I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

Status
Not open for further replies.
George B said:
A reasonable question. . .*1) There are others who do think visibility is NOT the test of whether an injection program of some type exist or not. . .*2) There are others who believe geo-engineering is possibly one of the major objectives of an injection program if not the prime mission3) Have I found someone who matches my exact position . . . Close but not exact . . .for example. *http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/156*The Painful Truth About "CHEMTRAILS"ByJerry E. SmithThis appeared in the May/June 2009 print issue of Sovereign Mind Magazine and on that publication’s website at http://www.sovereignmindmagazine.com/."By the mid-1990s all old jets had been upgraded to the new engine configuration and all new planes coming off the assembly line were equipped with the most modern versions. But this new next generation of jet engines had one curious "side effect." They produced contrails that can persist for more than 24 to 36 hours! Condensation trails from first generation jet engines generally only lasted for about 10 or 20 minutes and then they disappeared. But these new "chemtrails" persist all day long – and with 35,000 commercial flights in the US air lanes each day, these new persistent contrails produce numerous crisscrossing, tic-tac-toe patterns all over the sky. So, why do the new contrails now last all day long?"
Click to expand...

They are still CONTRAILS though, right?
 
Mick said:
George, is there anyone who shares your belief in this conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...
A reasonable question. . .*1) There are others who do think visibility is NOT the test of whether an injection program of some type exist or not. . .*2) There are others who believe geo-engineering is possibly one of the major objectives of an injection program if not the prime mission. *3) Have I found someone who matches my exact position . . . Close but not exact . . .for example. *http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/156*The Painful Truth About "CHEMTRAILS"ByJerry E. SmithThis appeared in the May/June 2009 print issue of Sovereign Mind Magazine and on that publication’s website at http://www.sovereignmindmagazine.com/."By the mid-1990s all old jets had been upgraded to the new engine configuration and all new planes coming off the assembly line were equipped with the most modern versions. But this new next generation of jet engines had one curious "side effect." They produced contrails that can persist for more than 24 to 36 hours! Condensation trails from first generation jet engines generally only lasted for about 10 or 20 minutes and then they disappeared. But these new "chemtrails" persist all day long – and with 35,000 commercial flights in the US air lanes each day, these new persistent contrails produce numerous crisscrossing, tic-tac-toe patterns all over the sky. So, why do the new contrails now last all day long?"
 
Noble said:
They are still CONTRAILS though, right?
Click to expand...

I have argued that these are not the same species as the older lower efficiency jet exhaust. . .

1) They are combustion products of higher efficiency engines requiring different technology
2) The exhaust temperatures are lower than prior engines
3) The relative humidity of the exhausts are higher than prior engines
4) The engines are usually larger and most likely along with the new airframes produce more intense vortices
5) The newer engines are going to go from .30 efficiencies to probably .50, possibly making the differences even more pronounced


So I have taken the position that these could be classified as a low grade Chemtrail. . . However, I would be happy to call them High Efficiency Contrails (HEC) To distinguish the difference . . .
 
George B said:
I have argued that these are not the same species as the older lower efficiency jet exhaust. . .

1) They are combustion products of higher efficiency engines requiring different technology
2) The exhaust temperatures are lower than prior engines
3) The relative humidity of the exhausts are higher than prior engines
4) The engines are usually larger and most likely along with the new airframes produce more intense vortices
5) The newer engines are going to go from .30 efficiencies to probably .50, possibly making the differences even more pronounced


So I have taken the position that these could be classified as a low grade Chemtrail. . . However, I would be happy to call them High Efficiency Contrails (HEC) To distinguish the difference . . .
Click to expand...

1) What "different technology"?! They compress air, mix it with fuel and ignite it. Just as the older engines do. They are still jet engines.
2) So?
3) So?
4) So?
5) So?

They are contrails...No "high efficiency" necessary. They are just more likely to persist because of the amount of water vapor they produce, which boosts saturation.
 
Noble said:
So I have taken the position that these could be classified as a low grade Chemtrail. . . However, I would be happy to call them High Efficiency Contrails (HEC) To distinguish the difference . . .
1) What "different technology"?! They compress air, mix it with fuel and ignite it. Just as the older engines do. They are still jet engines.
2) So?
3) So?
4) So?
5) So?

They are contrails...No "high efficiency" necessary. They are just more likely to persist because of the amount of water vapor they produce, which boosts saturation.
Click to expand...

