Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails

In a paper publish in Environmental Research letters, August 2016, 77 scientists with expertise in atmospheric science and geochemistry were asked to give their expert opinions regarding the most common claims of evidence put forward by proponents of the "chemtrail" or "covert geoengineering" theory (referred to in the paper as a "secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP)". The evidence being photos of trails left by planes, and chemical analyses of air, soil, and water. The scientists overwhelming rejected the idea that the photos and tests were evidence of a secret spraying program. All of the atmospheric scientists and all but one of the geochemists saw nothing suspicious about the proffered evidence. The photos were all identified as contrails, and the chemical analyses were generally identified as expected results due to normal variation and poor testing methodology.

Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program

Nearly 17% of people in an international survey said they believed the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP) to be true or partly true. SLAP is commonly referred to as 'chemtrails' or 'covert geoengineering', and has led to a number of websites purported to show evidence of widespread chemical spraying linked to negative impacts on human health and the environment. To address these claims, we surveyed two groups of experts—atmospheric chemists with expertize in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution—to scientifically evaluate for the first time the claims of SLAP theorists. Results show that 76 of the 77 scientists (98.7%) that took part in this study said they had not encountered evidence of a SLAP, and that the data cited as evidence could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols. Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying program—who often reject counter-evidence as further proof of their theories—but rather to establish a source of objective science that can inform public discourse.

Content from external source

The paper (of which I am a co-author) came about partly as a response to problems scientists were having with harassment from chemtrail believers. The science of geoengineering is largely theoretical, however researchers in this field have been subject to threats, and disruptions at their conferences and during public talks.

Chemtrail believers frequently show the same kinds of evidence over and over. Because of the fringe nature of this belief many scientists simply ignore the issue and the claims of evidence are likewise ignored. Since the claims are often only refuted by online lay skeptics the believers in the theory think they may have more validity than they actually do. So by having a large number of actual experts examine the evidence and give their professional opinion, a more accurate assessment of the evidence can be given to the believers.

And it is a large number of experts, have a look at the list of atmospheric scientists polled:

• Andrew Carleton, Penn State University
• Andrew Heidinger, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Andrew Heymsfield, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Andrew J Weinheimer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Brian A Ridley, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Bruce Anderson, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Bryan Baum, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Charles A Brock, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Charles E Kolb, Aerodyne Research
• Christine Fichter, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
• Christos Zerefos, University of Athens
• Cynthia Twohy, NorthWest Research Associates
• Darrel Baumgardner, Droplet Measurement Technologies
• David Doelling, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• David Kratz, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• David Lee, Manchester Metropolitan University
• David Lewellen, West Virginia University
• David J Travis, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
• Donald P Garber, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Eleftheratos Konstantinos, University of Athens
• Gaby Radel, University of Reading
• Guy Febvre, Observatory of Atmospheric Physics at Clermont-Ferrand
• Hartmut Grassl, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
• Jack Dibb, University of New Hampshire
• Karen Rosenlof, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Klaus Gierens, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
• Larry Miloshevich, Milo Scientific
• Markus Garhammer, Ludwig-Maximilians-University
• Matthias Tesche, Stockholm University
• Michael Ponater, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
• Michael Prather, University of California, Irvine
• Otto Klemm, University of Muenster
• Patrick Minnis, National Aeronautics & Space Administration
• Piers Forster, University of Leeds
• R Paul Lawson, Stratton Park Engineering Company
• Rabi Palikonda ,National Aeronautics & Space Administration
• Reinhold Busen, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
• Robert Sausen, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
• Robert Talbot, University of Houston
• Ru-Shan Gao, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Sonia M Kreidenweis, Colorado State University
• Stephan Bakan, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
• Tatiana Khokhlova, University of Washington
• Thilo Stilp European, Aviation Group for Occupational Safety and Health
• Tove Svenby Norwegian, Institute for Air Research
• Ulrich Schumann Institute, of Atmospheric Physics
• Ulrike Burkhardt, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
• Volker Grewe, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
• William L Smith, National Aeronautics and Space

Every single one of these scientists rejected the hypothesis that the four photos shown were evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). They all identified the trails as contrails, and gave scientific explanations for the effects seen in each photo.

