How do I know if it's Chemtrails or not? Pictures from my neighborhood today.

weird that's totally chem trails. And I've captured very simiilar photos in my own area of Edmonton alberta.

reply to post by spartacus699


And you can see the difference right? You've had them tested to see what they're made up of, right?

reply to post by Zaphod58


you know the difference between a chem trail and con trail? I do it's totally obvious.

spartacus699
weird that's totally chem trails. And I've captured very simiilar photos in my own area of Edmonton alberta.

You believe my OP photos look like chemtrails?

More than once I've noticed these persistent trails on dry, hot days going over at full altitude to and from the eastern states and Perth. The trail would suddenly appear and stop just above the horizons.

It's easy to assume that someone's turning a switch on and off, as that is exactly what it looks like.

But then I was thinking that they are flying over the two gulfs next to us, and there would be quite a bit of evaporation going on above them. So it's also easy to see how there could be a large humid patch up there they suddenly hit.

reply to post by spartacus699


I have yet to see anything that doesn't look just like a contrail, and I see them all the time. I'm outside every day, all day, and have never seen anything that doesn't look like a contrail, act like a contrail, or form like a contrail.

spartacus699
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

you know the difference between a chem trail and con trail? I do it's totally obvious.

I don't - what is it?

luxordelphi
reply to post by jhn7537

 

Jet emissions are toxic. All of them. None of them are good.

There is nothing good about a contrail. Nothing good comes from their persistence. They alter the climate and the water budget and cause global dimming.

Stratospheric emissions have huge effects on climate.

Urban areas with lots of air traffic are subject to more heat retention than other areas.

All contrails are chemtrails. All jet emissions create chemtrails even when they're not visible. Most cirrus (high altitude clouds that never rain) is so thin that it is invisible. What you see is not even the tip of the iceberg.

So now you are saying that all chemical trails are "chemtails" even when they are not particularly sprayed for any given purpose?

That seems to be an argument that pollution is bad to me - which I completely agree with. But it is not actually what "chemmies" tend to be complaining about - they are complaining about deliberate geoengineering, posoning, nano-machines, heavy metals deliberately put into the atmosphere, depopulatoin, etc - all as part of a secret programme of some sort.

I think your characterisations of the effects of contrails as "huge effects" is not supported by the evidence - but otherwise worrying about the pollution from aircraft seems perfectly reasonable.

Of course by that token cars/trucks/trains generate several times the amount of pollution that aircraft do.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The OP had a questions about their neighborhood. OP alleged that he/she wanted ATS input on whether or not his/her neighborhood skies had chemtrails per the OP images.

IMO, per my previous post: definitely chemtrails.

OP didn't ask whether or not these emissions were deliberate nor did OP question motive nor did OP have any questions about cars, trucks or trains. (Unsurprising, really, since cars, trucks and trains are not in the stratosphere emitting anything.) (Only jets do this and the odd rocket launch and the odd meteor and geo-engineers propelling or flaming or catapulting or ballooning.)

There are plenty of studies about what is in the stratosphere. Not so many about how it got there. Plenty of studies on aviation's contribution to stratospheric particulates. Plenty of studies on the chemical reactions in the stratosphere and troposphere initiated by jet emissions.

But the OP is charmingly simple. Definitely chemtrails. Definitely harmful.

reply to post by juspassinthru


Is that the same as morons answering morons? Then you mentioned the nazis! You know what that means don't you?


en.wikipedia.org...'s_law#cite_note-Godwin94-2

jhn7537
Ok, now I'm confused again, hahaha.... The early replies I received suggested contrails and only contrails, now I'm getting a heavy mix of chemtrails... Back at square one I guess....hahahaha

I never knew that this was such a divided topic like 9/11

OP, are you saying that anonymous tin foil hat wearers on the internet saying "they are totally chemtrails" and "I know the difference", both without any further explanation, counterbalance the proveable and sourceable information on contrail science that was linked earlier in the thread?


Mmmmkay.

reply to post by spartacus699


And yet you were not able to state the totally obvious reason in your short post there. Why not? Is it because there isn't any such thing as a chemtrail? Or that even if there were, there would be no way to tell the difference between a cirrus cloud consisting of water vapour and one containing something other than DHMO?

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

The OP had a questions about their neighborhood. OP alleged that he/she wanted ATS input on whether or not his/her neighborhood skies had chemtrails per the OP images.

IMO, per my previous post: definitely chemtrails.

]Fair enough - why are htye definitely chemtrails?

