Debunked: Dane Wigington's Undeniable Footage of Jet Aircraft Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails]

[Rico]

I'm just wondering what you guys think of Mr. Dane's new video?



I haven't had much time to scrutinize it just yet (i'll get back into it), but it looks like aerodynamic contrails with the whole "secondary disbursement" thing he keeps mentioning. I believe most of his claims about insect life later in the video are exaggerated at best.

 

[Mick West]

They appear to be normal contrails. Probably a 747 by the way the four exhaust contrails twist, and then there are some occasional aerodynamic contrails from the full wing.

Basically he's filming this type of thing, but from the ground, and from far away.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-...39080/L/&sid=06f1dadce1de504b44eeff17cc38b13d

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cieliazzurri/7472170336/sizes/l

As the following sequence of photos shows, you can have the regular exhaust contrails both with and without the aerodynamic contrails. Since the mechanism of formation is different (no water is added with the aerodynamic contrails), the critical conditions for formation differ. Specifically the aerodynamic contrails require higher humidity, and so where the levels vary, you see a lot more on/off behavior with the aerodynamic contrails.

source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cieliazzurri/4896882279/in/pool-contrails|cieliazzurri/
Caption:

cieliazzurri

Contrail evolution
Ryanair B737-800 EI-DWL
Altitude: 9754 m [32,000 feet]
Routing: CAG-FKB

Set of shots taken on 25th July in Milan showing the onset of iridescence in a contrail identified as aerodynamic. Possibly, regular and aerodynamic contrails co-exist.

For more on Aerodynamic contrails, see:
http://contrailscience.com/aerodynamic-and-rainbow-contrails/

 

[Efftup]

Well the "twisting nature of the trails is readily explained as the trail hits the wing tip vortices (as explained very well on contrail Science)
Not sure what the on/off centre bit could be, unless it;s aerodynamic contrails off the tail of the plane. I still don;t see how it;s undeniable proof of anything.

If anything, saying the "secondary dispersal" is proof of spraying is like the videos with the APU, saying well THERE is your spraying. Both of which kind of admit that the main contrails, coming from behind the engines are NOT chemtrails.

 

[Svartbjørn]

Not sure what the on/off centre bit could be

The "on/off" thing is most likely pockets of air that arent conducive to the formation of contrails.

 

[Rico]

The exhaust trails seems pretty standard. My guess for the trails in the center would be aerodynamic trails caused by the root of the wings, which typically creates more lift. It's kinda hard to see.

 

[Don von Hostas]

So very disturbing that someone could (and will) look at this same video and actually see UNDENIABLE evidence of the planet being poisoned from this aircraft (or should I say "tanker")? By this logic, obviously just about EVERY video of a contrail is strong evidence of chem-spraying.

Sorry, still trying to wrap my head around the bizarro 'logic' of these people. Not having much luck with that

 

[WeedWhacker]

I'm just wondering what you guys think of Mr. Dane's new video?

Very simple. In just the first few seconds we see an airliner (4-engines) making normal contrails. The two engines on each wing....and the contrails tend to inter-twine, on each side (a result of the aerodynamics occurring, as a result of the airplane moving through the air).

THIS ( ^^^ ) is only my first impression. After merely 'clicking' on the video, and seeing it open. Been there.....done that.....I doubt any "proof" will be forthcoming.

(On Edit: I see multiple posts just above mine, all came in rapidly, and I agree with them all).

 

[WeedWhacker]

My guess for the trails in the center would be aerodynamic trails caused by the root of the wings

Yes, exactly.

[...]

 

[Efftup]

I agree, thinking about it, wing roots makes more sense than tail

 

[Chew]

I wonder why he didn't apply his previously stated criteria for identifying a contrail?

 

[Svartbjørn]

I wonder why he didn't apply his previously stated criteria for identifying a contrail?

Because:

[/QUOTE]

 

[JFDee]

That "Contrail Evolution" image from cieliazzurri is extremely useful!