The photos were chosen to illustrate the most common type of photographic evidence presented by chemtrail believers:

a) Planes leaving long trails where seemingly adjacent planes leave no trails
b) Trails from planes that leave gaps
c) Trails that seem to come from the whole wing surface, and exhibit a spectrum of colors
d) Multiple persistent trails curving and criss-crossing the sky.​

(unfortunately since Environmental Research Letters is a UK publication, they were not able to display all the photos due to the more restrictive UK copyright laws. I have reproduced them all in the copy of the figure above).

As well as simply giving a yes/no answer on if they thought the photos were evidence of covert geoengineering, the scientists were asked to explain what they thought was going on in the photo. For example the photo (b) with the gap in the trail (credit: Forest M. Mims III)


The atmospheric scientists were all asked a simple question:
"What is the most likely reason there is a gap in this trail?"

A variety of answers were given, for example:

• "A local area of the upper troposphere where the temperature or the humidity (or both) are below the threshold values needed for a persisting contrail (e.g., due to locally sinking air at that altitude, which warms up and dries out the air)."
• "A dry spot."
• "Water vapor fields are not homogeneous or uniform. Part of the contrail is in a region where the relative humidity is less than 100% with respect to ice and the crystals are evaporating"
• "Aircraft passing through local turbulence condition (strong upwinds?) leading to a rapid break-up of the vortex in the area. Likely to accelerate also the break up of the vortex."
• "Atmospheric variability: In that area the air is probably not moist enough, not a ice supersaturated region ."

These various answers were manually grouped into the four most common variants, along with an "other" category, and the results were graphed:



The results were similar for the other three photos, as seen in the top image.

The scientists were also asked "Could you provide a citation to a publication describing the mechanisms that most likely account for the phenomena shown in the photo?", and a wide variety of scientific papers were cited with the most common reference for photo (b) being Schumann’s ‘On conditions for contrail formation from aircraft exhausts’ (1996) and Schumann’s ‘Formation, properties, and climate effects of contrails’ (2005), both cited by 6% of experts.

The geochemists survey was slightly less clear cut, which probably reflects the more ambiguous nature of the data, and lack of information regarding collection procedures. Three chemical analyses were presented, all of which we picked because they have been continually cited by chemtrail believers for several years, and are still in use as of today. Unfortunately they were not reproduced in the paper, so I will reproduce them here.

Analysis a, pond sediment


Analysis b, airborne particulates:


Analysis c, Snow Surface


With the results:



The question with the most consesus is the pond sample, which was featured in the film "What In The World Are They Spraying?" in 2010. The scientists were asked:

"Do you think the most parsimonious explanation of these results involve the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program?

If yes, why? If not, how would you interpret these results?"​

As with the contrail photos the answer was generally "no" and there were a variety of interpretations which were grouped as seen above. Some sample responses:

• "It looks like about 5 grams of average soil or desert dust in a liter of sludge, quite reasonable."
• "I would compare the concentration of Al, Ba and Sr to that in local sources (e.g., local streams, rocks/sediments/soil, discharges from local facilities)."
• "The elemental concentrations are consistent with silicate mineral dissolution. The Al concentration could be due to colloidal Al. Nothing unusual here, No red flags from this data. More really needs to be known; i.e what is the pH and O2 status of the pond, also what is the DOC. Hard to say much from 3 concentration numbers"
• "Most likely anthropogenic pollution (industrial or municipal); any more detailed interpretation would require knowledge of the environmental context"
• "All three of these elements are major constituents of crustal material. The concentrations reported for the three elements are much less than what is present in average upper continental crust. The results report an aluminum concentration of 375000ppb which is less than 0.04%. Average continental crust is 7.96% aluminum (Wedepohl, 1995). All three elements are reported at values two-three orders of magnitude less than crustal values."

