Chemtrails? In drought stricken Nebraska.

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes

Originally posted by Uncinus

The only contrail forecasts now are for military purposes, and for climate research.

I will have to absorb,

"contrail forecasts are for military purposes"

And get back to you on that.

What's to absorb? Contrails give away the position of planes, so forecasts are useful if they want to avoid flying at an altitude that leaves a contrail. This has been true since WWII.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes

Originally posted by Uncinus

The only contrail forecasts now are for military purposes, and for climate research.

I will have to absorb,

"contrail forecasts are for military purposes"

And get back to you on that.

What's to absorb? Contrails give away the position of planes, so forecasts are useful if they want to avoid flying at an altitude that leaves a contrail. This has been true since WWII.

You try too hard Unicanus, and give away your hand.

With all the lies and disinformation propagated , it is more important now than
ever before that people trust their own eyes and common sense.

I am 100% certain that chemtrails are a deadly reality.

Where i live - most days - very few planes - normal short lived contrails.
On chemtrailing days - large number of planes - massive extended trails.

Full stop. No arguments.

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
With all the lies and disinformation propagated , it is more important now than
ever before that people trust their own eyes and common sense.

Your eyes can tell you that you see a white trail in the sky, no one is denying that. The problem is the assumptions required to conclusively state they are 'chemtrails and not contrails'. But by all means, let's introduce a little common sense to your observations.

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
Where i live - most days - very few planes - normal short lived contrails.

Common sense tells me that when there are small or no persisting contrails, you would not notice all the planes in the sky the entire day. It is very hard to make out an airliner at cruise altitude when they're not leaving a distinctive trail, and unless you were staring at the sky all day with a pair of binoculars, you're not going to notice every single plane.

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
On chemtrailing days - large number of planes - massive extended trails.

Common sense would dictate that when atmospheric conditions are right for contrails to persist, you would notice many more planes due to their obvious trails, even if the exact same amount of planes is flying.

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
I am 100% certain that chemtrails are a deadly reality.

This is where all common sense is thrown out the window, and you've had to start making assumptions. Especially if your observations above are what have led you to be 100% certain of chemtrails. It has been shown repeatedly that contrails can persist when the atmospheric conditions allow, yet there are those who repeatedly ignore this, in order to continue their belief in ignorance. You can't deny ignorance by ignoring facts.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
feel free to provide it at your leasure, i wont hold my breath

The information has been provided to you, yet you've simply ignored it (as predicted), and posted the exact same bogus links in this thread. You've also decided to continue promoting a bogus product, promoted by the same people (/snakeoil salesman) who've been shown to be spreading lies and misinformation. Yet it is the people providing the well understood knowledge and verifiable facts which get accused of 'getting paid'

ATS is a strange place, where facts can be ignored, and lies and assupmtions put forth as fact, and in doing so you can still claim to deny others ignorance. And apparently stating facts means you're getting paid. Can anyone tell me who's paying? Cos I haven't received my pay cheque yet!

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes

Originally posted by Uncinus

The only contrail forecasts now are for military purposes, and for climate research.

I will have to absorb,

"contrail forecasts are for military purposes"

And get back to you on that.

What's to absorb? Contrails give away the position of planes, so forecasts are useful if they want to avoid flying at an altitude that leaves a contrail. This has been true since WWII.

Do you believe the military does not have the technology,
to not create contrails,
and needs a primitive forecast system to operate in current times.
I find it hard to believe that we are told that planes have not progressed passed, WW2 technology.
But that's ok you can continue to post historic pictures of planes in the past,
and claim them as current events.

