I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[Noble1965]

Listen - the more nuclei present in a jet emission the more initial nucleation takes place - yes, and if there's more nuclei still in the atmosphere plus all the other necessary conditions: hpa, rhi (in the case of cirrus) temp/dewpoint etc. then you've got clouds. The point to this discussion is that it's definitely the aircraft making the clouds. They do it quite a lot - have you noticed it? The aircraft passing overhead are creating cloud cover on a very regular basis where I come from. You say in some other post that I'm not interested in the subject - only in arguing. Listen, you think what you like, and I'm sure you'll continue to do just that, but if anyone who lived in one of the world's largest cities, looked up a bit and saw that his/her sunlight was being seriously compromised by the passage of aircraft - then wouldn't that be of the utmost interest to, well, anyone? Maybe I should say, 'anyone with an idea?'

OMG!!! Clouds!!!

RUN AWAY!!!

That's absolute proof that there is a spray program! Not...

And please show me evidence that your "sunlight was being seriously compromised by the passage of aircraft". Please show me evidence that the loss of sunlight has harmed you in any way. Please tell me what you are doing about natural clouds when they seriously compromise your sunlight. Honestly...a few trails here and there...and it's that much of a problem?! Show me that you are in the shadow of such trails at ANY time...

I'm not buying it.

To me, it just sounds like you feel you have the right to see blue skies whenever you want, and you are angry at the airlines for making contrails and you are USING the "chemtrail" urban legend to get others onboard.

They are contrails and there is no evidence that they are intentional and there is no evidence that they are anything more than a byproduct of aviation.

Honestly, if you people care so much about the LOOK of these trails, what makes you think that spreading a conspiracy theory about the trails will make them disappear? You need to fight them for what they actually ARE...and get people to join the campaign against CONTRAILS.

Aligning yourself with the conspiracy nuts only assures that the trails will NEVER go away. They will just be dismissed as something "crazy" people believe.

 

[George B]

The program is in my opinion a combination of leverage. . . it is a matrix of the knowledge of pre-existing natural and anthropomorphic activities supplemented by activities to gain some pre-establish objective. . .

1) The overseers could have influenced policy to not mitigate persistent contrails . . . Seeking to propagate as much contrails and contrail induced cirrus as possible
2) They could have influenced the decision to slow roll the tightening of the sulfur maximum content of jet fuel which has remained at 3,000 ppm while other standards have been lowered to levels in the double digits. . . .
3) The above activities could help mask any activity which may have been visible by increasing the confusion in the skies. . . If I do inject aerosols . . .which one of the hundreds up there is the real Chemtrail. . .And if it is sulfur I am adding . . .I expect some to be there anyway. . .

Funny, In all the give and take the above points were never discussed or any attempt to debunk . . . any takers . . . .??

 

[Noble1965]

Funny, In all the give and take the above points were never discussed or any attempt to debunk . . . any takers . . . .??

Who needs to argue the points?

Your use of the words "could" and "my opinion"...says it all.

Besides, haven't these things already been sufficiently "debunked"?!

Above that, you haven't presented anything more than speculation...There is nothing to actually "debunk"...you've made no specific claims.

 

[George B]

Who needs to argue the points?

Your use of the words "could" and "my opinion"...says it all.

Besides, haven't these things already been sufficiently "debunked"?!

Above that, you haven't presented anything more than speculation...There is nothing to actually "debunk"...you've made no specific claims.

Now you are making an issue of a qualified statement. . . .as gravity is a natural law but "could possibly be overcome"and may not be a law at all . . . some Hindu Masters claim to be able to levitate . . . please Noble decide
what you want. . . Certainty or conditional statements . . . I can use either method of statement . ..

 

[lee h oswald]

Edward Bernays, inventor of Bacon and Eggs.

I keep meaning to to write about him, as a friend keeps bringing him up on facebook. He's kind of the Tesla of PR in conspiracy circles.