Interestingly in the other two samples, there was one scientist who actually did think the results were evidence of secret spraying program. This seems to be due to him interpreting the results without sufficient context about what actually was being tested, and what the expected results should be for that test. They also claimed 'high levels of atm[ospheric] barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium'. It's not clear what they mean by "high" here, or what tests they are actually referring to. This one person is very much an outlier result.

The confusion about what the test actually represented was shared by other scientists, some of whom took the comparison against the MCL levels at face value, but others correctly identified the problems, like with the second sample:

• "As in the last example, the units reported are not directly interpretable. Are the results reported as concentration in air, or as concentration in a lab prepared solution? There are many possible sources of these metals as airborne particulates, especially in an urban environment."
• "The concentrations per unit mass look like average soil or desert dust. The MCL values are not relevant, and look to be based on drinking water standards"
• "Presence of particles from aeolian [wind] erosion?"
• "Firstly, all three elements are common constituents of crustal material. This figure does not provide adequate information regarding collection methods, location, analytical methods, etc for one to make any judgement regarding their validity whatsoever. Further, the MCL values quoted are for contaminants in water not air."
• "Probably from mineral particles."

In addition the scientists were asked to give their assessment of the water testing procedure that geoengineringwatch.org used at the time for analysis (a).

(1) If you can get brand new, never used mason jars, but clean used jars and lids will work.
(2) Place as many of these into the rain or snow as possible (you can pour all their contents into one jar).
(3) When transferring from one container to another, IT IS CRITICAL TO RE-SUSPEND the sample...shake the jar with the lid on, or stir with a sterilized instrument. Alternatively, you can 'back and forth' the samples, allowing a little 'fall' to create enough turbulence to re-suspend any contaminants that may be stuck to the glass.
(4) Seal with the lid and ring and place into the refrigerator. Take to the lab as soon as possible, preferably the next morning.
(5) Take the sample to your local lab, use a lab that tests 'well water'...they are certified and this is easy for them. Call them first, make sure you have the right lab. You ARE NOT looking for something like a 'well analysis'...which is pretty expensive...you just want to test a rain sample, in a sterile mason jar for specific metals.

Content from external source

The results were largely critical (emphasis mine):

Six experts (23%) were neutral and three experts (11%) agreed with the instructions; none strongly agreed (figure 4(b)). Nineteen experts (68%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with those instructions, with over half (15 experts, 54%) saying a jar glass and metal lid would likely contain trace elements that would contaminate the sample. One expert who strongly disagreed with the instructions wrote: 'the jar will contaminate the sample, as will the metal lid, particularly if you shake it! I cannot imagine a worse protocol for collecting a sample, the data would be totally worthless'. Another said: 'To analyze metals in environmental samples, glass needs to go through an acid wash to remove any residual metals. Otherwise, plastic should be used'.

Content from external source

Atmospheric scientists were also asked if contrails were persisting more now than they were before, about half of them said yes, for a variety of reasons.

In response to the question of whether trails behind aircraft are persisting for longer periods of time now than they did when plane travel first began, 23 experts (47%) answered no, 18 experts (37%) answered yes, and 8 experts (16%) offered no response. Among those indicating they thought trails are now lasting longer, the top reasons given were: Aircraft flying higher (17 experts, 35%), modern and larger engines that produce more water vapor (11 experts, 22%), more plane traffic leading to planes flying at higher altitudes where contrails are more likely to form (nine experts, 18%), higher water vapor content of the atmosphere due to climate change (six experts, 12%), and decreased temperature of aircraft exhaust related to improved fuel efficiency (five experts, 10%)

Content from external source

Participating in this study was a very interesting experience for me. It actually started over two years ago, in July 2014, when I was approached by Christine Shearer who was in the very early stages of working on the study with Steve Davis and Ken Caldeira. My contributions were largely based on my experience of what claims of evidence the chemtrail community commonly used, and we spend some time debating which photos and tests would be most representative, and how to phrase the survey questions.

