14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions

[Cairenn]

Back to contrails.

Yesterday I was out running errands and I happened to notice some nice long lasting, spreading contrails. A little while latter, I came out of a store and noticed that there was a high cirro-cumulus cloud deck moving in and beginning to merge with some of the contrails. It made perfect sense to me, but I wonder if that is what the chemtrail folks are talking about, when they mention lasting, spreading contrails, 'spreading' to cover the entire sky? It is simply that the conditions are right for cloud formation

 

[Jazzy]

Back to contrails.

Yesterday I was out running errands and I happened to notice some nice long lasting, spreading contrails. A little while latter, I came out of a store and noticed that there was a high cirro-cumulus cloud deck moving in and beginning to merge with some of the contrails. It made perfect sense to me, but I wonder if that is what the chemtrail folks are talking about, when they mention lasting, spreading contrails, 'spreading' to cover the entire sky? It is simply that the conditions are right for cloud formation

AFAIK it's the dense, falling, weight-accumulating trails that fall consistently down to an atmospheric level where they evaporate, leaving a very flat (and quite often high up) ceiling, which admittedly is depressing, especially when not a lot of sunlight is filtering through.

The air ambient to the cirrus clouds you see must be ice-saturated, or else those clouds couldn't exist for long.*

Cumulus clouds are in motion, and do pass through drier or wetter air, but cirrus is motionless relative to its ambient air, and must share the saturation, so-to-speak.

The idea that they are "still", is, of course, illusory. Each crystal of ice is continually being pounded by air and water vapor molecules. The amount of water vapor molecules suddenly adhering to each crystal at any instant in time is equal to the amount being knocked off by continual collision. They are in dynamic equilibrium at the Ice Saturation Point, and will naturally grow in supersaturated conditions, and naturally shrink and finally vanish in drying conditions.

If a crystal grows, its rate of sink accelerates. Dense trails hit their ceiling (from above!) much faster than the light wispy stuff, which probably ends up as tomorrow's cirrus.

* It occurs to me that the "ceiling" where the descended trails are seen to evaporate is also at the Water Saturation Point, by definition.

 

[Dog Rescuer]

14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions (continued)

A recently released DVD video called “What In The World Are They Spraying” was produced by Michael J. Murphy and G. Edward Griffin which has been extensively promoted in media and by screenings in several cities. It cites already debunked samples and contains many other factual errors, but has captured many new converts to the chemtrails belief.

Oh - so the guy being identified as a former chemtrailer who has dropped his claims is the biologist in "What...?"
What was his occupation when the film was made?

 

[Belfrey]

Oh - so the guy being identified as a former chemtrailer who has dropped his claims is the biologist in "What...?"
What was his occupation when the film was made?

Not quite. G. Edward Griffen was a co-producer on that film, and he has backed away from the claims that the planes leaving trails were military jets in abnormal flight patterns, having concluded after taking the trouble to track and ID planes leaving trails that they were almost entirely commercial aircraft on scheduled flights. He still does profess to believe in the chemtrails idea in general, but he thinks it is somehow being done via remotely-controlled releases from commercial planes, without the pilots' knowledge. He first shows up in WITWATS as a fellow with a white beard, talking about how he had lived near an airport and never saw contrails persist.


The former USFS biologist in WITWATS was Francis Mangels. As far as I know, he has not backed away from any of the claims in the film.

 

[KC-10FE]

It's hard to have a conversation on Youtube with these idiots when they just delete all your comments. This dude is a real winner.

 

[ralph Leo]

I suppose What in the World are They Spraying is one of the more popular chemtrail promoting films, I have seen debunking and the pointing out of erroneous information in the film at various places here, has anyone put them in one place and in the order they occur in the film? Or gone one step further and did a you tube video?

 

[Mick West]

I suppose What in the World are They Spraying is one of the more popular chemtrail promoting films, I have seen debunking and the pointing out of erroneous information in the film at various places here, has anyone put them in one place and in the order they occur in the film? Or gone one step further and did a you tube video?

I did a post debunking the key points about three years ago:
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/

 

[ralph Leo]

Thanks Mick, I thought I may have seen that before. Is there much new discovered in the last 3 years?

