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

Status
Not open for further replies.
NO. You have said that. You said:



Let's be clear about this... are chetrails indistinguishable from contrails? Are chemtrails actually contrails?

My answer . . . the persistent contrails from high efficiency jet engines would be . . . by my definition CHEMTRAILs . . . Though I would consider them as a low grade
Chemtrail. . . . Which would mean there are few normal persistent contrails to be found. . .
 
My answer . . . the persistent contrails from high efficiency jet engines would be . . . by my definition CHEMTRAILs . . . Though I would consider them as a low grade
Chemtrail. . . . Which would mean there are few normal persistent contrails to be found. . .

Well, not quite sure I get that, because those high efficiency jet engines are burning cleaner than previous ones, resulting in less fuel burned, less soot. Would it still be a chemtrail if they changed their altitude to a lower or higher one that did not leave a contrail?
 
Well, not quite sure I get that, because those high efficiency jet engines are burning cleaner than previous ones, resulting in less fuel burned, less soot. Would it still be a chemtrail if they changed their altitude to a lower or higher one that did not leave a contrail?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4435

This link will show you an infrared enhanced photo of persistent Trails and cirrus cloud complex over the
Southeastern US in 2004. . . . It in some ways demonstrates my answer. . .

Because a trail may not be visible does not mean it is not there . . . A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics. . . Those seen in the visual light spectrum are easy to characterize those not visible are a different matter. . .

So your question about changing altitude so a visible trail may not form is more complex than the question might seem. . . .my answer is maybe . . .
 
My answer . . . the persistent contrails from high efficiency jet engines would be . . . by my definition CHEMTRAILs . . . Though I would consider them as a low grade
Chemtrail. . . . Which would mean there are few normal persistent contrails to be found. . .
George, you need some rest. Not only have you said that contrails are chemtrails, the "fallback position" for a chemtrail believer who has given up, now you are headed towards the last refuge of defeat, the "invisible chemtrail"!
 
Actually a chemtrail is apparently defined, however the person who believes in it, wants to define it. I think you just came up with another definition.

Okay, riddle me this. If it is an invisible chemtrail, how will it affect albedo?

And RF characteristics? Normal clouds can have a definite effect on radio frequency propagation and bouncing of radio waves, as can the ionosphere at night.

well I think my question is rather valid, since some chemtrail believers want to see all contrails stopped. Okay, so if aircraft flew at altitudes that were less efficient for flight and for jet engine operation, more fuel would be burned, resulting in more Co2, and more fuel required, resulting in more pollution from the point source and from transportation. And delays at airports would be greater too, so that would result in more pollution and closer to the ground.

However, aviation knowledge is something that most all chemtrailers have avoided like it was garlic to a vampire.
 
And their (mis)leaders prefer it that way!

You are right about that. The promoters of this for-profit conspiracy, never attempt to give people tools to identify aircraft or to learn about aviation. The few that have managed to learn about aviation, have quickly left the chemtrail hoax behind.

Roxy Lopez is one of the worst offenders. Now it could be argued that she is just very ignorant and does not do any research, however she never updates any of her videos to correct her totally false statements. She may acknowledge in the comments for her youtube videos, that she was wrong, but there is never an updated video to reflect reality. I really think that she is trying to make conspiracy promotion her new job, after the housing market in Phoenix went bust, leaving many realtors out of jobs.
 
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4435

This link will show you an infrared enhanced photo of persistent Trails and cirrus cloud complex over the
Southeastern US in 2004. . . . It in some ways demonstrates my answer. . .

Because a trail may not be visible does not mean it is not there . . . A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics. . . Those seen in the visual light spectrum are easy to characterize those not visible are a different matter. . .

So your question about changing altitude so a visible trail may not form is more complex than the question might seem. . . .my answer is maybe . . .

And as pointed out, right on that link..the trails are "cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust".

I LOVE how you refuse to use the term "persistent contrails" in favor of "persistent Trails"...although I can't understand why you always capitalize the "t"...