It also shows how the gap between plane and trail varies with the conditions of the surrounding air.

 

[skephu]

The coexistence of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails is very rare according to this paper:
A climatology of formation conditions for aerodynamic contrails

• Visible aerodynamic contrails are possible in a thick layer extending from 540 to 250 hPa. These pressure levels are determined by two temperature thresholds. Below 230K aerodynamic contrails generally stay invisible because there is insufficient water vapour to condense on the ice crystals (Kärcher et al., 2009). The high temperature threshold is determined by the requirement that the airflow over the wing must cool down to at least the supercooling limit of pure water droplets, 235 K, such that droplets freeze. This threshold is given in Eq. (1). It depends on the ambient pressure and the pressure change over the wing, and because of the latter it depends on aircraft type and its current weight.
• Too low ambient relative humidity is almost no constraint for the possibility to form aerodynamic contrails because the saturation water vapour pressure over the wings is almost always lowered sufficiently that water saturation occurs in the airflow.
• The altitude range where aerodynamic contrails can form declines from the tropics to the poles. In the tropics it is highest (250 hPa, typical for intercontinental and continental flights), in the extratropics and polar latitudes it is lower (350 and 450 hPa, continental and regional flights).
• The formation probabilities reach quite high values locally, but regions of high formation probabilities differ from regions with strong air traffic.
• Latitude bands where aerodynamic contrails can form shift in the course of the seasons because of the shift of the threshold isotherms.
• Persistent aerodynamic contrails are rare. Generally they occur with less than 10% probability, but more typically this probability is of the order 1 %. These values could indeed be even lower because aerodynamic contrails may well consist of metastable forms of ice (e.g. cubic or amorphous ice due to their special formation conditions which are similar to hyper-quenching of cold micron sized droplets in the laboratory).
• Coexistence of aerodynamic contrails with exhaust contrails is possible but very improbable.

 

[captfitch]

I can't believe there are 74000 views of that video and not one of the comments is anything other than pure CT.

 

[JRBids]

So very disturbing that someone could (and will) look at this same video and actually see UNDENIABLE evidence of the planet being poisoned from this aircraft (or should I say "tanker")? By this logic, obviously just about EVERY video of a contrail is strong evidence of chem-spraying.

Sorry, still trying to wrap my head around the bizarro 'logic' of these people. Not having much luck with that

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bizarro logic of people who think there are absolutely no natural clouds or rain, and photograph the sky every day in all weather conditions and it is all proof of spraying.

 

[Rico]

I can't believe there are 74000 views of that video and not one of the comments is anything other than pure CT.

Well, only 363 likes, which is less than 1%.

Still, it amazes me how many people actually buy into this stuff. I did have this wondering thought in my head while I was eating dinner as to whether or not Dane Wigington actually believes in what he puts out, since he has changed goal posts so many times and tends to keep debunked bunk on his website.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...tends to keep debunked bunk on his website.

Well, that is the issue. "Bunk" remains, in many aspects and occurrences....despite the actual proof that debunks it.

Hopefully, the very existence of sites such as this will contribute to education....gradually perhaps. But, the "beauty" of the Internet is....along with the bunk, THIS site's content will also continue.....for many generations of future viewers....thanks to archiving.

 

[Ross Marsden]

The coexistence of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails is very rare according to this paper:
A climatology of formation conditions for aerodynamic contrails

