Debunked: Geoengineeringwatch.org "Trails coming from Nozzles" [C-5 with normal exhaust contrails]

[Mick West]

Geoengineeringwatch has been using this photo since 2011, and claim it shows "spraying" from "nozzles". It does not.


That photo in their masthead is repeated below, with captions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110429113313/http://geoengineeringwatch.org/

The original image was from Jack Tasker on Airliners.net

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-C-5B-Galaxy/1347672/L/ (http://archive.is/fA0td)

The suggestions that the contrail is coming from those "nozzles" is seems pretty ridiculous. It's looks exactly like a regular contrail coming from the engine. The "nozzles" are just flap track fairings. Some of them do kind of line up with the edges of some of the contrails, so you could maybe see how someone could be taken in by the suggestion. But the trails line up with all four engines, and look exactly like exhaust contrails.

Perhaps most importantly, there's a huge gap between the engine and the contrails. This shows that what is being "sprayed" can only be water. Engine exhaust has lots of water. So every single thing points to engine exhaust, making contrails.

The original photographer, Jack Tasker, comments:

I can assure you that the contrails in the photo are in fact simply condensation from the engine exhaust. We were flying a Boeing 757 from Honolulu to Las Vegas, and met up with this C-5 about half-way to the California coast. We were 1,000 ft below the C-5 and had an excellent view as we flew past them. As a pilot who has flown airliners for 17 years, I see this sort of view all the time, and I can assure anyone that it is nothing more than vapor in the engine exhaust condensing into contrails when the atmospheric conditions are right.

We had also met the C-5 crew in our hotel lobby, as they happened to be staying in the same Waikiki hotel that we were in. They took off first, but since they cruise at only Mach 0.77 and we cruise at Mach 0.80, we caught up with them after a few hours.

Here's some flap track fairings in operation. The fairing simply covers the flap mechanism, and also act as anti-shock bodies.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbus-Industrie/Airbus-A380-861/1237902/M/ (http://archive.is/gDFtU)

 

[MikeC]

I guess trying to explain "pespective" to them probably wouldn't help?

 

[Mick West]

Judging by the "mystery missile" fiasco, probably not. What's sad is that they make this photo their masthead, as if it's their best evidence.

Geoengineeringwatch is Mauro Oliveira, who organized a protest at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)'s "Can Geoengineering Save Us from Global Warming? conference in San Diego. Only about 15 people turned up.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/smattering-of-activists-protest.html

 

[Unregistered]

I'm the Jack Tasker who took the photo shown above in this thread. I'm going to have to read further to see what you folks are talking about with the Geoengineeringwatch.org site and so forth, since I don't know anything about it as of yet. But I found it odd to see my photo both here and on their site. I just stumbled across it after doing a google search of my name to see what might pop up.

I can assure you that the contrails in the photo are in fact simply condensation from the engine exhaust. We were flying a Boeing 757 from Honolulu to Las Vegas, and met up with this C-5 about half-way to the California coast. We were 1,000 ft below the C-5 and had an excellent view as we flew past them. As a pilot who has flown airliners for 17 years, I see this sort of view all the time, and I can assure anyone that it is nothing more than vapor in the engine exhaust condensing into contrails when the atmospheric conditions are right.

We had also met the C-5 crew in our hotel lobby, as they happened to be staying in the same Waikiki hotel that we were in. They took off first, but since they cruise at only Mach 0.77 and we cruise at Mach 0.80, we caught up with them after a few hours.

 

[Mick West]

Thanks Jack!

Metabunk is a debunking web site, a spin-off from contrailscience.com. We debunk things like the chemtrail conspiracy theory. Everyone posting in this thread so far knows they are just contrails, it's the incorrect usage of the image on geoengineeringwatch.org I was highlighting.

 

[Steve Funk]

For insomniacs, I see that Dane Wigington is going to be on Coast to Coast Radio tomorrow night, (Wed 3/13) from 10 pm to 2 am pacific time, 1 am to 5 am Thurs eastern time. I don't know whether they take calls.

 

[skephu]

Most frequently used words and phrases on geoengineeringwatch.org, ordered by the number of occurrences (based on the 35 most recent articles):

If you read this list, you will know what the web site is all about. All its articles are essentially just permutations of the phrases in the list.

 

[Mick West]

The top post here is from 2011, I'm bumping it as GEW is still using this image. I think they actually still think that it shows spraying.