Not "chemtrails", but contrails. I've told you before, and I'll tell ya again...if you have a problem with contrails, until you call them by the correct name, no one is going to take you seriously.

I happen to agree that contrails could be a problem...but that doesn't mean they are "chemtrails"...and it doesn't mean they are intentional.

"A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics" Um...no, there is no definition for "chemtrails"...and 99% of the chemtrail "advocates" (I can't use the word I usually use, on this site) call any visible trail seen in the sky, a "chemtrail". As evidenced by any youtube video with the word "chemtrail" in the title.
 
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4435

This link will show you an infrared enhanced photo of persistent Trails and cirrus cloud complex over the
Southeastern US in 2004. . . . It in some ways demonstrates my answer. . .

Because a trail may not be visible does not mean it is not there . . . A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics. . . Those seen in the visual light spectrum are easy to characterize those not visible are a different matter. . .

But the RF characteristics of the materials in a contrail are the same whether the water is visible or not aren't they?? Since, apart from the water, all the other elements are always invisible unless there is a great deal of soot - in which case only the soot is visible.

So by this definition all the exhaust gases from start up to shut down constitute chemtrails??

Now I have some sympathy for the anti-pollution argument - but that's not what chemtrails are supposed to be - they are supposed to be something OTHER THAN normal exhaust.

And so far you have singularly failed to illustrate anything that is not consistent with normal exhaust.
 
For me the time I notice most is 3:14 :)

It's not just confirmation bias, it's "priming". My mind is predisposed to notice 3.14 due to my interest in math.

For me it is 12.04 - since 1204 was the year the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople.

The number of times I'm reading in bed at nigh & look up & see 12.04 is weird!
 
And as pointed out, right on that link..the trails are "cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust".

I LOVE how you refuse to use the term "persistent contrails" in favor of "persistent Trails"...although I can't understand why you always capitalize the "t"...

Not "chemtrails", but contrails. I've told you before, and I'll tell ya again...if you have a problem with contrails, until you call them by the correct name, no one is going to take you seriously.

I happen to agree that contrails could be a problem...but that doesn't mean they are "chemtrails"...and it doesn't mean they are intentional.

"A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics"
Um...no, there is no definition for "chemtrails"...and 99% of the chemtrail "advocates" (I can't use the word I usually use, on this site) call any visible trail seen in the sky, a "chemtrail". As evidenced by any youtube video with the word "chemtrail" in the title.


"A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics"


Should have said they define my judging if they are CHEMTRAILs or not .
 
persistent contrails from high efficiency jet engines would be . . . Which would mean there are few normal persistent contrails to be found. . .

According to you: persistent contrails from high efficiency jet engines are chemtrails.

Ok. Then what is the difference between persistent contrails from high efficiency jet engines and normal persistent contrails.
 
But the RF characteristics of the materials in a contrail are the same whether the water is visible or not aren't they?? Since, apart from the water, all the other elements are always invisible unless there is a great deal of soot - in which case only the soot is visible.

So by this definition all the exhaust gases from start up to shut down constitute chemtrails??

Now I have some sympathy for the anti-pollution argument - but that's not what chemtrails are supposed to be - they are supposed to be something OTHER THAN normal exhaust.

And so far you have singularly failed to illustrate anything that is not consistent with normal exhaust.

The difference is IMO the updated technology and greater engine efficiency which changed the pre-existing jet exhaust into a product more likely to be persistent and more likely to form cirrus cloud banks and alter climate . . . Which in essence became more and more obvious to people on the ground. . . And may have contributed to the conspiracy surge. . . .
 
According to you: persistent contrails from high efficiency jet engines are chemtrails.

Ok. Then what is the difference between persistent contrails from high efficiency jet engines and normal persistent contrails.

My proposal would be contrails from the low efficiency jet engines . . .
 
George, you need some rest. Not only have you said that contrails are chemtrails, the "fallback position" for a chemtrail believer who has given up, now you are headed towards the last refuge of defeat, the "invisible chemtrail"!