• Visible aerodynamic contrails are possible in a thick layer extending from 540 to 250 hPa. These pressure levels are determined by two temperature thresholds. Below 230K aerodynamic contrails generally stay invisible because there is insufficient water vapour to condense on the ice crystals (Kärcher et al., 2009). The high temperature threshold is determined by the requirement that the airflow over the wing must cool down to at least the supercooling limit of pure water droplets, 235 K, such that droplets freeze. This threshold is given in Eq. (1). It depends on the ambient pressure and the pressure change over the wing, and because of the latter it depends on aircraft type and its current weight.
• Too low ambient relative humidity is almost no constraint for the possibility to form aerodynamic contrails because the saturation water vapour pressure over the wings is almost always lowered sufficiently that water saturation occurs in the airflow.
• The altitude range where aerodynamic contrails can form declines from the tropics to the poles. In the tropics it is highest (250 hPa, typical for intercontinental and continental flights), in the extratropics and polar latitudes it is lower (350 and 450 hPa, continental and regional flights).
• The formation probabilities reach quite high values locally, but regions of high formation probabilities differ from regions with strong air traffic.
• Latitude bands where aerodynamic contrails can form shift in the course of the seasons because of the shift of the threshold isotherms.
• Persistent aerodynamic contrails are rare. Generally they occur with less than 10% probability, but more typically this probability is of the order 1 %. These values could indeed be even lower because aerodynamic contrails may well consist of metastable forms of ice (e.g. cubic or amorphous ice due to their special formation conditions which are similar to hyper-quenching of cold micron sized droplets in the laboratory).
• Coexistence of aerodynamic contrails with exhaust contrails is possible but very improbable.

Yet, thanks to "look up" and "watch the skies" catch-cries, there are quite a few recorded instances. It may not be as improbable as that author thinks.

 

[Mick West]

Yet, thanks to "look up" and "watch the skies" catch-cries, there are quite a few recorded instances. It may not be as improbable as that author thinks.

One of the paper's authors also thought there were no colored exhaust contrails, but then I showed him this
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...-likely-intermixed-engine-configuration.3246/

"Very improbable" is rather subjective, what is that, 1 in 100? 1000? Still enough to be photographed occasionally.

The Bugatti Veyron is very rare, but there's lots of photos of it, I've even seen one just driving around.

 

[Trailspotter]

The coexistence of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails is very rare according to this paper:
A climatology of formation conditions for aerodynamic contrails

• Persistent aerodynamic contrails are rare. Generally they occur with less than 10% probability, but more typically this probability is of the order 1 %. These values could indeed be even lower because aerodynamic contrails may well consist of metastable forms of ice (e.g. cubic or amorphous ice due to their special formation conditions which are similar to hyper-quenching of cold micron sized droplets in the laboratory).
• Coexistence of aerodynamic contrails with exhaust contrails is possible but very improbable.

It may be so for the persistent contrails, but those on the photos and video are just formed and may well dissipate within a few minutes or less. Indeed, in the OP video, only a small isolated patch remains at the distal end at 2:52 mark with earlier parts of the contrail having dissipated already.

 

[Leifer]

Dane also continues to mention the supposed UV increase, in the video.
Saturday, during that day's reception of a large Sun CME emission, I measured the UVC at noontime here in California.....and it read......0.001 mW/cm2.
This is an average and expected reading, even for "non-CME" days.
Perhaps I'll post a video of tomorrows' readings, in the proper forum thread here.....

 

[Hama Neggs]

Well, only 363 likes, which is less than 1%.

Still, it amazes me how many people actually buy into this stuff. I did have this wondering thought in my head while I was eating dinner as to whether or not Dane Wigington actually believes in what he puts out, since he has changed goal posts so many times and tends to keep debunked bunk on his website.

He believes it. I have talked with people who know him. He is completely impervious to all dissenting logic on the subject.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Saying "undeniable" is just a rhetorical ploy, a suggestion for the suggestible.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Saying "undeniable" is just a rhetorical ploy, a suggestion for the suggestible.

Right. It's like "undebatable" or "Proven beyond all doubt", etc. Then they have an excuse for not responding to challenges of their basic claims, like that "contrails don't persist" or "HBTF engines don't produce contrails". They have adopted those bits as "given" and totally beyond debate or something that "everybody knows".

 

[skephu]

"Very improbable" is rather subjective, what is that, 1 in 100? 1000?

The article actually calculates it and provides specific values. It even shows a map of the probability distribution. What I quoted is only the summary. Read the full paper for the details.