Words & terms evolve. . . That is part of the dynamics of language . . . Definitions are not static. . . When a consensus or critical mass is reached a change or modification is made. . . . or a word is no longer used and a new one is coined. . . . This process begins some where . . I know it bothers you . . . It doesn't bother me. . .
 
So you invent new meanings for words, and hope they catch on?

How on earth is "chemtrail" appropriate? Where are are the chemicals? (And please don't say "water is a chemical").
 
MICK said:
Originally Posted by George B. . . . I disagree, I think the persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks are an integral part of the whole campaign . . Posted by MICK . . . You do. But nobody else does.
Click to expand...
MICK, using your scientific model and*Ockham's Razor . . What is the most likely reason for this study???Different Sulfur findings with higher ppm. . . http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/97JD02209.xmlIt seems the average sulfur content is around 500ppm why research up tp 2700ppm when the trend is going in the opposite direction???*"Microphysical properties of jet exhaust aerosol and contrails were studied in the near field of the emitting aircraft for different fuel sulfur contents. Measurements were performed behind two different aircraft (ATTAS test aircraft of type VFW 614 and Airbus A310‐300) using fuels with sulfur contents of 6 ppm and 2700 ppm, respectively.
 
Well, first I'd appreciate it if you could explain what Occam's razor means to you. People sometimes have different interpretations, and I would not want to be talking at cross purposes.
 
MICK said:
So you invent new meanings for words, and hope they catch on?

How on earth is "chemtrail" appropriate? Where are are the chemicals? (And please don't say "water is a chemical").
Click to expand...

I did not coin the word chemtrail. . . As I have stated before I was introduced to the term about two years ago. . . It was my debate that connected the term Chemtrail with contrail in my mind . . I connect Chemtrail with any Intentional Aerosol Injected into the atmosphere at altitude by an aircraft for purposes not originally expected or intended. . . .

I will admit that a new term should be coined that is not a flag word and engenders so much emotion and blowback. . . But right now I don't know what that could be that is acceptable to both sides of the debate. . . I really don't think "contrails" is it though. .. .
 
George B said:
Words & terms evolve. . . That is part of the dynamics of language . . . Definitions are not static. . . When a consensus or critical mass is reached a change or modification is made. . . . or a word is no longer used and a new one is coined. . . . This process begins some where . . I know it bothers you . . . It doesn't bother me. . .
Click to expand...

So, I should be able to call a "chemtrail advocate" a [chemtrailer]...without being called on it...because that's the evolution of language?

Just because I CHOOSE to use one word in place of another, doesn't mean I should.

The trails are CONtrails...

And fighting "tptb" with the "chemtrail" urban legend won't change ANYTHING. You people are immediately dismissed as kooks.

I Guess I can make up words for anything I decide needs a new word.

Got it..
 
George B said:
I did not coin the word chemtrail. . . As I have stated before I was introduced to the term about two years ago. . . It was my debate that connected the term Chemtrail with contrail in my mind . . I connect Chemtrail with any Intentional Aerosol Injected into the atmosphere at altitude by an aircraft for purposes not originally expected or intended. . . .

I will admit that a new term should be coined that is not a flag word and engenders so much emotion and blowback. . . But right now I don't know what that could be that is acceptable to both sides of the debate. . . I really don't think "contrails" is it though. .. .
Click to expand...

What you were introduced to was the "belief" that the trails in the sky were "chemtrails" based on the ignorance of those who invented the word, about contrails. The trails in the sky, no matter how long they last...or how far they spread out...are contrails. Plain and simple. Again, you USE that term to align yourself with others who have a VERY different belief about "chemtrails" than you do. I'm not surprised.
 
George B said:
I did not coin the word chemtrail. . . As I have stated before I was introduced to the term about two years ago. . . It was my debate that connected the term Chemtrail with contrail in my mind . . I connect Chemtrail with any Intentional Aerosol Injected into the atmosphere at altitude by an aircraft for purposes not originally expected or intended. . . .

I will admit that a new term should be coined that is not a flag word and engenders so much emotion and blowback. . . But right now I don't know what that could be that is acceptable to both sides of the debate. . . I really don't think "contrails" is it though. .. .
Click to expand...


There is no evidence that the trails we see behind jet engines are "intentional".
 
