Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steelaway

    Steelaway New Member

    There is actually a major difference between a CONTRAIL and a CHEMTRAIL. I know you have a problem conceding that ad for some reason - you dont want to admit it - but there is. A contrail is ICE and doesn't last very long because its rapidly converted back to water vapour. Chemtrails are manufactured mixtures (not compounds) composed of aluminium metal, aluminium oxide, barium sulphate, strontium chloride and additives to allow the heavier barium sulphate to ballast the other particles to keep them from blowing (too quickly) away This formulation isnt an accident, the main aspect is the high reflectivity and high 'whiteness' coupled with persistence arising from greater inertia, since at these altitudes (35,000+') the buoyancy is assured and the main concern is inertial retardation (ie staying in pace to enable the trail to be built up in consecutive layers). It has nothing to do with aluminium toxicity. The accusations against Monsanto on this particular case are bullshit - but that doesn't mean Monsanto aren't a bunch of crooks - it just means the guys trying to fight them aren't all that bright and cant afford good chemical engineers.
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Interesting theory Steelaway. THis is not really the thread for it, but if you'd like to explain WHY a contrail can never last "very long", given that clouds do, and they are also often made of ice, then I can move it over to a new thread.

    You might alway want to calculate the weight of a trail that's two miles wide, and 100 miles long, and has a specific optical density based on the compound you suggest.

    There are several other objections to your theory as well, all well covered elsewhere, but I'm interested in how you address the first.
  3. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    Not at < -40C and high relative humidity.

    Natural cirrus cloud manage to persist. I watched some form the other day over top of convective complexes that formed along the seabreeze front. The convection collapsed when the CAPE became insufficient to support it. The cirrus clouds (formerly the 'anvil top') remained and drifted off to the southwest. Contrails left in a similar environment will similarly persist.

    Fact is, what the "theorists" point at and call "chemtrails" look exactly like the persistent contrails that I remember from the past and that appear in so many photographs and movies from the past when such were not the focus of the images and may have even been actively avoided by filmographers when possible.

    It is odd when people tell me that skies were once always crystal clear except during rainy days and that contrails didn't persist. My experience does not match such a perception nor do images of past skies that I view in photos and films.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Steelaway

    Steelaway New Member

    Yes, clouds do stay together - until they either vaporise or condense to form rain. When they condense at high altitude they form ice crystals and convection currents can grow these crystals into hail stones. But clouds are no more ice than steam in your bathroom is ice - its visible water vapour and two factors influence its appearance - the vapour pressure and the dew point.
    Climate engineers order the materials they need based on high albedo - its needs to reflect sunlight to provide cooling. They don't order water. Any climate engineering conference will tell you that they are not the same as contrails? Mercuric iodide has been used for fifty years for seeding rain clouds to provide a nucleating material for rain. This is something can you find on Google or a 1950 Encyclopedia.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Water vapor, by it's very definition, is invisible - it's a gas. If you can see something then you are seeing tiny drops of water, or tiny crystals of ice.

    Cirrus clouds are made of ice. Do you dispute that?
  6. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    Cirrus clouds are ice. Do you disagree? If so, based on what?

    Water clouds are suspended droplets. Ice clouds are suspended ice crystals. Water vapor is clear. It is a gas.

    Something that causes condensation and rains out of the atmosphere in large droplets is not going to be very useful for albedo alteration in the stratosphere. You are conflating existing attempts at weather modification by seeding existing water clouds at low altitude using condensation nucleii with theoretical methods of altering albedo by creating a reflective layer above 12,000 meters.

    Of course "they" would not use water to reflect sunlight. It is known that cirrus sheets and contrail cirrus have the opposite effect by letting in sunlight but trapping outgoing infrarred radiation. My experience and text books before my experience indicate that contrails can and do persist. How do you distinguish between a persistent contrails and a chemtrail?
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  8. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    There's a lot to be said for fact checking, it's actually SILVER iodide that has been used for fifty years for seeding rain clouds to provide a nucleating material for rain.
    It's another element entirely. You may not think details count for much, "it's the vibe man", "just connect the dots" and have no issue with getting elements mixed up and think water vapor is visible and believe condensation in the sky can't persist, but believing these wrong ideas as you do just contributes to a larger collection of wrong ideas in your head. A whole large collection of wrong ideas do not contribute to a greater truth. They just contribute to nonsense. It's a whole collection of wrong ideas that is the basis for chemtrail belief.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Active Member

    I just had to say this...though a bit OT...(sorry Mick).

