Max Bliss debates chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.
good so we agree it's bad pollution

I think I haven't made my point clearly, so I will reiterate: There are only some few tens of thousands of airplanes on this planet, compared to billions and billions of automobiles, trucks, diesel locomotives and backyard lawnmowers (etc) ALL of which (A) burn petro fuels and, (B) operate at the surface, where their emissions are far more prevalent.

Further to the other point (RE: contrails). It would certainly be possible to eliminate the formation of visible aircraft-produced contrails (which are, ultimately, merely a type of cirrus cloud) .... this would be extremely expensive and inconvenient, though. Would require the extra expenditure of fuel burned...which would then INCREASE the amount of pollution emitted! And all of that pollution in form of water vapor would by its very nature, as water vapor, be invisible to the Human eye.
 
Last edited:
good so we agree it's bad pollution

Please don't paraphrase people to add emotive and subjective words they did not use.

Nobody would ever suggest that aircraft exhaust is not pollution. Nobody would ever say pollution is not bad. But describing something as "bad pollution" is suggesting bad compared to something else, like factories, or cars.

But are contrails pollution any more than invisible engine exhaust from the same plane a few minutes later is pollution?
 
This thread has diverged from the original topic, so will shortly be closed.

Jim, if you'd like to make a more focussed point, then I suggest you start a new thread, and keep it short. Although you really should answer this question first:

Do you agree that planes emit the same pollution whether or not they produce visible contrails?
 
and if you dont like contrails, dont live under a major flight path. right?

Except....many have called this the "NIMBY argument" (Not In My Back Yard). This is usually related to noise, near airports. Such as at the "John Wayne/Orange County" airport (KSNA) where there reside a great many wealthy people who, because of their activism and political influence (right-wing, mostly) have instigated some procedures that are, frankly, "challenging" for aviation professionals to the point that KSNA is now an FAA designated "Special Airport", because of these 'community actions'.

And this thread may be closed....but the concept of FAA-designated "Special Airports" is easily searched, and then understood, on any number of search platforms.
 
I also understand that the thread title has been veered....This has run its course....almost 500 posts?

Signal to noise.....
 
Saying the thread is about to be closed is not an invitation to cram in as much off topic stuff as possible :)

It's to give an opportunity to tie up loose ends.
 
It's to give an opportunity to tie up loose ends.

Well...what loose ends need to be "tied-up"?

This is really about a guy named "Max Bliss"...his online persona, might be his real name. Doesn't matter, really.

The actual issue here is about facts....and well "bunk"....because "bunk" is not factual. It is "opinion" (often) and unsubstantiated (usually).

The "calling out" (if that phrase is OK?) of "bunk" seems to to be the primary focus, here.
 
OK..."Jim Lee" uses a moniker, here on the MB website.

I still do not understand the "point" of the posts. Airplanes make pollution, yes. So do many other ground-based machines.

AND....does "Max Bliss" understand this as a fact?
 
OK..."Jim Lee" uses a moniker, here on the MB website.

I still do not understand the "point" of the posts. Airplanes make pollution, yes. So do many other ground-based machines.
Read his past posts. He has a history of not answering direct questions.
 
As I understand it, there are different definitions of 'pollution' in use in this discussion.

Metabunk members refer to the common usage of the word, which includes all unwanted chemical products of combustion in jet engines.

@rezn8d however counts in all unwanted effects associated with contrails, which includes reflectivity change, triggering of clouds etc.

Like with "chemtrails", this is again a matter of term redefinition which @rezn8d should avoid or explain very clearly. However, if he did so, then there likely wouldn't even be a controversy ...
 
All pollution is bad, otherwise it wouldn't be pollution.
Air traffic is a tiny fraction of overall pollution compared to ground traffic and industrial process, including coal fired power stations. but, just like ANY pollution, anything we can do to reduce it will be good.

So we have at least established then that is IS pollution from burning fossil fuels, and NOT anybody DELIBERATELY spraying any other substance for whatever reason is fashionable this month?
 
