ARE THEY CONTRAILS OR CHEMTRAILS? YOU DECIDE

i don't know allot about the visibility of chemicals when sprayed but well you have to ask yourself this "are chemicals visible when sprayed in a striat line if so then yes there are chem trails if no then no. i say this because when you call it chem and trail it sounds like the chemicals are leaving a trail when they could be invisible.. just a thought

Today I saw a new kind of "contrail". It lingered int he sky for hours, of course, and oh NOOO that it fine, totally normal right? Well, today, IN ADDITION... the contrail TURNED BLACK!!!

At one point, the white trail began to fade and I noticed that the faded half, the back half turned black! There was a black line in the sky. After a while, the whole contrail was black, and then it faded away.

This started on a perfect blue sky day, and within hours the sky was grey and muggy.

the 'black' is literally a shadow of the chemicals sprayed

they block light by reflective angularity and the 'background' noise is turned black from it's normal 'neutral'

so much spray up there that you can now see the effects by 'inference' of the 'new; chemicals before they integrate

i'm glad someone mentioned the black color. i had never seen this before until last week. i had no idea what it was even though i have read about chemtrails here. this black trail was so wide i couldn't take my eyes off of it.

just off the basis of everything else the government has done to us, I wouldnt second guess CHEM trails

Here is an article about high sulfer content jet fuel being used to combat global warming. Put this piece with the original study I posted and draw your own conclusion. Sounds to me like a good excuse to cover up what they have been doing.

[link to english.pravda.ru]

Peace,
ThePatriot

Chemtrails...

And boy where they goin at it in LA, Calli today! Some Xs too...


Peace

This is in reference to The Patriot's first link at the beginning of this thread:

In Paragraph 3.7, entitled “Engine technology influence on contrails and particles in SULFUR 7”, we read:

“In the experiment, contrail formation was observed behind two four-engine jet aircraft with different engines flying wing by wing. The two contrail-forming air craft were a Boeing B707 and an Airbus A340. The two aircraft were selected for this test because the modern A340 engines provide significantly higher engine efficiency than those of the older B707 with lower bypass and pressure ratio, see Table 3. An altitude range exists, see Plate 1d, in which the air craft with high engine efficiency causes contrails while the other aircraft with lower engine efficiency causes none [Schumann et al., 2000b].”

This is exactly what the skeptics say when someone asks why there are more persistent contrails today than ten or twenty years ago. Modern high-bypass fans are more efficient and cause more contrails; that’s why we see so many more now.

In paragraph 5, entitled “Conclusions”, it says:

“Contrail formation and ice particles: Contrails form when the mixture of exhaust gases and cold ambient air reaches liquid water saturation. At these conditions, liquid droplets form, mainly by condensation of H2O on CN in the exhaust plume, which soon freeze to form ice particles…. Contrails form at higher ambient temperature for engines with higher overall propulsion efficiency.”

Again, it mentions that the contrails are formed by water freezing into ice particles, and reiterates that, since the contrails can form at a higher ambient temp, there is a correlation between more contrails and modern engines.

By the way, did you notice that the article NEVER ONCE mentioned the difference between short-term and long-term (persistent) contrails? The only mention was in a reference:

“Jensen, E. J., O. B. Toon, S. Kinne, G. W. Sachse, B. E. Anderson, K. R. Chan, C. H. Twohy, B. Gandrud, A. Heymsfield, and R. C. Miake-Lye, Environmental conditions required for contrail formation and persistence, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 3929-3936, 1998a.”

When I searched the web and acquired the URL ( [link to ams.allenpress.com] ), here’s what I found:

“On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds”

“Besides natural cirrus clouds, contrails resulting from jet aircraft exhausts have become of considerable interest with respect to the question whether and in which way aviation emissions could modify upper-tropospheric ice cloud microphysics on regional and global scales (e.g., Friedl 1997 ; Brasseur et al. 1998 ). Aircraft exhaust may trigger cloud formation in two ways, either directly or indirectly. In the direct case, a contrail forms immediately behind the aircraft. This requires a special thermodynamic state of the atmosphere, especially low (<230 K) temperatures at typical flight altitudes ( 250 hPa) (e.g., Schumann 1996 ). After a short (about 1 s) initial growth stage (Kärcher et al. 1996 ), THE CONTRAIL WILL EVAPORATE WITHIN TENS OF SECONDS IF THE AIR IS DRY. IN CONTRAST, CONTRAIL GROWTH WILL CONTINUE IN BACKGROUND AIR THAT IS SUPERSATURATED WITH RESPECT TO ICE. EVENTUALLY, THE LINE-SHAPED CONTRAIL MAY TRANSFORM INTO A CIRRUS CLOUD, AS DEMONSTRATED BY SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS (Schumann and Wendling 1990 ; Minnis et al. 1998 ; Mannstein et al. 1999 ). The indirect way can occur when aging aircraft exhaust, consisting of an internal mixture of black carbon soot and liquid volatile aerosols (mainly composed of H2SO4/H2O), leads to the nucleation of ice crystals and, hence, the formation of cirrus clouds, where no cloud would have formed in absence of aircraft (Jensen and Toon 1997 ; DeMott et al. 1997 ; Kärcher et al. 1998 ). This may occur when aircraft exhaust particles have an increased ice-forming ability compared to background particles.”

Notice that this is EXACTLY what the debunkers say the difference is between “contrails” and “chemtrails”...

...The ambient conditions under which the aircraft is flying.

Patriot, you were the one who brought this article to our attention. What are your views in light of the above comments?

But wait! If they add chemicals to the fuel, wouldn't that make them CHEMFUCKINGTRAILS??

AC 65341 says:

"If they add chemicals to the fuel, wouldn't that make them CHEM*******TRAILS??"

I guess it depends on how you define "chemtrails".

Inasmuch as water, CO2, C12H22O11 and H2SO4 are "chemicals", just regular normal non-persistent contrails could be called "chemtrails" just like regular clouds could be called "chemclouds" or table sugar could be called "chem-sugar"!

But that's not what people here mean when they say "chemtrails"

Most people here say that "chemtrails" are DIFFERENT from contrails because:

There are a lot more of them nowadays;

They persist where normal contrails do not persist; and

They are part of a secret plot to deliberately put something into the atmosphere BESIDES the ice crystals, engine combustion byproducts (with more or less sulfur), etc.

But The Patriot's citation says that ISN'T the case. It posits that we see more contrails because the modern engines are more efficient and produce more water vapor which turns into more ice crystals.

The Patriot's article also says that the difference between short-term contrails and long-term ones is NOT that they have different stuff in them, but because the ambient conditions (that is, how cold or wet the air is) determines how long the contrail will remain in the sky and if it will spread out into a cirrus cloud.

bump for The Patriot

Another Bump -- Patriot, are you out there?

How strange! someone comes up with another example of the chem-trail myth and inadvertently quotes something that shoots down his own hypothesis.

When called on it and asked for clarification, he disappears.

Too bad....

I believe it is just as it says, newer engines produce more water vapor thus producing larger contrails. In the same respect, the ambient temperature, as in dry air vs. saturated air makes the difference in cloud size and expansion.

I will acknowledge the fact that there are chemicals in the exhaust that may play a role but to what extent, I have no idea.

Cloud makin'!