Florida Contrails and Flight Tracking

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Joe,
You can get the actual flight track data from Flight Explorer for any day going back ten years. Many "chemtrail" sightings, if properly documented, could e completely studied if [you] wanted to do so. Yes, they might say, "but this is Governent data", wellmaybe so, but probably 98% of all so called "chemtrails" come from jets which file flight plans and land at airports discharging passengers. If you want real data, it has always been available. Michael J. Murphy didn't mention that in his movie, but he als didn't mention that the jet he showed is easiy identifiable as a Cargolux jet, not a military plane.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
You'd also need to spend a few hundred million dollars on getting the system up and running, and then millions yearly in operating costs. Nobody want to pay that, so nobody is going to do it. Especially when the benefits are so uncertain.

If you send more airplanes into the same airspace all looking for non-ice supersaturated air, you increase the load on controllers and restrict already ever more crowded airspace. Some chemtrail believers wish worse on these planes though. Here's a little video I put together to illustrate the problem:

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You'd also need to spend a few hundred million dollars on getting the system up and running, and then millions yearly in operating costs. Nobody want to pay that, so nobody is going to do it. Especially when the benefits are so uncertain.
I don't think everyone believes it requires such an elaborate system . . . more of just the will to do what is needed . . .


http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/62196/Lovegren_ICAT-2011.pdf?sequence=1


Results showed that a maximum fuel burn reduction of 3.5% is possible in cruise given complete altitude and speed optimization; this represents 2.6% fuel reduction system-wide, corresponding to 300 billion gallons of jet fuel and 3.2 million tons of saved annually. Flights showed a larger potential to improve speed performance, with nearly 2.4% savings possible from speed optimization compared to 1.5% for altitude optimization. Few barriers exist to some of the strategies such as step climbs and lower speeds, making them attractive in the near term. As barriers are minimized, speed and altitude trajectory enhancements promise to improve the environmental performance of the aviation industry with relative ease.
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If you send more airplanes into the same airspace all looking for non-ice supersaturated air, you increase the load on controllers and restrict already ever more crowded airspace. Some chemtrail believers wish worse on these planes though. Here's a little video I put together to illustrate the problem:

God forbid someone would hire a few more air controllers to help reduce persistent contrails, contrail induced cirrus and potential climate change . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
God forbid someone would hire a few more air controllers to help reduce persistent contrails, contrail induced cirrus and potential climate change . . .

Who? How many? At what cost? And what would be the cost of the contrail region detections system? How much would it reduce those things?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
God forbid someone would hire a few more air controllers to help reduce persistent contrails, contrail induced cirrus and potential climate change . . .

God forbid the first mid-air collision blamed on a contrail avoidance dictatum. Your link speaks of the conflicts of just the step climb around page 85. Would you penalize the airline if they made a contrail? You make it sound really easy, George. Like James Bond again.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'd be totally in favor of no persisting contrails - but it's a cost/benefit thing. There's just no clear indication that the costs outweigh the benefits.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
God forbid the first mid-air collision blamed on a contrail avoidance dictatum. Your link speaks of the conflicts of just the step climb around page 85. Would you penalize the airline if they made a contrail? You make it sound really easy, George. Like James Bond again.
If they are recommending steps to save fuel and flight time under existing conditions I think contrail avoidance based on known projections are just as reasonable . . . they are not talking about sudden changes based on immediate observed conditions we are talking about a planned flight plan programmed in the autopilot function . . .

Aircraft Trajectory Optimization and Contrails Avoidance in the Presence of WindsBanavar Sridhar*
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
Hok K. Ng†
University of California, Santa Cruz, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 and
Neil Y. Chen‡
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
There are indications that persistent contrails can lead to adverse climate change, although the complete effect on climate forcing is still uncertain. A flight trajectory optimization algorithm with fuel and contrails models, which develops alternative flight paths, provides policy makers the necessary data to make tradeoffs between persistent contrails mitigation and aircraft fuel consumption. This study develops an algorithm that calculates wind-optimal trajectories for cruising aircraft while avoiding the regions of airspace prone to persistent contrails formation. The optimal trajectories are developed by solving a non-linear optimal control problem with path constraints. The regions of airspace favorable to persistent contrails formation are modeled as penalty areas that aircraft should avoid and are adjustable. The tradeoff between persistent contrails formation and additional fuel consumption is investigated, with and without altitude optimization, for 12 city-pairs in the continental United States. Without altitude optimization, the reduction in contrail travel times is gradual with increase in total fuel consumption. When altitude is optimized, a two percent increase in total fuel consumption can reduce the total travel times through contrail regions by more than six times. Allowing further increase in fuel consumption does not seem to result in proportionate decrease in contrail travel times.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110008150_2011007211.pdf
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If they are recommending steps to save fuel and flight time under existing conditions I think contrail avoidance based on known projections are just as reasonable . . . they are not talking about sudden changes based on immediate observed conditions we are talking about a planned flight plan programmed in the autopilot function . . .

