How to Make Rain from Contrails

reply to post by samlf3rd


There is a lot of research being done about how contrails may or may not affect weather and/or global warming - the scientific jury still seems to be out on the matter.

the Sept 11 2001 climate studysuggested they do, but this has also been questioned and perhaps isn't so clear cut.

In either case, there is a lot of ongoing research, and to say that it "must be happening", or it is obvious, or any other clear cut conclusion is not currently supported by the data.

also in either case your video has nothing at all to do with contrails, so trying to make a link with it is deceptive and not really helpful to any discussion of the evidence.

OP video shows that a cloud can be artificially created and that said cloud can then rain. The video does not give an actual analysis of the cloud content but assumes based on handout information. The OP's further offering of silver iodide cloud seeding $500,000 efforts having no appreciable raining result implies a certain disillusionment with this effort based on a substantial cut in funding. In my opinion, these are both valid offerings towards unlocking the mysteries of chemtrails.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Given that the rocket engine testing has been going on since the 1960's, is not secret, does not contain anything that is supposedly contained in "chemtrails", is not any sort of normal result from a jet engine, is not intended to change the weather or climate, is not reproduced every day, this sort of cloud is not created by jet engines, etc., in what way does it relate to chemtrails??

Saying it shows that putting water into the atmosphere creates rain is trivial - people put water into the atmosphere every day by breathing, cars do it by burning gasoline, and water vapour is the single most important greenhouse gas and has always been known to be such - en.wikipedia.org...

What is it you think this putative relationship with chemtrails actually is??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I'm not intimating putative relationships. I'm saying that if I can see that a cloud which then rains is created; you can see that; someone else can see that; and the government can see that. Any person of reasonable intelligence can see that.

If I can see from a study by would-be rainmakers that silver-iodide cloud seeding is not productive enough to warrant continued full funding; you can see that; someone else can see that; and the government and other interested rain-making agencies can see that. Any person of reasonable intelligence can see that.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Yes I agree with all that - so if they want rain they could take rocket engines burning LOx and H2 to areas to inject massive amounts of water into the atmosphere, and maybe those clouds would make rain (except I suspect not as much as you think in dry areas with dry atmospheres which would be where you would want such rain).

So what has all this got to do with anything that is actually hapening? Are you suggesting this is going on? I know of no evidence that LOx/H2 engines are being used for this purpose anywhere, nor beign carried bloft by aircraft, nor anything else that might be related to contrails or "chemtrails".

I imagine that even if it was more reliable than AgI seeding it would probably cost a wee bit more too, and possibly not be worth the effort!

Also of course sometimes the purpose for AgI seeding is not to create rain over any given place - it is sometimes to spread out the water in a weather system so that it dumps over a wider area and hence reduce the potential for damage - making clouds with LOx/H engines might not do that.

I thought that weather modification was supposed to be seeding clouds with silver-iodide. Now I have learned that clouds that rain can be created and silver-iodide cloud seeding is not very productive. Weather modification has been on since 1943 (I think or 1946 - you quoted in that last Wiki thing) and in 60 plus years of research and expense we're still rubbing 2 blades of grass together still trying to make fire. Seems to me, in my opinion, there are alot of blanks that need to be filled in.

Dunno about planes making it rain (actually, new research suggests they do - but not from contrails) but power stations - and even trains (!!!) - have been known to make it snow!

Here is a nice report as well, around airports there is More rain due to the planes punching the clouds ;-)

Perforation of clouds brings more rain around airports Last update: July 3, 2011 2:24 p.m. Info - Landing and taking off aircraft can cause tunnels and holes in the clouds around busy airports, with more precipitation as a result. Photo: NU.nl / Peter Renen

Researchers say this of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in the science journal Science. These clouds from ground tunnels can sometimes be observed. This phenomenon may also cause precipitation was hitherto unknown. When planes through clouds at low and high altitude flight, the turbulence behind the blades ensure expansion of the air, so that suddenly cools. By the wings then form ice crystals at the expense of the suspended water droplets in the cloud, so the plane behind a narrow lane with clear air. Extra moisture The small ice crystals on the wings, then glide pull additional moisture from the cloud layer, until they are heavy enough to fall down as rain or snow.
Because airports may experience disruption of snowfall, the researchers advise in the winter with cloudy skies have to do to ice on the wings to counter. The precipitation-enhancing effect occurs only locally and on a global scale unlikely to affect the climate, say the Americans. However there is annual miles around major airports to measure a little more precipitation.

Source

Edit: I see it was also posted above my post, mea culpa.

And a whole thread on it here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bit it's not actually all that convincing that it's true - it's full of "may", and note that the amount of possible increased precipitation hasn't been establish either

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


I imagine that even if it was more reliable than AgI seeding it would probably cost a wee bit more too, and possibly not be worth the effort!

Also of course sometimes the purpose for AgI seeding is not to create rain over any given place - it is sometimes to spread out the water in a weather system so that it dumps over a wider area and hence reduce the potential for damage - making clouds with LOx/H engines might not do that.

I am not aware of any usage of cloud seeding to mitigate rainfall, since often if a particular storm gets too severe on a cloud seeding project, they may cease seeding that particular storm.

Now when it comes to hail suppression, they can seed it, in order to lessen the size of hailstones that reach the ground.

reply to post by firepilot


Project Stormfury was an attempt to mitigate hurricanes, and by "water" I mean precipitation in general

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by firepilot

 

Project Stormfury was an attempt to mitigate hurricanes, and by "water" I mean precipitation in general

edit on 6-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Oh yeah, forgot about that one from back in the past.

