Contrails in the Stratosphere

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Over that distance that 747 may lay 10,395 tons of persistent spreading contrail ice into a saturated (but de-saturating!) stratosphere. Where was all that stored? :)
You insist persistent contrails are seen in the stratosphere . . . I wish we could get a 747 pilot who has cruised into the lower stratosphere to comment . . . IMO seems you and Dr Minnis don't agree . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It's magic. :)

I see you're from Tenerife. I've been there once myself.
I decided to celebrate the occasion by standing in one of the engines.
OK . . . Billzilla . . . do persistent contrails form in the stratosphere???

 

solrey

Senior Member.
do persistent contrails form in the stratosphere???

Evidences of thin cirrus clouds in the stratosphere at mid-latitudes

This observational study shows that mid-latitude Stratospheric Clouds can exist under certain conditions. The mechanism of isentropic transport of subtropical tropospheric air into the mid-latitude stratosphere is not new and is an evident source of moist air into the stratosphere.

When there is enough moisture to produce cirrus clouds, there is enough moisture to produce persistent contrails.

I'll give ya this much, George, regardless of how often you're proven wrong you just keep on keepin' on.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Evidences of thin cirrus clouds in the stratosphere at mid-latitudes



When there is enough moisture to produce cirrus clouds, there is enough moisture to produce persistent contrails.

I'll give ya this much, George, regardless of how often you're proven wrong you just keep on keepin' on.

From the same paper you cited above . . .
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
From the same paper you cited above . . .

If you only read the portion you bolded and stopped, it would make it seem like cirrus had not been found in the stratosphere. But the rest of the paragraph (underlined) shows that they they were successful in their search.

This is why scientific writing is so often quote-mined. It often starts by outlining the problem or question, then goes on to give the solution or answer. If you stop reading before the latter part, you come to a conclusion that's the opposite of the authors' intent.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If you only read the portion you bolded and stopped, it would make it seem like cirrus had not been found in the stratosphere. But the rest of the paragraph (underlined) shows that they they were successful in their search.

This is why scientific writing is so often quote-mined. It often starts by outlining the problem or question, then goes on to give the solution or answer. If you stop reading before the latter part, you come to a conclusion that's the opposite of the authors' intent.
Seems there are always some exceptions . . . that is why I included the entire quote . . . however, this is far from conclusive that persistent contrails are common in the stratosphere . . .

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
You insist persistent contrails are seen in the stratosphere . . . I wish we could get a 747 pilot who has cruised into the lower stratosphere to comment . . . IMO seems you and Dr Minnis don't agree . . .
Well, I'm calling it the stratosphere, but the actual height used for the measurements of these heavy trails was 10.7 Km, or 33,500 feet. You could argue it's the tropopause, but it isn't material to my claim.

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf

Jet streams are always in the stratosphere and they are always WET. It isn't in any way reasonable to suppose that the lower stratosphere is DRY in order to support your crazy belief.

There is no "arbitration" to be made between a CORRECT position and an INCORRECT one. Don't be a waste of time and space.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, I'm calling it the stratosphere, but the actual height used for the measurements of these heavy trails was 10.7 Km, or 33,500 feet. You could argue it's the tropopause, but it isn't material to my claim.

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf

Jet streams are always in the stratosphere and they are always WET. It isn't in any way reasonable to suppose that the lower stratosphere is DRY in order to support your crazy belief.

There is no "arbitration" to be made between a CORRECT position and an INCORRECT one.
What are you talking about? What does the presence or not of visible persistent contrails in the stratosphere have to do with my theories . . . it is either supported by scientific fact or it is not!!!! What in the world are you afraid of?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well I finally have an answer from Wiki.answer about the location of the jet streams . . . LoL!!!

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
What are you talking about? What does the presence or not of visible persistent contrails in the stratosphere have to do with my theories . . . it is either supported by scientific fact or it is not!!!! What in the world are you afraid of?
It is supported by fact. I'm tired of you, George, not afraid.

Are you going to clarify this? Thought not...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It is supported by fact. I'm tired of you, George, not afraid.
So your position is persistent contrails are commonly found in the stratosphere . . . I really don't care if you are tired or not . . . take a stand . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
So your position is persistent contrails are commonly found in the stratosphere . . . I really don't care if you are tired or not . . . take a stand . . .
Yes. They are as commonly found as is the jet stream, which is a stratospheric phenomenon.

We all know that the UPPER stratosphere is dry, George.

The difference between us and you is your keenness to suppose that the whole of the stratosphere is DRY, and therefore trails laid in it may be other than ICE.

You are ignoring the fact that planes don't travel in the upper stratosphere - because they cannot.

