Facts of contrails

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I understand how you want to lump all transportation
into groups,
but lets talk about each vehicle and consumption per trip.

Originally posted by network dude
Sadly, the chemtrail crowd ignores facts, for their faith. They would rather turn a blind eye to known, proven facts, to follow their religion, the religion of chemtrails.

Fact 1, a contrail that is visible is a man made cloud.

Fact 2, contrails can and do form in the sky right behind airplanes flying at around 25 to 35 thousand feet, when the conditions are right.

Fact 3, contrails are the same thing as clouds

Fact 4, contrails can and do persist as long as the conditions they are in allow them to. Just like clouds.


These are the facts and they are undisputed.

If you feel that any of these facts are incorrect, please use an official peer reviewed source to discredit them, and I will do my best to alert the scientific community.

Chemtrails may exist, or they may not. No scientific data exists to offer proof one way, or the other.

You are of course ignoring the chemical composition of the actual exhaust vapors that form the clouds from the airplane.

I understand your argument, but you dismiss the chemicals as if they were so insignificant as to be a joke.

As far as the possibility that the government or a private industry could use the exhaust as a sprayer for cloud-busting or seeding, that is also not disputed since it has been admitted openly by both the government and industry. Spraying is also not regulated at this time.

I am keeping an open mind on this since I have known about other "Testing" done by my government for quite some time. If you are not watching how will you know? In this instance I feel it is the smarter choice to question what I can't prove and try to minimize damage from it. If I am wasting time in a useless endeavor so be it.

As a solar power user and proponent, I can say what you left out is the fake cloud cover that blocks out the sun prematurely and causes diminished returns from an otherwise sunny location for solar panels. I consistently get a 60% reduction in power output when the "Fake" clouds cover the sky. If you insist we change the wording to "Contrail" to complain about the "fake clouds" then so be it. I can't see a problem calling them sky turds, but that's me.

You also must admit that they are not harmless H2O since they contain a cocktail of gasses and chemical residue normally found in fuel.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
I want to believe in chemtrails,
and the only 3 chemicals released are H2O.

lol - 3 chemicals??

So you are saying that individual chemicals like H,
are to be lumped into one group,
and each molecule can not be counted as separate,
then why add the 2 in H2O?

And you are the one trying to explain water vapor plane exhaust to us?
Molecules are counted as individuals,
unless you are saying they can not be combined compounds.



It takes 2 contrailers to beat up one chemtrailer but if you are willing to lump yourself into a group
I can accept that.

I am lazy,
who wants to step up,
and make the OP,
a Cloud Police Badge and Swear him In?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

They are both water ice - no problem.

You heard it
Its only ice.

I am the one claiming,
it is ice flavored petroleum products,
fueled by what ever fuel it takes for aircraft travel.

Step up guys and gals,
get your Flavored Ice Cones,
ignore what they are
pumping in those airplane fuel tanks.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
You are of course ignoring the chemical composition of the actual exhaust vapors that form the clouds from the airplane.

I understand your argument, but you dismiss the chemicals as if they were so insignificant as to be a joke.

The exhaust gases are always there, regardless of if a contrail forms or does not form.

When it DOES form, the visible trail, the contrail, that's just water. The only thing that forms the contrail is water (and a few molecules of carbon as condensation nuclei)

But the exhaust gasses are still there, just the same.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by onecraftydude
You are of course ignoring the chemical composition of the actual exhaust vapors that form the clouds from the airplane.

I understand your argument, but you dismiss the chemicals as if they were so insignificant as to be a joke.

The exhaust gases are always there, regardless of if a contrail forms or does not form.

When it DOES form, the visible trail, the contrail, that's just water. The only thing that forms the contrail is water (and a few molecules of carbon as condensation nuclei)

But the exhaust gasses are still there, just the same.

