Congressmanswife's question on chemtrails.

So, I have a simple question. Do you people truly believe that this aerosol spraying does NOT exist and this is just a figment of the imagination, or
do you acknowledge that the planes are spraying the skies, and just want to protect those who are doing so? It's kind of confusing when I read the
posts. I'm just curious, because I am looking for some information which serves to either prove or disprove this chemtrail thing, but I am not finding any.
If not, what is it that you think is going on up there in our skies? Is this just engine residual from normal planes that accumulates over time into big massive clouds? It's hard to find real facts that substantiate either one.
Thanks
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The consensus is that aerosol spraying has been proposed, but there is no evidence to suggest it is currently happening. The white lines you see in the sky are persisent contrails, caused by well understood science, and are becoming more prevalent due to the huge increase in air traffic and aircraft engines becomeing more efficient.. (which as a by product makes contrail formation more likely). Contrailscience.com explains it all and you will find pilots, meteorologists, air traffic controllers and other interested people on this site who can answer just about any question you may have.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Ther is spraying that happens - agricultural, pest (insect) control, firefighting, oil dispersant, cloud seeding, etc.

But none of these resemble contrails, and there has never been any verifiable evidence that the long white lines in teh skiwes that are generated like contrails, look like contrails, and disperse like contrails are, in fact, anything other than contrails.

All internal combustion engines generate water - in fact they generate more water in the exhaust than they burn fuel! If the atmosphere is already super-saturated then yes, contails can be the basis of clouds.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
Is this just engine residual from normal planes that accumulates over time into big massive clouds? It's hard to find real facts that substantiate either one.
Thanks

It's impossible to find real facts to substantiate chemtrails, there are none. It's very easy to find real facts to substantiate persistent contrails, just do a search on Google Scholar.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
So, I have a simple question. Do you people truly believe that this aerosol spraying does NOT exist and this is just a figment of the imagination, or
do you acknowledge that the planes are spraying the skies, and just want to protect those who are doing so? It's kind of confusing when I read the
posts. I'm just curious, because I am looking for some information which serves to either prove or disprove this chemtrail thing, but I am not finding any.
If not, what is it that you think is going on up there in our skies? Is this just engine residual from normal planes that accumulates over time into big massive clouds? It's hard to find real facts that substantiate either one.
Thanks

Hi Congressman's wife. There is no credible evidence of aerosol spraying. All aviation aware people understand these long white persistent trails are just condensation trails.

There is zero controversy in the aviation and meteorology field. The trails have been understood for over 70 years. They are water.
It was understood way back here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfOrez6q7WM
Please have a CAREFUL READ of http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/ then when you have the time have a read of all of the rest of the site. It's best if you try to read every chapter on that site as it is broken up into different sections that deal specifically with different aspects of trails in the sky. One chapter deals with why trails often appear broken, another why sometimes there are both long and short trails visible at the same time, another why there are sometimes dark lines in the sky, another with changes in the number of trails over time, etc. etc. If you read each section carefully then you will find probably ALL your questions are thoroughly answered and by fact checking the science references you will be able to see the claims of chemtrail believers are actually mistaken and misleading.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So, I have a simple question. Do you people truly believe that this aerosol spraying does NOT exist and this is just a figment of the imagination, or
do you acknowledge that the planes are spraying the skies, and just want to protect those who are doing so? It's kind of confusing when I read the
posts. I'm just curious, because I am looking for some information which serves to either prove or disprove this chemtrail thing, but I am not finding any.
If not, what is it that you think is going on up there in our skies? Is this just engine residual from normal planes that accumulates over time into big massive clouds? It's hard to find real facts that substantiate either one.
Thanks
I for one . . . think there could be a small chance a covert spraying program of some type might exist or existed;however, the persistent trails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks IMO are the result of an increase in air traffic at the altitudes more optimal for persistent contrail formation than in the past . . . also, engine efficiencies have increased as well and this leads also to an increase in persistent contrails based on the exhaust characteristics as compared to less efficient engines . . .

Bottom-line, everything one sees in the sky can be easily explained by normal commercial and military aviation . . .
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
. . . also, engine efficiencies have increased as well and this leads also to an increase in persistent contrails based on the exhaust characteristics as compared to less efficient engines . . .

This is not strictly correct. Higher efficiency of jet engines means that condensation of the exhaust+environment mixture occurs at warmer ambient temperature and lower ambient RH. It does not contribute to the persistence of a contrail once it has formed; that depends on the occurrence of ice-supersaturated regions.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
This is not strictly correct. Higher efficiency of jet engines means that condensation of the exhaust+environment mixture occurs at warmer ambient temperature and lower ambient RH. It does not contribute to the persistence of a contrail once it has formed; that depends on the occurrence of ice-supersaturated regions.
Simple . . . more efficient engines will give more chances to produce contrails in suboptimal air . . . I would wager this also gives a greater chance to also produce persistent contrails as well . . . while this may be argued I don't think it can be proven incorrect . . .
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
What?

. . . more efficient engines will give more chances to produce contrails in suboptimal air . . .

In the universe of discourse of contrail formation, this makes no sense.

Condensation will occur if the exhaust and ambient air mixture becomes water-saturated. There is no room for "chances" here.

And what, exactly, is "suboptimal air" in this context?

I will concede that because higher efficiency engines produce contrails (of any kind) in a wider range of conditions, there will be the opportunity for more persistent contrails if the condition for them is met. BUT, once formed persistence of a contrail has nothing to do with the efficiency of the engine that produced it. I suppose this is what you are saying, roughly.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What?



In the universe of discourse of contrail formation, this makes no sense.

Condensation will occur if the exhaust and ambient air mixture becomes water-saturated. There is no room for "chances" here.

And what, exactly, is "suboptimal air" in this context?

I will concede that because higher efficiency engines produce contrails (of any kind) in a wider range of conditions, there will be the opportunity for more persistent contrails if the condition for them is met. BUT, once formed persistence of a contrail has nothing to do with the efficiency of the engine that produced it. I suppose this is what you are saying, roughly.

Bingo
 
Top