You are also ignoring that where they DO travel it is frequently very wet indeed. And you are ignoring many other things beside. Like the weight of the trail, the fact there's no sign of SO2 recorded in the history of the atmosphere apart from the volcanic emissions, and the presence of cirrus ice clouds, themselves the sign of fully-saturated air.

There is nothing to be afraid of in what you write. It is merely astroturf freshly elaborated by you, and merely needs a mental laxative. Reading that report does that. Why don't you try it sometime?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It is supported by fact. I'm tired of you, George, not afraid.


Are you going to clarify this? Thought not...
Since you added it after I responded . . . I will now . . . the remaining quote is self explanatory seems the jet stream is rarely in the stratosphere . . . which means its accompanying saturating moisture is also logically rare . . . unless you have evidence to the contrary . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes. They are as commonly found as is the jet stream, which is a stratospheric phenomenon.

We all know that the UPPER stratosphere is dry, George.

The difference between us and you is your keenness to suppose that the whole of the stratosphere is DRY, and therefore trails laid in it may be other than ICE.

You are ignoring the fact that planes don't travel in the upper stratosphere - because they cannot.

You are also ignoring that where they DO travel it is frequently very wet indeed. And you are ignoring many other things beside. Like the weight of the trail, the fact there's no sign of SO2 recorded in the history of the atmosphere apart from the volcanic emissions, and the presence of cirrus ice clouds, themselves the sign of fully-saturated air.

There is nothing to be afraid of in what you write. It is merely astroturf freshly elaborated by you, and merely needs a laxative.
1) I never once said aircraft flew anywhere but the lower stratosphere . . .
2) This discussion has nothing to do with sulfur species injected into the atmosphere at any altitude . . .
3) I am talking only about persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus and how common their presence could be in the stratosphere
4) All the scientific information I have found indicates their presence in the LOWER stratosphere is rare . . . meaning NOT COMMON . . . this is further supported by my correspondence with Dr Minnis . . . who I think can be considered an expert on this issue . . .
5) I have asked for Billzilla's observations . . . I would accept his position as plausible evidence of controdictory evidence to the commonly held scientific position . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes. They are as commonly found as is the jet stream, which is a stratospheric phenomenon.



You are also ignoring that where they DO travel it is frequently very wet indeed. And you are ignoring many other things beside.

I am ignoring nothing . . .
1) so you insist the jet stream is primarily a stratospheric resident . . . I don't think everyone would agree with that position . . .
2) are you saying on the top of the jet streams which sometimes extend into the stratosphere the humidity is sufficient to form persistent contrails????!!?!!
3) And if so . . . how common is this event when in proximity to cruising aircraft . . . rare or common . . . in your opinion . . .??
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I am ignoring nothing
Nonsense. You ignore things all the time.

you insist the jet stream is primarily a stratospheric resident . . . I don't think everyone would agree with that position
No, I think the jet stream works its way round cumulonimbi. Not. I haven't gone round checking anyone else's opinion. I also believe one plays tennis by knocking the ball over the net. I'm funny that way. I haven't checked whether this is true either.

are you saying on the top of the jet streams which sometimes extend into the stratosphere the humidity is sufficient to form persistent contrails?
On the many occasions I have flown through a jet stream
a) The airplane couldn't overfly it, and b) it was always intensely wet (and cold) and c) all planes in the vicinity were laying trails.

The jet stream cannot flow without the water burden it carries. That water holds LATENT ENERGY and gives it its ticket to ride.

It also CANNOT have formed in the troposphere. It may end up there when it gets to a cell boundary but it cannot "fly" except in the low stratosphere where conditions are laminar. The turbulent flow of the tropopause (all large cumulus clouds and storms) would stop that flow.

Try forming your own opinion from understanding rather than looking for views that agree with your position. Science isn't an opinion poll.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ice supersaturation is required for persistent contrails. Measurements over Germany indicate that this generally does not occur in the stratosphere (as demarked by the thermal tropopause).

http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/issr/Cha3.html

Eyeballing the last plot, it looks like a good 95% of the ice supersaturated regions occur below the tropopause.
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Nonsense. You ignore things all the time.


No, I think the jet stream works its way round cumulonimbi. Not. I haven't gone round checking anyone else's opinion. I also believe one plays tennis by knocking the ball over the net. I'm funny that way. I haven't checked whether this is true either.


On the many occasions I have flown through a jet stream
a) The airplane couldn't overfly it, and b) it was always intensely wet (and cold) and c) all planes in the vicinity were laying trails.


The jet stream cannot flow without the water burden it carries. That water holds LATENT ENERGY and gives it its ticket to ride.

