Are 'Persistent Contrails' / 'Chemtrails' Gone?

a reply to: KKLOCO

The problem, as always, is proving what a chemtrail is and that it exists first. No one has been able to prove they're real to date.

originally posted by: smurfy
Solve the conundrum first!

Aircraft contrails can be persistent quite often and also newer aircraft have larger plumes, chemtrails will have the same characteristics by default. What you need to do first is to enable those nuances that will exist in observing chemtrails and present them here...otherwise you are flogging a dead horse.

I’m confused. This is not a debate on whether chemtrails exist. My question is, have you seen less or no persistent contrails / chemtrails lately, or not.

Primary reason could be "to combat global warming". Trying to reflect some sunlight.

Doesnt have to be one thing though. If you have an aerosol delivery system at your exposure, you could add any sort of thing you like. Flu. Neorological chemicals. Vitamin C. Endless possibilities.

"Chemtrails" have been around since modern aircraft were invented. World War 2 planes would create "Chemtrails". Even planes that have propellers create "Chemtrails". It all depends what altitude the aircraft flies at, actually, its more about what temperature the air is around the engine. They can even occur on the ground. They usually only last for about half an hour. Maybe longer in cold weather. Chances are planes are either flying at a lower altitude, or do not generate enough heat to create "Chemtrails".

There are two types of these trails
1. Condensation from engine exhaust (These are what you know as "Chemtrails")
2. Condensation from decreases in pressure (Minor contrails created from lift being generated by the aircraft)

Condensation from engine exhaust

"The main products of hydrocarbon fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor. At high altitudes this water vapor emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapor can raise the relative humidity of the air past saturation point. The vapor then condenses into tiny water droplets which freeze if the temperature is low enough. These millions of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals form the contrails. "

Condensation from descreases in pressure

"As a wing generates lift, it causes a vortex to form at the wingtip, and at the tip of the flap when deployed (wingtips and flap-boundaries are discontinuities in airflow.) These wingtip vortices persist in the atmosphere long after the aircraft has passed. The reduction in pressure and temperature across each vortex can cause water to condense and make the cores of the wingtip vortices visible. This effect is more common on humid days. Wingtip vortices can sometimes be seen behind the wing flaps of airliners during takeoff and landing, and during landing of the Space Shuttle."

Here is some evidence to support your fuel theory.

" 2013-2014 study jointly supported by NASA, the German aerospace center DLR, and Canada's National Research Council NRC, determined that biofuels could reduce contrail generation. This reduction was explained by demonstrating that biofuels produce fewer soot particles, which are the nuclei around which the ice crystals form. The tests were performed by flying a DC-8 at cruising altitude with a sample-gathering aircraft flying in trail. In these samples, the contrail-producing soot particle count was reduced by 50 to 70 percent, using a 50% blend of conventional Jet A1 fuel and HEFA (hyprocessed esters and fatty acids) biofuel produced from camelina."

a reply to: SpookyGhost

Biofuels will decrease contrails, but they're still several years from any kind of widespread use of them. There's talk of a 6% share by 2020. They've flown commercial flights with passengers using biofuels, but not on a large scale.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting. There are so many variables to take into account. Hard to really say for sure if they are increasing/decreasing.

a reply to: KKLOCO

Although I don't think there was something nefarious about contrails I most certainly have not seen one for some time...the cloud cover is more 3 dimesional (fluffy)versus the flat thin cloud cover..

a reply to: KKLOCO

From my regular observations the appearance of trails is dependent on atmospheric conditions and amount of air traffic just like it has always been

a reply to: KKLOCO

If contrails are indeed related to aircraft traffic then if you just research the flight paths and whether or not there have a decrease or increase in air traffic (passenger jet, military, etc.) then perhaps that might help you determine what changed. However, I just read that passenger jet traffic is on the increase and substantially so.

I just started looking up at the sky again, but I am now in the country and not the city, and I see very few contrails here compared to what I saw when I lived in the city.

a reply to: KKLOCO

Well here is a chemtrail believer in Mesa, Arizona. He films on a regular basis.