Bacon and Eggs! Who would a thunk it? Yes. How benign. It just goes to show how easily led people are, doesn't it? There's plenty of examples of Bernays' methods much less 'smiley' worthy, in my opinion. I've never been a big 'smiley' fan though. But then, I'm just a deluded 'conspiracy theorist', every naysayer's favourite perjorative (aka: incorrect use of language). Do you refuse to be able to see, to the point of skeptopathy, that some people, perhaps motivated by their own interests, might use knowledge they had ownership of to pull a fast one; you know, use exclusive knowledge to their own advantage.
It's interesting you mention Tesla - is that the same genius Tesla who died a pauper, had his inventions hi-jacked, funding withdrawn by JP Morgan and others (the same JP Morgan who attempted a nazi style coup against FDR in 1934) for reasons not so clear but the subject of much conjecture? You talking about that Tesla? You arbitrarily mock people who might research alternative history. You show great bias in the way you relate this information as compared to say, NIST. They are, ofcourse, to be trusted absolutely. It's absurd.

It just doesn't happen like that, ha ha, it's just a fantasy to think like that. You probably need help. I could say the same thing about robot bats, or was it cats? We're talking the inventor of Bacon and Eggs here! You're nuts and you called me a nazi again.

Is that about the timbre of the piece you had in mind?

 

[Noble1965]

Now you are making an issue of a qualified statement. . . .as gravity is a natural law but "could possibly be overcome"and may not be a law at all . . . some Hindu Masters claim to be able to levitate . . . please Noble decide
what you want. . . Certainty or conditional statements . . . I can use either method of statement . ..

Apparently you haven't been paying much attention to what I've been writing all these months.

It's the statements of fact that I object to...personally.

Such as:
"chemtrails are real"

or:

) The overseers have influenced policy to not mitigate persistent contrails . . . Seeking to propagate as much contrails and contrail induced cirrus as possible
2) They have influenced the decision to slow roll the tightening of the sulfur maximum content of jet fuel which has remained at 3,000 ppm while other standards have been lowered to levels in the double digits. . . .
3) The above activities help mask any activity which may have been visible by increasing the confusion in the skies. . . If I do inject aerosols . . .which one of the hundreds up there is the real Chemtrail. . .And if it is sulfur I am adding . . .I expect some to be there anyway. . .

Go ahead and believe anything you want...it's the indoctrination that offends me.

Besides, as I've stated...I believe these things have already been covered.

Oh well, continue to argue these points if you wish. You don't have much more anyway. At least from what I can tell.

 

[lee h oswald]

OMG!!! Clouds!!!

RUN AWAY!!!

That's absolute proof that there is a spray program! Not...

And please show me evidence that your "sunlight was being seriously compromised by the passage of aircraft". Please show me evidence that the loss of sunlight has harmed you in any way. Please tell me what you are doing about natural clouds when they seriously compromise your sunlight. Honestly...a few trails here and there...and it's that much of a problem?! Show me that you are in the shadow of such trails at ANY time...

I'm not buying it.

To me, it just sounds like you feel you have the right to see blue skies whenever you want, and you are angry at the airlines for making contrails and you are USING the "chemtrail" urban legend to get others onboard.

They are contrails and there is no evidence that they are intentional and there is no evidence that they are anything more than a byproduct of aviation.

Honestly, if you people care so much about the LOOK of these trails, what makes you think that spreading a conspiracy theory about the trails will make them disappear? You need to fight them for what they actually ARE...and get people to join the campaign against CONTRAILS.

Aligning yourself with the conspiracy nuts only assures that the trails will NEVER go away. They will just be dismissed as something "crazy" people believe.

Whether you want to say 'OMG!', or not, and that is your choice, I would say that cloud cover and hours of sunshine are pretty basic factors in the existence of everything, including you - would you not even agree with that? The fact that on a third to a half of the days of the year where I am, the sky is sooner or later covered with aircraft emissions, is a serious issue. If you don't think that if up to or around 35-50% of days are seriously affected by aircraft emissions is a serious issue - it's all: Yah! Boo! HAAA! Then what are you doing here? Surely, if it's all such ridiculousness, then why waste so much time on it? I look forward to your stock answer.

 

[MikeC]

Are all of those clouds caused by aircraft emisions? Are you saying there has never been any naturalcloud where you are at all??

 

[Noble1965]

Whether you want to say 'OMG!', or not, and that is your choice, I would say that cloud cover and hours of sunshine are pretty basic factors in the existence of everything, including you - would you not even agree with that? The fact that on a third to a half of the days of the year where I am, the sky is sooner or later covered with aircraft emissions, is a serious issue. If you don't think that if up to or around 35-50% of days are seriously affected by aircraft emissions is a serious issue - it's all: Yah! Boo! HAAA! Then what are you doing here? Surely, if it's all such ridiculousness, then why waste so much time on it? I look forward to your stock answer.

