14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions

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 don't think volcanic activity would have any effect on a contrail. there are plenty of aerosols in the exhaust already.
 
No its not.
It shows that clear sky solar insolation conditions have remained more or less level since the 1950s. So tell me black is white.

I asked a simple question . what effect does volcanic activity have on a jet contrail?
You are never likely to find out. Volcanic ash and gas turbines don't mix. It isn't worth an answer.

As said aircraft are flying much higher
No they aren't.

and new - gish gallop
Ignored.
 
It shows that clear sky solar insolation conditions have remained more or less level since the 1950s. So tell me black is white.


You are never likely to find out. Volcanic ash and gas turbines don't mix. It isn't worth an answer.


No they aren't.


Ignored.
Not volcanic ash . Sulfate aerosols . As far as altitude Tony I Think Mick said :

  • 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
Content from External Source
Now quit being confrontational ! My question was answered I will do my own research . Id figure someone here could give me a simple answer I guess Only 1 could . :mad:
 
Now quit being confrontational! My question was answered I will do my own research.
Your "research" involves searching for material that confirms your false beliefs. I will wise you up: that isn't what "research" is.

I'd figure someone here could give me a simple answer I guess Only 1 could.
No. I can give you simple answers.

A few posts ago you were "just looking for a viable expalnation for the increase of perstant contrails".

Well there has been an explanation for that which has been increasingly viable for fifty years: there are fifty times more planes in the sky. What is wrong with that?

"One that both sides could agree on".

Do you really see a day when one side, the one which did well at school, progressed through academia, worked hard, got qualified in the subject under discussion, is going to agree with the whims of ignorant, hypocritical, asocial, self-deluding, self-publicizing fear porn merchants? You do!

I just cant believe that so many people could be wrong with what they are seeing as something that always was
With religion as an example? Then you really can't deal with anything at all.

It's my friends that call me Tony, Joe. Not you.
 
Last edited:
I don't think volcanic activity would have any effect on a contrail. there are plenty of aerosols in the exhaust already.
Where there are already sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere (that haven't already associated themselves with water vapor molecules and dropped away) they will have already desaturated the air by associating with all the water molecules they are able to - within seconds.

The air will have already been partially or totally dried. The contrail will be thin, comprising only its own water of combustion. It may persist, but it won't grow.

If there's any volcanic dust associated with the sulfate aerosols, the plane will stagger away and possibly crash.
 
Last edited:
Not volcanic ash . Sulfate aerosols
If you're thinking geoengineering then adding sulfur dioxide to the stratosphere will OPEN THE OZONE HOLES, increase acid rain, acidify our oceans and risk extinguishing all shell-bearing ocean creatures. The benefit isn't worth the cost - and everyone (but you) knows it. The best place for a sulfate radical is in plaster of paris.

That's why it isn't happening.
 
Last edited:
Your "research" involves searching for material that confirms your false beliefs. I will wise you up: that isn't what "research" is.


No. I can give you simple answers.

A few posts ago you were "just looking for a viable expalnation for the increase of perstant contrails".

Well there has been an explanation for that which has been increasingly viable for fifty years: there are fifty times more planes in the sky. What is wrong with that?



Do you really see a day when one side, the one which did well at school, progressed through academia, worked hard, got qualified in the subject under discussion, is going to agree with the whims of ignorant, hypocritical, asocial, self-deluding, self-publicizing fear porn merchants? You do!


With religion as an example? Then you really can't deal with anything at all.

It's my friends that call me Tony, Joe. Not you.
Sorry Mr Duncan .Guess that makes us Enemies ? Thank you for your continued confrontational replies which were unnecessary . This is whats wrong with Metabunk . If I MADE THE SAME COMMENTS ID BE BANNED
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where there are already sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere (that haven't already associated themselves with water vapor molecules and dropped away) they will have already desaturated the air by associating with all the water molecules they are able to - within seconds.

The air will have already been partially or totally dried. The contrail will be thin, comprising only its own water of combustion. It may persist, but it won't grow.

I do not think this is correct, unless sulfate aerosols are hygroscobic - and even then they would not take much water out, except very locally.
 