OP didn't ask whether or not these emissions were deliberate nor did OP question motive nor did OP have any questions about cars, trucks or trains. (Unsurprising, really, since cars, trucks and trains are not in the stratosphere emitting anything.) (Only jets do this and the odd rocket launch and the odd meteor and geo-engineers propelling or flaming or catapulting or ballooning.)

There are plenty of studies about what is in the stratosphere. Not so many about how it got there. Plenty of studies on aviation's contribution to stratospheric particulates. Plenty of studies on the chemical reactions in the stratosphere and troposphere initiated by jet emissions.

But the OP is charmingly simple. Definitely chemtrails. Definitely harmful.

Why are they chemtrails again??

And if chemtrails are nothing more than visible pollution from aircraft, then why call them chemtrails in the first place?

luxordelphi
But the OP is charmingly simple. Definitely chemtrails. Definitely harmful.

So now you have re-written the definition of chemtrails? All cars, trucks, trains, buses leave chemtrails? Alright, I suppose we can delete this forum. It's pointless. Thanks for playing.

spartacus699
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

you know the difference between a chem trail and con trail? I do it's totally obvious.

You could be the very first one to do so if you can explain how we can tell the difference. Oh, and be correct when doing so.

We will wait very, very patiently for your reply.

luxordelphi
reply to post by jhn7537

 

Jet emissions are toxic. All of them. None of them are good.

There is nothing good about a contrail. Nothing good comes from their persistence. They alter the climate and the water budget and cause global dimming.

Stratospheric emissions have huge effects on climate.

Most of the visible "stuff" in a persistent and spreading contrail is NOT jet emissions per se, but rather water ice from moisture that existed in the air even before the jet flew through it.

Obviously a jet engine produces some soot in its exhaust, but almost all of the stuff you see is water, and most of that water was ambient, meaning it was in the air to begin with. It it was not a byproduct of the jet burning its fuel. A small portion of the water in a visible contrail is in fact from the burning of hydrocarbon fuel (the hydrogen in the fuel combining with oxygen), but most of the water was either in the air that was sucked into the front of the engine intakes, or condenses out of the air behind the jet exhaust.

There is also some soot in jet engine exhaust, but that soot contributes less to air pollution than automobiles and industrial emissions.

I do agree with you that contrails contribute to global dimming. However, this global dimming caused by contrails is an unfortunate problem of the jet age, and this problem has been known about for decades, BUT it has nothing to do with the idea in most peoples heads when they think of spraying "chemtrails".

reply to post by luxordelphi

The OP had a questions about their neighborhood. OP alleged that he/she wanted ATS input on whether or not his/her neighborhood skies had chemtrails per the OP images.

Am I missing something here, because that was done within within the first four posts?

reply to post by Box of Rain


Jet emissions in the stratosphere change the water budget. Nucleation that would not have occurred, occurs, occasioned by emissions. Choice of particle, for nucleation, and even mode of nucleation, changes, because of jet emission ingress into a sensitive climate area - the stratosphere. Preferred size of particle for nucleation is also changed, creating a different climate result.

Metrics for aviation emissions climate impact are only just beginning to try and encompass these stratospheric effects. Net warming and global dimming, because of alleged difficulty quantifying, are not even really included. And yet, as per the OP images, we only need to look up to know that net warming and global dimming are taking place as a direct result of stratospheric jet emissions.

Pollution from cars and trains and trucks is certainly not negated by including aviation. That argument, as a defense of aviation emissions (i.e.: they're doing it so we can too), is very thin when it comes to the stratosphere. We're talking about water, sunlight and reasonable temperatures: all impacted by aviation.

Jet emissions are chemtrails. If you want to argue about whether or not they're deliberate or what their content truly is for any given day or time...these answers have been coming out within studies sampling the stratosphere. Some years back there was a study that showed too much sulphur. It was decided, at the time, to go back to the drawing board and make many small volcanoes responsible for this inexplicable result. Around that same time there were some news stories (kind of Eureka! type things) that talked about sulphur in jet fuel. The pros and cons. Look for more results like that with attendant media hype.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Your entire post is correct.

After you ban all automobile travel, bus travel, train travel, and motorcycle travel, you can start to tackle Air travel.

If you are going to push for alternative fuels, I am all for it. But I really have a hard time understanding your fascination with air travel. Contrails are a byproduct of flying.

Please tell me you only ride a bike, or paddle a boat to get around. Because if you drive, fly, ride, then you are not part of the solution, you are just another part of the problem that YOU seem to have.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


More contrails at takeoff