At what temperature does Co2 freeze and become visible to humans?
How many tons of Co2 are created from each ton of aircraft fuel?
I pay attention to yours and Gauls input even if it does not seem like it.
when you speak of carbon is that the same a soot?
I will admit that even I downplay the effects of all forms of combustion,
I was trained that way.

reply to post by Uncinus


Don't answer,
they do not want to hear it,
I do not want stay up all night,
explaining the thought I just shared with you.

while I believe in chemtrails , I dont believe that every contrail is a chemtrail . ive seen alot of info on ats explaining con trails , and believe some of it. its like the ufo thing , if one ufo is identified as a plane , it does not mean the other ufo sightings are also planes.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Really, could you provide a link for this information?

I already provided the link in my previous post.

Try reading it this time.

Link

Option 5: Running Commercial Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

This can be done right now, with the planes only running rich while in the stratosphere. This is based on about 1.3% fuel converted to soot and relies on a 1989 estimate that 1% offsets 6.5GtC forcing (22). The 1.3% takes into consideration growth in forcing since 1989 and applies it to a 2000 baseline. The additional soot will block enough sunlight to completely offset warming due to GHG emissions and hold the forcing at 2000 levels.

Like with the sulfur emissions, more soot would be required each year. Due to uncertainty of the response to additional soot, I have not provided a schedule for the next 50 years. If it is linear and has to match GHG emissions growth between now and 2050, then around 2.6% soot might be enough to offset the warming then. That would still seem doable, since only 2.6% of jet fuel is burned for this purpose. However, a doubling of jet fuel use might allow 1.3% to continue to be used.

The black carbon aerosol released may generate more cirrus clouds and enhance stratospheric warming. That could offset any ozone loss due to sulfate aerosols if they are also used. While reducing ozone loss would be beneficial, the soot might also result in some as yet unknown harm. The net effect on GHG forcing and any possible harmful effects must be determined to gauge the true benefit. It isn’t clear if a single country could carry this out by having its planes generate even higher soot levels, but if so, effective distribution would require use of the airspace of other countries.

Running engines rich could wear them out faster. Attempting to run rich and use higher sulfur fuel at the same time could complicate the engine operation as well as reduce the efficiency of the sulfate aerosols if they combine with the soot. Having some planes run rich and others with higher sulfur fuel may provide the proper mix of these approaches to achieve the desired result.

It could allow the sulfur content to be decreased to below 0.3%. Or, finally, the decision could be made to run rich for as long as possible and then start using the higher sulfur fuel if the soot levels are found to be causing problems. As was assumed for the higher sulfur fuel, the cost of additional fuel and engine wear is borne by the government.

reply to post by MagicWand67


But why would this result in a visible white trail? Or why would you (or anyone else) assume that an aeroplane that is not leaving a trail is also not undertaking the activity described in your link? Notice the use of MAY induce more cirrus which COULD help, not 'will'.

The reason that cirrus forms in the sky, whether natural or from aviation, is when it is cold enough and humid enough for it happen. The method described above won't induce water to collect around the soot and freeze and hang about in the sky, those conditions will STILL need to be present naturally,so the trails in the sky prove nothing either way, or do you suppose a trail of soot particles would be seen from the ground looking exactly like a contrail?

For me, THIS is the idiocy of chemtrail theory, the fixation with contrails. Not whether or not it can be done.

reply to post by waynos

But why would this result in a visible white trail?

The technique described is only one of many. They have suggested using a combination of different techniques as well.

More soot = more CCN
More CCN = more potential ice crystals
More ice crystals = larger visible trails

Or why would you (or anyone else) assume that an aeroplane that is not leaving a trail is also not undertaking the activity described in your link? Notice the use of MAY induce more cirrus which COULD help, not 'will'.

I never assumed that or made that claim. It is possible that planes are involved which do not leave visible trails.