Progress seemed very slow, as the main authors had other projects to work on. With chemtrails being a bit of a fringe subject it seemed difficult for some people in the academic community to take it seriously, and there were occasional reports of people being highly surprised at the very idea of such a study, including some of the experts who were surveyed (or who were asked, but declined).

The surveying was completed early 2015, but again other commitments kept the main authors from working much on the project until later in the year. I contributed a little to the wording and proof reading, but the vast bulk of the work collating the results, writing the paper, and creating figures was done by Christine and Steve. The paper was completed in early 2016, and published on August 10th 2016.

The big question of course is: will it help? Time will tell. There's some debate regarding fringe subjects as to whether they should be addressed at all. If you take conspiracy theories seriously enough to write a peer reviewed paper rebutting them, then does it actually make the theory more plausible for some people? Will media coverage of the paper actually just lead to more people being exposed to the chemtrail theory? These are genuine concerns.

My hope is that our attempt to ask neutral questions about the photos, and the honest responses of the experts, will act as a reality check. Is it really possible that these 49 listed atmospheric scientists, from all over the world, scientists who are leading experts in the field of clouds and contrails, is it possible they are all wrong? And if not (and surely nobody would argue they are all simply mistaken) then is it possible that all of them are in the employ of whoever is doing the "covert geoengineering"? And these are a representative sample of thousands of similar experts. Are they all wrong too?

Ultimately there's no convincing some people, and this study may well backfire for the hardcore conspiracist. But for people on the fence, who have not yet fallen down the rabbit hole, I think it will help them. I think this help will outweigh any harm. But time will tell.





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the original sources of the photos and test results:

Plane Trails

Photo 1 - Longer and Shorter Trails
Source: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showgallery&Number=8579#.VmW6r-MrKEI
Photographer: "Bornfree" (anonymous forum poster)
Captioned: "Two Contrail planes alongside one Chemtrail plane. These pictures were taken in Tucson Arizona in 2011."

Photo 2 - Trail with gap in between
Current Source: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-government-coordinated-chemtrail-conspiracy-continues-unabated/
Previously: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-05-28/news2/index.html
Photographer: Forrest M. Mims III
Caption: "The break in this contrail indicates drier air than the air in which the contrail is visible."
Published in 2004

Photo 3 - Trails with color spectrum in between
Current Source: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/plane-flying-over-sea-of-clouds-leaving-high-res-stock-photography/71083312
(Previously: http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Cargo/Boeing-747-206BM(SF-SUD)/0239080/L/ )
Photographer Josef P. Willems
Caption: "KLM Flight 9165 from Amsterdam to Dubai, cruising at FL350, seen from 1000 ft above. Maybe the largest trails I've ever seen..."
Photo taken May 21, 2002

Photo 4 - Swirling Trails
Source: http://war.163.com/07/1225/08/40I0FABE00011MTO.html (http://archive.today/ojnZc)
Caption: "战机大规模演习后空中流下的尾迹。" (Contrails behind fighter jets in the large scale exercise)
Photographer unknown, possible an official Chinese government photo.

Deposition

Sample 1 - Pond Sediment
Source video: "What in the World Are They Spraying",
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis
Time: 30:10
Sample taken 04/29/2007, Dane Wigington

Sample 2 - Air particulates
Source: http://arizonaskywatch.com/az-tests/our charts/phx_particulates_2008.htm (Crop of third image)
Sample take 05/01/2008, Air through Hepa Filter, by "Arizona Skywatch"

Sample 3 - Snow Surface
Source video: "What in the World Are They Spraying"
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis
Time 25:03
Sample taken 07/08/2008, Rose Taylor

Geoengineeringwatch Water Testing Procedure:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/html/watertesting.html (http://archive.is/tskGA)

 

@deirdre get it right,

actually i just thought it was cute they look like they are reading the posts above me.