    I went to Wally World earlier (WalMart for those that don't know) and a reasonably intelligent sounding woman, as I walked past her group, was saying " OMG, yes, the chemtrails were terrible today". I had been in and out all morning, noticed no contrails and very few clouds, and as I left the store made sure to look up. Almost completely clear blue sky. A few small clumps of whatever...but no contrails or cirrus at all.

    Remember where I live......just a few miles away from Al, Lucca, and the rest.

    First time ever hearing anyone talk about it in person.
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, it's interesting the discrepancy between how important an issue the chemtrail people think it is, and the impact in the real world. There were only about 300 people at the chemtrail conference, and another 250 watching online.

    I think there's also far fewer 9/11 truthers than they think there are.

    Even so, it's still a sizable and vocal group.
  11. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    That's quite an amusing but wrong idea Steelaway. I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny or pulling our leg that you can believe such things. You seem to be confusing a whole range of physics principles.
    Buoyancy is not assured at 35,000+ ft . As the atmosphere gets less dense with altitude, buoyancy gets less . An inflatable balloon can expand at low pressures and maintain buoyancy but airborne particulates cannot.
    Your idea that particulate matter can have sufficient inertia to maintain their position in the sky against wind is nonsensical. A bullet can have sufficient kinetic energy and momentum to maintain its velocity against prevailing winds but airborne particulates cannot. A hot air or helium Balloon has many thousands of times the mass and inertia of any airborne particulate you can care to name but is incapable of maintaining a position in the sky against the wind. All airborne floating matter moves with the surrounding atmosphere.
    Sorry, you can't "ballast" airborne dust so it stays in place.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    I think Steelaway just invented Skyhooks! He's gonna be RICH!
  13. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    Edit: Deleted, since I accidentally posted this before I was finished.
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm presuming Rico was about to bring up:
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This bit

    Is technically correct, except for the use of the word "mainly". The main factor is the ambient humidity. Given the same humidity ice will certainly last longer than water, but pretty much all the short contrails you see are still ice.
  16. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    Hi, I'm new here. I actually made a post here earlier, that got submitted before I was finished :eek:. Anyways, I'm relatively new to the whole chemtrail theory, and recently heard about it through a forum and subsequently, youtube. I have had a lot of discussion with YouTube members regarding this phenomenon, most of them ending up into arguments, naturally, but a lot of the stuff I hear revolves around the idea that contrails rarely last. By profession, I am a commercial pilot, so a lot of what I hear, I ask myself "really?" Just to assure myself of my sanity, I discovered your website at Contrail Science, which I feel describes the phenomenon of persistent contrails very well. I look up in the sky a lot when I'm flying, and I look at a lot of evidences presented by proponents of chemtrails, and a lot of what people point out is still, in my opinion, just a regular contrail. Not to say that chemtrails can never exist, it's just that everything that has been posted isn't exactly a smoking gun.

    In any case, I find that the longevity of contrails being discussed a lot, and I just wanted to chime in here with a quote that I found in one of the meteorology textbooks I used during my studies in aviation that seems to describe this exceptionally well. The source is the Air Command Weather Manual, published in 2004. I think the quotation is still found in a newer copy of this book. Section 8-22.

    Obviously, when we are talking about -40C, that is typically above 28,000' or so. A lot of new aircraft these days can cruise around the upper 35k, and 40k flight levels, with temperatures being in the ballpark of -56C. Anyways, just thought I'd post this here as a source of reference, which I find rather interesting.

    Edit: Ah Mick, you beat me to it!
  17. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Just to let you know there are those who believe there could be an Intentional Covert Atmosphere Aerosol Injection Program (ICAAIP) . . . and persistence nor visibility are prerequisites for or evidence of such activity . . . for example stratospheric sulfur injection . . .
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Welcome Rico :)

    Aerodynamic contrails typically form at lower altitudes, and are far more likely to be made of water, and they usually don't last. But usually we are talking about engine contrails, which are usually ice, as far as I know.
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I believe that. However I've not seen any good evidence for it.
  20. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    That is not surprising if such a program has been designed to be covert . . .
  21. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    Yes, I've seen these a lot out in the coast. All that those require is a little cooling of air from the low pressure side of an airfoil, if I understand this correctly.
  22. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Why do people believe in conspiracies and specifically chemtrails because of persistent contrails??

    1) Our history, literature, legends, entertainment, even our religions are replete with conspiracies . . .

    2) Remember . . . Where more than two people are gathered . . . a conspiracy exists . . . LoL!!!

    3) The world is obviously changing . . . instant communication, population density, technology, number and frequency of aircraft . . . and therefore, the greater chance to see persistent trails in the sky . . . and no one has convinced believers these trails cannot be chemtrails . . .