I do not think this is correct, unless sulfate aerosols are hygroscobic - and even then they would not take much water out, except very locally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid
Reaction with water and dehydrating property
Because the hydration of sulfuric acid is thermodynamically favorable and the affinity of it for water is sufficiently strong, sulfuric acid is an excellent dehydrating agent.
Content from External Source
Gravity is the other agency. The associated droplet will be heavier, and fall. Any water vapor molecules it meets will remain attached.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid
Reaction with water and dehydrating property
Because the hydration of sulfuric acid is thermodynamically favorable and the affinity of it for water is sufficiently strong, sulfuric acid is an excellent dehydrating agent.
Content from External Source
Gravity is the other agency. The associated droplet will be heavier, and fall. Any water vapor molecules it meets will remain attached.

But at the most it's going to act as CCN in water supersaturated conditions - when CCNs generally already exist. Liquid sulfuric acid is an excellent dehydrating agent.
 
Hi, some great facts here. I am sure we can kill this hoax with a few more facts, but it will take people with more science knowledge than me.

First fact that I think will go a long way:

Step 1. Take a vapour trail video from youtube as an agreed test case. My suggestion is this one Nice healthy contrail.
Step 2. Can someone calculate/estimate the volume in litres of the vapour, chemicals (joke) or otherwise that is coming from the plane per Km or mile?
Step 3. Multiply that number by the total distance of flight
Step 4. Could the plane physically carry this much liquid?!! I very much doubt it, but will await the science!

Secondly, I have seen some videos of planes documented to be dumping fuel at low altiture due to mechanical faults such as hydraulic failure. This is a good example as it also includes a link to the inflight communications . I was used in a recent facebook viral video in the opening scenes

We just gotta point this stuff out.

I really hope some of you have the skills to get some answers on this one. Looking forward to the replies!
 
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

I'm not sure that "we all" or any "all" "admits" that the sky looks "this bad".

The contrails and contrail cirrus of the last decade has not changed out of proportion to the change in air traffic in the tropopause. In the past you've stated that January 2011 is when the big change occurred:

I remember in another thread Jay asked you if you noticed the change in 2010. You responded:

What happened Jay in 2010 ? It was Jan 2011 .

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...f-contrails-on-climate.2783/page-4#post-79520

Jay then pointed out that WitWatts came out in 2010 and thought that might have influenced you.

Part of you response tot that included:

I just think they increased a lot in 2011

With that start date in mind I don't think there's any agreement with your position on the appearance of the sky.

In that thread "Contrail Questions for Skeptics" after you stated that the big change occurred in 2011 I I responded with an inquiry as to why you thought that no meteorologists has noticed the change in sky cover and you responded with:

Should I care what professional meteorologist think ? They cant even predict the weather accurately . Should I care what you think either ? Whats was that you do for a living ? Scientist are to busy pushing the hoax of global warming on us . Next time speak when you are spoken to . That was a reply to Jay . Let him be the one to mock not you . You should be working paddling around in some polluted lagoon trying to figure out whats killing the dolphins and why the whales are trying to get into Lake Okeechobee via the Everglades .

So I provided some personal images from Florida that look like your "chemshade" (to borrow from woody) that predate 2011 by a few years.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...f-contrails-on-climate.2783/page-4#post-79597

To wrap up. The persistent contrails have increased in proportion to air traffic at altitudes where contrails can form when conditions are right. "You All", whomever that may be, likely agree to that fact since it is a fact but there has been no big sudden change in cloud cover or insolation in the last 3-4 years.


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

None. The sulfate aerosols that are thought to provide cooling shade are in the stratosphere and aren't forming or contributing to white clouds in the troposphere or at the tropopause.

Oh and regarding haze. The term haze is usually used by meteorologists to describe particulates in the lower atmosphere that reduce the transparency of the air. Haze in that form has been declining in response to various regulations.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pm.html

The air at the ground is clearer on average which affords a better view of clouds and contrails, especially distant ones. So the sky is not filled with haze now more than ever, unless you are talking about China where air pollution is increasing by the day.
 
chicken asked about calculating volume of water vapor coming out of plane exhaust, I believe that has been done here a few times, sorry but I don't have this place memorized! I believe the important point at one time was the fact that the visible contrail contains water molecules from the atmosphere, all you see is not from the exhaust.
 
chicken asked about calculating volume of water vapor coming out of plane exhaust, I believe that has been done here a few times, sorry but I don't have this place memorized! I believe the important point at one time was the fact that the visible contrail contains water molecules from the atmosphere, all you see is not from the exhaust.
Yes, but if it was a "spray", ALL the material would have had to come from the plane.
 