I like this discussion best. . . .*Ockham's Razor*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor


"Occam's razor has gained strong empirical support as far as helping to converge on better theories (see "Applications" section below for some examples).
Even if Occam's razor is empirically justified, so too is the need to use other "theory selecting" methods in science. Such other scientific methods are what support the razor's validity as a tool in the first place. This is because measuring the razor's (or any method's) ability to select between theories requires the use of different, reliable "theory selecting" methods for corroboration.
One should note the related concept of overfitting, where excessively complex models are affected by statistical noise (a problem also known as the bias-variance trade-off), whereas simpler models may capture the underlying structure better and may thus have better predictive performance. It is, however, often difficult to deduce which part of the data is noise (cf. model selection, test set, minimum description length, Bayesian inference, etc.)."
 
George B said:
I like this discussion best. . . .*Ockham's Razor*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor


"Occam's razor has gained strong empirical support as far as helping to converge on better theories (see "Applications" section below for some examples).
Even if Occam's razor is empirically justified, so too is the need to use other "theory selecting" methods in science. Such other scientific methods are what support the razor's validity as a tool in the first place. This is because measuring the razor's (or any method's) ability to select between theories requires the use of different, reliable "theory selecting" methods for corroboration.
One should note the related concept of overfitting, where excessively complex models are affected by statistical noise (a problem also known as the bias-variance trade-off), whereas simpler models may capture the underlying structure better and may thus have better predictive performance. It is, however, often difficult to deduce which part of the data is noise (cf. model selection, test set, minimum description length, Bayesian inference, etc.)."
Click to expand...

You are really good at justifying the reason why you believe as you do...

Except for the evidence part...there, not so much...
 
Noble1965 said:
I'm just trying to understand why someone would believe something where there is no reason to believe it..

It boggles the (my) mind...
Click to expand...

Don`t get me wrong - You are doing a sterling job, the outcome of which is that it is repeatedly shown that George is simply trolling for as long as he can get away with it.

Carry on Noble, the only problem as far as I can make out is that it is almost too easy for you to remain one-up... ;)
 
Noble1965 said:
1. Again, I have seen NO EVIDENCE that anything/anyone has suffered for lack of sunlight. Have you? I am fully aware of the basic requirements of sunlight. Please provide the statistics that show there isn't enough sunshine hitting the ground. PLEASE!

2. Please tell me how you came up with that figure, 35-50%. And also, show me that on those days, there isn't ENOUGH sunlight to sustain life. We aren't talking total darkness here.

3. WHAT "serious affect" are these trails having..and where is the proof? Show me that anything deposited into the atmosphere from airplanes is any more harmful to humans than the trillions of sources of pollution down here at ground level.

4. You have made statements of fact, and I see NOTHING presented to back them up. I wonder why.

5. My answer is NOT a "stock answer" it's the truth as I understand it. I see NOTHING presented to lead me to think otherwise.

6. Fair warning, I don't appreciate your rude tone.

7. Get off of your high horse.
Click to expand...

1. Have I seen EVIDENCE that anything/anyone has suffered for lack of sunlight?

Yes. Here's one from the New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra070553

Once foods were fortified with vitamin D and rickets appeared to have been conquered, many health care professionals thought the major health problems resulting from vitamin D deficiency had been resolved. However, rickets can be considered the tip of the vitamin D–deficiency iceberg. In fact, vitamin D deficiency remains common in children and adults. In utero and during childhood, vitamin D deficiency can cause growth retardation and skeletal deformities and may increase the risk of hip fracture later in life. Vitamin D deficiency in adults can precipitate or exacerbate osteopenia and osteoporosis, cause osteomalacia and muscle weakness, and...

In fact, if you do a search for this you'll find 4,440,000 links to look at. Again, my answer is yes, I have heard of 'anything/anyone' suffering for lack of sunlight.

2. Observation. Show you there's not enough sunlight to maintain life? That's an absurd request. But have a look at some of the problems associated with sunlight deficiency - surely one can measure such things in degrees, it needn't be so black and white.

3. I refer you to the above. It's not a question of let's compare and contrast levels of harm - it's about recognising a problem and attempting to fix it.

4. Wonder away. You might not need to wonder if you do some observation yourself. It's called empiricism and it's available to anyone wanting to use it.

5. It is something of a stock answer, with a tinge of rage (but that appears true about most of what you write - at least that's what I get). Perhaps you might take number 1 seriously? You said: 'NO EVIDENCE' and I showed you plenty.

6. Oh well.

7. I haven't got a horse.

8. I think you need to refine your line of argument a bit.
 
Spongebob said:
Don`t get me wrong - You are doing a sterling job, the outcome of which is that it is repeatedly shown that George is simply trolling for as long as he can get away with it.