 

[Mick West]

Thanks Mick, I thought I may have seen that before. Is there much new discovered in the last 3 years?

Basically just expansion upon those original points. Contrails persist normally, and the tests just detected dirt.

 

[WeedWhacker]

It's hard to have a conversation on Youtube with these idiots when they just delete all your comments. This dude is a real winner.

Hello KC-10FE!

Yes. Yes, indeed. I too have been engaged with that same person, on YT.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...and he has backed away from the claims that the planes leaving trails were military jets in abnormal flight patterns, having concluded after taking the trouble to track and ID planes leaving trails that they were almost entirely commercial aircraft on scheduled flights. He still does profess to believe in the chemtrails idea in general, but he thinks it is somehow being done via remotely-controlled releases from commercial planes, without the pilots' knowledge.

Good updated info to know. Seems G. Edward Griffin isn't too far down the 'rabbit hole' of ignorance. Still, he needs to be disabused of the silly notion that:

(Quote by Griffin): "...it is somehow being done via remotely-controlled releases from commercial planes, without the pilots' knowledge."

This is quite ludicrous, for reasons that can be easily explained and demonstrated.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

He is also still selling the WITWATS movie he co-produced which he now knows was falsely portraying the planes as being non-commercial flights.

In other words, keep milking the cash cow no matter that you know it wasn't true, no matter how many people are deceived into fear and anger, no matter it is engendering threats.
Disgusting.

 

[George B]

He is also still selling the WITWATS movie he co-produced which he now knows was falsely portraying the planes as being non-commercial flights.

In other words, keep milking the cash cow no matter that you know it wasn't true, no matter how many people are deceived into fear and anger, no matter it is engendering threats.
Disgusting.

Jay. . . Do you feel Griffin's primary motivation is financial?

 

[WeedWhacker]

He is also still selling the WITWATS movie he co-produced which he now knows was falsely portraying the planes as being non-commercial flights.

.....Disgusting.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. "Disgusting" is an appropriate word.

What I also find to be egregious, is the assertion (by Griffin) that "somehow" passenger airliners are "spraying", without the pilots' knowledge!! This is such a major fail, it's worth about forty face/palms.

Just in case no one knows my background (the current avatar photo is me, btw....from 1985!!) Back then I was flying right seat on the B727 (also pictured in the avatar...that is one of the few B727-100s that we had, at that time). Since then, until 2006, I have time on the Airbus A-300-B4, the DC-10 (all right seat), and as Captain on the DC9/MD80, B737 and B757/767.

SO...with an aviation background, and this can apply to anyone who has taken the time and devoted the effort to learn, the notion of "chem"trails is simply absurd. Weight & Balance limitations, for a start. But, I could go on, and on, and on...I actually wrote up a math and logical reasoning narrative, saved it to MS Word.

If I may, I will post it here, and certainly will welcome any and all critiques, in case I made a mistake in reasoning:

('QUOTING' myself) ---

---regarding "chem"trails....HOW is it possible to "spray" that much "material" as claimed??

Try this, it's simple math: Firstly, a jet flying across the sky, for twenty miles in your field of view (very easy for this to be true....hell, even longer distance, but harder to see without binocs). If it helps to understand, airliners typically cruise at about 450 to 480 knots, so that is 7.5 to 8 miles per minute. SO, watch a jet for 3 to 2 1/2 minutes, and it will travel about 20 (Nautical) miles.

(NOTE that in aviation we use KNOTS as a speed unit. One Nautical Mile = 6,076 feet. YES, there is also the Metric System, and kilograms and KPH (etc)....but, just try to remember WHICH units you are using, every time. I will stick to what I'm familiar with).

OK...twenty miles. A twin-jet (let's say), with a CONtrail (which is frozen water ice, in tiny crystals) coming from each engine. How big in diameter, would you say, the CONtrail is?? Well, if the engine itself is about ten feet or so, let's just call the CONtrail about ten feet diameter. (I am WAY low-balling it, here BTW!)

NOW, the fun math. A Ten-Foot wide cylinder that is Twenty Miles long has how much volume?? I'll tell you....volume of a cylinder calculation is (Pi) times (Radius squared), times (Height). Our "cylinder" is Twenty miles "high", as it's laying on its side...right? Plug in the numbers:

Pi =3.1416 (approximately)
R = 1/2 of Ten is 5 (ft) Squared is25.
H =121,520(ft) (This is 20 Nautical miles, times 6,076 feet....right??)

