A Systematic Attempt to Measure Air Traffic Levels and Trails

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In a very detailed article, Andrew Johnson recounts his attempt to correlate the frequency of air traffic over various parts of the UK with the frequency of persistent contrails observed in those locations.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/c..._content&task=view&id=393&Itemid=50#_ftnref20
After much analysis, the conclusion of the report was what you would expect:
While there are various methodological objections that could be raised about this study, the primary problem is the ignoring of what 100 years of science tells us is the reason for persistent contrails: the weather.

Contrails persist in regions of air that are ice-supersaturated. Regions of ice-supersaturated air (sometimes referred to as Ice Super-Saturated Regions, or ISSR) are essentially invisible clouds. The plane passing through them makes them visible by temporarily raising the humidity. ISSRs vary in almost exactly the same way that clouds vary. So just like the sky can one day be clear, and the next day be cloudy, you can also have one day with no ISSRs, and the next day with lots, or a few broken ones (giving broken persistent contrails). And like clouds, ISSRs occur in layers, so planes flying at slightly different altitudes leave very different contrails.

None of this should be controversial. It's backed by science and observation dating as far back as the first observations of persistent contrails in the 1920s, and by discussions about contrails in over 70 years worth of weather books:

And this has been well discussed in the scientific literature for a similar length of time:
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/issr/Cha1.html
So while I applaud Andrew's hard work, and the database created might even have some interesting data in it, it seems like he was looking at the wrong thing. Nobody had ever claimed that days with more contrails were the result of more air traffic. It's always been about the weather, at 28,000 to 40,000 feet.
 

Attachments

  • jgrd7693.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 427
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
he should use those doohickey's to count the planes on persistent contrail days and compare them to the number of recorded passenger flights. granted, military planes may make some persistent contrails (in chemtrail photos) but I imagine, way more often then not, his counts on PC days would show only ordinary passenger filled airlines making trails.

and passenger filled airline planes cannot hold enough 'chemical weight' to produce 'chemtrails'.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
So while I applaud Andrew's hard work, and the database created might even have some interesting data in it, it seems like he was looking at the wrong thing. Nobody had ever claimed that days with more contrails were the result of more air traffic. It's always been about the weather, at 28,000 to 40,000 feet.
I've had a run in with him before. First and foremost he "knows" what's happening but can't find convincing proof. If you disagree you're in the "wrong" camp, and furthermore you're only before him to trick him. He certainly spent some time with life- (and death-ray) affirming Dr. Judy Wood. He has a sort of dyslexia with perspective with observed trails* apparently uncorrected by having also observed railway tracks converging to a point.

I suppose I shall have to watch this.

Edit: Read this. Copious. Reminds me of a SF story called "Prott". The Borrowash version, hoping for blue skies in one of the world's cloudiest regions. You can't fault him for effort. But otherwise… …you can.
What is atmospheric science, indeed?

* He needs to see Mick's work on this.
 
Last edited:
Top