Carry on Noble, the only problem as far as I can make out is that it is almost too easy for you to remain one-up... ;)
Click to expand...

If only that were what I was interested in! Personally, I want the truth...I "believe" I know what the truth is...but these people are relentless...and there has to be a reason for it.

I'm just trying to figure out why he is so convinced, yet has nothing.

It's almost as if he's made a bet with someone. Like, Argue the most ridiculous position ever...and never back down on ANYTHING...no matter what. And while you're at it, support your argument with things that don't support your argument.

He is very convincing, in the sense that I can why he's convinced himself, but it bothers me that he's unable to see what this whole thing looks like from our perspective.

All I want is the truth to be the most important part of this whole thing...not who is the better "googler" or debater.

The whole thing is surreal.
 
Noble1965 said:
If only that were what I was interested in! Personally, I want the truth...I "believe" I know what the truth is...but these people are relentless...and there has to be a reason for it.

I'm just trying to figure out why he is so convinced, yet has nothing.

It's almost as if he's made a bet with someone. Like, Argue the most ridiculous position ever...and never back down on ANYTHING...no matter what. And while you're at it, support your argument with things that don't support your argument.

He is very convincing, in the sense that I can why he's convinced himself, but it bothers me that he's unable to see what this whole thing looks like from our perspective.

All I want is the truth to be the most important part of this whole thing...not who is the better "googler" or debater.

The whole thing is surreal.
Click to expand...

I don`t think he is convinced, which is why he skilfully sidesteps very many direct questions.

He is trolling, plain and simple.

You should carry on debunking his position for the benefit of any third party observers who might be reading this.

When I said it`s too easy, I meant it`s too easy for you to keep pointing out his complete lack of evidence, which is the outcome of every page.

It`s amazing that this troll has dragged it out to 32 pages, arguing with absolutely nothing but his own personal intuition to use as evidence...

Keep calm and carry on Noble :)
 
lee h oswald said:
1. Have I seen EVIDENCE that anything/anyone has suffered for lack of sunlight?

Yes. Here's one from the New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra070553

Once foods were fortified with vitamin D and rickets appeared to have been conquered, many health care professionals thought the major health problems resulting from vitamin D deficiency had been resolved. However, rickets can be considered the tip of the vitamin D–deficiency iceberg. In fact, vitamin D deficiency remains common in children and adults. In utero and during childhood, vitamin D deficiency can cause growth retardation and skeletal deformities and may increase the risk of hip fracture later in life. Vitamin D deficiency in adults can precipitate or exacerbate osteopenia and osteoporosis, cause osteomalacia and muscle weakness, and...

In fact, if you do a search for this you'll find 4,440,000 links to look at. Again, my answer is yes, I have heard of 'anything/anyone' suffering for lack of sunlight.

2. Observation. Show you there's not enough sunlight to maintain life? That's an absurd request. But have a look at some of the problems associated with sunlight deficiency - surely one can measure such things in degrees, it needn't be so black and white.

3. I refer you to the above. It's not a question of let's compare and contrast levels of harm - it's about recognising a problem and attempting to fix it.

4. Wonder away. You might not need to wonder if you do some observation yourself. It's called empiricism and it's available to anyone wanting to use it.

5. It is something of a stock answer, with a tinge of rage (but that appears true about most of what you write - at least that's what I get). Perhaps you might take number 1 seriously? You said: 'NO EVIDENCE' and I showed you plenty.

6. Oh well.

7. I haven't got a horse.

8. I think you need to refine your line of argument a bit.
Click to expand...

The fact that people suffer from rickets isn't proof that here isn't enough sunlight...OR Vitamin D, it's evidence that the people don't get enough sun...or vitamin D. VERY different. Some people don't leave their shelters (invalids, elderly, quadriplegics...kids with video games). Sometimes there is too much smog/pollution. Sometimes people need more vitamin D than they get with sunshine....anyway!


I don't care how many links there are. This isn't about a lack of sunlight due to "chemtrails".

2) it's not an absurd request. I understand sunlight deficiency. I just don't see where contrails/contrail cirrus has actually caused any such thing.
3) I see no real "problem" associated with the trails. I read of PERCEIVED problems...but, I see no evidence that there is actually a problem. Just because you claim that rickets is caused by lack of sunlight, doesn't mean the lack of sunlight is caused by the trails. There are other variables. Are you actually suggesting that people live their lives in the shadows of the trails?! And there isn't enough sunlight filtering through/around the trails to reach them? Absurd!