Jims position is very confused. He claims he is only interested in the pollution aspects of aircraft emissions, yet has no problem forming an alliance with Madisonstar Moon, someone who absolutely believes that contrails are full of illicit chemicals.

He then wonders why, coupled with his refusal to answer direct questions, why people suspect his motives.

 
Reference the NASA ACCESS flights that Max Bliss recently stumbled upon. You have to feel sorry for Dr Rangasayi Halthore from NASA being sucked into the world of madness by these three. See from 13:00

https://espo.nasa.gov/home/tc4/person/Rangasayi_Halthore

Madison Star Moon, Jim Lee, Jon Gardella, and Rangasayi Halthore discuss chemtrails and contrails.
Content from External Source
 
oh. then i dont agree it's pollution. i like clouds.
Persistent contrails can be viewed as weather pollution as they generate a hazy cloud cover where otherwise there would be a clear sky, alter the distribution of humidity and may affect precipitation patterns, affect temperature variations, the climate, etc. And this is only going to get worse as air traffic is predicted to triple by 2050. If we have lots of contrails today, imagine what it will look like in 2050 if do nothing to reduce contrails.
 
If we have lots of contrails today, imagine what it will look like in 2050 if do nothing to reduce contrails.
It is likely that the most obvious methods to avoid contrails are leading to higher fuel consumption (lower flight levels, detours around humid areas). So it must be determined which measure has the least overall impact.

Anyway, it's simply confusing to mix all effects of jet traffic together and call it "pollution".
 
Persistent contrails can be viewed as weather pollution as they generate a hazy cloud cover where otherwise there would be a clear sky, alter the distribution of humidity and may affect precipitation patterns, affect temperature variations, the climate, etc. And this is only going to get worse as air traffic is predicted to triple by 2050. If we have lots of contrails today, imagine what it will look like in 2050 if do nothing to reduce contrails.
no. clouds are not 'pollution' no matter how you look at it.

Pollution is only ONE aspect of global warming. To say clouds trap heat=global warming, ergo 'possibly harmful to the global environment' is one thing. but to call clouds 'pollution' is just a HUGE HUGE stretch of the word.

i understand the spin on the word as used in "light pollution"
light pollutionnoun
: light from cities, vehicles, etc., that makes it difficult to see things in the sky (such as stars) at night
Content from External Source
but i agree we have too many planes, trucks, buses, boats, coal burning plants etc etc etc that contribute to global warming. contrail clouds is such a miniscule piece of that, it isnt even funny. To use your definition is detracting from the REAL issues and actions we need to address global warming. I can talk "doomsday thought regarding over population and industrialization" with you all day. I'm a pessimist. But Metabunk isnt about that.

and "Chemtrail theory" isnt about that. Chemtrail theory is about spraying ADDITIVES ie. metals into the atmosphere. If you guys want to change it to "Cloudtrail theory", well that would be ok.
 
clouds are not 'pollution' no matter how you look at it.
That's your opinion. But the concept of weather pollution was used w.r.t. contrails as early as 1970:

From Kuhn PM: Airborne observations of contrail effects on the thermal radiation budget. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 27:937 (1970)
 
But the concept of weather pollution was used w.r.t. contrails as early as 1970:
cool. well since this was a 'pollution' concern 45 years ago.. and factoring in the dramatic increase in flights today from the 70s.. and since the effects today of contrail clouds are still rather miniscule, i dont think we have much to worry about come 2050 contrail increases. you made me feel much bettter, thanks.