It also CANNOT have formed in the troposphere. It may end up there when it gets to a cell boundary but it cannot "fly" except in the low stratosphere where conditions are laminar. The turbulent flow of the tropopause (all large cumulus clouds and storms) would stop that flow.

Try forming your own opinion from understanding rather than looking for views that agree with your position. Science isn't an opinion poll.

What were you flying, what latitude and what was your maximum operational ceiling . . . ? My guess is you were most likley not in the stratosphere . . . but had no way to get above the stream . . . probably in excess of 43,000 to 50,000 feet . . . I would agree in some relatively rare situations where the tops of massive storms punch through the stratosphere there could be some persistent contrails if there were some aircraft in the area and high enough to be in the stratosphere . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It also CANNOT have formed in the troposphere. It may end up there when it gets to a cell boundary but it cannot "fly" except in the low stratosphere where conditions are laminar. The turbulent flow of the tropopause (all large cumulus clouds and storms) would stop that flow.
Jet streams are usually described as being at or below the thermal tropopause. Generally it does not seem to be in the stratosphere.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_jet_streams_located_in_the_atmosphere
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
<br>
Jet streams are usually described as being at or below the thermal tropopause. Generally it does not seem to be in the stratosphere.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_jet_streams_located_in_the_atmosphere

Mick, I was going to use that diagram from the NOAA website . . . you beat me to it . . .
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.htm
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Great diagram...

I have made several trips flying through the sub-tropical jet at 30 deg N. Boeing 737s and Airbus 330s between 35,000 and 39,000 feet. To my knowledge, all tropospheric clouds were well beneath the flightpath.

I will hold my position. The jet stream requires laminar air conditions to run. That's definitely on the TOP side of the tropopause. The combination of jet stream and tropospheric cloud shown in the diagram at 60 deg N is entirely false and contradictory. Only ONE of those two states could exist at any one place and time. Also, jet streams never run along a latitude for any length of time before they turn North or South, which is another pointer for their being above the tropopause.

It's rather like arguing the number of angels on the head of the pin, George, which is why you are found here. The tropopause is a very difficult place to pin down, with only very gently changing conditions throughout its height, there being little in the way of a positive thermal gradient for a couple of miles or so...

...however, the jet streams are wet*, the low stratosphere is wet*, planes can't fly above wet* conditions, even if these wet* conditions are only there for 17% of the time.

* Wet, relatively speaking. Damnit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So a question becomes . . .

1) If we assume there is more traffic in the lower stratosphere that in the recent past . . . meaning 1980s for example . . . should we not be seeing less persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus clouds or at least no more than in the 1990s?

2) Global warming seems to create a situation where there is less optimal air for persistent contrail formation in the troposphere . . . so wouldn't this also mitigate the number of persistent trails as well . . . ?

3) or is there just such an increase in the total number of flights in optimal air the the above two factors are moot . . . ?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Great diagram...

I have made several trips flying through the sub-tropical jet at 30 deg N. To my knowledge, all tropospheric clouds were well beneath the flightpath.

I will hold my position. The jet stream requires laminar air conditions to run. That's definitely on the TOP side of the tropopause. The combination of jet stream and tropospheric cloud shown in the diagram at 60 deg N is entirely false and contradictory. Only ONE of those two states could exist at any one place and time. Also, jet streams never run along a latitude for any length of time before they turn North or South, which is another pointer for their being above the tropopause.

It's rather like arguing the number of angels on the head of the pin, George, which is why you are found here. The tropopause is a very difficult place to pin down, with only very gently changing conditions throughout its height, there being little in the way of a positive thermal gradient for a couple of miles or so...

...however, the jet streams are wet*, the low stratosphere is wet*, planes can't fly above wet* conditions, even if these wet* conditions are only there for 17% of the time.

* Wet, relatively speaking.
1) Why? Too much drag?

2) You mean wet* enough to allow persistent contrails as in air with Ice supersaturation ?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
George, it's YOU that's too wet. Planes fly no higher because they are designed to fly no higher. They have too little wing area. I will not respond further. Life's too short.

Hi Jazzy, I don't know where you get the position that jet streams are only found in the stratosphere. I regularly encounter them at altitudes below 28000 feet. On the sigwx chart today you can see a couple over Australia. The altitude annotation on the jet stream shows where the core of the jet is located; clearly below the tropopause.
http://aviationweather.gov/data/products/swh/PGGE05_12_CL_new.gif
I'm sure you do. It's just that stooging around low down one gets to meet large clouds and other frictional things. These tend to bring one to a stop. If one is a jet stream. I'm not saying they aren't found low down. Just that if they are found there, their life will be short. When low, they'll be slow...

