What sources would you believe for contrail science?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Rob48 does not have that same style.

I disagree, their writing style is inexplicably similar.

And so are their signatures....

WeedWhacker's signature


Same little red text



It's okay. Don't ask - don't tell.

Also, WW's "partner" was from the UK.

But I already said I might be wrong.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Rob48 does not have that same style.

I disagree, their writing style is inexplicably similar...

The posts of WeedWhacker and Proudbird (same person) often used a lot of "dots" (...), short sentences, and multiple exclamations (!!!). Rob48 does not.

Here are some typical Weedwhacker posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And typical Proudbird posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


They are nothing like the posts of Rob48.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Are you saying that there is a concerted effort to intentionally change the climate through jet exhaust?

No I am not saying that.

I'm saying that I think that SRM research has been incorporated into contrail science research.

I'm planning on making a thread about it soon.

I also think that, when discussing contrail science, climate change research is extremely relevant.


Contrails warm the world more than aviation emissions

The innocuous white trails that criss-cross the sky may not be as harmless as they look. In fact, they might have contributed to more global warming so far than all aircraft greenhouse gas emissions put together.

High-altitude clouds like cirrus warm the planet by trapping heat. Contrail "cirrus" does the same thing, but the question is: how much? We know that contrails trap some extra energy in the atmosphere: their radiative forcing trapped 10 milliwatts per square metre (mW/m2) in 2005, according to an estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That compares with 28 mW/m2 trapped by all of the CO2 released by aircraft engines since the start of aviation.

However, the IPCC estimate only took into account relatively fresh, visible vapour trails that exist for just a few hours. Afterwards they spread out and become indistinguishable from normal cirrus. In this form they may trap energy in the atmosphere for many more hours.

"Only a small part of the problem has been studied," says Ulrike Burkhardt of the Institute for Atmospheric Physics in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany. With her colleague Bernd Kärcher, she set out to discover how much heat contrail cirrus traps.

Using satellite observations of spreading contrails as a guide, Burkhardt built a model that simulated how they form, spread out and dissipate. Then she embedded it in a global climate model and watched what happened. She found that contrail cirrus ended up covering 0.6 per cent of Earth's surface – an area nine times as great as that covered by line contrails.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

They are nothing like the posts of Rob48.

Let's drop this issue.

I already said I might be wrong.

I really need to get going.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: MagicWand67


Yes -- Contrails contribute to cloud cover and thus perhaps contribute to greenhouse heating.

Also, jet exhaust adds particulates to the air, which may cause greenhouse heating.


These two things are not being disputed. The idea that contrails can lead to an increase in cloud overcast has been openly discussed for DECADES. However, the question as to whether the cloud cover decreases atmospheric heating (due to less solar radiation getting through) or increases atmospheric heating (due to the clouds acting like a blanket, keeping heat trapped in) is still something that is not positively known...Hence the ongoing research.

Again -- I'm not sure how exactly you are equating this to the commonly held definition of "chemtrails". You are talking about contrails and pollution, NOT what some people call chemtrails. The idea that persistent contrails cause excess cloud cover is a very old idea, and predates the alleged "chemtrail conspiracy" by decades.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I thought I already made it clear that I am not a "chemmie".

I am interested in aviation's relationship to geoengineering and climate change research.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I thought I already made it clear that I am not a "chemmie".

I am interested in aviation's relationship to geoengineering and climate change research.

My apologies if I missed it that you already made that distinction/clarification.

So then it seems you are making an argument for something that nobody is really disputing -- i.e., that contrails cause cloud cover that may (or may not) contribute to greenhouse warming, and jet exhaust adds some pollution to the air, just like automobiles and factories do (although autos and factories are worse offenders than jets).

I won't argue with that general idea. I can't speak for the others on here, but I think most of them would agree with that in general (although I/they may dispute some specifics).

My next questions would be are you claiming that there is an intentional effort by some sort of "Powers that be" to intentionally flood the sky with contrails for geoengineering/climate change purposes? Or do you feel that contrails are simply an unfortunate byproduct of normal air transportation?

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I thought I already made it clear that I am not a "chemmie".

I am interested in aviation's relationship to geoengineering and climate change research.

They why are you so combative? The only thing it seems we disagree on are the meaning of words like "discussing", and "could".

And I believe most of us think a dialog on that topic is a good idea, since somebody needs to be watching. I just prefer not to lynch everyone on the assumption that they "may" have done something wrong.