Aircraft Trajectory Optimization and Contrails Avoidance in the Presence of WindsBanavar Sridhar*
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
Hok K. Ng†
University of California, Santa Cruz, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 and
Neil Y. Chen‡
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
There are indications that persistent contrails can lead to adverse climate change, although the complete effect on climate forcing is still uncertain. A flight trajectory optimization algorithm with fuel and contrails models, which develops alternative flight paths, provides policy makers the necessary data to make tradeoffs between persistent contrails mitigation and aircraft fuel consumption. This study develops an algorithm that calculates wind-optimal trajectories for cruising aircraft while avoiding the regions of airspace prone to persistent contrails formation. The optimal trajectories are developed by solving a non-linear optimal control problem with path constraints. The regions of airspace favorable to persistent contrails formation are modeled as penalty areas that aircraft should avoid and are adjustable. The tradeoff between persistent contrails formation and additional fuel consumption is investigated, with and without altitude optimization, for 12 city-pairs in the continental United States. Without altitude optimization, the reduction in contrail travel times is gradual with increase in total fuel consumption. When altitude is optimized, a two percent increase in total fuel consumption can reduce the total travel times through contrail regions by more than six times. Allowing further increase in fuel consumption does not seem to result in proportionate decrease in contrail travel times.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110008150_2011007211.pdf
Content from External Source

I think this is something that may happen eventually, but you actually need a computerized ATC first, which is a quite a ways off. It's also not without cost. It also assumes perfect contrail region prediction from the RUC, which seems unlikely. And from a visual POV it does not fully remove contrails, just (in theory) 80%.

I don't think that fact that it has not been done is because of anything other than those factors. Cost alone seems enough to prevent adoption.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think this is something that may happen eventually, but you actually need a computerized ATC first, which is a quite a ways off. It's also not without cost. It also assumes perfect contrail region prediction from the RUC, which seems unlikely. And from a visual POV it does not fully remove contrails, just (in theory) 80%.

I don't think that fact that it has not been done is because of anything other than those factors. Cost alone seems enough to prevent adoption.
While full implementation may be presently difficult I see no reason for some small test demonstrations not to be attempted . . . it would at least show a desire to participate in some type of mitigation process . . . something the operational industry has yet to do at all . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
While full implementation may be presently difficult I see no reason for some small test demonstrations not to be attempted . . . it would at least show a desire to participate in some type of mitigation process . . . something the operational industry has yet to do at all . . .

Who are "the operational industry"?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Who are "the operational industry"?
I would say within the US the FAA and Department of Transportation . . . in cooperation with common carriers say in the Florida flight corridor or any other regional area chosen as a demonstration.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would say within the US the FAA and Department of Transportation . . . in cooperation with common carriers say in the Florida flight corridor or any other regional area chosen as a demonstration.

And why would you think they would do this?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And why would you think they would do this?

Because they care about the planet and want the public to know they care . . . also they are just nice people . . . LoL!!!

No . . . public or political pressure is the only motivation . . . the same reason we have catalytic converters on all passenger vehicles in the US except of course for motorcycles and I suspect diesel trucks . . . the reason DoE, NASA, NOAA, etc have been spending all the time and money studying contrails over the decades . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Like I said, I think it will happen eventually, but they need the computerized ATC system first.

There's just no significant harm being done by it, like there was for car engine emissions. It's a visual thing, and a very minor (and uncertain) factor in climate change.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Like I said, I think it will happen eventually, but they need the computerized ATC system first.

