You can call them chemtrails or contrails but what is that thing flying between them?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Uncinus: Regarding your statements on how language is artificially constructed: you're kidding right? You're going to tell me you don't have a vested interest in getting the term contrail and persistent contrail into common useage?

It's not a term. It's a literal description, an adjective and a noun. Like "large orange". It's a contrail (I assume you have no problem with that word), and it persists. So it's a persistent contrail. If it were long, it would be a long contrail, if it were pink it would be a pink contrail.

You do know that contrails can persist, right?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Right then, and my appreciation for the careful divide of concerns on the matter. It was somewhat off the cuff to make the remark I did, more to the point of it not being polite to up the snuff while tender noses were following the controversy at hand. To the snuff I speak, there have been extensive documentations of spraying operations which were to the detriment of many people, and thank you for the correction re. agent orange. I'm mainly reading along for information's sake on this one.

Wise-up journal has plenty of good background on geo-engineering, carbon - environmental scams, and other developments in recent years, from published slants. Meanwhile, IBM has reverse engineered the human brain to recreate a world brain, and DARPA speaks of sowing the earth with smart dust to observe a 3d scenario just about anywhere ...

reply to post by luxordelphi


Well firstly thank you for replying, that in itself is a refreshing change from your side of the discussion.

Regarding Cirrus Aviaticus being a name coined for a Chemtrail. You are going to have to do more than merely state this as if it's empirical fact. The names Cirrus and Cirrus Aviaticus do not exist in isolation, Cirrus Aviaticus is only one of ten or so different sub variations of cirrus clouds I have seen named. Why do you assert that it refers specifically to chemtrails?

Your second point to me is one I can accept, except I was talking about a printed paper source that created a weekly record of the aviation scene for more than a century, why do you feel something like that is of no value, or have I misunderstood that point? I hold the factual content of he Flight archive in vey high esteem, though the opinions voiced can be amusing, it is the factual content that is important. And this did quite unmistakably show that the term persistent contrail was in use 55 years go, which is rather inconvenient to the Chemtrail theory as widely espoused.

Thirdly, I wasn't asking for clarification on what I can see, but rather what you were saying. This was quite obvious from the way I phrased it so don't go all evasive on me now when we've made a decent start.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Uncinus: Regarding your statements on how language is artificially constructed: you're kidding right? You're going to tell me you don't have a vested interest in getting the term contrail and persistent contrail into common useage?

It's not a term. It's a literal description, an adjective and a noun. Like "large orange". It's a contrail (I assume you have no problem with that word), and it persists. So it's a persistent contrail. If it were long, it would be a long contrail, if it were pink it would be a pink contrail.

You do know that contrails can persist, right?

Holy Toledo, if it were laden with nano-aluminum particles it would be a chemtrail. This is pointless; persistently pointless. Point being when stuff is spewing out of an airplane in the sky, what you call it doesn't change anything in the act itself. All it does is subtley alter mentally an observers' perception of what it is.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Holy Toledo, if it were laden with nano-aluminum particles it would be a chemtrail. This is pointless; persistently pointless. Point being when stuff is spewing out of an airplane in the sky, what you call it doesn't change anything in the act itself. All it does is subtley alter mentally an observers' perception of what it is.

So why do you call contrails "chemtrails"?

reply to post by Northwarden


Yes there 's a lot of research into geo-enginering, and lots into various applications of nano-technology, and computers are getting faster and more complicated all the time.

But none of that actually shows much about "chemtrails" that I've noticed.

the closest I think anyone has come to actually DOING any atmospheric geo-engineering (as opposed to cool roofs, carbon sequestration, & other land based geo-engineering) is discussed here - www.abovetopsecret.com... - and it's been at least postponed

reply to post by waynos


Cirrus is a cloud we all know and love. Cirrus aviaticus is an abomination: an artificial cloud created by jet exhaust consisting of unknowns. And isolated? no, I wouldn't say that - there was an ATS'er the other day who mentioned something about all the new cloud names. So no it's not isolated, it's part of a gang.