Again, I have seen NO EVIDENCE that anything/anyone has suffered for lack of sunlight. Have you? I am fully aware of the basic requirements of sunlight. Please provide the statistics that show there isn't enough sunshine hitting the ground. PLEASE!

Please tell me how you came up with that figure, 35-50%. And also, show me that on those days, there isn't ENOUGH sunlight to sustain life. We aren't talking total darkness here.

WHAT "serious affect" are these trails having..and where is the proof? Show me that anything deposited into the atmosphere from airplanes is any more harmful to humans than the trillions of sources of pollution down here at ground level.

You have made statements of fact, and I see NOTHING presented to back them up. I wonder why.

My answer is NOT a "stock answer" it's the truth as I understand it. I see NOTHING presented to lead me to think otherwise.

Fair warning, I don't appreciate your rude tone.

Get off of your high horse.

 

[Mick West]

Bacon and Eggs! Who would a thunk it? Yes. How benign. It just goes to show how easily led people are, doesn't it? There's plenty of examples of Bernays' methods much less 'smiley' worthy, in my opinion. I've never been a big 'smiley' fan though. But then, I'm just a deluded 'conspiracy theorist', every naysayer's favourite perjorative (aka: incorrect use of language). Do you refuse to be able to see, to the point of skeptopathy, that some people, perhaps motivated by their own interests, might use knowledge they had ownership of to pull a fast one; you know, use exclusive knowledge to their own advantage.
It's interesting you mention Tesla - is that the same genius Tesla who died a pauper, had his inventions hi-jacked, funding withdrawn by JP Morgan and others (the same JP Morgan who attempted a nazi style coup against FDR in 1934) for reasons not so clear but the subject of much conjecture? You talking about that Tesla? You arbitrarily mock people who might research alternative history. You show great bias in the way you relate this information as compared to say, NIST. They are, ofcourse, to be trusted absolutely. It's absurd.

It just doesn't happen like that, ha ha, it's just a fantasy to think like that. You probably need help. I could say the same thing about robot bats, or was it cats? We're talking the inventor of Bacon and Eggs here! You're nuts and you called me a nazi again.

Is that about the timbre of the piece you had in mind?

No. My point was that Bernay's history has been greatly distorted in the same way that Tesla's has. Bernay did NOT invent bacon and eggs - it had always been a popular breakfast. He simply organized a clever publicity campaign to promote one particular brand of bacon.

Like Tesla he was an adroit self-publicist. Much of what is repeated about him is simply his own claims about himself and his importance (sometimes second hand, through his daughter). Tesla was just a clear inventor who degenerated into a mad scientists. Bernays was just a pioneering PR guy with some odd ideas about manipulating public opinion for the common good.

But this should be a separate thread. If you want to continue discussing it, I'll move the posts over.

 

[lee h oswald]

Lee, A. C. Griffith has been proven to be a liar, a man who is willingto inflate his own qualifications, to make unsupported claims, and to alter ordinary images and text grabbed from online and portrayed as "insider" information. I exposed him many years ago, and here is what I found:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails

It's not an "issue for the establishment" in any way.

It was just one more element of the chemtrails hoax which you promote.

You just don't read what I write. I didn't promote AC Griffith in any way shape or form, unless you can show to the contrary where exactly I did that - unless you include mentioning his name, which clearly makes you a bit cross for some reason. Your personal attack is just another in a long line. What motivates someone like you? I shudder to think. How's the poetry coming along?

Look Jay, you've previously said that you are proud of your country (the US) as 'the foremost defender of freedom (or was it Freedom?) in the entire world'. Your analysis here appears a little askew to me. Maybe it extends to other subjects too. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't write in your head what you wanted me to write to fulfill your idea of me. Maybe your definition of freedom isn't the same as mine.