Answer??: 9,544,181 CUBIC FEET of volume! Over 9 Million cubic feet. Right? Here's a website that does the math, if you wanna check it:
http://www.mathopenref.com/cylindervolume.html

>>EDIT…and here I didn’t even DOUBLE IT, to make it one for each engine!!! SO, it’s even more of a low-ball estimate!!<<

9 Million cubic feet of volume (low-ball), in just a 20-mile CONtrail that is ten feet in diameter. So, even IF the "material" was spread out, just how much would you need to make it visible? AND to make it appear "white", to look EXACTLY THE SAME as every other normal CIRRUS cloud?? At what concentration?? And, how do you "spray" it...using some sort of liquid??

What kind of airplane can carry that much volume of "material" PLUS some liquid medium to use for "spraying" it??

Might interest you to know that ONE CUBIC FOOT of water weighs about 62 pounds!

EDIT (again)...the 9 million cubic feet can also be envisioned as a CUBE measuring about 208 feet per side. OR, another mental picture could be a 20-story tall building, that has at least 200 feet of frontage, at its base, on each side.

(/QUOTE)

[...]

(EDIT by me....my impolite tag-line was already 'snipped' by the Moderator/Admin. 'Nuff said, understood!!)

(2nd EDIT: I truly hope that anyone who reads this and finds fault with my logic will express it, and hopefully refine it. Thanks, in advance!)

 

[ralph Leo]

Weedwacker, I did something similar with how much aluminum would have to be sprayed yearly to cover every acre in California with an ounce of it. Something like 10 million pounds. The people claiming massive spraying just don't think it through and do the math.

 

[WeedWhacker]

The people claiming massive spraying just don't think it through and do the math.

Yes, this is all too true, sadly. It is disheartening to realize that many people simply (seem to) lack the ability to reason with logic. Emotion controls them first, and clear thinking tends to become blocked.

 

[Jazzy]

I truly hope that anyone who reads this and finds fault with my logic will express it, and hopefully refine it. Thanks, in advance!)

It has all been done before. It's on the first page of jazzroc.wordpress.com and is bound to be somewhere inside contrailscience.com as well.

It's nice to know someone will take over from li'l ole' time-expired me. And others, of course, not so time-expired as yet.

 

[David Fraser]

Weedwacker, I did something similar with how much aluminum would have to be sprayed yearly to cover every acre in California with an ounce of it. Something like 10 million pounds. The people claiming massive spraying just don't think it through and do the math.

Someone in the UK was ranting about how Monsanto waiting in the wings with aluminium resistant seeds (they are not). I produced a calculation using thege highest level of Al found by the CT mob and the annual rainfall as well as the %Al in the agricultural land (5.5%) and to raise the level by 0.1% would only take 640 years. I got blocked for some reason.

 

[Pete Tar]

...

What provoked your interest in the issue? How did the notion of chemtrails come into your life?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Jay. . . Do you feel Griffin's primary motivation is financial?

No, he got sucked in mainly because the idea fit into his belief system. However, I think his continued support vis-a-vis selling stuff he knows is wrong is an incentive to continue along as if nothing had happened.

As an example, he is still selling a long-discredited movie he co-produced which claims that some rocks in Turkey are Noah's Ark. The guy who made the original 'discovery' disclaimed it many many years ago, but Griffin still sells the movie as if nothing happened.
http://www.realityzone.com/disofnoahark.html

I fully expect that Griffin will continue selling the WIWATS movie until he is gone, at which time his followers will take up the flag. Essentially, his lack of due diligence in vetting what Michael Murphy brought to him ended up with Griffin's followers funding the production to the tune of $20k. To admit he was wrong would be an admission of error in judgement with consequent loss of faith/trust, a recognition that he wasted his people's funds, as well as a loss of future revenue.

The DVD's cost about $1, he sells them for $20, so maybe he makes $100 or so/month off it.
A few bucks from the bumper stickers makes beer money.
A cheap sell-out.