There's just no significant harm being done by it, like there was for car engine emissions. It's a visual thing, and a very minor (and uncertain) factor in climate change.
Possibly . . . however, it has been studied to death . . . it is time for a pilot program (pun intended) . . . the government does it all the time . . . I was directly involved with one multi-million pilot study myself . . . why not now??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Possibly . . . however, it has been studied to death . . . it is time for a pilot program (pun intended) . . . the government does it all the time . . . I was directly involved with one multi-million pilot study myself . . . why not now??

Intertia. Of maybe the illuminati is holding it back so they can continue to use contrails as a cover for spraying their secret geoengineering?

Nah, I'll go with inertia. There's just no reason that's compelling to the politicians to push for this. The airline industry would not want it, and ATC is falling apart as it is. There are bigger fish to fry.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Intertia. Of maybe the illuminati is holding it back so they can continue to use contrails as a cover for spraying their secret geoengineering?

Nah, I'll go with inertia. There's just no reason that's compelling to the politicians to push for this. The airline industry would not want it, and ATC is falling apart as it is. There are bigger fish to fry.
I think the Chemtrail conspiracy is taking some heat off them . . . as long as the most vocal people blame the NWO or TPTB for the crap in the skies they (airline industry) don't have to take responsibility for the mess . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think the Chemtrail conspiracy is taking some heat off them . . . as long as the most vocal people blame the NWO or TPTB for the crap in the skies they (airline industry) don't have to take responsibility for the mess . . .

I think you overestimate the influence of the conspiracy theorists, as they themselves do. There's really not that many, and they are generally just ignored.

The average person is totally oblivious to the "crap in the skies"
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think you overestimate the influence of the conspiracy theorists, as they themselves do. There's really not that many, and they are generally just ignored.

The average person is totally oblivious to the "crap in the skies"
Possibly, I don't know if there is an easy way to gage their impact, maybe you should consult Jay on that issue . . . most people are oblivious about most issues . . .
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
Possibly, I don't know if there is an easy way to gage their impact . . . most people are oblivious about most issues . . .

And on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those who are completely aware of things/issues that don't exist.
 
J

Joe

Guest
And on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those who are completely aware of things/issues that don't exist.
Or we see things that appear to be similar to what they are planning or discussing ? Effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo-engineeringon cirrus clouds . Im sure Mick has the PDF from Ken Caldeira ?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Or we see things that appear to be similar to what they are planning or discussing ? Effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo-engineeringon cirrus clouds . Im sure Mick has the PDF from Ken Caldeira ?

That paper
indicates that hypothetical sulfate releases would actually reduce, not increase cirrus formation.
We find that enhanced stratospheric aerosol loadings as proposed by several GE approaches will likely lead to a reduced ice crystal nucleation rate and thus optically thinner cirrus clouds. These optically thinner cirrus clouds exert a strong negative cloud forcing in the long-wave which contributes by 60% to the overall net GE forcing.
Content from External Source
 
J

Joe

Guest

That paper
indicates that hypothetical sulfate releases would actually reduce, not increase cirrus formation.
We find that enhanced stratospheric aerosol loadings as proposed by several GE approaches will likely lead to a reduced ice crystal nucleation rate and thus optically thinner cirrus clouds. These optically thinner cirrus clouds exert a strong negative cloud forcing in the long-wave which contributes by 60% to the overall net GE forcing.
Content from External Source
hypothetical sulfate releases ? How might they get that hypothetical sulfate releases up into the stratosphere ?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You don't have to get hypothetical sulphates into the stratosphere - being hypothetical means you can ignore small matters like how it might be done, and go straight to "What would it achieve if it was done?":rolleyes:
 
J

Joe

Guest
You don't have o get hypothetical sulphates into the stratosphere - being hypothetical means you can ignore small matters like how it might be done, and go straight to "What would it achieve if it was done?":rolleyes:
hypothetically, How much iron could you dump in the ocean to cause a massive algae bloom ? They would of course never do that ? :)
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
hypothetically, How much iron could you dump in the ocean to cause a massive algae bloom ? They would of course never do that ? :)
Well, he made your case, Mike. Don't know what he means by massive, or how this relates to airplanes or painting buildings white. Maybe you have to connect the dots more loosely?

Chemtrails Logic.JPG
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, he made your case, Mike. Don't know what he means by massive, or how this relates to airplanes or painting buildings white. Maybe you have to connect the dots more loosely?