Scombrid says
The air at the ground is clearer on average which affords a better view of clouds and contrails, especially distant ones. So the sky is not filled with haze now more than ever, unless you are talking about China where air pollution is increasing by the day.
Content from External Source
Joe replies "I totally disagree" . Are you a contrail scientist or are you just pretending to know what your talking about like many others on this form ? Since I have no way to agree or disagree because I was accused of abusing the rating system which is exactly why I have over 100 disagrees mostly From JEffery NoT Forgery or whatever his name is ?
 
Liquid sulfuric acid is an excellent dehydrating agent.
Are there any oxygen molecules about? Then the sulfur dioxide gas will react with them to form sulfur trioxide gas.

Are there any water molecules about? Then the sulfur trioxide gas will react with them to form liquid sulfuric acid.

And as you say: "Liquid sulfuric acid is an excellent dehydrating agent".

.
 
Are there any oxygen molecules about? Then the sulfur dioxide gas will react with them to form sulfur trioxide gas.

Are there any water molecules about? Then the sulfur trioxide gas will react with them to form liquid sulfuric acid.

And as you say: "Liquid sulfuric acid is an excellent dehydrating agent".

.

All very well, but my point (in response to Joe) is that the emissions from volcanoes are not going to have a significant effect on contrail formation - unless perhaps you are flying right over it.
 
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pm.html





You believe the EPA are liars?

.
I sure do believe they are liars . http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...6d6c6c-6805-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html . The graph might be true or not but its irrelevant to my question . They said in the story I posted that GW has slowed because of Sulfate particles spewed by volcanic activity . My question just was what effect if any would it have on persistent contrails ? I looked to see if I could find any studies on such a thing and found nothing . I figured someone here might know . Instead of answering my question in a respectful matter I was mocked . I dont get my information from fear merchants that would be The IPCC The UN ect .
Do you really see a day when one side, the one which did well at school, progressed through academia, worked hard, got qualified in the subject under discussion, is going to agree with the whims of ignorant, hypocritical, asocial, self-deluding, self-publicizing fear porn merchants? You do!
Content from External Source
I come here to learn not to be insulted and then Banned when I bite Back . I get most of my info from Geoengineering stories not Chemtrail sites . http://treasurecoastskywatch.blogspot.com/ Thats SKYWATCH not chemtrails .
 
I come here to learn
You state that every scientific source on the subject are liars. What's the point in answering any questions if you honestly think the IPCC EPA and UN just make shit up? It's absolutely pointless as you just claim they're liars, without EVER showing proof.
Show what is a lie about that EPA chart.
 
I think we are drifting a bit here. Does anyone have a specific question? Maybe time for a new thread?
 
You state that every scientific source on the subject are liars. What's the point in answering any questions if you honestly think the IPCC EPA and UN just make shit up? It's absolutely pointless as you just claim they're liars, without EVER showing proof.
Show what is a lie about that EPA chart.
off topic read above
The graph might be true or not but its irrelevant to my question
Content from External Source
.I reading this as we speak http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm y
 
off topic read above
The graph might be true or not but its irrelevant to my question
Content from External Source
To what is your question relevant?

The graph is relevant to this and sits well in conjunction with it. It's a good read. Have you read up the atmospheric research of the nineteenth century?

is totally irrelevant. Wherever you get people you get crooks.
 
Last edited:
To what is your question relevant?


The graph is relevant to this and sits well in conjunction with it. It's a good read. Have you read up the atmospheric research of the nineteenth century?

.
Yes I have but Im Still working . Trying to read as Im painting a BMW Between coats of course . I agree with the graph But what about China and their standards being we all live in the same fishbowl ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's viable as a thread for generating topics. :)
I agree . That is why I posted my question here .Once a specific topic gets enough replies that would be a good time to move it .
 
All very well, but my point (in response to Joe) is that the emissions from volcanoes are not going to have a significant effect on contrail formation - unless perhaps you are flying right over it.
Agreed. Low down they will rapidly rain out even at trail altitudes. But they will leave a diffuse footprint of drier air in their wake.

In the high stratosphere (above where normal aircraft fly, but not above the plumes of large volcanic events*) there are very few water vapor molecules, so the sulfur/oxygen radical has an average half-life of a year or so, before it meets a sufficient number of water vapor molecules to fall out of there.

Then it's back to the oceans…

* This is the nub of it. Geoengineered sulfur dioxide would have to be LIFTED into the higher drier air in large amounts to be at all effective.

There are NO vehicles for this work at all, except nuclear. The only geoengineering being done happens when you turn your car's ignition switch. Or buy food, or..
 