At this time I have no choice but to continue absorbing what ever,
is a byproduct, or intentional product of fossil fuel usage.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


lol
free instructions are not a product

it is your claim[s] that is/[are] bogus

and if you are not being paid, i feel sorry for you

cyberstalking is a sign of mental problems, just so you know
unless you're getting overtime

as i said before once i catch you engaging in fraudulent/deceptive behavior,
sophistry, or sneak tactics

you are on my ignore list

so take a hint

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

lol
free instructions are not a product

it is your claim[s] that is/[are] bogus

and if you are not being paid, i feel sorry for you

cyberstalking is a sign of mental problems, just so you know
unless you're getting overtime

as i said before once i catch you engaging in fraudulent/deceptive behavior,
sophistry, or sneak tactics

you are on my ignore list

so take a hint

edit on 28-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)

I didn't know there was an 'ignore' list, because I just ignored everything he
has said in his last response to me, even though to his credit, he was polite.
They show their cards when they try so hard. What part of '100% certain'
doesn't he understand, eh?

Heavy spraying of a nice day here today, and this evening the rain arrived.
I bet my bottom dollar that we are in for dreary and rainy times for the next few days.

Utter Bastards.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Excellent post, this exactly the sort of common sense I've tried to put across with this particular "observation" about air traffic. As a bit of a plane spotter myself I know only too well how difficult it is to spot an aeroplane that's not leaving a trail, and thats when I am actively looking for it, not merely 'noticing' aircraft in the sky. Without contrails one would hardly ever notice anything over 10,000ft.

I don't know why it isn't obvious to people that persistent trails will make you notice aircraft you were unaware of on a previous day and does not necessarily denote an increase in actual traffic.

Sadly, from the replies you've had, it seems common sense is not something that some chemtrail believers are over endowed with

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
lol
free instructions are not a product

The instructions also provided you with people to purchase the materials. "You can obtain quartz crystals for the CB or five crystal orgone generator from .....". But not everyone has the tools or capabilities to make these items. But these people, (who can't get the very basics of contrail science right, yet feel they can make a product with seeming unlimited power using magical 'science'), will be happy to sell you something like this for "$765 plus insured shipping of two boxes". Did you miss that in your link, or simply ignore it?

I truly feel sorry for anyone who has purchased one of these items. It is despicable to promote a product with fear, when you cannot justify it with any reliable evidence. They're spreading misinformation then capitilising on the fear of those who they mislead. I'm curious, do you have one of these devices?

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
it is your claim[s] that is/[are] bogus

That is your opinion, yet you have not shown a single shred of evidence or reasoning to explain why. I have posted well known and well understood knowledge about contrails. You've simply ignored it, and continued to dish out the same information which contradicts every thing we know about clouds and water in our atmosphere. You've criticised using wikipedia as a source, yet deliberately ignored the sources that wikipedia has used, even when posted twice in this thread! And you accuse me of having mental problems?

Here are a couple of the sources that wiki uses, so you can go ahead and explain how those are bogus. Can you at least attempt to give your thoughts on them?
Britannica: Vapour trail
Minnis, Patrick, J. Kirk Ayers, Rabindra Palikonda, Dung Phan, 2004: Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate. J. Climate, 17, 1671–1685.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
as i said before once i catch you engaging in fraudulent/deceptive behavior,
sophistry, or sneak tactics

you are on my ignore list

That is up to you and you are perfectly entitled to do so. I came on ATS to intelligently discuss topics, not to get ignored and insulted by trolls. So far, you've managed to ignore most of the actual information presented anyway, so I wouldn't be missing out on much. You could of course, prove me wrong and show how ignorant I am by explaining why the sources above are "bogus". I really hope you do, as if what you say is true, I will happily join the chemtrail crowd.

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
I didn't know there was an 'ignore' list, because I just ignored everything he
has said in his last response to me, even though to his credit, he was polite.

Thankyou
Well if you wish to remain ignorant on the topic, you might as well go ahead and click on ignore. If basic science is too hard to believe in, but you wish to believe every contrail is a chemtrail, go ahead and ignore me now. I won't be missing out on anything. You're ignoring the information any way, so what's the difference? Of course, I would prefer that you didn't, and that you could intelligently discuss the topic. So how about it?

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
They show their cards when they try so hard. What part of '100% certain'
doesn't he understand, eh?