 

[MikeC]

From the article summary:

Persistent aerodynamic contrails are rare. Generally they occur with less than 10% probability, but more typically this probability is of the order 1 %. These values could indeed be even lower because aerodynamic contrails may well consist of metastable forms of ice (e.g. cubic or amorphous ice due to their special formation conditions which are similar to hyper-quenching of cold micron sized droplets in the laboratory).

And from the same section the probability maps (Fig 7) show 0.1 - 0.2 probability - that's 10-20%.

That doesn't seem rare.

 

[skephu]

From the article summary:

Persistent aerodynamic contrails are rare. Generally they occur with less than 10% probability, but more typically this probability is of the order 1 %. These values could indeed be even lower because aerodynamic contrails may well consist of metastable forms of ice (e.g. cubic or amorphous ice due to their special formation conditions which are similar to hyper-quenching of cold micron sized droplets in the laboratory).

And from the same section the probability maps (Fig 7) show 0.1 - 0.2 probability - that's 10-20%.

That doesn't seem rare.

You seem to be misreading the paper. We are talking about the coexistence of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails.
Fig. 7. shows the probability of this. It shows that this probability is negligible at 250 and 350 hPa, and is only possible at 450 hPa but only at latitudes higher than 40 degrees. Even there, the probability is less than 10%. However, Table 3 shows that less than 1% of actual flights has an exhaust contrail at 450 hPa. That means that less than 1/1000th of flights have a simultaneous aerodynamic and exhaust contrail.

 

[skephu]

It may be so for the persistent contrails, but those on the photos and video are just formed and may well dissipate within a few minutes or less. Indeed, in the OP video, only a small isolated patch remains at the distal end at 2:52 mark with earlier parts of the contrail having dissipated already.

You seem to be mixing up two issues, persistence of aerodynamic contrails, and coexistence of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails. The paper makes independent statements of these two phenomena. Both are rare independently, coexistence is the rarer one, regardless of persistence.

 

[Trailspotter]

You seem to be mixing up two issues, persistence of aerodynamic contrails, and coexistence of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails. The paper makes independent statements of these two phenomena. Both are rare independently, coexistence is the rarer one, regardless of persistence.

OK, I have re-read the paper and agree that these are independent statements. Which, incidentally, reminded me the quote that I've heard recently:

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
Albert Einstein

I read the authors' conclusion as (emphasis mine):
"Coexistence of aerodynamic contrails with exhaust contrails is possible but very improbable."

That is, the odds to see one at any given time and place may be very very small, but watching many many planes around the whole world over many years will produce a substantial number of positive observations.

 

[Mick West]

You seem to be misreading the paper. We are talking about the coexistence of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails.
Fig. 7. shows the probability of this. It shows that this probability is negligible at 250 and 350 hPa, and is only possible at 450 hPa but only at latitudes higher than 40 degrees. Even there, the probability is less than 10%. However, Table 3 shows that less than 1% of actual flights has an exhaust contrail at 450 hPa. That means that less than 1/1000th of flights have a simultaneous aerodynamic and exhaust contrail.

I've looked at thousands of contrails. I've never seen an aerodynamic contrail (that I recognized). They seem to be much more common in some parts of the world.

This may partly be based on air traffic. Other than very far in the distance I've never seen an identifiably large jet (777 size or larger, like 747 or A380) leave a contrail over Los Angeles. But it's also based on climate, as contrails forming at lower altitudes need colder weather. And indeed I'm not in the blue area in Fig 7.

I'd hardly say Fig 7 shows it's negligible at 350 hPa. Instead it shows there are thousands of places where it might happen.

 

[skephu]

I'd hardly say Fig 7 shows it's negligible at 350 hPa. Instead it shows there are thousands of places where it might happen.

The reason why it looks so "peppered" is that all values are very close to zero.

Because co-occurring aerodynamic and exhaust contrails are so rare, it would be important to know where and when Wigington's video was shot.
At certain times of the year and locations, such co-occurrence is possible while in other cases it can be ruled out.

