Contrail fact sheets from Vermont and New Hampshire

[Jay Reynolds]

I ran across these two publications created by two states regarding contrails and chemtrails. Im assuming they were created in response to inquiries.
New Hampshire 2024
https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt341/files/documents/ard-69.pdf

Vermont 2014
https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/ChemtrailsFact Sheet_062514.pdf

 

[Trailblazer]

That will be a helpful link to show people who say "But New Hampshire banned them!" etc.

Although I can't help thinking this is a bit of a pathetic photo example to to use for "long contrails" – that is well within the "fast-dissipating" range that many chemtrail believers claim is the hallmark of "real contrails" (as opposed to chemtrails).

 

[Jay Reynolds]

That will be a helpful link to show people who say "But New Hampshire banned them!" etc.

Although I can't help thinking this is a bit of a pathetic photo example to to use for "long contrails" – that is well within the "fast-dissipating" range that many chemtrail believers claim is the hallmark of "real contrails" (as opposed to chemtrails).

. View attachment 77876

I agree but Dane Wigington, the High Priest of chemtrails, states on his website that "High bypass turbofan engines do not produce conttrails. Furthermore, in his movie the Dumbing he says that both long and short contrails are spraying.

You might have noticed that the Vermont fact sheet from 2014 directly states the point of law that States do not have authority to regulate emissions from aircraft. (42 U.S.C. §7573)

So it's significant that these State laws banning geoengineering have been known to be unenforceable for over 10 years. BTW, the New Hampshire ban failed miserably left to die in committee. Jim Lee did an epic roast of the hearing, 3 hours worth with lots of diversions.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/-va_TBGo1u8?si=3c4fB0n-sXzIJOWl

 

[FatPhil]

I agree but Dane Wigington, the High Priest of chemtrails, states on his website that "High bypass turbofan engines do not produce conttrails.

Clearly, as stated, that's false. There's nothing a high bypass turbofan engine can do to prevent cold enough humid enough air from deciding it's had enough.

However, the charitable read "high bypass turbofan engines produce contrails less than other engines" - does that hold up to scrutiny?

snipped from https://arc.aiaa.org/na101/home/lit....39.issue-4/2.2976/20210217/2.2976.fp.png_v03
via: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/2.2976?journalCode=ja&cookieSet=1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2976

Firstly, the bell-curves overlap, and it depends on a lot of factors, so a blanket "high bypass turbofans create fewer contrails" would not be a particularly useful thing to say.
Secondly, and this is the real meat on the bone, a higher threshold temperature, associated with the higher contrail factor, associated with the high bypass turbofans, corresponds to more contrail formation. In simple terms, the air (which is damn cold by nature) would need to be warmer in order to avoid forming contrails.

Clearly I'm an expert in this, as I have all of 30 minutes experience researching the field. Corrections welcome, but I think I can tell a larger number from a smaller one.

 

[Mendel]

However, the charitable read "high bypass turbofan engines produce contrails less than other engines" - does that hold up to scrutiny?

Exhaust temperature is not the only factor. Altitude and emissions also play a role.

Article:

Modern aircraft that fly at above 38,000 feet (about 12km), such as the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 Airliners, create more contrails than older passenger-carrying commercial aircraft, the study found.

Modern aircraft engines are designed to be cleaner, typically emit fewer soot particles, which cuts down the lifetime of contrails.

Source: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/255315/study-planet-warming-contrails-spanner-works-aviation/