Last edited:
Scombrid says
The air at the ground is clearer on average which affords a better view of clouds and contrails, especially distant ones. So the sky is not filled with haze now more than ever, unless you are talking about China where air pollution is increasing by the day.
Content from External Source
Joe replies "I totally disagree" .

Air at the ground is clearer today on average than it was 30 years ago in the contiguous United States. That is an objective fact quantified by the change in particulates.

That's not to say the air is clean. I can still go up to my old haunts in SW Virginia and sit on a mountain top and watch the haze roll up the great valley when the wind goes around to the southwest. But it is cleaner than 20-30 years ago. Low sulfur diesel has helped along the I-81 corridor for example.

Are you a contrail scientist

Irrelevant to the question of haze in the lower troposphere.
 
Air at the ground is clearer today on average than it was 30 years ago in the contiguous United States. That is an objective fact quantified by the change in particulates.

That's not to say the air is clean. I can still go up to my old haunts in SW Virginia and sit on a mountain top and watch the haze roll up the great valley when the wind goes around to the southwest. But it is cleaner than 20-30 years ago. Low sulfur diesel has helped along the I-81 corridor for example.



Irrelevant to the question of haze in the lower troposphere.
Sure and fuel injection and ECM s in automobiles as well .
 
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

I can answer very succinctly: Volcanic ash that is suspended in the atmosphere is dangerous to airliners, or to any airplane with an internal combustion engine.

However, as suggested already....this information (which can be verified outside of this Forum) is interesting, but may not have much to do with the topic of this thread. Which is: "14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions".

Since a "chemtrail", as generally understood in the lexicon of those who "believe" in them...a "chemtrail" is, in fact, a non-entity...then this thread seems to have run its course.

UNLESS, of course, the discussion is about the hoax and mythology that surrounds the concept of "chemtrails", and their beginning, as a myth and hoax.
 
I can answer very succinctly: Volcanic ash that is suspended in the atmosphere is dangerous to airliners, or to any airplane with an internal combustion engine.

However, as suggested already....this information (which can be verified outside of this Forum) is interesting, but may not have much to do with the topic of this thread. Which is: "14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions".

Since a "chemtrail", as generally understood in the lexicon of those who "believe" in them...a "chemtrail" is, in fact, a non-entity...then this thread seems to have run its course.

UNLESS, of course, the discussion is about the hoax and mythology that surrounds the concept of "chemtrails", and their beginning, as a myth and hoax.
I know Volcanic ash that is suspended in the atmosphere is dangerous to airliners. That wasn't my question . It was the minute particles or sulfates not volcanic ash ! Residual minute particles that remain suspended .Maybe I shouldnt have used the term "minute volcanic particles" I remember the warnings and flight deviations when the Iceland volcano went off so I am quite aware of the effects of volcanic ash on a Jet
 
I know Volcanic ash that is suspended in the atmosphere is dangerous to airliners. That wasn't my question . It was the minute particles or sulfates not volcanic ash ! Residual minute particles that remain suspended .Maybe I shouldnt have used the term "minute volcanic particles" I remember the warnings and flight deviations when the Iceland volcano went off so I am quite aware of the effects of volcanic ash on a Jet


Yes thanks. I guess I should have been more precise. Not only can external debris, such as volcanic ash, cause problems in a modern TurboFan engine, but also internal contaminants. This was the point I was trying to make...to refute the many claims of "Chem"trails as a result of "additives" to the fuel.

Jet-A1 fuel is carefully monitored, as you may know. It undergoes many, many safety checks throughout production, and to include distribution. The fuel must undergo these checks, because of safety concerns.

All too often the claim (by "chem"trail advocates) is made..."It's in the fuel!"

Well, these claims are absurd. Anyone in the aviation field knows why they are absurd. One merely needs to understand the heat of combustion, within an engine, to understand the absurdity.
 
I'm bringing this rather derailed thread forward again for sentimental reasons. The relevant part in my OP's was how the leadership might be eliminated by taking away their control over the flow of info if a grass-roots flight identification effort took place. My hypothesis was that if that happened a general realization might occur that ordinary commercial passenger planes make the trails people see. That would take the overriding mystery out of the chemtrail conundrum and introduce indisputable facts into the meme. The main tools would be flight tracking and high resolution photography. I still think that this tactic could work if it ever took hold and that is why I am putting it back on the table as a reminder.
 
