Clouds can persist for hours - so why can't contrails do so too??

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PassiveObserver
 


Water Vapor from contrails is just water vapor, so it dissipates.
Contrails are not water vapor, they are clouds of ice crystals just as cirrus clouds are.

Water vapor is invisible.




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Contrails can and do persist for hours, they can cover the entire sky, it is not an argument for chemical geoengineering taking place in the sky, and everyone needs to be realistic about that.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JrDavis

The thing is contrails linger. They are thick, White and do not move like clouds do.


Yes they do - moving with the atmosphere is how crossing contrails make tose "X"'s beloved of chemmie posts.

This page has a simulator that shows you how contrails move with wind.


Another thing is. If the Airplanes are creating contrail "Clouds" why are there pictures of Chemtrails on a clear day that linger? Wouldn't there be other clouds in the air if the weather was perfect enough for an airplane to create a cloud?


Not if there is no cloud condensation nuclei - the ice needs to have something to form around in the fist instance - dust, soot, other ice. At high altitude there is often no such particles in the air - so the contrails form when they are introduced in the aircraft exhaust.

We are used to ice forming at 0 deg C because ther is always lots of nuclei available at the altitudes we live at - but ice will not form without nuclei unless the temperature is -42C!!

This is also how cloud seeding works - it puts nuclei into clouds to allow water droplets for form.

UK metlink site



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

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




high enough for ice crystals to condense out of the air, which is what causes both cirrus clouds and contrails to form.

The relative humid can be high, but because of the low pressure. The air is still very dry.
Air at 50% relative humidity at the surface contains more water vapor than air at 50% relative humidity at 35,000 feet.
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


You're right. In my brevity, I did not explain what I meant by "relative humidity". The word "relative" is exceptionally meaningful.

The point is that the humidity is enough that cirrus clouds can form there, so why not contrails. Both contrails and cirrus clouds are made of frozen water that has condensed out of the water vapor present in that air.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JrDavis

The thing is contrails linger. They are thick, White and do not move like clouds do.


Here is a video showing a contrail (and clouds) moving in the wind. If you watch long enough, you can see the contrail has moved relative to the windmill. The moving cloud in this video are probably at a lower altitude, and thus seemingly move faster (they look like a few stray cumulus clouds, which generally form at a lower altitude than contrails):



edit on 3/7/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
It is all in the wind. Wind only happens when you are standing on the earth a fixed point. If you are flying a plane you there is no wind (ignoring updrafts downdrafts and the resulting turbulence) you are moving through the air at 100 mph and the air is moving at 20 mph - your speed will be 120 mph over the ground if you are flying in the same direction as the air. If you are flying the opposite direction your speed will be 80 miles an hour. The airplane is always going 100 mph through the air. There are almost constantly winds aloft, the contrails are rather a small thing compared to clouds and can dissipate quickly. Clouds are really really big things if you fly around them 1000s of feet high. I love flying



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Just remember, that if they are talking about it, it most likely means they are already doing it.......

Why?
Edward Teller talked about using thermonuclear bombs to dredge harbors. Was that ever done?
Oh, he also talked about SRM geoengineering.

But to be on topic. Do you think that contrails can't last for a long time?

To be fair Phage, it was the Gaul who went off topic in his/hers own thread. As for Edward Teller, he is one in a long line of proposers of geoengineering, (using the term loosely) that goes back much further than he.
edit on 7-3-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Just remember, that if they are talking about it, it most likely means they are already doing it.......

Why?
Edward Teller talked about using thermonuclear bombs to dredge harbors. Was that ever done?
Oh, he also talked about SRM geoengineering.

But to be on topic. Do you think that contrails can't last for a long time?

To be fair Phage, it was the Gaul who went off topic in his/hers own thread.


where??


edit on 7-3-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
One of the commom memes of the chemtrail hoax is that contrails can only persist for a few seconds or minutes, so anything that lasts longer than some similar time cannot be a contrail and therefore must be a chemtrail.

You see clouds persisting for hours - clouds are water droplets, or if they are cirrus clouds they are ice crystals.

So how is it these clouds can persist for hours but contrails supposedly can not, even though they are made up of the same thing - water??

And yes I know that "clouds" are "natural" and contrails are "artificial" - but nonetheless they are still both only water, so why do you insist they behave differently?


It's a shame this thread didn't go any further than it has. This question is pretty fundamental to the chemtrail conspiracy and it's one I've asked many times but I've never had an answer to. Not one that stands up to any kind of scrutiny anyway. As the Gaul says it's common to hear (read) ct believers say that the difference between chemtrails and contrails is the time that they persist, but there's never any explanation. If you dare to ask you get labelled a government disinformation shill and blocked even though it's a question every believer should be able to answer.

If there's no reason they can't persist then why think they're anything other than contrails?



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


That's absolutely true. It goes hand in hand with my own often asked, never answered, question of what is the core reason that makes believers so sure that the trails from aircraft have any link at all to the GE reports that get posted here so often, given that none of them describe or ever allude to any similarity?

Another question that occurs to me is how come so many of these threads grind to a halt with a direct question to the believers, but there is not one thread ending in an unanswered question to the sceptics?



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by mrthumpy

Another question that occurs to me is how come so many of these threads grind to a halt with a direct question to the believers, but there is not one thread ending in an unanswered question to the sceptics?


Looks like this thread is going the same way. Either there is a reason why contrails can't persist and any trail that doesn't dissipate is suspect, or there's no reason and all the believers have fallen for a hoax.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


So many threads do. I first noticed when I was checking back on Chemtrail threads where I asked a question and noticed how often my post was still the last one in the thread. Then I noticed others where questions were just left hanging.

You would think by now that some of the believers would catch on to the fact that they cannot answer those questions in any sort of factual way that supports their position and have a rethink, or at least study a bit more.

You often see the shill accusation hurled at sceptics. I would say that a person who ignores specific questions on the facts, especially those who then resurface on other threads spreading the same fiction they have just refused to discuss, are far more likely to be a "hoaxer shill" than someone who takes the time and trouble to provide detailed responses with sources for their information is a "govt agent"

Or are we supposed to believe that agenda pushers can only exist on the negative side of the argument? That just seems really obvious to me.

And when I myself get accused of being a paid CIA/DoD operative, as happened with a now ex-member last night, I know the other person has lost the plot and nothing they say can be be given any credibility at all. I am actually surprised that many believers don't even realise that they destroy their own position in the debate irredeemably by hurling this accusation at someone
edit on 24-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


You would think by now that some of the believers would catch on to the fact that they cannot answer those questions in any sort of factual way that supports their position and have a rethink, or at least study a bit more.



You would think that they would be relieved to be wrong. I'm sure if I was convinced that some secret operation was going on that threatened the well being of me and my loved ones and the environment for future generations I'd be very happy to realise that it was a hoax all along.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum