Chemtrails are real. Look up for more than a second. Believe your own eyes.

Ok, wait, you're on a conspiracy website, manically arguing with people from both sides of the discussion. Really? You're obviously too emotionally and personally involved. Nobody is on a high horse talking down to you, it's just your anger/inferiority issues clouding your perception. It makes you sound like a hangry, cranky child that needs a snack and a nap. This, for you, is obviously all about you, and it's tiresome.

I love it when a chemtard uses the word "manically" and is unaware that he's a hypocrite.

My problem with George is none of your business, and unrelated to debunking paranoid ignorance being spread as truth.

And yes, I am personally involved based on an actual education in these subjects coupled with the fact that I have several relatives in the aviation business. And for the same reasons, I am emotionally involved.

And I AM angry and cranky that stupid people are spreading lies based on their inability to recognize their own paranoia. This witch-hunt is not only unnecessary, It's STUPID!

I'm sorry that you don't understand these facts.

They are based on my observations.

The devil is in the details! Simple minds cannot comprehend complexity. I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

Yeah, I can't "comprehend" that you recycle your material.

And I LOVE the fact that you prove that you are a hypocrite about being insulting.

Yes, i know...you'll justify it the same way you have in the past, that because it's me, and I do it, it somehow justifies your hypocrisy....while you are unable to see that I simply give it back as much as I take it from the chemtards...and they are ALWAYS the first to insult me.

there are both photos and movies of contrails going back 70+ years

there are more flights today

the "chem-bows" are definitely water if you're seeing a rainbow

chemtards are amongst the lowest life forms for their denial of basic fact, burden of proof, lack of accountability and fear mongering

they are to be chastised for being the village fools they are

It astounds me that this is even a subject worth debating. For crying out loud, all you have to do is look up. If you're under 20, then maybe that's a valid excuse--you can't remember crystal blue skies. But for the rest of us, it's patently obvious.

I'm 49 and I have seen persistent contrails in the Boston suburbs for over 40 years.

Your memory has failed you.

And "looking up" means NOTHING if you don't understand what you are seeing when you do.

What's obvious is that you chemtards are LAZY with your research and ignorant about some VERY basic science.

This statement is absolute and total bullshit. Persistent contrails are a recent development, if you believe that's what they are.

So you have evidence that persistent contrails are a "recent development" (how recent exactly?).

Please, share it with us....

This is from the Christian Science Monitor in 1997:


"Researchers have found that contrails, like these over Arizona's Saguaro National Monument, can cause far greater cirrus cloud coverage than previously thought.

Satellite analysts had not connected sharply defined contrails seen in some images with cirrus clouds seen subsequently in other images covering other areas.

Minnis - an atmospheric scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. - has made that connection. He took part in a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) field experiment in May 1996.

Infrared images taken every 15 minutes by the GOES-8 weather satellite enabled him to track distinctive contrails for six hours or more.

At a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Baltimore last May, Minnis told how he followed a 100-kilometer-long, oval contrail made by a NASA DC-8 research aircraft. The contrail formed cirrus - covering 4,000 square kilometers (1,500 square miles) at its peak."

Full Article: [link to www-pm.larc.nasa.gov]

Point by point:

We're discussing, this whole time, persistent spreading contrails, one of the newly-identified types of "natural contrails" NASA has chosen to classify:
[link to science-edu.larc.nasa.gov]

I've seen these 'examples' on metabunk, they are all of persistent, non spreading 'contrails', and not at all what I'm discussing. Read the 1997 article posted above for clarification. Persistent, non-spreading contrails have certainly been observable since almost the advent of aviation. These are the type, classified by NASA, that you cite, and they don't apply here.

More air traffic overall, doesnt logically explain the recent rise in persistent, spreading 'contrails'. A change, or changes in the already proven fuel additives, would be a more simple explanation.

Chembows are not proven as caused by only water vapor if a rainbow is observed. There are many liquids and crystalline compounds that will refract the light of the sun, each having its own signature. .
Do you understand the basic concept of the refraction of light, and how it can reveal such information? Are you aware of spectroscopy, and its many uses? Did you use a spectrometer to verify your sweeping statement? Nope, you didn't.

You're the fool.

Last Edited by gmigriff on 07/08/2014 02:34 PM

gmigriff,

You are suggesting there is a new species of Contrail that is more likely to form a Cirrus Cloud Bank or initiate a bloom of haze, etc. I think it is reasonable to ask the question. However, I think it is impossible to control for all the variables in order to conclusively eliminate any possibility that a new phenomena may have been described.

1. Contrail Induced Cirrus Cloud Banks, etc. have been described in historical atmospheric research. The frequency is the question.

2. Fact, there are statistically more chances for the aforementioned phenomena to occur. How does one separate the unusual from the expected normal increase?

3. I think, simply because more people are interested, more people are looking, thus the perception there are more persistent contrails and cirrus blooms than would be expected.

NASA has gone so far as to produce a Persistent Contrail Forecast Prediction system. This may or may not support your speculation. However, you will note that different jet engine efficiencies along with the barometric pressure (mb) denoting the relative altitude of the aircraft are used in the data input areas to calculate the chance of persistent contrails. This might be a hint that such efficiencies are a factor in the increase in Persistent Contrails and Contrail Induced Cirrus Clouds.

__________________________

Real Time :

Individual level (mb) at 0.3 efficiency.