I'm bringing this rather derailed thread forward again for sentimental reasons. The relevant part in my OP's was how the leadership might be eliminated by taking away their control over the flow of info if a grass-roots flight identification effort took place. My hypothesis was that if that happened a general realization might occur that ordinary commercial passenger planes make the trails people see. That would take the overriding mystery out of the chemtrail conundrum and introduce indisputable facts into the meme. The main tools would be flight tracking and high resolution photography. I still think that this tactic could work if it ever took hold and that is why I am putting it back on the table as a reminder.
Yes. I think their hands should be forced instead of letting them sit back behind their firewalls where they can control the dialog. Public debate challenges should be made by people like you who have the background and knowledge to blow their story out of the water. It would be great in public, but maybe even better in an online format where all would be preserved in a formal setting. Keeping them from Gish-galloping would be of primary importance. Make them focus on single specifics like the commercial plane issue, like you suggested.
 
Word from an old fisherman is that to do what Hama is saying they will have to be given enough line and only then can the hook be set. Yes, that's abstruse but that's all I'm gonna say now.
 
But a little pointless if the new topics don't get into new threads.
First off it has been since late 1940s that we have been experimenting with weather modification. So I am not sure what the 14 yrs thing is?? anyone?

Hi Mike I am not sure but maybe we can make a new thread regarding the real facts behind weather modification via airplanes. We use rockets also but thats something for another discussion. You guys are doing great work here. glad to see rational people discussing this stuff. JREF maybe a good source for some ammo to fight off the chemtrail theorists.

I have sen a lot of debate about some really wild chemicals the chemtrail people claim is being used. BUt I have not seen anyone point to the many companies that actually do weather modification. First thing they tell you on most the sites who have FAQ....is that weather modification is very limited in what it can and can't do.

The reality is the materials being used by these companies is nothing like the radical claims of the lopsided argument.

"What are the most commonly used seeding materials?


The materials used in cloud seeding include two primary categories, tied to the type of precipitation process involved. One category includes those which act as glaciogenic (ice-forming) agents, such as silver iodide, dry ice and compressed liquid propane or carbon dioxide, which are appropriate in cloud systems where the precipitation process is primarily cold(colder than freezing). Of the ice-forming materials, the most commonly used is silver iodide. The second major category is focused on cloud systems where the warm (coalescence) process predominates. In those environments, hygroscopic (water attracting) materials such as salt, urea and ammonium nitrate can be utilized. Of the hygroscopic materials, the most commonly used are salts."
http://www.nawcinc.com/wmfaq.html

So as you can see unless you are afraid that you already have too much salt in the diet maybe weather modification is not the boogieman.
I am sure someone will say OMG Silver Iodide !!! However, the permissible exposure limit is 0.01 mg / m3 TWA. Which is a HELLA lot more than any air samples under areas were this is being used for weather modification. Also lets be clear this is used to promote rain so it will end up attracting water vapor to form ice then rain, the respirable levels would be even less. The only real concern could arise from it entering the water or food chain, but again the levels are so miniscule that I see no significant health risks.
MSDS for Silver Iodide - click here

While these are the normal materials we use for weather modification they are not the only ones ever used. Many smart people have suggested some very wild ideas. Places like geoengineeringwatch.org

BTW I own a company that does industrial hygiene and environmental consulting. I am certified in everything from asbestos to nuclear (no joke). I have 30 years experience my clients have included JPL/NASA, Liton, BP, Edwards AFB, Point Magu, Mir Mar, Point Hune, Vandenberg, Homeland Security, and many other government, commercial, and private clients. I was raised around airplanes, I and most my close friends are pilots. I also fly Soaring planes and even they can have contrails. However the contrails from soaring planes do not last very long in most cases. It is the particulates and the turbulent air currents that cause Jets contrails to last longer. Since the glider emits no particulates the contrails dissipate rather fast few minutes or less normally. - Ian Bach

Kristen mentioned patents....I actually designed something that a patent was taken out on. However within a year or two it was obsolete. Mike had a great link to an example of some of the nutty things that gets patents. Mine was a collapsible decontamination chamber/shower system. This was in 1989 back when we were using mobile shower / De-con systems. The other ones were built in place, non-mobile. Also places like geoengineeringwatch.org are a clearinghouse for all the worst ideas for weather modification that were never used or done, but for some strange reason these people there at Geoeng seem to think they are doing all the craziest ideas but its just hiden and a secret. If Bill Clinton couldn't hide a seaman stain on a skirt, I think that is a good example of how things in Government are anything but secret. Something like the scale that these people claim is going on would be impossible to keep secret.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top