Chemtrails Logic.JPG
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/66...-Covert-Atmospheric-Aerosol-Injection-Program

If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program [ICAAIP]. . . I would do the following . . .
-------------
MY CHOICE: GEOENGINEERING using Sulfur injection

For the purposes of this Thread I am going to choose the mission of Geoengineering and Sulfur Compounds as the substances used in the intentional covert atmospheric aerosol injection program (ICAAIP) . . . though many others have been speculated. . . .Sulfur Compound Injection appears to be the most effective, is an additive to existing natural processes like volcanic eruptions, the easiest to pull off and has the most data and research available to the public . . .
--------------
TO ACCOMPLISH an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program (ICAAIP), I would do the following . . .

1) Pick my objectives, goals and mission . . . In this case . . . I Pick: geoengineering using sulfur compounds injected into the stratosphere to alter the rate of global climate change
2) access the technical capabilities at my disposal, review the history, scientific knowledge, locate the experts, retain those experts needed and identify any potential individuals or organizations that could blow the whistle on my activities and strategize ways to marginalize and/or neutralize them . . .
3) Leverage any pre-existing practices to accomplish my purposes without risk . . . Such as . . . encourage the use of high sulfur jet fuels or at least keep the maximum allowable concentration of sulfur (3,000 ppm) as high as possible as long as possible . . .
4) access the security risks and develop the policies and measures that would be necessary
5) project the infrastructure, budget, timeline, probabilities of success versus risks of discovery, identify all legal and criminal liabilities
6) do computer simulations and experimental prototyping
7) procure infrastructure for implementation, buy land and necessary facilities, contract supplies, aircraft, personnel, and all other needs prior to deployment, develop cover stories for all activities and minimize information to "need to know, only"
8) develop and test the capability in small test runs
9) rehearse methods of concealment and strategies to respond if discovered . . Develop .contingencies to evade discovery, misdirection, etc.
10) Implement small scale operation and evaluate outcome
11) implement full scale operations
12) Monitor procedures, process, impact and maintain security . . . neutralize any threat to operations, periodically measure outcome and
metrics of success . . .
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
Well, he made your case, Mike. Don't know what he means by massive, or how this relates to airplanes or painting buildings white. Maybe you have to connect the dots more loosely?

Chemtrails Logic.JPG
ha ha seen it already but it was in German .Who does YT research ? I joined Geoengineering google groups a while ago .
 
J

Joe

Guest
Hypothetically - 100 tons I reckon.



Who is they?

And hypothetically, why are you changing the subject again?
Im not changing the subject . Its all geoengineering , Just proving my point that sometimes Geoengineering plans do Happen ! Continuing off Noble65 Quote . Im sure you know about the rouge geoengineer ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Im not changing the subject . Its all geoengineering , Just proving my point that sometimes Geoengineering plans do Happen ! Continuing off Noble65 Quote . Im sure you know about the rouge geoengineer ?

It's all geoengineering, but it's not all planes spraying stuff. Ocean fertilization is not really related to the topic, any more that people painting their roofs white, which is also geoengineering.
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
It's all geoengineering, but it's not all planes spraying stuff. Ocean fertilization is not really related to the topic, any more that people painting their roofs white, which is also geoengineering.
Mick I just got a call from someone traveling in Veira just north of here says the skies are filled with CONTRAILS yet its clear here ? Thats back on topic :) and Jays picture from Germany is OK ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick I just got a call from someone traveling in Veira just north of here says the skies are filled with CONTRAILS yet its clear here ? Thats back on topic :)

It's not different to it being cloudy there but clear where you are. How far away are they? If you go outside and look in that direction, can you see clouds?

Check out today's satellite image
http://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/


and Jays picture from Germany is OK ?
Not really, but y'all responded to it good-naturedly , so I'll let it be
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
It's not different to it being cloudy there but clear where you are. How far away are they? If you go outside and look in that direction, can you see clouds?

Check out today's satellite image
http://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/



Not really, but y'all responded to it good-naturedly , so I'll let it be
50 miles North of here . yea there are clouds and some contrail cirrus but most of the trails disappear quickly .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fred259

New Member
It's all geoengineering, but it's not all planes spraying stuff. Ocean fertilization is not really related to the topic, any more that people painting their roofs white, which is also geoengineering.

…........ditto...... The Thule runway is painted white with red centrelines to prevent the absorbed heat damaging the permafrost.

571681_med.jpg


Thule AFB 76N


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top