 

[Joe]

Ok lets try this one on for size . My theory has been the skies have never looked like this before . You proved that I was wrong with old photos . I still say there are way more than before and they are more common and perhaps they are adding something to the atmosphere making contrails persist more such as sulphur ? Well maybe its mother nature adding the sulphate particles causing the trails to persist more than ever ?

It turns out that a series of 17 small volcanic eruptions since 2000 pumped enough aerosols into the atmosphere to explain a significant portion of the slowdown, researchers report today (Feb. 23) in the journal Nature Geoscience. Aerosols are fine, airborne particles — such as sulfate — that scatter the sun's energy, cooling the Earth. This cooling has offset the ongoing warming caused by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, the researchers said. (All told, humans have released about 100 times more carbon dioxide than the amount of CO2 belched by volcanoes since 1750, according to the IPCC.)

Content from External Source

Now Im not buying the GW theory they push in this article but it made me think . What effect would minute volcanic particles have on contrails ? http://news.yahoo.com/volcanoes-partly-blame-global-warming-39-pause-39-180651964.html

 

[George B]

Ok lets try this one on for size . My theory has been the skies have never looked like this before . You proved that I was wrong with old photos . I still say there are way more than before and they are more common and perhaps they are adding something to the atmosphere making contrails persist more such as sulphur ? Well maybe its mother nature adding the sulphate particles causing the trails to persist more than ever ?

It turns out that a series of 17 small volcanic eruptions since 2000 pumped enough aerosols into the atmosphere to explain a significant portion of the slowdown, researchers report today (Feb. 23) in the journal Nature Geoscience. Aerosols are fine, airborne particles — such as sulfate — that scatter the sun's energy, cooling the Earth. This cooling has offset the ongoing warming caused by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, the researchers said. (All told, humans have released about 100 times more carbon dioxide than the amount of CO2 belched by volcanoes since 1750, according to the IPCC.)

Content from External Source

Now Im not buying the GW theory they push in this article but it made me think . What effect would minute volcanic particles have on contrails ? http://news.yahoo.com/volcanoes-partly-blame-global-warming-39-pause-39-180651964.html

Volcanic eruptions have been known historically to cause cooling trends and even a few years of extremely harsh winters, and in some latitudes the lack of a true summer . . . however, more sulfur compounds were injected into the atmosphere in 1991 by mount Pinatubo than since . . . some 20 million tons . . . Chemtrail was not even coined as a term until 1999, long after the particulates from Pinatubo were long gone . . . if my memory is correct . . . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

 

[Joe]

Volcanic eruptions have been known historically to cause cooling trends and even a few years of extremely harsh winters and in some latitudes the lack of a true summer . . . however, more sulfur compounds were injected into the atmosphere in 1991 by mount Pinatubo than since . . . some 20 million tons . . . Chemtrail was not even coined as a term until 1999 . . . if my memory is correct . . . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

Im just looking for a viable expalnation for the increase of perstant contrials . One that both sides could agree on . I just cant believe that so many people could be wrong with what they are seeing as something that always was .

 

[Joe]

here is a example of the lack of contrails after the Iceland volcano ,

LONDON - A volcano in Iceland has ripped away Europe's veil of civilization - and even some of its smudge. Even as volcanic ash cast a shadow over millions of lives, Londoners and other city dwellers across Europe were treated to a rare spectacle of nature: Pristine, blue skies brighter than any in recent memory.

The remarkable sight happened in part because mass flight groundings prevented busy airspace from being crisscrossed with plumes of jet exhaust that create a semi-permanent haze — and other effects beyond the white contrails themselves.

Content from External Source

So is the sky bluer without contrails ? Recent memory ?

 

[George B]

Im just looking for a viable expalnation for the increase of perstant contrials . One that both sides could agree on . I just cant believe that so many people could be wrong with what they are seeing as something that always was .

Seems engine efficiencies are improving that would make a small contribution but I think the bigger contributor is the existence of the new navigation systems using GPS . . . aircraft . . . even regional jet traffic are capable of higher cruising altitudes and are flying over territory they didn't before . . . exposing more and more ground observers to the sight of persistent contrails . . .