I perfectly understand what certainty entails. What I don't understand is that people make bold claims and then refuse to provide any information or reasoning to back it up. I don't understand how people can deliberately ignore information relevant to their theories, then claim to be "certain" of what is happening. I'm trying to understand, so please enlighten me. Or if that is unreasonable, go ahead and ignore me.

reply to post by waynos

Thanks
I'm not really sure why I bother (I should be in bed by now!), but I just can't stand it when obvious misinformation is presented as fact. I used to lurk these forums for a long time before I actually signed up, and I would like to think that other lurkers are getting all the information to make their own mind up instead of only trusting a chemtrail site. Of course, some don't want all the information, but that's their choice.

I understand that some have put a lot of faith in chemtrail sites to provide them with factual information, so I can kind of understand that it might be difficult to accept information which shows that their faith is misplaced. What I don't understand is the utter refusal to admit wrongdoings, even when they're blatantly exposed. I'm hoping for an improvement on the replies though. I would be happy to be proven wrong

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
Do you believe the military does not have the technology,
to not create contrails,
and needs a primitive forecast system to operate in current times.
I find it hard to believe that we are told that planes have not progressed passed, WW2 technology.
But that's ok you can continue to post historic pictures of planes in the past,
and claim them as current events.

At this time I have no choice but to continue absorbing what ever,
is a byproduct, or intentional product of fossil fuel usage.

There are various techniques to prevent contrails. Not flying in contrail locations is by far the simplest. There are things you can spray to make contrail formation less likely, but they all come with other problems. See:

Contrail avoidance and mitigation techniques

reply to post by Thorazine


Thorazine: responding to your concerns about 15 minutes of persistence - using the study from 1972 that you put up and that you initially put up in another thread and which was not favorable to your side then anymore than it is favorable to your side now.

Observation seems to be something that you leave under your pillow when you rise in the morning. For others, it is crucial and for some, it is survival, enabling persons to get through the day unharmed. In WWII, as previously stated, we learned that contrails can persist for, perhaps, 15 minutes. The 'perhaps' is because with the hundreds of contrails mixed with smoke and flak and natural cirrus and clouds and weather, it was, understandably, difficult to time an individual contrail. The 15 minutes is a recollection from one WWII veteran.

Take a look at the quote as you put it up from the introductory paragraph of the study you presented:

"It is often observed that contrails spread considerably...Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed...If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails."

Now take a look at the entire quote, the first 3 or 4 sentences of the study (and please note what 'an entire overcast of contrail cirrus' means):

It is often observed that contrails spread considerably beyond the initial width defined by the outward extension of the wing-tip vortices. Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed with presumably comparable vertical spreading. If sufficient air carrier traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail

So, clearly, this introduction is not talking about an individual contrail but rather a situation similar to WWII where another veteran was quoted as saying that an artificially created cloud layer persisted for several hours over Berlin.

Let's paint a picutre: air traffic over a region (i.e. London) is very heavy and creates what is known as a cloud corridor. Weather exists, on more days than not, and this condition, combined with a northern latitude, serves contrail formation. Let's paint another picture: air traffic over a region (i.e. Las Vegas) is heavy and creates what is known as a cloud corridor but there is no weather and no front and temperatures, even at altitude, are non-conducive and, combined with a lack of humidity, should, in a persistent contrail by the book world, produce no contrails. So that's our picture. Back to your study - looking at what these researchers have to say about air traffic:

There has been increasing concern over the amount of cirrus triggered through contrail formation. These results would not, however, suggest that increased air carrier traffic could increase the water vapor at subtropopause levels, a theme that is currently fashionable. On the contrary, the development of large numbers of precipitation size ice crystals in contrails results in precipitation and an ultimate exchange of water vapor to lower levels. Given reasonable frequency of contrail growth occurrence, the net effect of air carrier traffic may likely, in fact, be to lower the water abundance at the levels of most frequent air travel.

