Pilot admits chemtrails and says they are a "necessary evil"........

reply to post by OneManArmy

Stormfury

That still doesn't prove they are real.

reply to post by OneManArmy

What does cloud seeding have to do with "chemtrails?"
Want to hire a cloud seeder?
www.weathermodification.com...

Phage
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

What does cloud seeding have to do with "chemtrails?"

Cloud seeding involves spraying material into the atmosphere to get a net result.

So what exactly is chemtrails, if not spraying material into the atmosphere to get a net result?

reply to post by OneManArmy



Cloud seeding consists of dropping material into an existing cloud in an attempt to get it to rain. Chemtrails are supposedly spraying material into a cloudless sky that becomes a cloud base.

reply to post by OneManArmy

Well, up until a couple of years ago a "chemtrail" was what rational people call a persistent contrail. A trail left by high altitude aircraft. But when the "chemtrail" crowd failed miserably in producing any evidence that a "chemtrail" is anything other than a persistent contrail they had to start expanding their definition.

The trouble is, cloud seeding bears no resemblance to "chemtrails" (persistent contrails) . Yet, the "chemtrail" crowd will point at a persistent contrail, say "chemtrail!", then point to cloud seeding as if there is some connection. There isn't. Cloud seeding is done by planes flying into and near cumulus clouds. Cloud seeding does not make clouds.

reply to post by Phage

Cloud seeding is done by planes flying into and near cumulus clouds.

And to add to that cloud seeding planes do not even fly at the height persistent contrails form.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Well, the "cumulus cloud" part should have covered that but you're right, I may have presumed too much about the level of meteorological knowledge of my audience.

reply to post by Phage

Well, the "cumulus cloud" part should have covered that but you're right, I may have presumed too much about the level of meteorological knowledge of my audience.

Sometimes you have to simplify it up for some to understand, or at least lately it seems that way.

Phage

Yet, the "chemtrail" crowd will point at a persistent contrail, say "chemtrail!", then point to cloud seeding as if there is some connection.

Im not, nor ever have been a paid up member of the "chemtrail crowd". So wouldnt even know about a conspiracy to link cloud seeding to chemtrails.

I read about chemtrails years ago, I never looked too into it, im neither here nor there on it. But I can see the difference between contrails from the 80's to contrails now, it is an observable change.

Shoot me for being captain obvious, but I was simply showing a reason to go putting stuff into the atmosphere that has nothing to do with putting out fires or crop spraying.

And if we were really facing a global warming nightmare wouldnt it even be considered wise to attempt to reflect solar rays away from earth with many "ends justify means" experiments to that end?

I didnt realise I had to be a meteorologist to participate in the thread. But hey sometimes I have to wonder if they even know what they are talking about when it comes to making predictions over a week away.

OneManArmy

Zaphod58
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Then where is the evidence they are real? And don't say "you can see the difference", because you can't tell a chemical from a contrail by looks alone.

Stormfury

A failed attempt to "steer" hurricanes 40 years ago proves that chemtrails exist today?

How does that work??

reply to post by OneManArmy


Of course there's a difference from over thirty years ago. Aviation technology changes on a yearly basis. There have been huge changes from the 80s until now that have led to more contrails and more persistent contrails.

reply to post by OneManArmy

But I can see the difference between contrails from the 80's to contrails now, it is an observable change.

That would seem to be a matter of opinion because I see no qualitative difference.

Shoot me for being captain obvious, but I was simply showing a reason to go putting stuff into the atmosphere that has nothing to do with putting out fires or crop spraying.

No one denies that it's possible to put things into the atmosphere. No one denies cloud seeding occurs. The problem is, there is no reason to think that "chemtrails" are not persistent contrails.

And if we were really facing a global warming nightmare wouldnt it even be considered wise to attempt to reflect solar rays away from earth with many "ends justify means" experiments to that end?

No. Not without a lot more research (in labs and computer models) to determine what unintendend consequences might be present. You'll find that there is little or no support for engaging in aerosol SRM anywhere in the scientific or political realm. It would be an extreme measure to be taken only if warming reaches a crisis level. We are not there.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

So, this_is_who_are, what do you think the purpose of chemtrails is?

The same purpose as unicorns.

Who is doing it?

The same unicorns.

Why is it being covered up?

How are you, along with all other unicorn believers aware of these non-existent things that are being covered up? IF they were being covered up, would that not imply keeping all of us unaware?

Of course anyone else feel free to answer these questions.

Feel free to reply to these answers.

Phage

You'll find that there is little or no support for engaging in aerosol SRM anywhere in the scientific or political realm. It would be an extreme measure to be taken only if warming reaches a crisis level. We are not there.

OK, so we wait till we need the science before we research the science we will need to save us?

If thats the scientific method then Im no scientist.

reply to post by OneManArmy

I didnt realise I had to be a meteorologist to participate in the thread. But hey sometimes I have to wonder if they even know what they are talking about when it comes to making predictions over a week away.

You don't but it does help...

Well that is why they call it a forecast..

reply to post by OneManArmy

No.
The research is being done. As I said, in labs and computer models. Not enough is known to even think about field tests.

It should also be noted that the UN has called for an indefinite moratorium on any such field testing.

reply to post by OneManArmy


There are other ways to research besides just throwing chemicals into the air and seeing what happens. Computer modeling is a great way for starters. Then if we DO need the science we're past the starting point, but at the same time, not just throwing things around going "hey y'all! Watch this!"

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Thank you for your input. I see that your understanding of what contrails are is very different from mine. This would be why we think differently.

I don't know how you formed your opinion, but mine is based upon 40 years of close and detailed study of all aspects of aviation.

I can't impart all that material through a message board, or tell you what to believe, you must choose your own path. My previous attempts to help others understand have met with spite and vitriol, so I don't bother anymore, however I do like to get a handle on why people think they way they do and your response fits the "profile" to a tee, as do all the others.

Thank you for responding.

Zaphod58
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

There are other ways to research besides just throwing chemicals into the air and seeing what happens. Computer modeling is a great way for starters. Then if we DO need the science we're past the starting point, but at the same time, not just throwing things around going "hey y'all! Watch this!"

I dunno, I think the results from "computer models" can be a bit spurious, when it comes to dealing in unknowns.

No our scientists would never "experiment". lol.

reply to post by OneManArmy


Yes, they're going to just dump chemicals and see what happens. Computer models may not give the best results, but they're a hell of a lot better than just dumping something just to see what happens.