4) I observe all the time. What makes you so sure that your observations are better than mine?

5) I feel no rage...and my answers are my own. No need to be rude. Again, what you CLAIM to be evidence, so far...is nothing of the sort.

6) "oh well"..../mocking

8) Right back atcha...you have nothing.
 
Mick said:
But they are contrails, by the definition of the word.
Click to expand...

No. They are clouds created by aircraft, by any definition.

A contrail can form without any particles being present in the mix, a cloud needs a different set of circumstances to occur.

Apples and lychees again. Clouds and contrails are not the same thing. That's why they have different names
 
Noble1965 said:
The fact that people suffer from rickets isn't proof that here isn't enough sunlight...OR Vitamin D, it's evidence that the people don't get enough sun...or vitamin D. VERY different. Some people don't leave their shelters (invalids, elderly, quadriplegics...kids with video games). Sometimes there is too much smog/pollution. Sometimes people need more vitamin D than they get with sunshine....anyway!


I don't care how many links there are. This isn't about a lack of sunlight due to "chemtrails".

2) it's not an absurd request. I understand sunlight deficiency. I just don't see where contrails/contrail cirrus has actually caused any such thing.
3) I see no real "problem" associated with the trails. I read of PERCEIVED problems...but, I see no evidence that there is actually a problem. Just because you claim that rickets is caused by lack of sunlight, doesn't mean the lack of sunlight is caused by the trails. There are other variables. Are you actually suggesting that people live their lives in the shadows of the trails?! And there isn't enough sunlight filtering through/around the trails to reach them? Absurd!

4) I observe all the time. What makes you so sure that your observations are better than mine?

5) I feel no rage...and my answers are my own. No need to be rude. Again, what you CLAIM to be evidence, so far...is nothing of the sort.

6) "oh well"..../mocking

8) Right back atcha...you have nothing.
Click to expand...

ok. Where are you based?
 
Contrails are a type of cloud, according to most meteorologists.

Are you talking about contrail induced cirrus? I think we can all agree that those are not contrails, but are contrail induced cirrus.
 
Mick said:
Contrails are a type of cloud, according to most meteorologists.
Click to expand...

Yes, just like fog is a kind of cloud. Just because it is referred to as fog and not a cloud, does not make it any less of a cloud. By an above argument by Lee, if it is not called specifically called the broad term of cloud, then its not one. So if it is called a cloud, then it must be an atmospheric cloud, so at least we can know that Apple sends music files and photos up into actual clouds for storage, by this reasoning.

Just because there is a name for specific cloud types, that are used more often just just the world "cloud", does not make them any less of a cloud, or what a cloud is. Contrails have a cloud type - Cirrus Aviaticus. But to the chemmies, that is just more proof of a coverup, so therefore it is chemtrail proof.
 
MICK said:
Here's the full paper. They explain the reasons for the study therein, so I don't have to.
http://elib.dlr.de/32388/1/petz.pdf

But I'd still like to hear what you say about Occam
Click to expand...

I want to know what you think the reasons for the experiment were . . . why this technique . . . where did they get the fuel as low as 6 ppm and has high as 2,700 ppm . . . that must have been very, very difficult since they are not commercially available . . .
 
It's explained in the paper.

Sulphur in fuel is a variable in the effects of contrails on climate. Hence they want to study what those effects are, quantitatively, so they can include it in models.

They picked a wide range of sulphur contents, so they could measure any differences over that range. Picking a narrow range might hide some differences. Those values were probably just were available to them in 1997, the precise numbers would unimportant, just so long as they were very low and very high.
 
firepilot said:
Yes, just like fog is a kind of cloud. Just because it is referred to as fog and not a cloud, does not make it any less of a cloud. By an above argument by Lee, if it is not called specifically called the broad term of cloud, then its not one. So if it is called a cloud, then it must be an atmospheric cloud, so at least we can know that Apple sends music files and photos up into actual clouds for storage, by this reasoning.

Just because there is a name for specific cloud types, that are used more often just just the world "cloud", does not make them any less of a cloud, or what a cloud is. Contrails have a cloud type - Cirrus Aviaticus. But to the chemmies, that is just more proof of a coverup, so therefore it is chemtrail proof.
Click to expand...