Oh yes, and one old score (it's that memory of mine, just keeps track of all the contradictions and nonsense like you wouldn't believe - no really - even you wouldn't believe it, and we know how susceptible you are): Just before I got the Mick MetaAxe, I spoke up to protest that a post of yours had been edited for reasons of 'politeness', by Mick. After I was booted you spoke up with a spirited defence of Mick and how he was right to edit your post and that I should never speak up for you again - remember? I do. Well, listen Jay, I wasn't speaking up for you, I was speaking up for a principle. That you specifically might have benefitted from 'free' speech was not my point. I do hope you know that already. I am though beginning to see you as a bit of a lame duck in all this. You're out of legs.

 

[lee h oswald]

No. My point was that Bernay's history has been greatly distorted in the same way that Tesla's has. Bernay did NOT invent bacon and eggs - it had always been a popular breakfast. He simply organized a clever publicity campaign to promote one particular brand of bacon.

Like Tesla he was an adroit self-publicist. Much of what is repeated about him is simply his own claims about himself and his importance (sometimes second hand, through his daughter). Tesla was just a clear inventor who degenerated into a mad scientists. Bernays was just a pioneering PR guy with some odd ideas about manipulating public opinion for the common good.

But this should be a separate thread. If you want to continue discussing it, I'll move the posts over.

History has always been greatly distorted, usually by the writer.

You can't really say any of those things about character unless you were present; eg. Tesla turned into a 'mad scientist' - not to put too fine a point on it, and at risk of breaking the 'politeness' barrier - how the fuck do you know that? You're just believing the version you want to - it's the same with all the rest here, subjects and participants alike....
Tesla was 'just' a scientist; Bernays 'just' a 'pioneering' PR guy. That's a poor and telling appraisal of two significant figures.

 

[Billzilla]

Sure. Aviation induced cloudiness has been steadily increasing since the 1950s. Here's a 1980 news report discussing just that:

FWIW aircraft have been making clear contrails since at least WW2 - Take a look at some of the old photos and the big radials they used up high were just warm enough to make thin contrails from the bombers, in the right conditions.
I have also heard (anecdote, so don't quote me as a fact) that in the Vietnam war the US fighter pilots were given two altitudes for each sortie - The upper one was the point at which they'd start making contrails and the lower one was where they'd start making wingtip trails when pulling high-G's, both of which make the aeroplane stand out against the background quite prominently.

 

[lee h oswald]

1. Are all of those clouds caused by aircraft emisions?

2 Are you saying there has never been any naturalcloud where you are at all??

1. Yes, I'd have thought it's pretty clear that all the clouds we are talking about here on this thread are caused by aircraft emissions. That's what we're talking about. That's kind of the point of the discussion.

2. No. Where did I say that? Or even imply it.

3. These are ridiculous questions.

 

[George B]

Again, I have seen NO EVIDENCE that anything/anyone has suffered for lack of sunlight. Have you? I am fully aware of the basic requirements of sunlight. Please provide the statistics that show there isn't enough sunshine hitting the ground. PLEASE!

Please tell me how you came up with that figure, 35-50%. And also, show me that on those days, there isn't ENOUGH sunlight to sustain life. We aren't talking total darkness here.


WHAT "serious affect" are these trails having..and where is the proof? Show me that anything deposited into the atmosphere from airplanes is any more harmful to humans than the trillions of sources of pollution down here at ground level.

You have made statements of fact, and I see NOTHING presented to back them up. I wonder why.

My answer is NOT a "stock answer" it's the truth as I understand it. I see NOTHING presented to lead me to think otherwise.


Fair warning, I don't appreciate your rude tone.

Get off of your high horse.

"Some climate scientists have theorized that aircraft contrails (also called vapor trails) are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic previously meant that this could not be tested. The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a unique opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C (1.8 °F) was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought.[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

 

[Mick West]

History has always been greatly distorted, usually by the writer.

You can't really say any of those things about character unless you were present; eg. Tesla turned into a 'mad scientist' - not to put too fine a point on it, and at risk of breaking the 'politeness' barrier - how the fuck do you know that? You're just believing the version you want to - it's the same with all the rest here, subjects and participants alike....
Tesla was 'just' a scientist; Bernays 'just' a 'pioneering' PR guy. That's a poor and telling appraisal of two significant figures.

By "just" I mean that that was the extent of things, not a belittling. Being a clever inventor is amazing, being the pioneer of many of the modern PR techniques is amazing. Both were very impressive individuals. But that's were it ends. There's just no evidence that Tesla had discovered anything that has remained hidden since his death. And while the government uses PR to try to change public opinion - this is hardly news.