I am the pilot from the above post...
A lot has changed in the 28 years I've been flying. Engines have been stretched with higher temperature limitations, due to use of exotic materials, which allows for more complete burning of jet fuel. The residue of the burned fuel creates the nuclei that allows super-cooled water to condense and create contrails.
Along with these changes in engine design, changes in navigation have allowed almost unlimited direct-to navigation. This has created contrails in areas that had not seen them before. Prior to GPS, airplanes most frequently were forced to use ground-based navigation. This created virtual highways in the sky. From the ground, all of the airplanes flying these routes created one big contrail. Now, however, we are flying direct-to routes that create many different contrails in areas of the country that are not used to seeing air traffic.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2490142/pg10#42985689

Content from External Source

 

[Pete Tar]

Im just looking for a viable expalnation for the increase of perstant contrials .

What isn't viable about the increase in air traffic and the change to engine efficiency being the cause?

 

[Joe]

What isn't viable about the increase in air traffic and the change to engine efficiency being the cause?

No I like the engine efficiency as a reason . But there has to be more . Plus what good is a efficient engine when its causes this ?

The remarkable sight happened in part because mass flight groundings prevented busy airspace from being crisscrossed with plumes of jet exhaust that create a semi-permanent haze — and other effects beyond the white contrails themselves.

Content from External Source

Id rather have less efficient engines if it means clearer skies ?

 

[Pete Tar]

So the increase in air traffic doesn't mean anything? That would clearly seem to account for it, it's hard to see much mystery behind the phenomena.

I can appreciate that in some parts of the world contrails really are a visual pollution issue. I think it's a bit off-putting to see the hand of man in an area typically given to the pleasure of watching random natural effects.

 

[George B]

No I like the engine efficiency as a reason . But there has to be more . Plus what good is a efficient engine when its causes this ?

The remarkable sight happened in part because mass flight groundings prevented busy airspace from being crisscrossed with plumes of jet exhaust that create a semi-permanent haze — and other effects beyond the white contrails themselves.

Content from External Source

Id rather have less efficient engines if it means clearer skies ?

Contrails can trigger contrail induced cirrus cloud banks and lead to large blooms of haze, etc . . . a well studied one occurred over the UK in March 2010 . . . Sorry this link does not seem to be working at this time . . . I will try to see if I have some quotes archived . . . http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Haywood09JGR.pdf

A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving
into contrail-induced cirrus
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D24201, doi:10.1029/2009JD012650, 2009
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Haywood09JGR.pdf
The development of the contrail-induced cirrus is tracked using
a number of high-resolution polar orbiting and lower-resolution geostationary satellite
instruments and is found to persist for a period of around 18 h, and at its peak, it covers
over 50,000 km2. The shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) radiative forcing of the
contrail-induced cirrus is estimated using a combination of geostationary satellite
instruments, numerical weather prediction models, and surface observation sites.
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.


[46] This work indicates that a confident assessment of
the total effect of aviation on climate, and the efficacy of
possible mitigation options (for example, changing flight
routing or altitudes to avoid contrail formation, with the
possibility that CO2 which has a radically longer lifetime
will increase as a result) is heavily dependent on reducing
the uncertainty in the size of the contrail-induced radiative forcing.

Content from External Source

 

[Ross Marsden]

here is a example of the lack of contrails after the Iceland volcano ,

LONDON - A volcano in Iceland has ripped away Europe's veil of civilization - and even some of its smudge. Even as volcanic ash cast a shadow over millions of lives, Londoners and other city dwellers across Europe were treated to a rare spectacle of nature: Pristine, blue skies brighter than any in recent memory.

The remarkable sight happened in part because mass flight groundings prevented busy airspace from being crisscrossed with plumes of jet exhaust that create a semi-permanent haze — and other effects beyond the white contrails themselves.

Content from External Source

So is the sky bluer without contrails ? Recent memory ?

It doesn't say skies were bluer. It says they were brighter, maybe from being cloud free. This is not the same as "bluer".
And the cause of no contrails was not from the volcanoes directly but the lack of air traffic, it having been grounded due to volcanic ash.

 

[WeedWhacker]

No I like the engine efficiency as a reason . But there has to be more . Plus what good is a efficient engine when its causes this ?