Hello guys,

just posting couple of shots i took while i had the "trail-frenzy" going on highest levels.

Enjoy.



just pure awesomeness ^^ (IS IT NOT?!?)

a reply to: menneni
What do you think your pics show?

a reply to: menneni

beautiful shots. I like the colors in the first one.
Contrails can be great photo ops.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

lots of pixels?!

No, seriously tho, what i GUESS those are about, first pic is about water crystallation due to pressure change AND lucky angle.

Second, i guess its a massive water vapor from turbines.

I got some 16,0 gigabytes of nice pictures of local skies with some planes flying.

There are nice pictures, awesome pictures, excellent pictures and some bad too ofc.

Sorry for my bad english, i don't really know all the words i should use explaining those. In finnish it would be easier.

Again, awesome shots ME THINKS.

a reply to: network dude

Thank you!

That was one lucky day for photo-op!

Conditions, angle, and a big aircraft. I should've made a lottery ticket that day!

In reply to the OP. I don't see the point of your post. Both the government AND military personel has admitted spraying. China even admitted using one type to create clear skies during the Olympics. So what do you want to give people proof of that hasn't already been proven?

a reply to: br0ker

^^facepalm^^

Seriously.

When people talk about this debate going around in circles.....this is what they're talking about.

If I had a dollar....

There really is "one born every minute".

a reply to: br0ker

Read about the "chemtrail" pilot? here

originally posted by: br0ker
In reply to the OP. I don't see the point of your post. Both the government AND military personel has admitted spraying. China even admitted using one type to create clear skies during the Olympics. So what do you want to give people proof of that hasn't already been proven?

You're talking about cloud seeding, which is a decades-old technology (has been openly done since the 1950s) that uses small planes at low altitudes. Cloud seeding is what farmers do in times of drier weather in order to (hopefully) coax rain out of pre-existing moisture-laden low altitude clouds. I can see military applications as well.

However, this is NOT what people mean when they say "chemtrails" or contrails. Contrails (what some people call chemtrails) are made at high altitude, are are created due to the effect the hot wet exhaust of a jet engine can have on the surrounding atmosphere under certain conditions.

Cloud seeding is not the thing discussed in the contrails/chemtrail debate.

originally posted by: br0ker
In reply to the OP. I don't see the point of your post. Both the government AND military personel has admitted spraying. China even admitted using one type to create clear skies during the Olympics. So what do you want to give people proof of that hasn't already been proven?

The government and military have conducted various trials with spraying from aircraft. Some are a matter of course, such as icing trials of aircraft types where a fine water spray is disbursed a short distance ahead of an aircraft to see that it's safe to fly in extreme conditions etc. some are more unusual such the recently publicised trials where tracers were sprayed from aircraft (and from trucks and ships) to measure how a germ warfare agent might spread if such an attack ever took place and other forms of spraying have included cloud seeding and defoliation spraying in experiments and on operations, ie Vietnam.

China, like many others, has used cloud seeding in an attempt to encourage favourable weather, as you mentioned.

The OP is talking about something that isn't any of those however, which is where you seem to have misunderstood. None of what you mentioned are contrails or chemtrails. Contrails, in relation to chemtrail theories, are the subject of this thread.

originally posted by: MagicWand67

No I don't accept that he was right. He's full of crap.

and yet you don't seem to be able to provide any actual EVIDENCE to support this conclusion....

you say you are not interested in chemtrails, only in "aviation's relationship to climate change & geo-engineering..." - and yet you make bold assertions like this - an ad hominem attack on someone who does actual research on exactly the topic you claim to have an interest in.

Methinks you whine too much - reminds me of someone else used to be on here....

a reply to: MagicWand67

If you think Mick West and by extension Contrailscience are full of crap, why don't you believe in chemtrails? What's stopping you?

And if you aren't actually lying, what changed your mind?

originally posted by: MagicWand67
reply to post by Phage

 

I can not provide you a link.

But, I will attempt to describe it for you.

Chemtrails consist of hygroscopic material that absorbs water causing it to increase in volume giving it a similar appearance of contrail ice crystals.

But these hygroscopic CCN do not sublimate or dissipate like contrail ice crystals do because they can continue to attract and absorb moisture from the surrounding area. Allowing them to persist and remain visible longer.

Some chemtrails begin to sag and droop in areas than have absorbed more moisture than other areas of the chemtrail. Those areas become heavier than the rest of the man-made chem cloud. Giving them their characteristic anomalous appearance.