So what is hte time limit for "normal" contrails to exist?
From my observations over the years, not all day. That is one of the changes I have noticed. The amount of 'extremely persistent contrails'
increasing and a corresponding decrease in the quickly disappearing type. Same observation others have. Although I have noticed this for a while, I
had the opportunity to watch the sky a bit more this summer, specifically analyzing such. I did pay attention and what I noticed this summer was that
there was a distinct lack of contrails that dissipated quickly. A distinct lack based off of DAILY observation. There tended to be either no signs
or double digit numbers of trails that lasted all day, turning in to the cirrus type clouds. But a distinct lack of the quickly disappearing ones
that I have grown accustomed to seeing over the decades.
It is not an insult, it is a fact because there is evidence to support it. Your statement is not a fact in the first place bvecause people like
me DO notice the increasing number of persistent contrails.
Now you're confusing me. First you imply there is not an increase in 'extremely persistent contrails' and they were always there, and people like
me are just now noticing them for the first time, and now, you concur with me in their increasing occurence. A change, like I said. You said it, not
Basically the fact that you and other people didn't notice it is not evidence that it wasn't happening - it is just evidence that you didn't
See? You are denying the change that I and others notice, and now you come around to admitting there is a change.
You said they were always there, like they are today and folks like me just didn't notice, now you amend your statement to agree with me that there
is a noticable increase.
So you no longer think I wasn't paying attention, like you stated? Hmmm.
No you can't - if you had read the references I gave you would see that the increasing number of contrails has been seen by science for
I did read your links. The 1955 one was limited in scope and dealt with ONLY military planes (of which I NEVER expect full disclosure), as I said.
Further, although one might reasonably infer a change from 'Con trails seen lately ...'
, you will not find the word INCREASE or
anywhere in that article, as you claim. As for the other, the increasing in the 1968 article was predicated upon an increase in
supersonic flights, which has not occurred. That article did not mention an observed increase, it SPECULATED
about an increase from rockets
launching into space and super sonic flights traveling at 70,000 feet. And those SST have not manifested, have they? Nowhere do they acknowledge or
speculate about an increase for normal passenger jets, which is the observation I am talking about. So I think your synopsis of those articles is not
accurate. Maybe you should go reread them as I think I understood them better than you as those articles said no such thing you are claiming them to.
I am talking about an increase in non supersonic passenger jets. An absolute increase in the 'extremely persistent contrails' with a
corresponding decrease in the amount of the quickly dispersing. I have no problems amending the absolute type wording of my original post (since you
show no quams about changing your statements, I shan't either) as the change is still noticed. And I do not mind as I wasn't entirely consistent.
I put in bold that they did not exist thirty years ago as we see them today, followed by some absolutism I don't mind backing away from, as my
overall point is the CHANGE
. Higher percentage of chemtrails per plane and lower percentage of contrails.
I just do not see quickly dissipated ones as frequently as I have in the past. And I am seeing more of the 'extremely persistent' variety. An
observation many share with me. All or nothing - little inbetween these days.
So htey hae too many variables....and yet you have a certainty that chemtrails exist based upon nothing except more contrails??
I am certain of a change. A change in prevalence. A change in the proportion of planes putting out 'extremely persistent contrails', compared to
those that put out the quickly dissappearing ones. And just more contrails. The contrails have changed. There are less of the quickly dissipated
ones and more of the 'extremely persistent ones'. All or nothing these days, which is why I wonder about a change in jet fuel composition.
there are now many times the numbr of large jets flying than there were 30 or 40 years ago
Yes. Which is why I described your words as a thinly veiled insult. There is an obvious change if for no other reason, yet you said I just didn't
notice before, hence why. Again, proportions and proportions I don't think explained merely by increased travel.