The remarkable sight happened in part because mass flight groundings prevented busy airspace from being crisscrossed with plumes of jet exhaust that create a semi-permanent haze — and other effects beyond the white contrails themselves.

Content from External Source

Id rather have less efficient engines if it means clearer skies ?

"Joe"...the increase in persistence of contrails is directly related (since the late 1980s) to the prevalence of the High-Bypass Turbofan engine design. There are numerous sources that can be searched online to attest to this fact.

Keep in mind that in aviation, new designs and aircraft models, and airframe/engine combinations are being introduced constantly. In the 1980s, for example, the High-Bypass Turbofan engine was primarily installed on the wide-body type of airliners. In that era, there were still a huge number of "workhorse" airplanes, like the Boeing 727, Boeing 737-100 and -200, and Douglas DC-9, as examples, that were powered by the Low-Bypass Turbofan design, the Pratt and Whitney JT-9D (and its variations).

EDIT: And to address your specific concern? Really all that is happening is a slight increase in cirrus-type clouds. There is a concept of Air Traffic Control that could, in the future, allow for better predictive methods of contrail formation areas, and subsequent diversions to reduce the actual production of contrails....but...really, it just isn't a big deal, actually!

Boeing, in cooperation with GE (as an engine provider), and an international consortium (to spread-out development costs) were seeking a "quieter" and more efficient design...there were environmental pressures, both in the USA and elsewhere...as well as the pressure of rising fuel expense. As to "environmental" pressures, these included not only emissions, but noise constraints as well.

Really, I could go on....but, these facts can be easily researched online.

Suffice to say, that as the years (circa 1980) to the late 1990s passed, more and more of the older airliners, that were equipped with the older designed Low-Bypass Turbofan engines were retired, more and more new airliners were bought, and introduced into airlines' fleets. It really is that simple!

High-Bypass Turbofan engines tend to contribute to more persistent contrails, and at a wider range of conditions aloft.

EDIT (2nd try): To address the comment about the apparent "increase" in contrails due to the increased efficiency of modern engines? It really isn't a huge problem, in reality. There is some increase in cloud cover, but only in areas of the World that have airline traffic, and, well....this is just a tiny, tiny percentage of the total surface area of our globe.

I invite you to see this YouTube video, for example:



Or this one, maybe more illustrative:


EDIT: (3rd time) just to add this really beautiful video from YT. No comment, it speaks for itself:

 

[Mick West]

Im just looking for a viable expalnation for the increase of perstant contrials . One that both sides could agree on . I just cant believe that so many people could be wrong with what they are seeing as something that always was .

You see more contrails now than in the past because:

• There is more air traffic
• RVSM mean planes tend to fly higher as you can now pack more flights into the higher altitudes, which are more desirable for efficiency, so more planes at contrail altitude
• Regional carriers are now more likely to use jets rather than turboprops, so fly higher, so more planes at contrail altitude
• There are more routes now, so more regions see contrails from flyover traffic
• Higher efficiency engines means cooler exhaust with higher relative humidity, so contrails form in a wider range temperatures, hence a wider range of altitudes.
• People pay more attention to contrails, because of the "chemtrail" theory, so just notice them more.

 

[WeedWhacker]

You see more contrails now than in the past because:

• 
  
• RVSM mean planes tend to fly higher as you can now pack more flights into the higher altitudes, which are more desirable for efficiency, so more planes at contrail altitude

Just to add to the discussion, for clarification. "RVSM" is "Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums" and is a term which, of course, can be searched on the Internet. But, from a pilot's perspective...the implementation of RVSM criteria allows for more flexibility in the ATC system. AND, as Mick West mentioned, more choices for airliners to cruise at their more optimum fuel-efficient altitudes, for a given gross weight...depending of course, on direction of flight and traffic conflicts.

Speaking of "direction of flight"....prior to implementation of RVSM, when airplanes cruised above 24,000 feet (or, FL240), the "standard" vertical separation minimum was 2,000 feet. For pilots, this meant we had to memorize Flight Level directions, based on whether East or West on the compass (or more correctly, our actual course along the ground). (Important to note, for non-pilots, that the general "rule" is: West is "even" and East is "odd", in terms of the number associated with the altitude).