For the most part I believe both are true. . . Yet, I am far from giving up. . . .
 
Actually a chemtrail is apparently defined, however the person who believes in it, wants to define it. I think you just came up with another definition.

Okay, riddle me this. If it is an invisible chemtrail, how will it affect albedo?

And RF characteristics? Normal clouds can have a definite effect on radio frequency propagation and bouncing of radio waves, as can the ionosphere at night.

well I think my question is rather valid, since some chemtrail believers want to see all contrails stopped. Okay, so if aircraft flew at altitudes that were less efficient for flight and for jet engine operation, more fuel would be burned, resulting in more Co2, and more fuel required, resulting in more pollution from the point source and from transportation. And delays at airports would be greater too, so that would result in more pollution and closer to the ground.

However, aviation knowledge is something that most all chemtrailers have avoided like it was garlic to a vampire.

RF is Radiative Forcing

In climate science, radiative forcing is generally defined as the change in net irradiance between different layers of the atmosphere. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) tends to warm the system, while a negative forcing (more outgoing energy) tends to cool it. Sources of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
 
The difference is IMO the updated technology and greater engine efficiency which changed the pre-existing jet exhaust into a product more likely to be persistent and more likely to form cirrus cloud banks and alter climate . . . Which in essence became more and more obvious to people on the ground. . . And may have contributed to the conspiracy surge. . . .

Just because the engine produces more water vapor...doesn't mean it's no longer a contrail. Just as a 3/4 inch hose is still a hose when compared to one that's 1/2 inch! Both have the same end result...one just produces more volume at the other end. The amount at the end of the hose changes nothing..it's still water from a hose...just like water vapor from a less efficient engine is water vapor, just as water vapor from a high efficiency engine...is water vapor.
 
So let's recap:

According to you contrails from high efficiency engines are chemtrails and contrails from low efficiency engines are normal contrails. Did I get that right?

Based on my definition . . . That might be a proper generalization . . .
 
Just because the engine produces more water vapor...doesn't mean it's no longer a contrail. Just as a 3/4 inch hose is still a hose when compared to one that's 1/2 inch! Both have the same end result...one just produces more volume at the other end. The amount at the end of the hose changes nothing..it's still water from a hose...just like water vapor from a less
efficient engine is water vapor, just as water vapor from a high efficiency engine...is water vapor.

Your analogy while reasonable IMO is not correct. . . A more correct analogy would be a child is a human yet the child becomes an adult and is larger, more capable, and potentially more dangerous. . . While still human they are very different. . . .
 
How could you not know? Do you not know your own theory on chemtrail formation?

The exception would be if the low efficiency engine in our discussion were to have fuel additives or post combustion addition of aerosols, particulates or gases that would change its condition from a simple low efficiency jet engine exhaust to something quite different. . .
 
The exception would be if the low efficiency engine in our discussion were to have fuel additives

Ok. Let's clarify other thing. You said "A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics".

Do Chemtrails increase, reduce or have no effect on albedo and radiative forcing?
 
The difference is IMO the updated technology and greater engine efficiency which changed the pre-existing jet exhaust into a product more likely to be persistent and more likely to form cirrus cloud banks and alter climate . . . Which in essence became more and more obvious to people on the ground. . . And may have contributed to the conspiracy surge. . . .

And that seems reasonable to me as a statement of perceptions over the 15 years or so that the chemtrail conspiracy has existed.

But it is also essentially an admission from your that there is no such thing as chemtrails in the sense that there is something to them other than normal engine exhaust - and that changes to engine technology have made that exhaust more visible.
 
Your analogy while reasonable IMO is not correct. . . A more correct analogy would be a child is a human yet the child becomes an adult and is larger, more capable, and potentially more dangerous. . . While still human they are very different. . . .

Wrong...

A contrail from a high efficiency engine is not a matured contrail...it's a contrail which contains more water...it's BIGGER...not "grown up".