I don't have a problem with your 'Flight Archive' - I read some parts awhile back explaining all the trails in the skies over London during the Battle of Britain in WWII. I can understand vapor trails, ice crystals and troposhere temperatures. What I see doesn't conform within these parameters and so no I don't find reaching back 55 years for persistent contrails inconvenient - just incorrect.

Direct observation is evasive? Guess so if it doesn't come to the same conclusions as you. Still, jibes asside, best advice I can give is look for yourself.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by waynos

 

Cirrus is a cloud we all know and love. Cirrus aviaticus is an abomination: an artificial cloud created by jet exhaust consisting of unknowns. And isolated? no, I wouldn't say that - there was an ATS'er the other day who mentioned something about all the new cloud names. So no it's not isolated, it's part of a gang.

and personally I have no problem with people having a problem with induced cirrus (just to throw another term at you )

the answer to it is easy - force airlines to fly at non-contrail heights, and pay the appropriate financial penalty for it - including greatly decreased frequency to anywhere really cold like Alaska.

And enforce the rule of course - probably some international enforcement agency??

I'd rather have the cheap air travel tho - the actual effects of induced cirrus on weather seem quite marginal (from the studies I've seen so far) and not worth the hassles and costs of making and enforcing such a rule.

I don't have a problem with your 'Flight Archive' - I read some parts awhile back explaining all the trails in the skies over London during the Battle of Britain in WWII. I can understand vapor trails, ice crystals and troposhere temperatures. What I see doesn't conform within these parameters and so no I don't find reaching back 55 years for persistent contrails inconvenient - just incorrect.

this bit confuses me - if it is incorrect then why don't you have a problem with it??

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by waynos

 

Direct observation is evasive? Guess so if it doesn't come to the same conclusions as you. Still, jibes asside, best advice I can give is look for yourself.

We both know I disagree with the conclusions you drew in the first two paragraphs of the post quoted. However, regarding the exact passage above, If you don't wish to give a direct answer and engage in a discussion, just say so, there is no need to try to present my words as something I didn't say.

You are of course, as we all are, free to keep looking up and thinking whatever you like. Have fun.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Here's a link in support of your side of the fence to illustrate why I don't have a problem with WWII contrails and yet how it is incorrect to try and compare those skies with our skies:

goodsky.homestead.com...

Here's a quote from that document:

The day was March 18, 1945, the target was Berlin, where approximately 1300

heavy bombers of the 8th AiR Force were to drop bombs.

So 1300 planes would equal 5200 internal combustion engines (according to the math from a Veteran in the document) and that wouldn't even begin to account for the actual bombs accompanying all of this.

Here's another link in support of persistent contrails:

www.livescience.com...

Here's a quote from that document:

That morning 1,444 aircraft took off from southeast England into a clear sky. The contrails from these aircraft significantly suppressed the morning temperature increase across areas with a high density of flights, the researchers found.

With that many aircraft in a relatively small section of sky at one time I would expect just about anything in the way of trails etc. Add to that the bombs and you don't really have to worry about whether contrails persist or not - the sky is going to look like a mess.

Comparing those conditions with today's skies where flight trackers show 5 to 10 planes and visual observation puts the number at 15 to 30 planes is just not going to fly. The skies look very similar and that's where the similarity ends.

Here's a link for air traffic in 2010:

en.wikipedia.org...

Just taking McCarren (Las Vegas) as an example, the first thing to note is that air traffic decreased from 2009 to 2010. Works out to 58 flights per hour. Bear in mind that these flights are leaving and don't necessarily reach condensation altitude in the vicinity of Las Vegas. They're also not bombing. There are no mass take-offs. They're definitely not confined to skies over the city. The object is to leave for their destination. There's no battle being waged that requires them to remain in place. I think there have been improvements in jet engine efficiency during these intervening 55 years and there must be a difference between what came out of those jet engines and what comes out of today's. (I picked Las Vegas because it's a 24 hour city and flights go on here day and night.)