Jet streams achieve high overland speeds because they aren't so subject to friction from beneath. To do this they have to be HIGHER than this friction, in the main.

Tempaltitude.jpg

In this diagram we are arguing about angels standing where it says "10" on the left. That whole area has little or no temperature gradient around it. As a "boundary", it is as variable as you please. There is not going to be a sudden cut-off in humidity at that point, because it isn't a "point".

Everything immediately above that "point" is stratosphere, and the majority of planes can only fly in the first couple of miles of it. Which IS where water may still be found.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, it's YOU that's too wet. Planes fly no higher because they are designed to fly no higher. They have too little wing area.

That is not what you implied with the following statement . . . you implied it was too wet!!!!

 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Sorry Jazzy, but what you assert doesn't match my experience. The winter jet stream over Australia is a semi-permanent feature and regularly extends below 26000 feet or lower.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Eyeballing the last plot, it looks like a good 95% of the ice supersaturated regions occur below the tropopause.
Remember to turn your eyes the other way up.

skitched-20121117-115054.jpg

They are negative pressures. Your "below" should read "above". (Muffled laughter offstage...)
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
That is not what you implied with the following statement . . . you implied it was too wet!
It was your inference that was incorrect.

However I will restate this as "planes cannot fly in the stratosphere where the altitude is so great that water is barely present, because they haven't been designed with large enough wings". I don't actually care whether that does for you, or not.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Hi Jazzy, I don't know where you get the position that jet streams are only found in the stratosphere. I regularly encounter them at altitudes below 28000 feet. On the sigwx chart today you can see a couple over Australia. The altitude annotation on the jet stream shows where the core of the jet is located; clearly below the tropopause.

http://aviationweather.gov/data/products/swh/PGGE05_12_CL_new.gif

The couple over Australia are indicated higher than, or level with the tropopause, I suspect. I notice that closer to the poles they are lower. Isn't FL 410 = 41,000 feet?

I'm sure you regularly encounter them as you say. But if they are continuous, then the true tropopause will still be beneath them.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The true tropopause is indicated by the rectangular boxes. Just about all of the jet streams in that graphic are well below the true tropopause. The tropopause over most of Australia right now is around 50,000 feet.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It was your inference that was incorrect.

However I will restate this as "planes cannot fly in the stratosphere where the altitude is so great that water is barely present, because they haven't been designed with large enough wings". I don't actually care whether that does for you, or not.
Well, my inference was based on your statement . . . I could think of no other rational reason to connect inability to gain altitude because of being too wet . . . friction, icing, drag . . . what would water or moisture have to do directly with lift . . . ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Remember to turn your eyes the other way up.

skitched-20121117-115054.jpg

They are negative pressures. Your "below" should read "above". (Muffled laughter offstage...)

No it shouldn't. It's below the tropopause. The Y axis is just (tropopause_pressure - pressure). The plot is essentially the same as the other plots, but with the red line made flat.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The true tropopause is indicated by the rectangular boxes. Just about all of the jet streams in that graphic are well below the true tropopause. The tropopause over most of Australia right now is around 50,000 feet.
Thanks.

Then consider this. The 30th parallel is a "subduction zone" for jet stream behavior, and the streams are not continuous. There is a net movement of air downwards* into the divide between the Hadley and the Ferrel Cell. This will pull jet streams downwards with it, accounting for their lower-than-normal altitude. (The boundary between the Ferrel and the Polar Cell should show the reverse conditions.)

* This is probably cyclic. I don't know what frequency. Only the words "Quasi-biennial Oscillation" which I would translate, probably wrongly, as "as if twice a year" and suggests to me the equinoxes.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The Y axis is just (tropopause_pressure - pressure).
A negative pressure is something you find if you climb. If pressure is lowering, then are you heading upward or downward? Have another think.

And it isn't "the same as the other plots". Look again at the Y axes. Are they both increasing positively?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A negative pressure is something you find if you climb. If pressure is lowering, then are you heading upward or downward? Have another think.

And it isn't "the same as the other plots". Look again at the Y axes. Are they both increasing positively?

No they are not, but check it all in context again:

http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/issr/Cha3.html

If you take the other plots, and adjust them so the red line is flat, then they get the bottom plot. The polarity of the Y axis is unintuitive, but it's clear what it means, and as they say:
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
I've looked out the window and seen us laying a nice thick contrail in the 30's and 40's thousand feet. The outside air temp anywhere from -50°c to -66°.
That's firmly in the stratosphere.