The conspiracy culture though has a very unusual world view, and it fits that world view better if those men were somehow an integral part of the conspiracy.

Consider the bacon and eggs story. Did you ever consider that that might be somewhat exaggerated? Did you ever look into how popular bacon and eggs were as a breakfast at around that time? Or what was the quantitive change in their popularity? Of did the story just fit your preconception of Bernays, master manipulator of the American public?

How do you even know what you know about Bernays? Consider that. Where does that info come from, ultimately?

 

[Mick West]

"Some climate scientists have theorized that aircraft contrails (also called vapor trails) are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic previously meant that this could not be tested. The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a unique opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C (1.8 °F) was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought.[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Nobody here is denying aviation induced cloudiness.

Noble was asking lee what the "serious effect" was that is a "serious issue".

I don't think he was referring to a slight decrease in diurnal temperatur variation.

I also don't think the issue is if we should or should not do something about persistent contrails. The issue is chemtails - and if they exist or not.

 

[Spongebob]

Most of the UK is covered by natural cloud (usually grey) for most of the year.

Why the need for "artificial" clouds?

 

[Noble1965]

"Some climate scientists have theorized that aircraft contrails (also called vapor trails) are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic previously meant that this could not be tested. The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a unique opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C (1.8 °F) was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought.[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

That isn't what I asked for.

I'm well aware of what some scientists discovered after 9/11. There is also suggestion that the atmospheric conditions during those days would have allowed for the same results, with or without aircraft traffic.

Now, show me who/what was affected. Show me the evidence that 35-50% of the days are are seriously affected by aircraft emissions...and that it's a "serious issue".

By the way, we are STILL talking about contrails...not "chemtrails"....And no, I don't care about the fact that you personally classify contrails as "chemtrails". The rest of the world knows they are contrails.

 

[George B]

FWIW aircraft have been making clear contrails since at least WW2 - Take a look at some of the old photos and the big radials they used up high were just warm enough to make thin contrails from the bombers, in the right conditions.
I have also heard (anecdote, so don't quote me as a fact) that in the Vietnam war the US fighter pilots were given two altitudes for each sortie - The upper one was the point at which they'd start making contrails and the lower one was where they'd start making wingtip trails when pulling high-G's, both of which make the aeroplane stand out against the background quite prominently.

They are on an increase . . . simple . . .

http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/aviation05downloads/Minnis.pdf Page 19

 

[George B]

Nobody here is denying aviation induced cloudiness.

Noble was asking lee what the "serious effect" was that is a "serious issue".

I don't think he was referring to a slight decrease in diurnal temperatur variation.

I also don't think the issue is if we should or should not do something about persistent contrails. The issue is chemtails - and if they exist or not.

I disagree, I think the persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks are an integral part of the wholecampaign . . .


The program is in my opinion a combination of leverage. . . it is a matrix of the knowledge of pre-existing natural and anthropomorphic activities supplemented by activities to gain some pre-establish objective. . .

1) The overseers could have influenced policy to not mitigate persistent contrails . . . Seeking to propagate as much contrails and contrail induced cirrus as possible
2) They could have influenced the decision to slow roll the tightening of the sulfur maximum content of jet fuel which has remained at 3,000 ppm while other standards have been lowered to levels in the double digits. . . .
3) The above activities could help mask any activity which may have been visible by increasing the confusion in the skies. . . If I do inject aerosols . . .which one of the hundreds up there is the real Chemtrail. . .And if it is sulfur I am adding . . .I expect some to be there anyway. . .

 

[Mick West]

I disagree, I think the persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks are an integral part of the wholecampaign . . .

You do. But nobody else does.

 

[George B]

Most of the UK is covered by natural cloud (usually grey) for most of the year.

Why the need for "artificial" clouds?

On this day it might not have been . . . in fact, when I checked the atmospheric soundings for the clearer grounded day persistent trails most likely would have been present . . .

http://contrailscience.com/volcano-clears-the-skies-of-contrails/

 

[Noble1965]

You do. But nobody else does.

I don't...and I see no evidence to support such claims.

I guess we are back to square one...with "intuition".

 

[George B]

You do. But nobody else does.