All levels combined at engine efficiency (%)
.20 .30 .40
________________________



Contrail Formation Forecast by NASA

[link to enso.larc.nasa.gov]

The contrail forecast software was developed by Dr. David Duda of Hampton University with Patrick Minnis (NASA), with support from the NASA Office of Earth Science Pathfinder Program. The near-real time display was constructed by Rabindra Palikonda (AS&M, Inc.). For more information contact Dr. Duda ( [email protected] ) or Dr. Minnis ([email protected]).

Last Edited by George B on 07/08/2014 03:07 PM

A reasonable rebuttal, I'll admit. My comments:

1. Yes, the frequency is quite key. Just because they were rare, but possible and documentable in the far past, doesn't mean their common observance so suddenly in the late '90s is any less strange. Your NASA friend, linked to above, was the first to positively connect, using an infrared satellite study, the emissions from aircraft, as being the source of the incredibly persistent contrails and resultant, hugely-expanding plumes that evolved into enormous day-long cloud banks, that eventually spanned hundreds of km. Coincidentally, this was the same time regular people started noticing strange things in the sky.

2. Why would you expect a normal increase, based on more flights? The increase in observability by regular people has been marked, and yet it took a special study, using satellites to connect the dots and prove the connection between the aircraft and many more cirrus cloudbanks.

3. There might be more people I agree, but the number of them paying attention to what's going on in the sky, is way, way less. Crushing candy, most of them.

I disagree, but respect nonetheless...

You were editing, while I was responding to your first version. Just to be clear.... :/

1. You noticed a shift in appearance in frequency in the late 1990s, could you have been seeing new flights that didn't exist before. New long haul routes that now fly at higher altitudes and frequency not seen in local traffic as in the past. This did happen in several regions across the nation. As did UPS, FedX, and so forth increase their business and air routes. New business. As regarding Patrick Minnis research that you cited as justification for your speculation, seems he studied the situation thoroughly and feels chemtrails are a myth. Why should you not conclude in a similar way with the same scientific evidence available to you? You might want to look at the charts especially the growth in the last two decades. [link to ardent.mit.edu]

Answers to 2 & 3 I will post later with revisions to number (1) above.

Last Edited by George B on 07/08/2014 05:06 PM

I'll wait for your final answers, before i respond.

You are assuming your experience is controlling? Most people have not voiced an opinion or perception that there is a change. I lived during the same era and honestly never notice an increase in contrails or cirrus clouds until around 2009. And then it was because I read there were people who thought chemtrails existed and started noticing contrails and such. I spent 30 years in the Air Force and never noticed a change. Patrick Minnis, did a study of historical data and satellite images for a period between 1971 and 1996 and did notice the following: a steady increase over the US. I suggest if anything people have experienced something or exceeded a threshold of sorts where they started to notice them from times before, but it was only a relatively small increase in the long term scheme of things.

:Chemtrails - Cir:
[link to www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu]

Last Edited by George B on 07/08/2014 05:42 PM

There is no way to measure this, except by opinion. I respectfully suggest the power of suggestion is an enormous elephant in the room in this regard. Did you ever buy a new car or were looking at a particular car make/model and then noticed the crazy number of them you saw on the road, and in numbers you never noticed before?

To date there has been no persistent contrail mitigation efforts by aviation. This study indicates persistent contrails should be mitigated, and they are in existence even over the ocean where few people see them.

The thesis also includes analysis of the effect on fuel consumption when flying to reduce formation of persistent contrails. Data from real transatlantic flights have been used in this evaluation and the results show a less than 0.4 % increase in fuel consumption while reducing contrail formation by approximately 50 %. The work has been carried out using a set of conceptual design tools to model engine performance, engine dimensions and weight, nacelle drag, aircraft performance and weight, as well as aircraft mission calculations.

[link to publications.lib.chalmers.se]

Last Edited by George B on 07/08/2014 09:41 PM

Appreciate your contributions. Will read your links an respond with my honest thoughts. Thanks.

just hop in a plane and make one. you would think these videos would be all over. What is the deal ? Is it hard to make a persistant contrail last for hours and spread out into a haze?

NASA did just that according to Patrick Minnis.

"With the skies so full of contrails, it can be hard to see how long they last or how far they move. So the government found a way to do some checking. Imagine what the chemtrailers thought the day they flew a DC-8 off the coast of Northern California, in perfectly clear air, and went round and round over the same area to make a racetrack pattern for Minnis and others to watch.

They tracked the massive oval as it passed over Northern California, floated over the Sierra Nevada mountain range and disappeared. Another time, a plane nicknamed the NASA Vomit Comet made a figure-8 in the sky off the Texas coast.

Minnis tracked the contrail for 14 hours as it oozed over the Gulf of Mexico, then across Florida, before it turned into an amorphous blob.

"Again," he said, "if you had been sitting in a fishing boat down in the Gulf, you would have just thought this thing was a cirrus cloud."

[link to usatoday30.usatoday.com]

Now your cheating... So did they do any spectroscopic analysis of any refraction observed, to determine what compounds were creating the spectra?

Just look up once in a while. Anyone who does not KNOW chemtrails are real is an absolute idiot or blind!

Misinterpret you should not. Agree with you I do.

If you find the right conditions, which ARE specific, but not at all "rare", then of course one could make a persistent contrail. It happens somewhere everyday.

It doesn't matter that chemtards think the trails are something else. The truth will still always be the truth.

You are just plain wrong.

It's a good thing that chemtards don't matter in this world.

As stated before, I'm glad you people pay such a high price for your ignorance. To live in fear of man made clouds is pathetic.

I really don't care if you understand that fact or not.