This is not even touching on what the sky looks like without visible trails and without visible cirrus - spreading persistent contrails don't begin to cover that as a new term for the new sky.

reply to post by luxordelphi


You are forgetting something.

Fuel burn rates. You may research it yourself, if you wish. Compare the rate of fuel burn (gallons per hour) in the WW 2 piston engine to the modern jet High Bypass TurboFan engine.

This directly affects the amount of water vapor added to the equation, from the combustion of the fuel.

Additionally, just because there are 1,300 bombers at once in an air attack assault, doesn't mean all of them are going to make contrails. Just as not every jet flying today makes a contrail.

Furthermore, WW 2 bombing raids did not happen every day, on schedule....so with the lack of contrail forecasting technology available to them, it was hit-or-miss ( oh, that's also a slight pun re: the bombs! ) whether any particular flight would create contrails, since it all depended on the atmospheric conditions on whichever day they chose to attack.

Finally, the daylight bombing raids conducted by the Allies only started late in the War. I've read some history on it.

Early on, raids were flown under the cover of darkness, but of course that makes targeting more difficult, and you have to rely on a full-ish Moon for light.

It was controversial to begin the daylight runs, because obviously the enemy can see you more easily. But, that is a tactical trade-off.

reply to post by ProudBird


I like the history you bring - while I'm not necessarily a fan of gadgets (jet aircraft) I am a fan of tactics.

Please make more plain your statements regarding burn rates and how those implicate exhaust. I don't really know what to research for myself on that. Here was my thinking: old cars are gross polluters compared to today's cars. If you're saying more heat - we'll talk.

The rest of your post...raids didn't happen everyday and not every jet today produces trails - I'm not getting the relevance.

reply to post by luxordelphi


A B-17 engine, for example, burned about 50 gallons per hour. (Piston airplanes in that era, and small piston planes today, usually gauge in terms of gallons per hour. Some engine instruments have markings on the gauge that show pounds per hour too).

In jets, we think of pounds per hour, since it makes more sense, in terms of monitoring the total weight of the airplane at any given moment. (In some countries, they use Metric of course...kilograms, and litres).

OK...the B-17 engine, at 50 g/ph, that is 300 lbs/hour (AvGas weighs 6 pounds per gallon)

A typical jet engine, at cruise power settings, burns 2,700 to 3,000 lbs.hour. Jet-A1 weighs 6.7 pounds per gallon, so that is 400 to 450 gallons per hour.

Almost ten times the fuel consumption rate as the WW 2 piston engines. And, that much more water vapor added to the atmosphere.


I forget the rest of the questions, I think it was about my comment on the frequency of the WW 2 raids. That meant, it was pure chance each time, whether conditions would be suitable for contrails to form. There would be far less examples of contrails.

Today, airlines fly regular schedules, most are repeated daily. Atmospheric conditions (temperature/humidity) at altitude can remain conducive to contrails for a day, or several days perhaps. And, there is a cumulative effect sometimes as well....just because there aren't 1,300 airplanes up in one flight at the same time, there are still many dozen that can pass through an area of atmosphere that makes contrails during just one day, each contributing.

reply to post by ProudBird


That's 9 times at your high end so 9x58 flights an hour at McCarren = 522. That's still a long ways from 1300 flights and 1444 flights. Also it's not a mass take-off. Also they're not hanging around - they're leaving and attaining altitude as they go. (And BTB they're not landing at 30,000 feet either.)

As far as fewer examples of contrails - that's irrelevant because these pictures from WWII (and obviously they weren't taking pictures of contrailess skies) were resurrected to show that persistent contrails are an ancient problem. My point was that there isn't a comparison here taking into account mass take-offs, bombs and exhaust which I still think had to be more visible (leaving out water vapor caused by heat) than in today's engines. And that doesn't even take into account how high they were when dropping bombs or trying to take out enemy bomb droppers. In other words the 'Flight Archive' is taking liberties as far as conclusions go.