So if conditions are conducive to persistent contrails, they are also conducive to rain-out and fall-out and evaporate-out which equals: no visible contrails. Makes sense - doesn't it? London, with its' weather, rains. Las Vegas, with it's lack of weather, doesn't. However, Houston, there's a problem. How is that possible with no humidity and alot of heat? Carnicom asked and answered this question and came up with chemtrails. The X factor. Moving on, fuel content, even in 1972, was a concern:

With any given fuel (or proportionality constant) there results a critical temperature for each altitude above which contrail formation is impossible. In order that the contrail be visible a temperature as much as several degrees below the critical temperature is generally required.

So fuel content is important and could be manipulated to produce contrails where no contrail has gone before.

(Please see next post for continuation!)

reply to post by Thorazine


(continued...)

Heat, exhaust heat, is a problem, and in this study, it is not really addressed beyond these strange statements:

The aircraft also imparts a considerable amount of mechanical energy to the atmosphere in performing the work necessary for flight. Inevitably, this mechanical energy also appears as heat but not before condensation occurs in certain cases, and as will be seen below, after condensation occurs the condensed particles may rapidly radiate away the total heat produced through combustion allowing such "impossible" contrails to persist and grow.

So this study has ice particles repelling heat. Heat, from the exhaust or from the sun or 'mechanical heat' is death to contrails. It is one of the main reasons that outrageously persistent contrail formation is so rare as to be of interest to Guiness. Still...we don't know what in particular was being tested here except that an effort was being made to get a contrail to persist. And did it persist?

The final pass in the same region as the upper pass in cross section A, but 12 min later (1247) revealed only a few crystals remaining at this level. The entire region rapidly decayed and completely disappeared by 1300.

Looks like they were successful for about 15 minutes. For myself, I'm happy with that, because, it coincides with the WWII veteran's observation.

There's a footnote on invisible contrails - the norm. And, my dear, if you're lobbying for those, you have my support:

It may not be apparent but the formation of an order-of-magnitude fewer ice crystals would result in the glaciation of a contrail with one-tenth of the optical depth of the one in this study. Such a glaciated trail may not be visible from the ground.

And that brings us to the end of this story with the facts that 2 days out of 10 produced contrails because even an effort to create contrails is foiled by conditions that are not perfect.

During the 10 days allotted for the research program conditions were favorable for contrail growth only on 16 and 19 September.

On 16 September, a massive upslope "summer" snow storm was developing along the front range. The early afternoon was characterized by a thickening lower deck, drizzle and lowering temperatures. An extensive band of contrail cirrus had already developed by the time we arrived at altitude (1400 MDT). While growth in the ice budget of our own contrail was observed and we were able to sample it, a detailed analysis of the data was not attempted because of possible confusion with the complex pattern of neighboring contrail cirrus and the rapidly changing meteorological situation.

Even so, an individual contrail became lost in the mix under favorable conditions. And here we see that conditions including existing cirrus produced a contrail visible for several kilometers of the flight path. I'll let you tell me how long that was. How fast was the plane flying? How many kilometers (several generally means 2 or 3) a minute did it traverse?

On 19 September natural cirrus was visible at 30,000 ft over the mountains of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming. This region is not on major airways and contrails were not evident. By 1200 MDT we were in the region of natural cirrus which was developing between 25,000 and 30,000 ft. We found a few isolated cirrus uncinus about 50 n mi south of Laramie, Wyo., and after several sampling runs observed our contrail from a prior run persisting over several kilometers of flight path.

Last, hear this: not everyone enjoys science and observation in the same way. Artists and poets see things which others don't. I'm going to put you, tentatively, into that class and assume that this is why you are unable to see the chemtrail in the sky.

P.S.: thankyou for the study, which, as you can see, I've enjoyed.

Wel, that was quite an impressive display of misunderstanding. Since in the past you've proved to be entirely resistent to efforts to explain to you that the Moon has not, in fact, unexpectedly rotated, then I presume you'll be similarly resistent to any attempts to explain your misunderstanding here. So I won't bother.