 

Neither do I.

Set your Chrome page in Hebrew or Arabic and you'll be all right

 

Dane Wigington's counter-survey:

Scientists Surveyed Unanimously Refuse To Deny Climate Engineering Reality
From 1518 climate scientists, only 1 was willing to state that geoengineering was not going on, but even that single one has not confirmed his answer a second time.

The survey question was:
[bunk]Please REPLY and mark an "X" in one of the two blanks below.

_____ Yes, as an expert/scientist I can confirm that global atmospheric geoengineering programs have not yet been deployed.

_____No, as an expert/scientist I cannot confirm that global atmospheric geoengineering programs have not yet been deployed.[/bunk]

A few scientists commented on that:
Alan Robock:

That's a ridiculous question. I don't know of any such programs, but how can I be sure that they don't exist. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.

Content from external source

Two other scientists:

As an expert/scientist I can confirm beyond a doubt that you people are idiots.

Content from external source

 

From 1518 climate scientists, only 1 was willing to state that geoengineering was not going on, but even that single one has not confirmed his/her answer a second time.

And it sounds like he was the only one who responded with an answer. So 100% of the scientists who responded to a vague question said no " global atmospheric geoengineering programs " had been deployed.

Now he's published all their email addresses, and suggested his followers send them helpful information of geoengineering.

Their names and official email addresses are in the PDF below. The public is encouraged to communicate with these scientists and experts about the climate engineering issue. The forwarding of credible climate engineering data to these scientists/experts will assist with the effort to fully expose the ongoing geoengineering atrocities. Sharing and forwarding credible information with these scientists/experts also helps to further eliminate their ability to ever publicly deny that geoengineering is already a reality.

Content from external source

 

Wow... what a SPIN-job! Even those who didn't even OPEN the document were counted as: "refused to deny...". Sheesh!

 

send them helpful information of geoengineering

It seems to me like publishing information like this might not invite entirely nice, helpful emails... It reminds me a touch of doxxing, when someone publishes another person's personal information (address, phone, etc) online. At the very least this is requesting that hordes of people send busy scientists a bunch of information, at worst the scientists could be receiving threatening emails...

 

Set your Chrome page in Hebrew or Arabic and you'll be all right

Alright...after the visit from the NSA guys...

 

It seems to me like publishing information like this might not invite entirely nice, helpful emails... It reminds me a touch of doxxing, when someone publishes another person's personal information (address, phone, etc) online. At the very least this is requesting that hordes of people send busy scientists a bunch of information, at worst the scientists could be receiving threatening emails...

well Dane did say to send "Credible" information, so since they still have to find some there shouldnt be emails anytime soon.

 

At the very least this is requesting that hordes of people send busy scientists a bunch of information, at worst the scientists could be receiving threatening emails...

I very much doubt they will get more than 0.1 emails each on average.

 

If it's the avatar pic that's flipped, I assumed it's just so that you are "looking into" the page. That's a basic design rule, that people's faces should be looking towards the centre of the page where possible. @Jay Reynolds and @deirdre get it right, but @Leifer doesn't

My avatar was never designed to be an avatar. My image was using the older painting design rule....
......that because most westerners read or scan images left-to-right, my 3/4 view that faces to your left, forces the eye back to the beginning (the left).....which almost makes you see the image twice.

BTW Mick.....will your CSICON lecture be available as a public video ?

 

BTW Mick.....will your CSICON lecture be available as a public video ?

I'm going to do a version of the presentation with VO from my desktop at some point, so the slides are readable.

 

Working on releasing more of the raw data. Here's one set of comments with personal info redacted, very minor typos corrections (like aiirplane -> airplane), otherwise as written.

