geo-engineering and chemtrails, Yes there is a difference.

I am not sure how it happened, but somehow, we, the debunkers, have gone from trying to make folks understand contrails, to defending if geo-engineering is happening. Since the two are different animals, I think we need to step back and regroup.

Speaking only for myself, I am here to try to get people to stop pointing to a line in the sky and saying "chemtrail" with no understanding of contrails. If you truly understood contrails and weather, you would see that what you are seeing is most likely a contrail. But that is only half of it.

Geo-engineering is any number of ideas to control, or try to control, global climate. Everything we see points to the fact that all the ideas are in the planning stage. So as of right now, it looks like nobody is actively trying their ideas. But without a very vigilant group watching everything around them, who is to say that someone won't try a few ideas. The point being, we shouldn't be lumping chemtrails into the same bag as geo-engineering. And while common sense should always prevail, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss any and all claims of geo-engineering. Sure, we should not blindly accept things with no proof, but it almost looks like we are dismissing things out of hand.

Lastly, here is a question to ponder, knowing that the US government is actively involved in trafficking weapons and drugs and we do nothing about it, what do you think will happen if someone finds proof of geo-engineering?

reply to post by network dude

I'm definitely a noob when it comes to this but isnt the basic difference between a chemtrail and contrail is that one dissipates (the contrail) much faster?

Would someone happen to know how long a contrail should typically last?

Also, I was under the impression that chem-trailing was being done for the purpose of Geo-engineering: blocking the sun's rays, super heating the atmosphere, climate modification etc.

gladtobehere
reply to post by network dude

 

Would someone happen to know how long a contrail should typically last?

How long should a cloud last? Same thing.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Actually, you are falling for the chemtrail trap. If you look into contrails, they are just like clouds. They come from aircraft exhaust. They are made up of ice crystals, just like the clouds at that altitude. So knowing that, they can last as long as a cloud does, if the conditions are right.

If you want to learn more about this, I suggest you look into meteorology a little and also look at unbiased sources for contrail information. The chemtrail folks hope that nobody looks into that stuff and just takes their word for it.

Lol contrails? No. These chemical sprays are a new thing. X or grid shaped patterns. Seen in the sky over major Cities. I live in nyc and it's beyond fact here. Nobody is arguing if they exist. It's here. I can't stand seeing people say contrail... Just because you haven't seen this for yourself. It is not a coincidence.that unmarked planes are dropping some kind of chemical in a grid pattern..A GRID PATTERN. WTF

asyourworldburned
Lol contrails? No. These chemical sprays are a new thing. X or grid shaped patterns...

New? Are you saying passenger jets never flew in various directions and along various "lanes" in the sky before?

One thing you mentioned about the grid may be accurate: the number of planes in the sky is greater than, say, 25 years ago. That would cause some additional horizontal separation in the sky along those lanes -- i.e., the air routes may be more "multi-lane" than they were when there were fewer planes.

So where you once had two or three planes making parallel trails that may cross another trail, you now have three or four planes making parallel trails in one direction, with three or four making parallel trails in the other.



...but back to the point of the OP. I think geo-engineering should be a topic of discussion, because there are real ideas being put forth in the name of "stopping global warming", such as seeding the oceans with iron to increase plankton blooms. The idea is that more plankton would help scrub the atmosphere of CO2.

The problem is that humans don't really have a good track record of meddling with nature, even when their intentions are good. Sure -- It sounds like a good idea to artificially increase plankton, but there may be unseen negative impacts due to the increased plankton or due to the iron introduced into the ocean to aid in the increase in plankton.

Who knows -- maybe that will work, and all will be well. But then again, we humans have a way of screwing things up with nature, even when we try to help. Nature is on a very delicate balance, and it is way too easy to upset that balance.

In that respect, geo-engineering -- even when the intentions are good -- is something that should be discussed, but these discussions always tend to revert back to "contrails are chemtrails", and that is a shame.

reply to post by asyourworldburned


One plane flies one direction, another intersects the firsts plane's flightpath by 90 degrees, you get an X in the sky, the wind will move these intersecting contrails, meanwhile more planes fly along the same 'air corridors' and a grid will sometimes emerge. A prosaic explanation, no doubt, but these grids are a common occurrence when there are favorable conditions.