On your last points - yes that's exactly what's happening. Many dozens of planes flying back and forth, making circles and X's and grids until the sky becomes reflectant like the old drive-in movie screens where even the sun is some kind of a monster reflected off of so many particulants. Cirrus don't disperse and become this. Humid climates - east coast and Florida didn't used to have skies that look like this despite the humidity. In L.A. with all the smog you still used to be able to see the stars at night because the stuff in the air was not super reflectant. This is different. Observationally one can see a difference in colors, a difference in the way light is reflected, a difference in the color and reflection and incidence of rainbows not even getting into the bizarre cloud formations. There's a place here for optical illusions never seen before because of the substance of reflective particles, but also very real wierd cloud formations becoming common in diverse places.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Cirrus don't disperse and become this.

Yes they do, look up cirrostratus clouds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cirrostratus /ˌsɪroʊˈstrɑːtəs/ clouds are thin, generally uniform clouds, composed of ice-crystals, capable of forming halos. They are usually located above 5.5 km (18,000 ft). When thick enough to be seen, they are whitish, usually with no distinguishing features. When covering the whole sky and sometimes so thin as to be hardly discernible, this may indicate a large amount of moisture in the upper atmosphere.[1] Cirrostratus clouds sometimes signal the beginning of a warm front and thus may be signs that precipitation might follow in the next 12 to 24 hours.[2]

nephology.eu...

They can form from other clouds, including regular cirrus.

CLOUDS FROM WHICH CIRROSTRATUS MAY FORM
Cirrostratus may be produced by the merging of elements of Cirrus or Cirrocumulus (Cs cirromutatus, Cs cirrocumulomutatus), by ice crystals falling from Cirrocumulus (Cs cirrocumulogenitus), by the thinning of Altostratus (Cs altostratomutatus) or by the spreading out of the anvil of a Cumulonimbus (Cs cumulonimbogenitus).

Of course when conditions are right for cirrostratus clouds to form, you often get contrail as well - and it it's due to a front, you often get the contrails before you get cirrus.

reply to post by luxordelphi


You mention McCarren.....perhaps that is where you reside? Doesn't matter, really....it was maybe only an example you selected:

That's 9 times at your high end so 9x58 flights an hour at McCarren = 522.

You are counting, what? Total arrivals/departures per hour at McCarren? Not relevant. Because, as you correctly noted, the airplanes aren't going ot make contrails until up near cruising altitudes.

Therefore, if you wish to speak of the Las Vegas, Nevada, area and contrails overhead, then each and every one of those is made by a jet passing by, en-route to somewhere other than KLAS.

But, back to the 522 per hour. How many, then, in two hours? Three? Four?

How many jets, in two, three, four hours will transition overhead a particular major city? Las Vegas is actually very busy, every day, at altitude...a major *thoroughfare* if you will, for high altitude airplane traffic...both easterly/westerly and northerly/southerly directions.


To add -- after re-reading more from this post, I find that there still remain many misconceptions.

....there isn't a comparison here taking into account mass take-offs, bombs and exhaust which I still think had to be more visible (leaving out water vapor caused by heat) than in today's engines.

Firstly, what on Earth do the ordinance (bombs) have to do with contrails?

Second, no....I showed the actual factual numbers to compare the old piston engines to modern jet engines, in terms of the *exhaust*. To reiterate, it is the fuel that provides the water vapor, in the exhaust. Specifically, the amount of fuel burned each hour (or minute, if you prefer...just keep your units of math correct, in calculating).

Or, if you think the exhaust was "more visible" form piston engines of that era, I presume you may be referring to smoke, from the inefficient combustion process in that old technology? Well, not really. You might see big wafts of smoke on initial engine start, on the ground. But, the exhaust gases were not that smoky in flight.