Photo_4: What would most likely explain the large amount of swirling trails in this photo?



Planes are in a holding pattern near a large airport owing to a large amount of air traffic in the region, in an upper troposphere that is cold and moist.
wind advection off linear contrails.

Military Aircraft. I have exactly a similar picture in [[REDACTED]] where there are almost no overflying commercial aircraft.

Wind shear, airplanes turning.

pilots having fun, pilots testing their capabilities or the aircraft, airport not able to process all the take-offs and landings

These are persistent contrails which form when RH in the upper troposphere is saturated relative to ice. Most likely the military was conducting some flight exercises in the region, or aircraft were being placed in hold patterns before landing at a local airfield.

Winds are likely swirling, moving in different directions, likely caused by lofting of wind over surface terrain.

Aircraft are in a holding pattern over a navigation aid while waiting for clearance to proceed to an airport. Wind shear and horizontal variations are distorting the typical "racetrack" hold pattern of older contrails.

High altitude winds distort persistent contrails.

Aircraft were circling over the area and producing contrails behind them ('racetrack-contrails').

These are contrails formed behind aircraft flying around circles.

Multiple aircraft forming contrails in a favorite environment while turning, possibly military or aerobatic aircraft in formation practicing maneuvers

Judging from the topography in the background, there is likely a fair bit of wave action in the atmosphere above the mountain, as well as a lot of vertical shear, i.e. the wind is changing in velocity and direction at different altitudes.

The straight lines are from commercial aircraft heading to their destination. The swirling trails are usually caused by military aircraft performing maneuvers.

Honestly, some of this looks photoshopped. However, assuming it is real, this is an area where aircraft are clearly turning for some reason. It could also be military aircraft doing various routines and formations. With the mountains in the area it is also possible there is strong wind shear occurring that is causing some of the bending of these trails. It is really hard to say for sure.

The swirling trails are probably caused by 1) Aircraft changing their flight direction, 2) The contrails being produced over a period of time, and thus, upper atmospheric winds had time to modify the direction in which the contrails appear be headed (note the more diffuse contrails), 3) An extended region of moist air, both horizontally and vertically through which aircraft were flying, allowing the contrails to persist for a period of time.

Non-scheduled flights - probably contrail sampling experimental flights!

Favorable humidity conditions plus significant flight traffic (associated with a nearby airport perhaps?) would lead to large numbers of persistent contrails. The low solar angle increases their visibility (light scattering off of small ice crystals is mostly at low angles), plus relatively low wind sheer will increase the visible lifetime by keeping the contrails relatively compact and optically dense.

Since I sometimes fly commercially, I sincerely hope that these contrails are from fighter planes maneuvering during training exercises. I would not want the pilot of my plane to be doing much of that with me on board. There are many contrails in the picture and they appear to be at different altitudes and of different ages. Some of the more sedate ones may well be from commercial traffic flying by.

The only explanation I can provide is that an airplane or planes flown in circles in the atmosphere forming contrails looking like circles.

In a favourable environment (see above) contrails can persist up to several hours and are then subject to dispersion (they grow wider and may end indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds) and displacement by winds. I would say that in this case a high amount of air traffic coincided with atmospheric conditions favourable for persistence of contrails over a long time.

large operation of military planes

training of military aircraft which I have seen several times over [[REDACTED]]

Some kind of delay at the airport planes are heading toward has them parked in holding pattern, at flight levels where contrails are forming.

This could be near an airport and planes are in holding patterns. There could also be wind shear.

Military aircraft exercises, high value of ice supersaturation explains the persistence and broadening of the contrails.

There is widespread humidity above the ice-saturation level in this scene for a long time so that contrails persist for hours, plus there is a certain amount of horizontal air motion that moves and distorts the contrails, and probably some reason that some aircraft moved in circular patterns (for example, aircraft in a holding pattern near an airport waiting for permission to land, or maybe atmospheric research aircraft that often fly in unusual patterns while sampling the air and gathering data).