I'll just point out that numerous sources say contrails sometimes last for hours, and NONE say they only last for 15 minutes, especially not this one. Event the bits you quote say they last for hours.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorazine

 

Thorazine: responding to your concerns about 15 minutes of persistence - The 15 minutes is a recollection from one WWII veteran.

It is often observed that contrails spread considerably beyond the initial width defined by the outward extension of the wing-tip vortices. Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed with presumably comparable vertical spreading. If sufficient air carrier traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.

So, clearly, this introduction is not talking about an individual contrail .

Let's paint a picutre: air traffic over a region (i.e. London) is very heavy and creates what is known as a cloud corridor. Weather exists, on more days than not, and this condition, combined with a northern latitude, serves contrail formation. Let's paint another picture: air traffic over a region (i.e. Las Vegas) is heavy and creates what is known as a cloud corridor but there is no weather and no front and temperatures, even at altitude, are non-conducive and, combined with a lack of humidity, should, in a persistent contrail by the book world, produce no contrails. So that's our picture.

Thats Classic - you will disregard an entire body of scientific research spanning decades, based on the very laws of nature...in favor of your interpretation of "a recollection from one WWII veteran."

Now that is some serious denial....

You are correct that the quote from the 1972 paper is not talking about one contrail- it is talking about multiple contrails....and it is talking about them persisting for hours. You can bob and weave and obfuscate all you want...but that does not change the fact that the description of multiple persisting contrails from 1972 is IDENTICAL to what Believers claim are "chemtrails" today....persisting, spreading and cover the sky in a haze...

They claim contrails don't do that and never have...clearly we have extremely strong evidence that they did in 1972.

As for your Belief that the atmosphere over Las Vegas is not conducive to contrail formation and persistence...that is flat out wrong. The air 6 miles above Vegas is plenty cold enough...allowing contrail formation and the humidity level often humid enough to allow persistence...anyone can easily verify this for themselves....why haven't you?

In fact, look at post #9 on this thread- a shot from 1971 with multiple persisting, spreading contrails right over Vegas:

metabunk.org...

Luxor crashes and burns yet again on the Ramparts of Fact and Logic.

I think you need to look up and research the term "ice saturation" and understand how the sky can be free of clouds but over %100 humidity and all it needs is the heat and moisture from the exhaust of a plane to create a persistent contrail. No front needed.

Since you had such fun with that last paper- You should play around with these:

This one is from the Dawn of the "Chemtrail" religion...and sums up all know data on persistent contrail to that point in time and refutes many of your misconceptions.

www.ipcc.ch...

journals.ametsoc.org...

journals.ametsoc.org...

reply to post by Thorazine


Isn't metabunk an affilliate of contrailscience? I'm thinking yes. I'm asking WHY would you put up a study from 1972 that supports chemtrails and, further, WHY would you then wave a debunking site at me? It's goofy. What?...you can't do your own debunking?

A cursory glance at the further studies you put up...yeah, interesting, but, don't you think that one study per thread, in the interests of entertainment, is enough? This study, from your recent group, supports chemtrails within its' opening volley:

On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds

Observations and model estimates suggest that contrail growth is only weakly, if at all, affected by preexisting cirrus clouds.

Also, are you not going to refute anything I said? I used your study to prove chemtrails. I'm interested, frankly, in your poet's view of chemtrails versus contrails.

And last, my artistic friend, your study supports 15 minutes. (Hard to believe.) (15 minutes - not just for WWII vets anymore.)

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Isn't metabunk an affilliate of contrailscience? I'm thinking yes. I'm asking WHY would you put up a study from 1972 that supports chemtrails and, further, WHY would you then wave a debunking site at me? It's goofy. What?...you can't do your own debunking?

Both sites are owned by me. What's wrong with debunking? Do you like bunk?

But I don't think he was linking to the debunking there, just to this photo:



Persistent spreading contrails, in 1971. Above Las Vegas.

Interesting
Now scenes from fictional movies
are proof of contrails.

reply to post by Rudy2shoes

Interesting
Now scenes from fictional movies
are proof of contrails.

The movie may be fictional,but the contrails are real.