Questions regarding Chemtrails

My opinion regarding Chemtrails has been "Jury is deliberating" for the past 6 years i have been aware of this conspiracy. I honestly don't know if i believe they are real or not.

But i have made some observations lately which can easily be applied to both sides of the argument and i wanted the community's thoughts on this.

I live on the West Coast of the U.S., and from early August to early October, i have noticed basically zero clouds in the sky for days at a time. Literally 80% of the time it has been completely clear day and night, blue skies from horizon to horizon. If we did have clouds they would come in from the ocean one day in the evening and be gone within a few hours and not return for weeks.

I live within 100 miles of 3 major international airports, and within 200 miles of an active Air Force Base. I would see planes flying around all the time, some taking off or landing at low altitudes and plenty flying at cruising altitude high above the area. Sometimes they would have contrails but they would dissipate very quickly, less than a minute after the plane had passed. But i do recall in the past seeing the contrail stretch far to the horizon and last for many minutes.

If Chemtrails are Real: Where have they been the past few months? Does the lack of contrails/chemtrails coincide with the lack of clouds? Does it signify that "they" were not actively creating weather patterns in my area for that time period? Why suddenly stop and for such a long period of time?

If Chemtrails are a Hoax: Where have all the contrails gone? I don't recall going so long with them being so sparsely seen or so quickly dissipating. Normally they criss-cross the sky and stay put for the entire day. Or at least i could track them back to the horizon. Does the lack of clouds signify a weather pattern that is not conducive for contrail formation?

That is probably one of the best questions I have ever seen on this subject. Note: I am not a "chemtrail" person. Having some aviation expereince I know contrails (long or short duration) are a known scientific aeronautical phenomenon. I beleive the longer dispersing looking ones are when aircraft (usually tankers) dump fuel at high altitude.

Yes I know there have been some cloud seeding experiments and some other uses of using aircraft to spray test components for wind dispersal and tracking expereiments. This is what I suppose could be described as "chem trails" But as far as some of the stories here get into with it.....it kind of drives me crazy.

reply to post by tpsreporter


I am out here on the west coast as well, So Cal to be a little more precise, and have seen quite a different weather dynamic than your description.

The reason the clouds went away is influenced largely by what kind of pressure system is moving through the area, and how long it lasts. Areas of low pressure, typically associated with cooler weather and more clouds tend to be more conducive to contrail formation. Areas of high pressure tend to be associated with hot sunny weather. But don't forget, the weather at surface level in no reflects the weather at 30,000+ feet.

Contrails tend to be a good indicator of incoming rain. Next time you see persistent contrails, I am willing to bet that you will get rain within the week, if not at least some cloudy cooler weather.

The problem with the question is, that the underlaying data is a subjective feeling. No empirical data has been collected I assume as to how many contrails/chemtrails were visible in average over the past years.

The assumption that a major decrease can be seen is a subjective impression which may or may not be true.

In my opinion putting the affair to rest could be achieved using a much more simple method. Just look for Barium or Aluminum ions in open waters. There are primitive methods available to everyone allowing for qualitative analysis of said elements. If chemtrails are real you will find both in high quantities.

reply to post by SrWingCommander

I beleive the longer dispersing looking ones are when aircraft (usually tankers) dump fuel at high altitude.

Not typically. In the upper atmosphere, when conditions are ripe for persistent contrail formation, clouds are already in the sky, they just cant be seen by the naked eye. The H2O in the jet exhaust sublimates and actually nucleates the existing ice crytals, producing persistent contrails.

It work on the same premise of how natural clouds exist.

reply to post by tpsreporter

I think this is a really good question even though I am a skeptic myself.

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
The problem with the question is, that the underlaying data is a subjective feeling. No empirical data has been collected I assume as to how many contrails/chemtrails were visible in average over the past years.

The assumption that a major decrease can be seen is a subjective impression which may or may not be true.

In my opinion putting the affair to rest could be achieved using a much more simple method. Just look for Barium or Aluminum ions in open waters. There are primitive methods available to everyone allowing for qualitative analysis of said elements. If chemtrails are real you will find both in high quantities.

Well, to be fair i did say they were mere observations, and you are right i have no evidence. I suppose i could start taking pictures to catalog the rate at which they come and go to support any theory formed. But I didn't violate the scientific method just yet; make Observation, ask question, then form hypothesis (get a theory going).

But i guess i was just wondering for those who believe they are some plot, why would they stop for so long. Even if i cannot prove they did stop with any evidence, i think the question could still be answered with a theory no?

I'm not against going as far as gathering water samples if i got that far. Tracking their rate of appearance, the weather at the time, and have water samples throughout the year...would make for an interesting experiment either way.

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie

If chemtrails are real you will find both in high quantities.