Hmmmm . . . well that is my right . . . also NASA seems to think that persistent contrails can be used to modify the local temperature range and suggested a strategy . . . see below:

​

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Duda.Controller.09.pdf​

Solutions?​

In principle, it may be possible to selectively minimize the creation of late afternoon contrail-

Induced cloudiness that will persist during the night, when theywould have a net warming​

effect, while intentionally increasing the forma-tion of contrails early in the day, generating a

daytime cooling. Current research is focused on accurately predicting the times and locations​

At which contrails are likely to persist for long periods of timeand spread over wide areas as​

Contrail-induced cirrus. Such information could help mitigate the negative effects of aviation on​

regional and global climate by incorporating it Into operational air traffic control and routing ​

Systems. David.P.Duda@nasa.gov​

 

[George B]

I don't...and I see no evidence to support such claims.

I guess we are back to square one...with "intuition".

Chew on this for a while. . . .

"
Logical methods require idealized conditions. Anyone who has opened a textbook on Physics or Mechanics has time and again encountered the phrase "All else being constant...". This is how Physics avoids problems with Systems that require a Holistic Stance, for instance any system that is constantly adapting to an environment that it cannot be separated from.

Logical and scientific models are relatively simple. It is true that some formulas can run to multiple pages, but this would still be simple compared to the complexity we discover in nature.

But first and foremost, Logic cannot handle Bizarre Systems, and therefore cannot solve many important problems in the life sciences, and cannot handle everyday problems such as Discovery of Semantics, including language."
http://artificial-intuition.com/intuition.html

 

[Noble1965]

Chew on this for a while. . . .

"
Logical methods require idealized conditions. Anyone who has opened a textbook on Physics or Mechanics has time and again encountered the phrase "All else being constant...". This is how Physics avoids problems with Systems that require a Holistic Stance, for instance any system that is constantly adapting to an environment that it cannot be separated from.

Logical and scientific models are relatively simple. It is true that some formulas can run to multiple pages, but this would still be simple compared to the complexity we discover in nature.

But first and foremost, Logic cannot handle Bizarre Systems, and therefore cannot solve many important problems in the life sciences, and cannot handle everyday problems such as Discovery of Semantics, including language."
http://artificial-intuition.com/intuition.html

Chew on this...


You have nothing...

 

[George B]

Chew on this...


You have nothing...

"A mathematician in front of a whiteboard covered with formulas will use intuition to select the next substitution, simplification, or experiment to try. Sooner or later, something may well work. They will verify the validity of what they did using logical methods. This will be the only path that will be shown in published work. This traditional hiding of the intuitive part and the joy of discovery makes Science look boring to outsiders."


http://artificial-intuition.com/intuition.html

 

[Mick West]

On this day it might not have been . . . in fact, when I checked the atmospheric soundings for the clearer grounded day persistent trails most likely would have been present . . .

http://contrailscience.com/volcano-clears-the-skies-of-contrails/

Which station do you check the sounding from, and at what time?

Anyway, that above image is rather selective. Here's another before and after, that shows no difference.



But again, nobody denied that contrails increase cloudiness.

 

[George B]

Which station do you check the sounding from, and at what time?

Anyway, that above image is rather selective. Here's another before and after, that shows no difference.



But again, nobody denied that contrails increase cloudiness.

As I remember I checked several stations in the UK, especially in southern UK . . .

 

[Mick West]

George, do you understand the difference in formation criteria between contrails and natural cirrus clouds? That contrails require RHI>100, but natural cirrus need RH>100? And that RHI can be as low as 60% of RH.

 

[Noble1965]

"A mathematician in front of a whiteboard covered with formulas will use intuition to select the next substitution, simplification, or experiment to try. Sooner or later, something may well work. They will verify the validity of what they did using logical methods. This will be the only path that will be shown in published work. This traditional hiding of the intuitive part and the joy of discovery makes Science look boring to outsiders."


http://artificial-intuition.com/intuition.html

Keep on justifying..

But it isn't going to be any more convincing.

 

[George B]

George, do you understand the difference in formation criteria between contrails and natural cirrus clouds? That contrails require RHI>100, but natural cirrus need RH>100? And that RHI can be as low as 60% of RH.

Yes, and I have read research which has indicated that persistent contrails can stimulate Cirrus Cloud Banks even when natural cirrus clouds are not able to from natually . . . I will see if I can locate it for you . . .