I saw a pretty impressive one over eastern India, when we were in the mid 30's and took a photo of it.



You can see how it starts becoming significant near the bank of cloud.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
No they are not
No. They are the reverse. The last plot shows the tropopause pressure in red, right? And the horizontal line above it is at +50 units, right? Well, THAT line is at a pressure found closer to earth. The h lines beneath show successively-reducing pressure figures, symptomatic of being further from earth.
The previous plots are horizontal mirror-images. Whoops - I first wrote vertical. LOL

The polarity of the Y axis is unintuitive
LOL. That's the way it is with, pardon me, bunk.

as they say
The end of "Gone with the Wind" springs to mind. I couldn't care less about something that's wrong.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I've looked out the window and seen us laying a nice thick contrail in the 30's and 40's thousand feet. The outside air temp anywhere from -50°c to -66°.
That's firmly in the stratosphere.

I saw a pretty impressive one over eastern India, when we were in the mid 30's and took a photo of it.



You can see how it starts becoming significant near the bank of cloud.
Do you remember what latitude you were cruising . . . when you were in the 30 to 40,000 feet situation . . .

Also, wouldn't the stratosphere be around 58,000 feet above most of India . . . if the contrail is in the stratosphere . . . how high was it??
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Three Contrails "Descending" over Denver on Jan 31, 2021 [Military, C-17A Globemasters] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
S Lasers Making Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Curved and Looped Contrails in SoCal [San Diego Delays] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West Crazy Contrails from LAX Ground Stop Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
D Explained: Photo of 747 with Contrails Only on One Side [Fake, April Fool] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West Infrared Photos of Clouds and Contrails Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 17
Mick West Moonlight Contrails Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Aerodynamic Contrails at 27,000 to 31,000 feet near Sacramento Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
Trailblazer Sharp boundary between contrails and clear sky Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Mick West Plane Flies in Front of Super Blue Blood Moon Eclipse Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Clouds Givemethewillies Contrail lobes or mamma? The importance of correct terminology Contrails and Chemtrails 0
cloudspotter How Changing Weather Conditions Make Contrails Show Up Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Trailspotter Contrail cross over Tasmania and spinning contrails over Victoria Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Explained: Manurewa NZ, 'Extra-terrestrial' Fireball Jumps Up [Contrail, Altitude change] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Halifax, NS: Regularly Spaced Gaps in Contrails [Ethiopian Flight 501] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 47
Mick West Some Perspective on Perspective Foreshortening - Contrails and UFOs Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West Explained: Viral Video of 787 Leaving Thick Contrails with Forced Perspective Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West A Plane Flying Across the Face of the Sun, with Contrails [Virgin Flight 353] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
TEEJ Contrails filmed from commercial flight over the Irish Sea - 6th May 2017 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
ki_cz Contrails 'breaking up' clouds Contrails and Chemtrails 10
E Can someone tell me what these are? [Grid pattern contrails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
P Can someone please explain these trails at sunset [Contrails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
Mick West There Are No New Clouds, Just New Latin Classifications Contrails and Chemtrails 2
MikeC BBC: Biofuels 'could limit jet contrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West Spiral Contrails viewed from the International Space Station Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 12
ki_cz Claim: Satellite imagery showing 'sheet' of contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West GOES-16 Satellite Images of Contrails Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Explained: Contrails Appear "Hot" in Thermal Imaging because the Sky Appears Very Cold Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
Clouds Givemethewillies Why do inner contrails spread more than outer contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Mick West Contrails Hidden In 1950s and 1960s Family Photos Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
Mick West Four Engines, Flying West over Sacramento Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Clouds Givemethewillies Persistent Aerodynamic Contrails From Propellor Tips Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West A Sunlit Contrail Viewed From the Side Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Close Up Videos of Contrails Forming And Evolving Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 19
Mick West Some "Black" Shadowed Aerodynamic Contrails Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 4
Mick West Relative Humidity at Flight Altitudes. Resources and Contrail prediction. Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West What's the Highest Contrail You've Taken a Photo Of? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Mick West P900 Plane and Contrails Photos and Video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 17
Mick West Persistent Aerodynamic Contrail Forming @28,500 on 787 Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
steve holmes Problems with Identifying Contrails in FlightRadar24 Contrails and Chemtrails 57
Mick West Why Were There Contrails Today, But Not Yesterday? It's the Weather! Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West How Do You Take Good Photos of High Altitude Planes and Contrails? Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Mick West Debunked: Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Contrails over Sting & Peter Gabriel Concert in Lake Tahoe Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Giant Dark Persistent Aerodynamic Contrail Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 6
Kaylene Contrails in USA vs. Austraila Contrails and Chemtrails 4
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top