Research or test flights at altitudes with favorable humidity conditions for long-lasting contrails

Aircraft with irradic flight patterns, e.g. as during an air show.

Perspective created by the point of view of the observer.

This photo is less easy to interpret even for an expert. Yet, I assume that most of the contrails have been created by military aircraft flight maneuvering in the respective area. The contrails have different age, so some have had time to be broadened by shear while other are relatively fresh and still strictly line-shaped. There seems to be high wind shear along with the meteorological situation, explaining that some contrails exhibit strong distortions in their continuous structure.

There is a lot of wind shear. As planes climb out during takeoff or descend, they cross through atmospheric layers with very different horizontal velocities and directions. The large number of "bends" here look like they are waypoints where the aircraft turns however, so this is likely both aircraft circling or turning, plus some vertical shear.
the aircraft flew through a highly turbulent atmosphere, in which the contrails were moved. Some of the contrails are still straight lines, although they appear to be older than the more swirling ones. They are at a higher altitude, where the atmosphere is less turbulent.

Whether some of the aircraft flew a curve or not, does not really play an important role in this specific case.

Aircraft flying a pattern, probably oval, at a level having ice supersaturation. This could be commercial holding pattern, or a military radar aircraft operating in the area.

Holding pattern or military planes

Probably military aircraft on maneuvers.

likely candidates : military jet pilots practicing, some kind of a holding pattern ahead of a airport

This situation is typically for an area with military activity. The two aircraft visible at the right edge have performed circles under an atmospheric situation, when due to high ice supersturation the contrail persist quite long and form a kind of long cirrus clouds after a while due to diffusion effects

Aircraft in holding pattern plus wind shear

air show

Aircraft were flying around the region. This one looks like one taken during the Afghanistan war, when the American aircraft were bombing the area.

Heavy air traffic and vertical wind shear.

Intense military training flight traffic in a moderately subsaturated near tropopause level.

Atmospheric turbulence

flightpath of the two aircraft

I have never seen this before, but it looks like an airshow (that has ended) or planes that have been circling around waiting to land at an airport.

Two military jet aircraft during maneuvers in cool and humid air. These are just normal contrails in addition to contrails from civil airliners of various ages.

military exercise flights or testing of air planes. There is likely a military base or an airport of some plane servicing industry close by.

for a landing pattern close to an airport this is too chaotic

Military aircraft.

These are caused by aircraft flying at altitudes with relatively constant high humidities while changing direction (turning). Looks like military or experimental aircraft operations in a humid environment favorable for contrail formation

Content from external source

 

Answers to the broken trail question. Just one minor edit to remove identifying info, some minor typo corrections, sorted alphabetically for some grouping.

Photo 2: What is the most likely reason there is a gap in this trail?


a break in the relative humidity, ie., the relative humidity is less than ice supersaturation.

A dry layer or atmospheric wave impacted the lifetime of the contrail.

A dry spell due to some turbulent disturbance.

A dry spot.

A local area of the upper troposphere where the temperature or the humidity (or both) are below the threshold values needed for a persisting contrail (e.g., due to locally sinking air at that altitude, which warms up and dries out the air).

A pocket of dry air causing the trail to evaporate (or sublimate) or possibly a lower level cloud obscuring our ability to see the trail at that point.

a region where the ambient air is not supersaturated with respect to ice

air masses with specific humidity can change at a constant flight level. Presence of cirrus clouds may show a complex meteorological situation with possible boundaries of different air masses.

aircraft encountered region of lower relative humidity in the gap

Aircraft is passing through a small region of reduced humidity or increased temperature, caused for example by an internal gravity wave. This phenomenon is very common over mountainous areas, where up-and-down gravity wave motions are common.

aircraft passing through local turbulence condition (strong upwinds?) leading to a rapid break-up of the vortex in the area. Likely to accelerate also the break up of the vortex.