The reason that cirrus forms in the sky, whether natural or from aviation, is when it is cold enough and humid enough for it happen. The method described above won't induce water to collect around the soot and freeze and hang about in the sky, those conditions will STILL need to be present naturally,so the trails in the sky prove nothing either way, or do you suppose a trail of soot particles would be seen from the ground looking exactly like a contrail?

The method described will induce any potential contrail that does form to persist and possibly spread more than it normally would.

For me, THIS is the idiocy of chemtrail theory, the fixation with contrails. Not whether or not it can be done.

For me, the idiocy is people who do not even read all the information provided and who then cherry pick which bits and pieces to comment on while trying to insert false facts and assume I have certain beliefs which I never stated I hold.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by waynos

 

The technique described is only one of many. They have suggested using a combination of different techniques as well.

More soot = more CCN
More CCN = more potential ice crystals
More ice crystals = larger visible trails

But only if the required moisture is present at the right altitude for this to happen anyway, so any other airliner would also produce a contrail as well, only possibly a smaller one, which supports my point that the presence of a trail is not evidence of GE or chemtrailing. Would you dispute that?

I never assumed that or made that claim. It is possible that planes are involved which do not leave visible trails.

OK, that's exactly what I am saying, which is why all the 'look at these chemtrails' photos are nonsense. Of course we differ on whether or not it is happening, but I agree that if it was, you wouldn't necessarily see the trail unless there would be normal contrails too. The trails are ice, whatever else might be up there too is irrelevant to that point.

The method described will induce any potential contrail that does form to persist and possibly spread more than it normally would.

Whether a trail persists and spreads or not, and how much, depends on the temperature and relative humidity. Once the RH falls below the necessary level the trail will vanish, regardless of how much CCN is in the air. How will additional CCN in the atmosphere affect that?

For me, the idiocy is people who do not even read all the information provided and who then cherry pick which bits and pieces to comment on while trying to insert false facts and assume I have certain beliefs which I never stated I hold

I say, are you referring to moi? A tad harsh old bean.

Please point out the false facts I have posted. I do apologise for the wording of the part where I mentioned aeroplanes not leaving trails. I should have said 'anyone' not 'you' as I was addressing an oft aired viewpoint on this board, but I accept, not from you. As far as Cherry picking goes, I responded to the quote that you posted, what did I 'cherry pick'?

Rudy2shoes/gmoney cricket, whomever you are this week,
I am not discussing pollution right now. Everyone on earth agrees that pollution sucks and needs to go away. All but the Oil barons want to use something different, like hydrogen. This discussion is about contrails and the incredible misinterpretation by the chemtrail crowd.

I am trying to explain the facts that make a contrail exist and why a contrail is not a chemtrail because it lasts longer than (x). That is all. DO chemtrails exist? maybe, as I said before. That is not the topic here. Are airplanes pigs that emit pollution? Yes, they are. That also is not the discussion here.

If you want to start some sort of campaign for hydrogen use, figure out how it can be made and stored cheaper than gasoline, and you will get everyone's attention. I would join your cause. But please take your haiku posts and use them to discuss the topic, not whatever you thin the topic should be.

reply to post by MagicWand67


before we go back and forth any more, do you believe that every contrail that lasts longer than (some time frame) is a chemtrail?

Originally posted by network dude
Rudy2shoes/gmoney cricket, whomever you are this week,
I am not discussing pollution right now. Everyone on earth agrees that pollution sucks and needs to go away. All but the Oil barons want to use something different, like hydrogen. This discussion is about contrails and the incredible misinterpretation by the chemtrail crowd.

I am trying to explain the facts that make a contrail exist and why a contrail is not a chemtrail because it lasts longer than (x). That is all. DO chemtrails exist? maybe, as I said before. That is not the topic here. Are airplanes pigs that emit pollution? Yes, they are. That also is not the discussion here.

If you want to start some sort of campaign for hydrogen use, figure out how it can be made and stored cheaper than gasoline, and you will get everyone's attention. I would join your cause. But please take your haiku posts and use them to discuss the topic, not whatever you thin the topic should be.