You've stepped off the ice clouds and onto the watery ones. In doing so you've made an error. Yes, you're right to say that fog is a type of cloud - it's a type of stratus. Add to that cumulus and cirrus and you've got the basic set. The thing about stratus (or 'fog', that being just the common name) is, like any other cloud, it requires particles to be present for the water vapour present in the atmosphere to accrete on and for water droplets to form a visible entity called a cloud - or fog, or low stratus. They're all correct.
Wh
When you say: So if it is called a cloud, then it must be an atmospheric cloud

I don't remember saying that - and is there not such a thing as a cloud of mosquitoes? Do they count as atmospheric?
You are wrong. Cirrus aviaticus is not recognised by the WMO - there is however a 'new' cloud currently up for consideration by the WMO for classification, it's called asperatus and it will be the first new nomenclature for a cloud formally recognised since 1954. So, please refrain with your cirrus aviaticus, induced cirrus, cirrus that would have happened anyway, contrails, persistent contrails....so many names for something that already has one: cloud. Now it should be properly classified. There should be a new nomenclature - and a proper discussion. There is neither.
 
GeorgeB said:
where did they get the fuel as low as 6 ppm and has high as 2,700 ppm . . . that must have been very, very difficult since they are not commercially available . . .
Click to expand...

Typical of you to not read or understand the evidence - they tell you in the paper how they got the high sulphur - by adding to the fuel!!

Where do you get info that low sulphur of 6 and 850 ppm is not readily commercially available?
 
MikeC said:
Typical of you to not read or understand the evidence - they tell you in the paper how they got the high sulphur - by adding to the fuel!!

Where do you get info that low sulphur of 6 and 850 ppm is not readily commercially available?
Click to expand...

Hah, I didn't read that bit either:

The high sulfur content of 3000 ppm was achieved by adding exact amounts of dibutylsulfide to the fuel [Busen et al, 1996]; the lower sulfur contents were < 6 ppm (ATTAS) and 850 ppm (AIRBUS A310-300).
Click to expand...

The Busen ref is to "Experiments on contrail formation from fuels with different sulfur content", 1996. Which is part of the SULFUR series, summarized here:

http://elib.dlr.de/9666/1/jgr-107.pdf

Which gives the reason for the studies:

Particle and contrail formation in aircraft exhaust
plumes as a function of FSC is of importance for air
composition and climate [Brasseur et al., 1998; Fahey et
al., 1999; Schumann et al., 2001]. Before the first SULFUR
experiment in 1994, it was hypothesized that sulfuric acid in
aircraft exhaust plumes plays a strong role with respect to
the number of volatile particles formed from aircraft,
‘‘activation’’ of soot particles as cloud condensation nuclei,
and possibly ‘‘passivation’’ of soot for heterogeneous
chemistry. These effects are important for contrail formation
and air composition with possible impact on aerosols,
cloudiness and climate
Click to expand...

And how the sulfur values were obtained:

The experiments cover a wide range of FSC values.
Aviation fuels are produced with FSC values from near
1 mg/g to an upper limit of 3000 mg/g. The median FSC
value of fuels provided for airliners is near 400 mg/g [IPCC,
1999]. In cases S1, S6, and S7 the FSC was varied by using
different fuel deliveries. In cases S2 – S5, up to 60 kg of
dibuthylsulfide (C8H18S) containing a 22% mass fraction of
sulfur were added to one of the fuel tanks to increase the
FSC relative to the fuel in other tanks to the desired level.
Click to expand...
 
lee h oswald said:
So, please refrain with your cirrus aviaticus, induced cirrus, cirrus that would have happened anyway, contrails, persistent contrails....so many names for something that already has one: cloud.
Click to expand...

lee h oswald said:
As you well know, contrails and clouds are different things which require different sets of circumstances to occur.
Click to expand...

Wait, first you say a contrail is a cloud, and now you are saying they are different?

Engine exhaust contrails require the same momentary circumstances as clouds to form (RH > 100%), but they form at lower ambient humidities. Is that the difference you are referring to, or did you have something else in mind?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
AARO's Historical UAP Report - Volume 1
6 7 8
Replies
310
Views
15K
MapperGuy
M
Mendel
Sean Kirkpatrick in Scientific American
Replies
1
Views
499
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
FatPhil
Science - If bigfoot is there, it could be a bear.
Replies
38
Views
3K
Todd Feinman
Todd Feinman
B
Diana W. Pasulka - aliens & religion & other dimensions (JRE podcast #2091)
3 4 5
Replies
170
Views
9K
Landru
Landru
NorCal Dave
The Congressional UAP Hearings Debrief
2 3
Replies
102
Views
11K
John J.
John J.

Latest posts

Back
Top