Even a contrail from a lower efficiency engine is capable of producing the same type of contrail as that of a high efficiency engine if the air is close to supersaturation. It's the atmosphere COUPLED with the amount of water vapor produced, which determines how the trail will look.

It's still water vapor...it's still a contrail....by definition...Maybe not by your proprietary definition, but as far as the rest of the world goes, it's a contrail.
 
And that seems reasonable to me as a statement of perceptions over the 15 years or so that the chemtrail conspiracy has existed.

But it is also essentially an admission from your that there is no such thing as chemtrails in the sense that there is something to them other than normal engine exhaust - and that changes to engine technology have made that exhaust more
visible.

I would agree it is possibly a major part of the visual recognition piece of the conspiracy puzzle. . . I do not, however, think it is the whole story . . . In fact, I think the persons and institutions involved use this visual aspect to their advantage. . . .It is cover for their operations. . . Using commercial aviation as a part of geoengineering to experiment with global dimming, and to make it impossible or nearly impossible to detect other injection programs hidden in all the clutter of normal air traffic . . .
 
Wrong...

A contrail from a high efficiency engine is not a matured contrail...it's a contrail which contains more water...it's BIGGER...not "grown up".

Even a contrail from a lower efficiency engine is capable of producing the same type of contrail as that of a high efficiency engine if the air is close to supersaturation. It's the atmosphere COUPLED with the amount of water vapor produced, which determines how the trail will look.

It's still water vapor...it's still a contrail....by definition...Maybe not by your proprietary definition, but as far as the rest of the world goes, it's a contrail.

You have a perfect right to believe as you say. . . I believe otherwise . . .for the reasons I stated in the response just above this one. . .
 
Ok. Let's clarify other thing. You said "A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics".

Do Chemtrails increase, reduce or have no effect on albedo and radiative forcing?

The answer is very complex on a global scale, complicated by existing pollution and other anthropormorphic contamination . .the research is incomplete. . . However, there have been observed significant localized alterations in temperature ranges and the suspicion is the overall climatic effects are significant . . . Yes, Trails have
demonstrated sometimes massive increases in albedo and RF. . . .
 
"might" be... How could you not know? Do you not know your own theory on chemtrail formation?

Ok. Let's clarify other thing. You said "A Chemtrail is defined or based on its albedo and RF characteristics".

Do Chemtrails increase, reduce or have no effect on albedo and radiative forcing?

Page 480

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...g/accri/media/Global Modeling of Contrail.pdf


RF from Aviation Induced Cloudiness (AIC) exceeds the RF from all CO2 from aviation. . .
 
You have a perfect right to believe as you say. . . I believe otherwise . . .for the reasons I stated in the response just above this one. . .

OK, so you believe that the water vapor byproduct from a high efficiency engine is different than that of a lower efficiency engine in more ways than volume. Do you have evidence?
 
And which one is actually resulting in more pollution? The cleaner burning jet, or the less efficient more dirty jet?

I suppose it depends on your personal definition of pollution. . . .

Climatic
Aesthetic
Health Issues

From an Climatic point of view . . . The Trails have more impact on RF than CO2 so they would potentially change dimming and or warming activity depending on location and timing . . .

From an aesthetic point of view. . . You have haze and trails marking up the skies. . .

Health effects are most likely minimal for persistent trails. . . Might even help to reduce UV exposure, etc. . .
 
You have a perfect right to believe as you say. . . I believe otherwise . . .for the reasons I stated in the response just above this one. . .

Do you disagree with my statement that even a contrail from a lower efficiency engine is capable of producing the same type of contrail as that of a high efficiency engine if the air is close to supersaturation.
 
OK, so you believe that the water vapor byproduct from a high efficiency engine is different than that of a lower efficiency engine in more ways than volume. Do you have evidence?

In fact I do believe they are . . . At least in their early stages . . . The size of the dropplet and/or ice nuclei is different. . . I believe smaller. . . I don't have the cite for this right now but I am pretty sure that is in the research. . . . If I remember correctly that is one of the reasons they more easily demonstrate visibility, persistence and cloud formation and is why they have greater RF than normal at least in their early stages. . .
 