You Tube Channel Link

Chemtrail activist living in Scottsdale, Arizona.



From

Matt Landman You Tube Channel

Phoenix, Arizona December 2017



Tucson, Arizona

A die hard chemtrailer who was arrested and is currently under investigation. Tell him that "chemtrails" don't exist!

Chris Haskell You Tube Channel

a reply to: tommyjo

Tell him that "chemtrails" don't exist!

Hey Chris,

What you call "chemtrails" are persistant contrails. Ice crystals, no different from natural cirrus clouds except that their formation is triggered by the cooling of supersaturated air. That supersaturation being the result of air being heated by jet or internal combustion engines. Persistent contrails have been observed ever since aircraft were capable of flying high enough to produce them.


Do you think he heard me?

Re: The OP,
I have seen neither an increase or decrease in the frequency of persistent contrails. They have always been quite rare here. For two reasons.
1) In the tropics, the conditions which are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails don't occur as often as they do in higher latitudes.

2) Hawaii doesn't get a lot of high altitude, flyover, air traffic. Polar routes tend to avoid us. Planes are either landing or taking off for the most part, except for the military. They sometimes do stuff which produces contrails visible over the islands, but not often.

I pointed them out to a family member that laughed them off as "normal contrails". I went through about 40 years of photo's from mid 60's to 2000, many thousands of outdoor photos with the sky and not one "contrail" like that until about 2003-4 and the were prevelant in TV shows and movies as well as they were suddenly everywhere. None of the old TV/movies had them either.

I live below a heavy flight path from most of NYC, PHL to the west coast and haven't seen them in a couple years.

This has nothing to do with changes in fuel or engines, that is the most ridiculous assertion yet and totally disprovable. It is due to a stopping of whatever program they were doing, or a change in the composition of the materials.

I think it had something to do with trying to stem global warming, by reflecting more heat, kind of trying to buy time - or at least that would be the plausible cover story if it had a more nefarious intention.

I know I had really bad skin problems for about 6-8 years when they were heavy, it came out of no where and doctors couldnt' explain it, but the last 2 years it seems to have cleared up about 90% and I think it is related in some manner.

The fact that they aren't being seen is proof that there was an adulterant being sprayed or else they would have continued. You are correct in seeing this correlation and I noticed this as well but since this board is so full of shills posting about this gets drowned in negative attacks and people using double speak and non-logic/reverse logic - basically insanity.

It's not you, there is a difference and we need to find out what was being sprayed for all those years.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
This has nothing to do with changes in fuel or engines, that is the most ridiculous assertion yet and totally disprovable. It is due to a stopping of whatever program they were doing, or a change in the composition of the materials.

Then perhaps you can explain the study that was done using an A340 with new high bypass turbofan engines and a 707 using low bypass turbofan engines flying side by side, and how the A340 was leaving a nice contrail behind it, and the 707 wasn't. Are you seriously going to claim that they were blatantly spraying in the middle of a study that was being performed?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Cannot judge from that image whether or not the contrail produced by the A340 will persist.

a reply to: Phage

The point wasn't that it would persist, the point was that the new engines are leaving contrails where old engines didn't, meaning more contrails. Therefore it's provable that the change in engine type results in more contrails, whether they persist or not.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The topic is quite specific.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Massive human destruction by either chemicals,toxins or
any bio-hazard their evil brains can come up with.

a reply to: Phage

So was the comment I was replying to that a change in engine type didn't cause more contrails, and can easily be disproven.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes. But the topic is persistent contrails.


If the OP has observed fewer persistent contrails I would posit that it is because in the OP's location the conditions conducive to the production of persistent contrails have been less favorable. Fortunately there is data available which can be used to determine this aspect of the theory.

Unfortunately, all we have to go by is anecdotal evidence of the recent prevalence (or lack thereof) of persistent contrails over Phoenix as provided by the OP.

a reply to: Phage

I'm well aware of what the topic of the OP is.