 

[Billzilla]

They are on an increase . . . simple . . .

So is cheap air travel. All the predictions from Boeing and Airbus show thousands more airliners will be needed, so it's not the least bit surprising that contrails are increasing in number.

 

[scombrid]

"Some climate scientists have theorized that aircraft contrails (also called vapor trails) are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic previously meant that this could not be tested. The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a unique opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C (1.8 °F) was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought.[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

So civil aircraft were grounded and contrails and contrail cirrus dropped off precipitously. I reckon that makes civil aircraft the primary culprits in "spraying". Delta, Southwest, American, etc... are all in on the conspiracy? Or maybe just maybe the persistent contrails and contrail cirrus are a natural interaction of exhaust from civil aviation flying through certain atmospheric conditions.

Oh right. The military just suspended spraying when they didn't have civil aviation as a cover. The problem with that is that in every place I've lived the contrails only appear when the atmosphere supports normal contrail formation and have every appearance of coming from the commercial/civil traffic passing overhead.

 

[George B]

So civil aircraft were grounded and contrails and contrail cirrus dropped off precipitously. I reckon that makes civil aircraft the primary culprits in "spraying". Delta, Southwest, American, etc... are all in on the conspiracy? Or maybe just maybe the persistent contrails and contrail cirrus are a natural interaction of exhaust from civil aviation flying through certain atmospheric conditions.

Oh right. The military just suspended spraying when they didn't have civil aviation as a cover. The problem with that is that in every place I've lived the contrails only appear when the atmosphere supports normal contrail formation and have every appearance of coming from the commercial/civil traffic passing overhead.

Why did you expect anything else. . . ? There is no evidence that CHEMTRAILs are any more visible or persistent than contrails or persistent contrails. . . .some sulfur content studies found minor differences in visible characteristics between double digit ppm and 1,500 ppm . . .when flown in dual flights side by side. . . .no other evidence as far as I know is available. . .

 

[George B]

So is cheap air travel. All the predictions from Boeing and Airbus show thousands more airliners will be needed, so it's not the least bit surprising that contrails are increasing in number.

Fahey, D. W., U. Schumann, S. Ackerman, P. Artaxo, O. Boucher, M. Y. Danilin, B.Kärcher, P. Minnis, T. Nakajima and O. B. Toon, 1999: Aviation-Produced Aerosols and Cloudiness . Chapter 3 of IPCC Special Report : Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Cambridge University Press, pp. 65


http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Fahey.etal.99.pdf

Page 113 top right paragraph and paragraph below. . . .

Published 1999*

 

[Mick West]

George, is there anyone who shares your belief in this conspiracy theory?

 

[George B]

Fahey, D. W., U. Schumann, S. Ackerman, P. Artaxo, O. Boucher, M. Y. Danilin, B.Kärcher, P. Minnis, T. Nakajima and O. B. Toon, 1999: Aviation-Produced Aerosols and Cloudiness . Chapter 3 of IPCC Special Report : Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Cambridge University Press, pp. 65http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Fahey.etal.99.pdfPage 113 top right paragraph and paragraph below. . . .Published 1999*

Partial answer . . .

 

[Noble1965]

George, is there anyone who shares your belief in this conspiracy theory?

It's interesting that you ask that..

Even among the "chemtrail advocates" on GLP...he's a bit of a mystery. He understands that the trails that we all see are contrails (although, he assumes/suggests "they" mix a few trails with something (sulfur) added in with the visible trails because they seem to be good cover for their program) yet still calls them all "chemtrails" so that he can fit in with the rest of them (advocates). He rarely tries to point out that the trails presented AS "chemtrails" (the ones that look the way they do because of some "chemical" or element content) are probably plain old persistent contrails because he NEEDS these people to agree with him. So he doesn't look like he's alone in his views.

It's almost as if he stands just outside the box with those who think all the visible trails in the sky are "chemtrails" but, aligns himself with them just enough to give the illusion that he doesn't stand alone in his beliefs. He uses them.

George certainly has a unique point of view.

Sure, there are others who believe the trails are used for "geoengineering"...but not because of the sulfur content...but because of "aluminum and barium" within the trail..

I admire his ability to keep them on his side...even though the beliefs are completely different.