Hydrogen is the easiest gas to make. It can be made from sunlight in several ways. I don't think anyone has a problem making hydrogen in large quantities, but they have a problem compressing and storing it.

Most people have become unfairly biased because of the Hindenburg explosion. That tragedy left a bad taste because people are misled about the cause of the fire. Hydrogen by itself will not burn. It must be mixed with oxygen to burn. At the right concentration/ratio it is explosive. When an electrolysis process is used, the gas is a perfect ratio for combustion. If the output were compressed it would eventually build enough heat to explode because of the oxygen.

Algae makes hydrogen in a pure form. There are several farms using algae right now that are promising. I am not well versed on their process, but I know they need sunlight and food. I think the food is waste products, but again I am not sure.

Both processes use sunlight to convert water to hydrogen. Both can create a lot of hydrogen with no negative impact on the environment or the stratosphere etc. There is absolutely no pollution. You can consider the pollution during the manufacture of the components and divide that out over the life of the machine producing the hydrogen if you like.

Hydrogen is the next fuel of the future without a doubt. I use a hydrogen generator of my own design in all of my vehicles. It saves me 20-30% on fuel per year. I have friends in the hydrogen biz that supply systems to truckers who get similar results on the trucks with them installed (15-20%). That translates to millions of dollars in fuel savings for these companies and reduces the amount of hydrocarbons and CO2 in the environment. This is not some study or idea being paid for by our government or some big corporation, but actual working products on the market right now.

I would like to see a test run on a commercial aircraft using hydrogen fuel. If it were feasible to use this instead of fossil fuels in our skies I cannot see a downside to a reduction of pollution in our skies raining down on our children and plants and animals. It is possible to do this right now. It takes no more energy to make this than it does to make jet fuel from oil sands. All that is required is a cooler and compressor to make hydrogen into it's liquid form. Storage is more complicated as well as handling, but I think our infrastructure could handle it.

So what would the argument be against this?

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
This video simply illustrates the difference between chemtrails and contrails based on known science.

In the video, the higher contrail can be seen forming and disappearing behind the plane. Contrail, no one disputes that.

However, at a much lower elevation, we have obvious chemtrails, persistent and lingering.

The video linked in your post shows three jets.

At what altitude are those jets operating?

You have no idea.

The person who made the video has no idea.

He describes one jet as flying lower. How does he know?

Unless you have a known point of reference over which something is flying literally directly above, a radar, or a theodolite and some fairly fancy equations to do with the wingspan of the plane, you cannot estimate the height of an aircraft in the sky simply by looking up much past 5,000ft mark. Most modern airliners fly at between 3 and 5 miles up, and those kind of distances and dependent on the size of the aircraft you could look at - say, a 747 at 30,000ft and a Lear jet traveling at 20,000ft and assume they were at the same height.

So relying on pseudo science and someones opinion on this is junk.

Add to that the fact that the atmosphere is layered like an onion, with different pockets of air temperatures, moisture conditions and saturation and you could have a plane flying a couple of thousand feet above another, with one leaving contrails and the other not.

As such, the video cannot be relied on. It has been made by someone with no knowledge of distance perspective, or - apparently - anything to do with atmospheric science or science in general.

Its bunk.

reply to post by network dude


CAN you see contrails in night vision?

reply to post by maryhinge


I can sometimes see contrails at night WITHOUT night vision (with my eyes) depending on lighting conditions -- the moon, how late past sunset, etc. So I suppose people should be able to see them through night vision also (again, maybe depending on lighting conditions).

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by maryhinge

 

I can sometimes see contrails at night WITHOUT night vision (with my eyes) depending on lighting conditions -- the moon, how late past sunset, etc. So I suppose people should be able to see them through night vision also (again, maybe depending on lighting conditions).

edit on 11/30/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

thanks for a speedy response that puts my theory to bed