 

[Mick West]

The reason why it looks so "peppered" is that all values are very close to zero.

It's the same blue (0.0 to 0.1) as covers the 450 hPa chart. As there's no gradation within that level it's hard to say what the levels are.

I would be very interested in some observational statistics, to see how well it correlates.

 

[skephu]

It's the same blue (0.0 to 0.1) as covers the 450 hPa chart. As there's no gradation within that level it's hard to say what the levels are.

Again, I suggest you read the text instead of just looking at the figures.
They write:

The map is very noisy for the 350 hPa level be-
cause the probability values are indeed close to zero, so exact
zero (white) and close to zero (light blue) appear randomly
distributed.

 

[Trailspotter]

The reason why it looks so "peppered" is that all values are very close to zero.

Because co-occurring aerodynamic and exhaust contrails are so rare, it would be important to know where and when Wigington's video was shot.
At certain times of the year and locations, such co-occurrence is possible while in other cases it can be ruled out.

Come on, the map in the paper is calculated from 2011 data and is likely to be different in fine details for a different year. Therefore, to rule out a case of a possible co-occurrence you would have to present the actual data on atmospheric conditions at the exact location and altitude and also to demonstrate in a controlled experiment that there can be no co-occurence at these precise conditions.

 

[deirdre]

sorry if this has been covered or is OT. but most of the videos I see with aerodynamic 'full wing' contails, they do 'come off the plane in sheets' just like Danes video. while the contrails, where applicable, stay solid. why is that?

berlin, aerodynamic and reg. contrails

aerodyne and regular A340

Brussels

fed ex b777

just aerodynamic (CT vid, sorry) in 'sheets'

 

[Mick West]

sorry if this has been covered or is OT. but most of the videos I see with aerodynamic 'full wing' contails, they do 'come off the plane in sheets' just like Danes video. while the contrails, where applicable, stay solid. why is that?

When a plane is cruising, the entire surface of the wing has a similar drop in pressure, so the aerodynamic contrail forms over the entire wing in a sheet.

When the plane is landing, the pressure drop is much greater in the vortices formed at the end of the flaps, so you generally see them there.

Exhaust contrails come from the engine, and roughly maintain their shape - just spreading out a bit initially.

 

[skephu]

Come on, the map in the paper is calculated from 2011 data and is likely to be different in fine details for a different year. Therefore, to rule out a case of a possible co-occurrence you would have to present the actual data on atmospheric conditions at the exact location and altitude and also to demonstrate in a controlled experiment that there can be no co-occurence at these precise conditions.

It still could be ruled out in some cases, e.g. if the plane flies near the equator where the probability is always zero.

 

[deirdre]

When a plane is cruising, the entire surface of the wing has a similar drop in pressure, so the aerodynamic contrail forms over the entire wing in a sheet.

so the sheets 'break up' ( on/off) behind the plane because the pressure fluctuates? or is it just because they are so thin and flimsy so get broken up by other factors?

 

[Mick West]

so the sheets 'break up' ( on/off) behind the plane because the pressure fluctuates? or is it just because they are so thin and flimsy so get broken up by other factors?

No, they break up because of variations in humidity in the air the plane is flying though. Kind of like:

 

[Trailspotter]

It still could be ruled out in some cases, e.g. if the plane flies near the equator where the probability is always zero.

Well, it is probably correct, but the pictures of any contrails taken near equator are also extremely rare, bordering non-existent. I have searched web for the images of co-occurrence of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails. There are not many of them too. The authors of the paper appear to be correct in the sense that such a co-occurence must be a rare event. But there is one interesting observation: the most of co-occurrences that I have found so far have been observed for large four-engine planes, like B747 or A380, whereas the parameters for aerodynamic contrail formations in the paper are derived for smaller planes, like B737 or A320. Thus there may be a flaw in the theory leading to an underestimation of the probability of co-occurrence.

Korean Air Airbus A380-800 with contrail (image from Wikipedia Japanese article on Contrail)