The implementation of RVSM standards simplified it, above FL240...as to comply with the example above, now ALL westbound flights will be assigned an even FL number, and all Eastbound flights an odd number, for a Flight Level....in increments of 1,000 feet. This applies to most of the World, except in the very, very few regions where they insist on using meters, instead of feet....but, then allowances are made there. There are conversion tables available for pilots who operate in those airspace areas.

 

[Joe]

You see more contrails now than in the past because:

• There is more air traffic
• RVSM mean planes tend to fly higher as you can now pack more flights into the higher altitudes, which are more desirable for efficiency, so more planes at contrail altitude
• Regional carriers are now more likely to use jets rather than turboprops, so fly higher, so more planes at contrail altitude
• There are more routes now, so more regions see contrails from flyover traffic
• Higher efficiency engines means cooler exhaust with higher relative humidity, so contrails form in a wider range temperatures, hence a wider range of altitudes.
• People pay more attention to contrails, because of the "chemtrail" theory, so just notice them more.

No its because the sky is filled with contrails and haze more than ever and now you all admit the sky didnt always look this bad . Just like the GW finally admitted .

The slowdown in global warming, sometimes called a pause or hiatus, started in 1998,

Content from External Source

So who are we to believe in anything ? What effect does this rise in volcanic activity have on jet contrails ? http://news.yahoo.com/volcanoes-partly-blame-global-warming-39-pause-39-180651964.html or has there really been a rise or is that another lie to cover their tracks since their predictions have been all wrong ?

 

[WeedWhacker]

No its because the sky is filled with contrails and haze more than ever and now you all admit the sky didnt always look this bad . Just like the GW finally admitted .

The slowdown in global warming, sometimes called a pause or hiatus, started in 1998,

Content from External Source

So who are we to believe in anything ? What effect does this rise in volcanic activity have on jet contrails ? http://news.yahoo.com/volcanoes-partly-blame-global-warming-39-pause-39-180651964.html or has there really been a rise or is that another lie to cover their tracks since their predictions have been all wrong ?

Answer? No.

What effect does this rise in volcanic activity have on jet contrails ?

None.

AS TO the climate change data? At least 95% of all scientists who are involved in such sciences agree that Human activity is contributing to climate changes on this planet. Now, keep in mind that this Human activity includes MANY aspects of our behavior....the very least of which is aviation.

 

[Joe]

Answer? No.



None.

AS TO the climate change data? At least 95% of all scientists who are involved in such sciences agree that Human activity is contributing to climate changes on this planet. Now, keep in mind that this Human activity includes MANY aspects of our behavior....the very least of which is aviation.

None ? So it could effect the climate world wide yet have no effect on jet controls whatsoever ? UN Panel ? Young Turks ? Global warming is a conspiracy theory .IMO

 

[Mick West]

Global warming is a conspiracy theory .IMO

Getting a bit off topic. Let's stick to contrails.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Joe, you are trying to validate the claims about increases in persistent contrails being something as-yet-unexplained. Mick listed all the main reasons, and it was also mentioned that the volcanic aerosol loading from Agung, El Chicon and Pinatubo were far greater than anything in the last decade.

 

[Jazzy]

Look how level the top line is, Joe. That's an in-your-face rebuttal.

 

[Joe]

Look how level the top line is, Joe. That's an in-your-face rebuttal.

No its not . I asked a simple question . what effect does volcanic activity have on a jet contrail ? As said aircraft are flying much higher and new engine design . If there is so much aerosols as in the link I provided to slow so called Global warming . What effect does these same aerosols have on a jet contrail ? The engines are still sucking it in and pushing it out . I see with his graph that volcanic activity remains the same which makes the story posted bullshit .

It turns out that a series of 17 small volcanic eruptions since 2000 pumped enough aerosols into the atmosphere to explain a significant portion of the slowdown, researchers report today (Feb. 23) in the journal Nature Geoscience. Aerosols are fine, airborne particles — such as sulfate — that scatter the sun's energy, cooling the Earth. This cooling has offset the ongoing warming caused by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, the researchers said. (All told, humans have released about 100 times more carbon dioxide than the amount of CO2 belched by volcanoes since 1750, according to the IPCC.)

Content from External Source