Define "high quantities".
Do you think "chemtrails" are the only possible source for such things?

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
Contrails tend to be a good indicator of incoming rain. Next time you see persistent contrails, I am willing to bet that you will get rain within the week, if not at least some cloudy cooler weather.

edit on 12-10-2012 by ZombieJesus because: (no reason given)

See while this may be true (and i'm not doubting it) the facts can be made to support either side of the debate.

If someone believes Contrails are in fact Chemtrails, and the purpose is to develop rain or clouds, then having contrails/chemtrails followed that day or that week with rain and clouds would just look like a connection.

You could scream "Correlation does not imply Causation" at them all day, but their observations support their hypothesis.

I think that could be one of the biggest points of debate in the matter, the facts can easily support both sides. As "HighTechHippie" pointed out, the observations are so dependent on subjective impressions.

As "HighTechHippie" pointed out, the observations are so dependent on subjective impressions.

They're only subjective if your only observation is visual.

weather soundings

Appleman chart

The weather sounding observations are not subjective.

Surface map

Also, surface maps aren't subjective.

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
They're only subjective if your only observation is visual.
weather soundings
Appleman chart

The weather sounding observations are not subjective.
Surface map
Also, surface maps aren't subjective.

Well, again i do want to reiterate i don't personally believe in Chemtrails, nor do i overwhelmingly not believe them.

To play devils advocate, just for the sake of the debate, couldn't one who does believe in Chemtrails and their effect on the weather still use that data to support their stance?

If they believe Chemtrails will encourage cloud formation or precipitation, then you would need a combination of all those things as well as visual observations before the numbers changed to suggest them forming. Observing contrails before the numbers say they're coming ect.

Some might argue that the Chemtrails could be used to "lead" weather formations in certain directions. Changing those numbers along the way.

But again, i'm not saying i believe that. Do you know if anyone has tracked contrail formation, those numbers, and kept a history of the time frame of all of their appearances?

I do agree most chemtrail enthusiasts rely solely on visual observation, which i think most agree is too limited to really hold it's ground to scrutiny.

Unseen pollution,
is the preferred margin for profit,
in the airline industry.
Now all you need to do is go to the Flight Aware website,
determine how many planes polluted over your head,
that were unseen.

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
I beleive the longer dispersing looking ones are when aircraft (usually tankers) dump fuel at high altitude.

Aircraft usually do not dump fuel - and those that do are usually not tankers - they are airliners that have to return to the airport they came from, but are carrying too much weight to land safely - the maximum take off weight is often much more than the max landing weight, so fuel is dumped to get down to the later.

And fuel dumps usually disperse quite rapidly, and are from only 2 nozzles, even on 4 engined a/c, and those nozzles are not coincident with engine exhaust - ie if you saw a dump you would not think the trail was coming from the engines. Also fuel dumps do not generate the gap between contrail and airframe that contrails always do.

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
Unseen pollution,
is the preferred margin for profit,
in the airline industry.

The preferred METHOD of profit in the airline industry is no pollution at all - if you can figure out a system of flying passengers that does not use fuel they will love you for it.

Engine and airframe changes that save 1-2% fuel are often enough to sell a new version of an old aircraft, and new aircraft are usually looking at 10-15-20% less "seat mile cost" over older types.

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
In my opinion putting the affair to rest could be achieved using a much more simple method. Just look for Barium or Aluminum ions in open waters. There are primitive methods available to everyone allowing for qualitative analysis of said elements. If chemtrails are real you will find both in high quantities.

And no-one has managed to do so - BTW commercial labs use very good methods - no need to be primitive about it at all.

Barium is used in drilling mud and auto mobile brake pads. Aluminium is present in feldspars - which comprise about 60% of all soils.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You should give him all the links to contrail science, flight aware.
I will compromise and come up with links and pictures showing the
the combined pollution in all forms of travel and energy production.
And then I well work on showing that the cities without airports have the lower pollution levels.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

You can help, do these people get to see airline travel side effects,
without the convenience of modern air travel?
Here is a list of Countries without airports.

List of countries without an airport
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Rudy2shoes


Why would I give him links to Contrail Science and Flight Aware when I am talking about fuel efficiency???!!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Rudy2shoes

 

Why would I give him links to Contrail Science and Flight Aware when I am talking about fuel efficiency???!!!

I understand you are on the in the air profit side,
we on the ground,
are on the visual side of these profits.

Someone should do another study that correlates Airline stock values,
with the amount of visual contrails in the sky.

I think it could be done use flight aware,
get airline flight names and a visual sighting,
then check stock values.

In how you explain it to me then we would know which airlines are most efficient,
best bang for our buck.


And anyone that does work in the industry do not answer or participate in this study as I think it is illegal to do so, under The Securities Commissions Act