And that doesn't even take into account how high they were when dropping bombs or trying to take out enemy bomb droppers. In other words the 'Flight Archive' is taking liberties as far as conclusions go.

How high they were, when dropping the bombs? They stayed high.....do you know what "flak" is? Staying high was prudent to remain out of range of the AA guns. You know, there were some inventions that come out back then that greatly improved bombing accuracy, from those heights. It was a closely guarded secret --- each side vied for better and better aim, of course.

For instance, on the Allies' side, the Norden bombsight

More history of bombing, to whet your appetite, perhaps?: Strategic bombing during WW2

You see, back to tactics (and Hollywood depictions thereof), many different techniques were used to actually deliver the bombs. Some, from "on high", out of range of ground-based guns (but, sitting ducks for enemy fighters in the air), and if anti-aircraft emplacements are taken out, then low-level bombing runs could be made, for better targeting accuracy.

Hollywood usually showed those, they are far more visually exciting...

If you like history and have the time, a trip to the local library will be fulfilling.....

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ProudBird

 

As far as fewer examples of contrails - that's irrelevant because these pictures from WWII (and obviously they weren't taking pictures of contrailess skies) were resurrected to show that persistent contrails are an ancient problem. My point was that there isn't a comparison here taking into account mass take-offs, bombs and exhaust which I still think had to be more visible (leaving out water vapor caused by heat) than in today's engines. And that doesn't even take into account how high they were when dropping bombs or trying to take out enemy bomb droppers. In other words the 'Flight Archive' is taking liberties as far as conclusions go.

given that you do not actually know what the effect of the factors you mention are, yuo cannot possibly make a judgement that Flight is taking liberties with any confidencce.

What is the effect of height?

B-17's usually flew at 26,000 feet or more on bombing raids. that is plenty high enough for contrails to form.

Therefore enemy fighters weer also at that height - or higher, as were the friendly escorts - the basic tactic for any fighter a/c at the time is to dive on the enemy, shoot, then use hte energy to climb up again - height is life.

What is the relevance of mass takeoffs - what do you think is actually important about them in the context of whether persistent contrails exist or not? The temperature at ground level in England is never going to be cold enough for persistent contrails AFAIK so I would be very surprised to hear otherwise.

And what have bombs got to do with contrails at all??

reply to post by Uncinus


I'm not talking about a cloud. From your links: "When thick enough to be seen, they are whitish, usually with no distinguishing features. When covering the whole sky and sometimes so thin as to be hardly discernible..." I'm not talking about something that is whitish or thin or barely discernible. I'm talking gray with a reflective surface. White over blue doesn't make gray no matter how indiscernible and clouds, no matter how indiscernible, do not reflect like metal. Clouds go away and come back - it's part of weather. In the past 9 months or maybe longer (with exceptions for the weeks I wasn't here) there has been one day when the color of the sky approached normal. That was quickly gone the next day, the result of planes making circles, X's and other geometric grid patterns in the sky.

reply to post by luxordelphi



Roughly where in the world are you??

reply to post by ProudBird


I didn't go to the library. I went online to chat sites for WWII aircraft buffs. Here's what I read: bombs were dropped from all different altitudes. The initial thought seemed to be that the closer you could get, the better your chance of hitting something intended. Some German planes smoked so much that the allies thought they were going down and left. Engines all smoked at take-off - try to visualize 1300 of these in a mass take-off. I'm surprised you could even see the sky after all that. Some of the sites I went to had commentary that was all pictures - planes on the ground, in flight etc. Some of those were really smoking in flight but that may have been deliberate because from continued reading I understand that smoke was often deliberately introduced.

You're kidding when you ask me if I know what flak is - right? Why do you think I'm always so on about aluminum particulants?

Read the link on Norden. 24% of the time they hit their target. That's in your link. They went back to area bombing. That's in your link. Your other link seems to want to say that an atomic bomb is a strategic bomb. Say what??!!