtrails, yet you expect us to assume that this "30C" is a typo, when there's really no reason we should. You expect us to "assume" that just because you present the science relating to contrails, that this ends the possibility for chemtrails. In reality, isn't your whole argument based on assumption in and of itself? Congratulations.....you guys can show us science related to contrails, you get a star for that......

But you know what would be really impressive? If you could show us that a group of planes at any specific moment is NOT equipped with aerosol spraying equipment and that the vapors forming the criss-cross patterns in the sky do NOT contain something other than typical jet fuel exhaust....that would be great. Can you do that? If I tell you this is happening over my area right now, can you fly over here and confirm this plane isn't spraying something? Can you pluck that plane out of the sky to prove it's not equipped with aerosol spraying equipment? Can you get over here and grab a sample of any descending vapors from the plane to tell me what comprises these vapors? We already know for sure there are planes equipped with aerosol spraying equipment because cloud seeding is done in this manner. So that fact alone suggests it's not out of the realm of possibility that planes would be equipped this way and that chemicals could be dispersed over the population.

Your response might be that I don't have the capability to prove chemtrails in this manner, either......and you're right, I don't. Unfortunately for the chemtrail groups, they aren't able to prove chemtrails in this manner any more than you can disprove them, so any claims to the contrary cannot be substantiated unless they can do those things I mention above.So, these arguments by either side can go on and on.

Chemtrail activism began for a number of reasons, most of which revolve around the emergence of health-related issues that seem to coincide with the appearance of planes creating vapor criss-cross patterns that fan out and linger in the skies . The fact that several individuals, some within the government ties, have stated there is some kind of covert operation being done across the world that involves chemicals being sprayed on unsuspecting populations has naturally caused people to seek answers. It's the EPA's responsibility to monitor our environment for toxins that can create health problems, and this is what the chemtrail activists are asking for.....some answers.......they have simply produced pieces of circumstantial evidence that have led them to suspect these are chemtrails. Yes, there are times when some let their emotions get the best of them and they make statements that amount to opinion and not fact, but I can understand this, to a degree, because it's their family's health they're talking about, and our governments have been less than forthcoming in recent years regarding a number of issues.

Is there anything in the above paragraph that sounds completely unreasonable to you? Why do you meddle in the pursuit of these individuals' right to ask questions? If they are wrong, won't the truth be revealed? Why concern yourself with it?

Originally posted by NightGypsy

Is there anything in the above paragraph that sounds completely unreasonable to you? Why do you meddle in the pursuit of these individuals' right to ask questions? If they are wrong, won't the truth be revealed? Why concern yourself with it?

Debunking is not about proving a theory wrong. For something like "some trails are deliberately sprayed chemicals", then that's impossible.

Debunking is about removing the bunk, it's about pointing out the errors, lies, and omissions that pepper a theory. It's about examining the evidence, and trying to determine if any of that evidence is demonstrably false.

All that should HELP anyone who is asking questions. Debunking strips away bunk, and leaves the truth.

Nicely said NightGyspy.

I don't feel like debating anyone who hasn't seen them anymore.

It's not like we're trying to see if it's a mylar balloon or an Alpha Centurian Spaceship that accidently got seen.

Some days they spray...some days they don't.

Common up to go Kayaking. My kids have already banged their heads on the low branches on the upper rivers..so the Rivers are all clear now.. Yayy..

NOW I'll go.