What makes you think there are chemicals in these contrails?

asyourworldburned
Lol contrails? No. These chemical sprays are a new thing. X or grid shaped patterns. Seen in the sky over major Cities. I live in nyc and it's beyond fact here. Nobody is arguing if they exist. It's here. I can't stand seeing people say contrail... Just because you haven't seen this for yourself. It is not a coincidence.that unmarked planes are dropping some kind of chemical in a grid pattern..A GRID PATTERN. WTF

This is exactly what network dude was talking about. There's absolutely no reason what you're describing can't be contrails but you haven't taken any time to understand them or to consider how the patterns could be formed by contrails. In the mean time while you're getting all excited about lines of ice crystals someone is implementing geoengineering in the background and getting away with it

reply to post by network dude


The problem with your side of debunkers of Chemtrails is you assume that all Chemtrail believers don't understand contrails at all or that some of those lines are in fact actual contrails.

Here's my issue, I've seen two planes in the sky 2 minutes apart on almost identical flight paths, 1 leaves a contrail that stays constant with the plane of about 1 inch in the sky behind the plane in a constant. It dissipates with the plane never leaving more than the constant 1 inch of vapor behind the plane. (i understand 1 inch in the sky if a few miles) It does not stay and leave a road behind it like plane 2 does as it passes by. The 2nd plane leaves a vapor trail (chemtrail/contrail) that never dissipates and go for as far as the eye can see. It then will linger and expand outward to look like cloud cover. Now before you know it your clear blue sky is completely covered by cloud like cover.

Now your side will spout weather conditions and altitude and yada yada, but your side never presents any evidence of what altitudes and what conditions cause each trail to stay or dissipate. Now I understand 2 mins is a long time, but I would seriously doubt the weather changed so much in that time that the plane's so called contrail would stay and linger all day from the first plane to the second.

This is the real issue with both of our sides....neither side will do any true research besides what they read of others work. Do you go pull radar reports and look at altitudes and compare with weather from plane to plane???? NO and neither do I. Your side will pull this document and say look, the other side will put a patent and say look. It's a never ending cycle.

I know what my eyes see and I have a theory on why they do it and it's nothing like how you like to paint chemtrail believers. My theory has nothing to do with doom and gloom porn. I would share my theory, but never on a site like this for obvious reasons.

I would also like to point out the change in culture of pictures that are manufactured or digital IE not real. Why go to the trouble of putting these Chemtrail/Contrail lines in the background. That is the smoking gun IMO. Are they trying to subliminally in-doctrine the next generation to believe its just cloud cover? I think so given all the propaganda used in the media, wouldn't that be a possibility? Ask your parents about these, do they remember lines and lines of contrails in the sky??? 90% won't even know what you are even asking. (this is the part where you copy this comment and reply with the following: more planes nowadays, different fuel, more people. The common answers that always used to allude answers, almost like politicians dancing around questions.)

For example there is an image from the end credits of the show called "The League" This is one of FX production companies called Chicken Sticks. It's a digital picture of a dog sitting on a beach with about 15 chemtrails/contrails in the background. Now why when creating a picture on a computer would you go to the trouble of putting those in to look like clouds or normal everyday skies we see. If you were asked to draw a picture right now of the sky, would you draw fluffy clouds and open skies, or skies filled with chemtrails/contrail lines?????

If you said the sky with lines, you're lying to yourself.

I don't speak for everyone, but in my own personal experiences Chemtrails seem very real to me. Can I prove it, no I can't and I won't try to sway your opinion like the debunkers do. I keep an open mind. I just find it very comical that out of all the topics on this site, the same people are so adamant about getting the people that say chemtrails are real to change their minds by belittling them and much worse. Imagine if it was like that for all topics.

I also can't prove that God/Jesus/Buddha/Moral Truth/Logical Truth/Historical Truth/Aliens/Karma/Fate/Bigfoot/Ghosts/our mere existence as fact/ i think you get the point. But i sure as hell don't constantly create or comment on every thread about these topics like I'm an expert and my opinion is fact and should be taken to heart. Personal experiences will always go beyond what some people can comprehend and prove as truth. The white house could come out and say Aliens exist tomorrow and yet still 20% of people would think it was a lie or cover up of something else, its almost impossible to prove anything to everyone.