and again, its still detracting from humanitys main problem.. car, truck, boat, industry pollution/ gloabl warming effects.
They also studied rainfall data gathered by weather satellites in orbit over the Atlantic Ocean, and information stored in databases of Atlantic hurricane measurements. They found that weather on the East Coast of the United States is likely to be rainy on weekends and clear during the week. They also found that pollution hits its highest levels at the end of the week—possibly causing the weekend showers. “The dirt and dust, the solid parts of the pollution, tend to absorb heat. That makes the air around those parts warmer. Warm air rises. As warm air rises, it tends to cause clouds and precipitation,” says Cerveny, an ASU professor of geography.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
since the effects today of contrail clouds are still rather miniscule
That's an unsubstantiated statement. The effects are not miniscule. Actually it's difficult to establish the magnitude of the effect; this question is still being heavily researched. I don't think we should become complacent about this.
you made me feel much bettter
I don't quite understand your logic. The issue was found to be a problem 45 years ago when air traffic was only about a tenth its current level. To me that says that the problem is a lot worse now than it was back then, and it's only going to get worse. You should not feel better. Feel worse!
 
Pollution is any unwanted effect from a parent process - noise pollution, visual pollution, greenhouse-gas pollution. Contrails can overlap into a few areas depending on the context you're addressing. It's important to define terms of use so meanings aren't mixed; however some seem to do that deliberately.

That's an unsubstantiated statement. The effects are not miniscule. Actually it's difficult to establish the magnitude of the effect; this question is still being heavily researched.
But it's in the one percent range isn't it?
 
But it's in the one percent range isn't it?
One percent of what? It depends on what we are looking at.
For example, cirrus cover over Europe is increasing by about 2% per decade. But that means percentage points, i.e. the cover increased from about 8% to 12% between 1980 and 2000, which is a 50% increase. Most of that is attributed to contrails, although there are uncertainties. Even measuring the cirrus cover is problematic due to invisible or nearly invisible cirrus.
The global effect of contrails may be small but the regional effects can be significant.
When chemtrail believers complain that they have lost their blue skies, they may exaggerate but they are essentially right. We have less clear skies over areas with heavy air traffic than we used to.
 
One percent of what? It depends on what we are looking at.
For example, cirrus cover over Europe is increasing by about 2% per decade. But that means percentage points, i.e. the cover increased from about 8% to 12% between 1980 and 2000, which is a 50% increase. Most of that is attributed to contrails, although there are uncertainties. Even measuring the cirrus cover is problematic due to invisible or nearly invisible cirrus.
The global effect of contrails may be small but the regional effects can be significant.
When chemtrail believers complain that they have lost their blue skies, they may exaggerate but they are essentially right. We have less clear skies over areas with heavy air traffic than we used to.
well when i google "weather pollution" the only tie i see to that phrase in terms of contrails, so far, is your one source. i'm also getting 10% currently in europe for coverage. (so can you link sources)

eithr way, unless i missed an update (possible) Max Bliss doesnt think chemtrails are cloudtrails, like you apparently do.
 
The problem with contrails is not just in estimating the radiation balance effects, but modelling the occurrence as well as the effects in the climate models.
 
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution.

I've seen many members say jet exhaust is pollution. The fact is though, the the vast majority of chemtrail believers do not think it is pollution at all. Many think "chemtrails" are sprayed to poison us, make us sick so big pharma can make money, give us "morgellons", make us ingest metal so they can bean radio waves into our heads or some such nonsense, hide a second sun, create a plasma screen in the sky so that they can project Jesus/Allah/Buddha coming to earth. Oh, and a small number are now claiming it is pollution in order to get the ear of politicians (they don't trust who are merely puppets of the elite) and the media (who are also puppets who lie and read scripts) and all of us sheep.
 
The contribution to retaining heat.
The contribution of contrails to global warming may not be very large. But this is not the only effect of contrails. Effects on the regional climates and local weather appear to be rather noticeable, as I mentioned earlier.
Just because we know contrails are not the result of a spraying program doesn't mean they are completely harmless and we love them. They are weather pollution and visual pollution as well.
 
The contribution of contrails to global warming may not be very large. But this is not the only effect of contrails. Effects on the regional climates and local weather appear to be rather noticeable, as I mentioned earlier.
Just because we know contrails are not the result of a spraying program doesn't mean they are completely harmless and we love them. They are weather pollution and visual pollution as well.
the topic of this thread is CHEMTRAILS. You are a thread polluter :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top