    4) Trust of authority and their motives are at an all time low . . . i.e. "Just one in 10 Americans approves of the job Congress is doing, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday, tying the branch's lowest approval rating in 38 years. Congress originally hit the 10 percent mark in February, before bouncing back several points."

    5) Constant, heated and contentious debate exists over the state of global warming, global dimming, ozone depletion, and whether people are the major cause of a deteriorating climate and environment . . . or not. . . scientists have effectively disenfranchised their credibility from much of the public . . .

    6) Atmospheric science is a complex and dynamic science . . . with infinite variability and unlimited sources of contamination, natural as well as man made . . .

    7) In my opinion, when people were encouraged to observe the sky because of the chemtrail conspiracy . . . there was a significant realization . . . there was much more to see than people thought . . . I believe some people had a primeval moment . . . the sky was always the source of foreboding and early warning . . . Storm clouds, smoke, volcanic ash, dust storms, migrating fowl and seasonal changes . . . the sky is our crystal ball !!!!

    8) Right or wrong . . . the conspiracy has a life of its own . . . no amount of argument or scientific theory will likely remove those who believe . . . from their conspiracy . . . because of their distrust of scientists, authority, primeval foreboding, and knowledge, experience and belief in conspiracies.
  23. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    The thing about science, in my personal opinion, is that it is built on theories that evolve over time. There is nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory, but I think it's important to work in a framework that makes sense and responds to existing science in a rational way. While you say "no one has convinced believers these trails cannot be chemtrails," the main problem is that people who have been exposed to subjects like meteorology, can easily refute a common sighting of a chem/contrail by saying it's a contrail, because it exists in the textbooks, because it exists in photos, and is known about for a long time.

    The crux of the matter is how we perceive it and determining what actually makes sense. I don't know much about the subject of geoengineering to really have an opinion on what works to control the climate and what doesn't, but if I believed in chemtrails, I would probably imagine myself in the shoes of some perpetrator who puts this into action and determine if it makes any sense to carry out a said motive through a said means. I see a lot of videos of people filming commercial jetliners and saying that they are secretly spraying chemicals, and I sometimes wonder how is it even possible to carry out such a widespread operation. Planes would have to be modified, not to mention filled, the intricacies involved would be complex and is easily detectable with even the slightest misstep.

    I think the life of conspiracies revolves primarily on human understanding. When I was a kid, I would look at a rainbow and would have the foggiest idea of why it appears or why it forms. I'm sure that's the same thing with everyone. It's not so much a factor of mistrust, but what we know with what we have.
  24. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Here is a proposed process . . . see if you think it possible . . .
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  25. Steelaway

    Steelaway New Member

    yes- sorry my apologies, I meant silver iodide. It was 3am when I wrote that, so that doesn't make the rest of the 'collection of wrong ideas' all nonsense. I was responding to an earlier comment that seemed unaware that climate engineering has ever occurred and I got the composition of one of the earlier successful nucleating agents wrong.
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Climate engineering is not the same as weather modification. Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate.
  27. Steelaway

    Steelaway New Member

    It's not nonsensical - its Newtons First Law - and I didn't say it prevents them from dissipating in the wind, only from diffusing in the atmosphere the way a Contrail does. Air is a fluid - the same as water. If it were indeed nonsensical then every high rate clarifier in the world, relying on firstly, flocculation of particles and secondly ballasting the resulting flocc to enable it to be captured - wouldn't work. The suspended particulates in the Chemtrail bind to the ballast particles to grow into high-density high-albedo flocs to allow increased retention time which another reader has pointed out, don't settle at 35,000'.

    There's discussion on a number of geoengineering technologies in the (links below) US Government paper, or do a search on geoengineering and the Government Accountability Office.
  28. Steelaway

    Steelaway New Member

    Which ones, examples will do, don't you believe? (At least that gives someone a starting point to challenge your thinking)
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What you said was (emphasis mine)

    Which is all nonsense. Inertial retardation is nothing to do with anything. You could use powdered depleted uranium and it would still "blow away" at the same speed as the wind.

    Inertia (essentially mass) only slows things down as they are accelerating, once it's at the same speed as the wind (almost instantly in this case) it will continue to move at the same speed as the wind.

    If anything more dense particles will dissipate faster, as they will sink faster than lighter particles of the same volume.

    And how can contrails diffuse in the atmosphere if they don't last very long? What's going on there? How long do contrails last?
    • Like Like x 1
  30. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Here is one Shakespeare wrote about (see below) . . . how about the Sanhedrin plotting to get rid of Jesus Christ . . .

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.