When you can admit that just because you haven't seen any evidence that you personally deem worthy thus far doesn't necessarily mean it isn't happening or new evidence won't come to light. To just close the doors is not only feeble minded but also unscientific which the debunkers use nonstop in their arguments.

NONPOINT21
reply to post by network dude

 

The problem with your side of debunkers of Chemtrails is you assume that all Chemtrail believers don't understand contrails at all or that some of those lines are in fact actual contrails.

Here's my issue, I've seen two planes in the sky 2 minutes apart on almost identical flight paths, 1 leaves a contrail that stays constant with the plane of about 1 inch in the sky behind the plane in a constant. It dissipates with the plane never leaving more than the constant 1 inch of vapor behind the plane. (i understand 1 inch in the sky if a few miles) It does not stay and leave a road behind it like plane 2 does as it passes by. The 2nd plane leaves a vapor trail (chemtrail/contrail) that never dissipates and go for as far as the eye can see. It then will linger and expand outward to look like cloud cover. Now before you know it your clear blue sky is completely covered by cloud like cover.

The problem is you're describing behaviour that is completely normal for contrails and in the case of the trail spreading to form cloud cover - impossible for anything other than condensed water vapour.

I've seen this explained time and time again on here and other places but I've never seen any explanations offered for how they can't be contrails other than from ignorance

reply to post by NONPOINT21


As you can see from weather balloon soundings such as this example:
weather.uwyo.edu...

...Temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure can be different in different locations of the air column. A chamge in altitude means a change in these three data points. All three of these -- temperature, dewpoint/relative humidity, and pressure -- contribute to trail formation and trail persistence.

Obviously, I can't give you these data points in any exact location that you see two planes leaving different types of trail, but the point is that balloon soundings such as this show that two parts of the same sky separated by only a couple thousand feet CAN have conditions that are different enough for trail appearance to look different. (Actually, even horizontal difference in location by a couple thousand feet could have different temps, humidity, and pressure, but these balloon soundings don't show that).

NONPOINT21
reply to post by network dude

 

I would also like to point out the change in culture of pictures that are manufactured or digital IE not real. Why go to the trouble of putting these Chemtrail/Contrail lines in the background. That is the smoking gun IMO. Are they trying to subliminally in-doctrine the next generation to believe its just cloud cover? I think so given all the propaganda used in the media, wouldn't that be a possibility? Ask your parents about these, do they remember lines and lines of contrails in the sky??? 90% won't even know what you are even asking. (this is the part where you copy this comment and reply with the following: more planes nowadays, different fuel, more people. The common answers that always used to allude answers, almost like politicians dancing around questions.)

(I'll copy and reply)

That's not a 'smoking gun' by any stretch of the imagination. Have you ever asked somebody involved in media why this is done? I know quite a few people involved with marketing and advertisement, and they'll tell you it's to make the images look more realistic. And it's not done that much either BTW. Contrails are a common sight in the skies over populated areas. What you are displaying with this particular paragraph in you post is called "confirmation bias". And if advertisements only ever showed blue skies then the chemtrail believer crowd would be saying things like "there trying to make us think that everything is ok!" If you want to believe that this gargantuan conspiracy, which already at this stage must include so many involved in the aviation industry, also involves the millions of people involved in visual advertising media then go ahead, Im not buying it for a second.

reply to post by network dude


Just an FYI on this....but methods functionally identical to Chemtrail deployment have been the specific topic of discussion at Climate Change conferences and working groups. One in 2011 held in Lima, Peru actually carrying Geoengineering within the title had Keynote speakers present at some length on injection of particulate matter into both low atmosphere and on up to the stratosphere. Those were ideas..proposals..not describing ongoing operations. However, the linkage between the two is very clear and conspiracy theorists didn't make it, IMO.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by network dude

 

Just an FYI on this....but methods functionally identical to Chemtrail deployment have been the specific topic of discussion at Climate Change conferences and working groups. One in 2011 held in Lima, Peru actually carrying Geoengineering within the title had Keynote speakers present at some length on injection of particulate matter into both low atmosphere and on up to the stratosphere. Those were ideas..proposals..not describing ongoing operations. However, the linkage between the two is very clear and conspiracy theorists didn't make it, IMO.