In fact I do believe they are . . . At least in their early stages . . . The size of the dropplet and/or ice nuclei is different. . . I believe smaller. . . I don't have the cite for this right now but I am pretty sure that is in the research. . . . If I remember correctly that is one of the reasons they more easily demonstrate visibility, persistence and cloud formation and is why they have greater RF than normal at least in their early stages. . .

Please read this abstract. . . .http://www.patarnott.com/pdf/contrailMicrophysics99.pdf

I am assuming the engines and contrails were from high efficiency technology. . .
 
Page 480

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...g/accri/media/Global Modeling of Contrail.pdf


RF from Aviation Induced Cloudiness (AIC) exceeds the RF from all CO2 from aviation. . .

"A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times greater (in W m2 km1) than recent estimates of the average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet.**This study emphasizes the need to establish whether similar events are common or highly unusual for a confident assessment of the total climate effect of aviation to be made."
http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-...ntrails-evolving-into-contrailinduced-cirrus/
 
The answer to your question is in the second half of the following. . .

Can I track military aircraft? What about presidential movements in Air Force One? (Back to top)

FlightAware does not track military aircraft and presidential movement flights (e.g., Air Force One, Marine One, etc.) are operated by the US military.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military


Can I block my aircraft on FlightAware? (Back to top)

Yes, there are two ways to accomplish this:
FlightAware Selective (Un)blocking

Enroll in FlightAware's selective unblocking service for a tail number that is not already blocked.*

FlightAware can process your request with next-day service and will block your operations from the general public. Your FlightAware account(s) will continue to be able to securely view and track your aircraft. FlightAware will complete the paperwork necessary for blocking your aircraft on other flight tracking services and will provide you with everything you need to accomplish the block.

Blocking request through NBAA BARR

The NBAA (National Business Aviation Association) operates and maintains the BARR (Blocked Aircraft Registration Request) in conjunction with the FAA. This service is free although it may take 30-45 days to take effect and will not allow your user account to track your aircraft on FlightAware unless you subscribe to FlightAware's selective unblocking service.*

For us to submit your request, simply contact us to walk you through the process.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military

Oh, okay. I didn't realize we were talking about flightaware. I thought you were talking about what air traffic controllers do on a day-to-day basis, real world.

But i must say, flightaware is completely wrong regarding Air Force One. Air traffic controllers control Air Force One every time the flight leaves Andrews Air Force Base. The only time a civilian air traffic controller wouldn't be controlling a military aircraft is when the aircraft is operating within the confines of military-owned airspace (Warning Areas, Military Operating Areas (MOA), Combat Air Patrols (CAP), etc.) or is operating VFR (Visual Flight Rules) below 18,000 feet. But if a military aircraft (including Air Force One) is operating in civilian airspace at-or-above 18,000 feet, or IFR (Instrument FLight Rules) below 18,000 feet, they are being controlled by civilian air traffic controllers. I don't know where flightaware got their information.

Realizing now that we were talking about flightaware, my other two inquiries are now clear.

Thanks for clarifying. :cool:
 
Do you disagree with my statement that even a contrail from a lower efficiency engine is capable of producing the same type of contrail as that of a high efficiency engine if the air is close to supersaturation.

I am not sure. . . Seems we are almost exclusively dealing with high efficiency engines now. . . So it would be hard to test that question . . .could the lower efficiency engines create a persistent trail under the right conditions. . . .SURE. . . .would they be less likely to do so . . . I would say YES. . . .would they be less likely to form AIC . . . I would say YES.
 
I'm a little confused now George. Where's the conspiracy in all this now? The conversation seems to have devolved into a discussion of the difference in the physical properties of contrails from different types of engine.

So what does that have to do with the "aerosol injection program" that you believe in? What is being done deliberately (other than increasing fuel efficiency)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top