Operation Popeye over the Ho Chi Minh trail was to seeing trying to actually increase rainfall via seeding, and I know a meterologist who was involved in that, but he recently died.

Originally posted by samlf3rd
So how can anyone deny that contrails alter our weather patterns?

The journal Nature recently published a study that showed that contrails, alone, are worse than all other emissions in altering our atmosphere.

Aviation-induced cloudiness consists of contrail cirrus (of which a subset is line-shaped) and of changes in the occurrence or properties of natural cirrus arising from both the presence of contrail cirrus and increased ice-nuclei concentrations in the upper-troposphere due to aircraft soot emissions. Observations indicate that these changes may have a significant effect on cirrus cloudiness. Radiative forcing—a measure of the radiative imbalance of the atmosphere caused by a particular forcing agent—due to aircraft-induced cloudiness has been estimated from observed trends in cirrus cloudiness to range approximately between 10 and 80 mW m−2 for the year 2005.

Contrail cirrus initially form behind cruising aircraft as line-shaped contrails and transform into cirrus-like clouds or cloud clusters in favourable meteorological conditions, occasionally covering large horizontal areas. They have been tracked for up to 17 h in satellite observations6. They remain line-shaped, and therefore easily distinguishable from natural cirrus, for only a fraction of their lifetime.

Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus

This was actually the subject of another thread:
Contrails, alone, worse than all other emissions; why grasp at "Chemtrails/Geoengineering"?

Bottom line is, aircraft do enough by themselves that we don't need to imagine "chemtrails" or geoengineering are going on and changing our environment.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297

The journal Nature recently published a study that showed that contrails, alone, are worse than all other emissions in altering our atmosphere.

Do you have access to the entire paper? Because that is not what the abstract says at all.

Nevertheless, net radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest single radiative-forcing component associated with aviation.

www.nature.com...

It says that their model shows that persistent contrails produce a greater level of radiative forcing than any other contributions from aviation activities. Those other contributions being greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc. emitted as exhaust from aircraft.

They say that a complete forcing model should include the effects of contrails when considering the effects of aviation on climate change. That does not mean it is a major effect or even significant when compared to other, non aviation sourced, forcing influences.

reply to post by Phage


OK. Add "aviation" to emissions. Feel better?

Seems to me that a thread based on aircraft, contrails, aviation and "chemtrails" already has limited itself to aviation.

This is ATS, home of Nibiru, reptilians and "chemtrails; not some peer-reviewed journal, for crying out loud!

If anyone cared enough to read the link to the entire article, they would have seen the aviation reference. Those who choose not to, get the gist of the report from the title.

If you do not approve of members' choices for titles to threads or posts, you've got a full-time job here. I'm sure someone, other than yourself, will approve of your full-time nit-picking.

I didn't realize someone needed to explain that to you, or qualify it. Some things can be presumed from context, except for those who insist that mommy and daddy explain all the details.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


I think Phage was simply pointing out that:

Originally posted by jdub297
The journal Nature recently published a study that showed that contrails, alone, are worse than all other emissions in altering our atmosphere.

Is wrong (or at the very least, highly misleading), because contrails are NOT worse that all other emissions. (and technically a contrail is not really an emission, as 99% of the water in a spreading contrail cloud comes from the atmosphere - the initial contrail just triggers its growth).

reply to post by jdub297


Sure - if they go read the report they MIGHT notice that it is sayng that contrails are "only" the worst emission of aviation.
Or, having been primed by your summary, they might not notice that at all.

There is nothing intrinsic in your summary that would highlight the difference to anyone, and your tone seems sufficiently outragesd that it would not be unreasonable to take from it what Phage noted.

In either case it would be polite, and politic, to simply acknowledge your error without tryng to shift responsibility for it to others.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

reply to post by Uncinus


I'll admit I could've been nicer in my response, but it reflects my frustration with the rampant assumptions that all emissions are bad and will never be reduced.

I love my environment very much, and enjoy time in the country on my ranch, but it's about time people realized that there are varying degrees of "bad" in considering the effect of "emissions" on the environment.

Many scientists contend that, despite increased CO2 emissions from power generation, autos, and other sources, global average temperatures have not increased since 1998.

Given the scrubbers and sequestration projects being employed or tested on power plant stacks, power generation emissions are getting cleaner as technology improves and coal is replaced with other "greener" fuels/sources.

Given the more fuel-efficient engines in our cars and trucks, auto emissions are getting cleaner.

Given that the largest uncertainty in most climate models is accounting for the effects of cloud-cover, it is simple logic that increased cloud cover from contrails injects more uncertainty into the models' assumptions and "corrections."

The bottom line is that the impact of contrail cirrus on sunlight (long- and short-wave radiation), weather and natural cirrus is undeniable, real and measurable. The impacts of other "emissions" are still being questioned and
debated. Given the current state of the art, contrail cirrus will continue to increase even if all other GHGs are reduced to 1850 levels as the IPCC demands. (Unless you want to walk cross-country or cross-ocean.)

jw

reply to post by jdub297

The bottom line is that the impact of contrail cirrus on sunlight (long- and short-wave radiation), weather and natural cirrus is undeniable, real and measurable. The impacts of other "emissions" are still being questioned and debated.

On the contrary. The effects of contrail cirrus are debatable and are debated, just as all the other computer modeled effects are. But what that has to do with producing rain from contrails is beyond me.

I agree with the OP. Because:

1. I like an obtuse OP that allows for fringe inclusion
2. I like a premise that can include everyone in looking at altered weather patterns and WHY