Would those methods produce thick white trails that lingered for hours and spread out to form cloud cover?

reply to post by mrthumpy


Based on functional descriptions of outcome? Well, yes, they'd have to....given that development of, enhancement to and reflection by cloud cover is the whole point of the exercise. Yup... They never once use the word Chemtrail. They simply describe the required process and outcome to define it. It's just another side to the story, not any grand declarations of new material or anything...

After all, the one that comes to mind is 2011. The ideas and open discussion as a part of Geoengineering methods have been in the open for a few years at least. Actually doing vs. talking? Well..... That's the conspiracy side to speculate on and make it an ATS topic, eh?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Did they say that commercial jet aircraft could or would be used?

The chemtrail theory started out years ago proposing were were being sprayed with all kinds of stuff, it has evolved, a few years back we were getting sprayed with vaccines for example. Now it's geo-engineering. The chemtrail activists I know personally had never heard the term geo-engineering 5/6 years ago, now they're standing on street corners handing out fliers about things like SRM. How did they make this leap? I can tell you it wasn't from attending geo-engineering conferences.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Actually, most of the methods for Arial disbursement are to happen well above the area planes usually fly, and it would be almost if not totally invisible from the ground.

Various techniques have been proposed for delivering the aerosol precursor gases (H2S and SO2).[2] The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of the tropopause, which varies from 11 km (6.8 miles/36,000 feet) at the poles to 17 km (11 miles/58,000 feet) at the equator.

Link to source

Contrails themselves are being studied to see what affects they have on climate. As more and more contrails are made due to the number of flights and the newer fuel efficient engines, they may well either hurt, or help the climate in their respective area. (depending on mean temperature)

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by mrthumpy

 

Based on functional descriptions of outcome? Well, yes, they'd have to....given that development of, enhancement to and reflection by cloud cover is the whole point of the exercise. Yup... They never once use the word Chemtrail. They simply describe the required process and outcome to define it. It's just another side to the story, not any grand declarations of new material or anything...

After all, the one that comes to mind is 2011. The ideas and open discussion as a part of Geoengineering methods have been in the open for a few years at least. Actually doing vs. talking? Well..... That's the conspiracy side to speculate on and make it an ATS topic, eh?

Why would they have to? What method are we talking about here?

NONPOINT21
reply to post by network dude

 

The problem with your side of debunkers of Chemtrails is you assume that all Chemtrail believers don't understand contrails at all or that some of those lines are in fact actual contrails.

Actually, most chemtrail believers demonstrate at least a misunderstanding if not a total non-understanding of contrails and their formation by what they write. As you have just done. You describe two planes and you assume they were both at the identical altitude with identical conditions. One left a trail, one didn't. The thing is, you don't know the exact altitude by sight alone and you certainly don't know the conditions at various altitudes.

I swear I am not making this up, you can verify the science if you look beyond chemtrail sites to learn this. The air and conditions at the 25 to 35 thousand foot level is very dynamic and can change within a very small amount of space. You may see contrails starting then stopping. Which a chemtrail believer will tell you was the pilot switching on and off on the sprayers. An educated person will tell you that the plane probably flew through a patch of dry air which caused the trail to stop forming and then back through moist air.

Nobody is telling you that chemtrail couldn't exist, just that once you fully comprehend contrails, it's impossible to say anything is something other than a contrail if it falls within the confines of the science stated.

If you can show proof of a trail at 10,000 feet that lingers, you would have a very strong case for chemtrails. If you point at a line in the sky that appears to be 25-35 thousand feet, that's more than likely just a contrail.

reply to post by network dude


I'm keenly interested in Geo-engineering, as there are prominent advocates out there in positions of power. I'm glad Al Gore was out there yesterday saying some very rational stuff about the topic. source link

I couldn't agree more with AG on this one.

I believe it's quite likely the USG has tested cloud seeding. The corporations that need free water would be howling for it. There is definitely motive. It's the means that is missing. It's simply not logistically possible to run a cloud creation program in secret at a geographically significant scale.

The funny thing is, you, I and everybody reading this may want and desperately need emergency geo-engineering if the climate change goes non-linear in one way or the other. The majority of evidence would indicate the warming will accelerate but it's not testable until it's too late The same Christian fundies saying God is in control will come screaming to science for a fix if things go really bad.