 

[JDubyah]

With the help of MSPaint..

 

[mikam molecule]

While the facts and photo on this subject from Geoengineeringwatch.org are wrong Dale Wigington's concerns are very right. The terms "chemtrails" or "contrails" or "condensation trails" are misleading. These white tails from jet aircraft are minute ice crystals (snow) formed from steam and carbon dioxide - jet engine combustion products. They are more frequently formed in polluted atmospheres. During the 1990's high-altitude flight corridors for military operations were exchanged for the flight corridors for commercial aircraft and as a result there are more combustion products from jet engines in the high-altitude region of the stratosphere where ice crystals form. Furthermore, modern jet aircraft now have facilities for discharging waste water through the exhaust systems of the engines (rather than through the tail) and that also slightly enhances the conditions that produce these artificial long stratospheric clouds. I believe these changes were intentional to help with stratospheric cloud formation and offset global warming. This also explains why snow in the Antarctic has dramatically increased during the past 20 years or so.

 

[Henk001]

I believe these changes were intentional to help with stratospheric cloud formation and offset global warming. .

Contrail's have been calculated to have a net warming effect:
https://www.ann-geophys.net/17/1080/1999/angeo-17-1080-1999.pdf

At the top of the atmosphere, a mean contrail cover of 0.1% with average optical depth of 0.2 to 0.5 causes about 0.01 to 0.03 Wm)2 daily mean instantaneous radiative forcing

 

[Henk001]

This also explains why snow in the Antarctic has dramatically increased during the past 20 years or so.

Antarctic yearly precipitation is on average 166 mm (liquid equivalent)/m2. With an area of 14.2 km2 this means that 2.4x10^12 L of water falls yearly on Antarctica.
Aviation uses in the order of magnitude of 7 x 10^8 L of fuel daily, leading to 1.3x as much water exhaust. That means that globally per year aviation adds 3.3x10^11 L. Assuming this would be spread evenly around the globe Antarctica would recieve 2.7% of this, 9.3x10^9 L. This means that all aviation would only add 9.3x10^9 / 2.4x10^12 = 0.004 = 0.4% extra precipitation.
There is a better explanation for the increasing snowfall. Earth is warming, so more ocean water evaporates. Roughly for every 1 °C rise we get 7% more moisture, and hence more precipitation by about the same amount.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

Furthermore, modern jet aircraft now have facilities for discharging waste water through the exhaust systems of the engines (rather than through the tail)

Seems unlikely that they would put grey water "through the exhaust systems of the engines". Where did this come from?

 

[Cedtomcat]

Isn't the waste system of a plane sealed? If they where again allowed to dump it, they wouldn't bother spending time and money with ground pumping system.

 

[Henk001]

Furthermore, modern jet aircraft now have facilities for discharging waste water through the exhaust systems of the engines (rather than through the tail) and that also slightly enhances the conditions that produce these artificial long stratospheric clouds.

Waste water discharge during flight is forbidden; and technically impossible since the valve is on the outside. After the plane has landed ground personnel takes care of it. That is what I have been told. If anything has changed I would like to see a source on that. But even if it was true. The amount would be negligible compared with the 7 tonnes of water per hour from combustion of fuel

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

Certain waste goes overboard. I can't find the thread I was looking for but there are plenty like this:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/493509-unblocking-drain-mast.html?highlight=galley+waste

 

[Retired]

There is a difference in how the aircraft routes waste water from the lavatory sinks and the toilet system. The lavatory sinks, coffee makers, etc. are vented overboard, while the toilet system is self contained and "dumped" on the ground through a valve on the side of the aircraft.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/A320-Water_and_Waste.pdf

 

[Cedtomcat]

That explain the taste of the coffee if the water is used afterward to make chemtrail

Joke aside, the system exist but for something like less than 100 liters of water for a long flight...

 

[MikeC]

W Furthermore, modern jet aircraft now have facilities for discharging waste water through the exhaust systems of the engines (rather than through the tail) ....

I'm an aircraft mechanic.... never heard of such a thing, nor even of "rather through the tail".

AFAIK waste water from sinks and basins drains through small heated drain masts scattered across the airframe.

Waste water from condensation inside the fuselage is normally "guided" to the bottom of the fuselage and removed through small drains that are not visible unless you are looking for them quite hard - typically this occurs when the airliner is parked because most condensation occurs when a cold airliner descends into warmer lower altitudes.