Airplane encountered a very dry patch of air while flying at the similar pressure levels. The dry air is likely descending air.

Atmospheric variably: In that area the air is probably not moist enough, not a ice supersaturated region .

Atmospheric wave structure, which causes spatial variations of temperature, which in turn changes relative humidity structure.

changes in atmospheric humidity or temperature

"Descending atmospheric air motion. Rising air cools and becomes more humid (and more able to sustain a contrail or cloud), while descending air warms and becomes less humid (and less able to sustain a contrail or cloud). Vertical air motion occurs all the time, often due to convection but also often due to wave motion. Most people have seen regular banded patterns of clouds separated by clear air, and this is a marker of wave motion of air in the atmosphere. Air near the top of the wave has risen and cooled and humidified so that a band of condensed water vapor (cloud) will be located there, but in the lower part of the wave the air has descended and warmed and dried such that any ice crystals from a contrail or a cloud would evaporate away. The gap in the photo may reflect descending and therefore drier air (humidity below the ice-saturation value) where ice crystals from the contrail quickly evaporated.

Wave motion is not the only possible reason that air in the location of the gap might be drier. Another possibility is related to wind shear, where air motion at the same altitude is not uniform but can come from different horizontal locations. Perhaps most air in this region is coming from the left, but in the region of the gap it is coming from the right where the source air is drier.

Short Answer: The air in the region of the gap is drier than elsewhere along the aircraft flight path, so that contrail ice crystals formed by the jet engine putting heat, moisture, and particles into the atmosphere will quickly evaporate when mixed with the drier ambient air. There are multiple reasons why the air in the gap region could be drier, having to do with atmospheric air motion."

different absolute humidity

Different atmospheric background conditions in temperature and humidity.

dispersion was more rigorous in that region

drier air

dry layer or atmospheric wave impacted the lifetime of the contrail

dry spot

dryer air
"Excluding digital image processing, it could be
- a region of dry air at the given flight level
- a engine stop due to test reasons
- interaction with the visible cloud layer"

heterogeneity in ice-superaturation field

Higher ambient temperature due to atmospheric up welling

Higher ambient temperature due to atmospheric up welling

Humidity already used by cirrus

"in the center of the photograph, there is a region (air mass) with relatively small water vapor content, as opposed to the regions (air masses) in the upper-right corner and the lower-left region of the photo
alternatively, it may be a region with a strong downdraft of air"

Inside the gap, the ambient air is dry and therefore the contrails evaporate quickly.

Its so obvious I could show them almost every day here in [[REDACTED]], when there are wave clouds. These are variations in relative humidity from above to below ice saturation, most likely due to waves in the upper atmosphere.

Local variations in atmospheric relative humidity, which can be caused by numerous processes.

Local variations in temperature (and/or pressure)

lower atmospheric relative humidity

Most pilots really like to keep their engines running, and engines run in a fairly consistent manner in cruise, so the gap is likely due to small variations in atmospheric conditions.

reduced humidity or increased temperature, common over mountainous areas

Small vertical motion mixing dry air (up or down) to the flight level of the aircraft leaving the contrail.

subsidence (air moving downwards)

temperature and ambient level of saturation, or the aircraft changed altitude for a bit

temperature or the humidity (or both) are below the threshold values needed for a persisting contrail

the aircraft flew through a dry patch in the atmosphere along its flight path.

The gap is explained by the fact that the ambient air is dry and contrails evaporate quickly.

The gap is indicating different atmospheric conditions compared to the regions where the aircraft contrail has persisted for some time. It may have been too warm within the gap area so that no contrail could form even in the wake of the plane. Alternatively, a pre-existing contrail within the gap has evaporated due to dryer ambient air. The choice cannot surely be made on the basis of this photo.

The gap is probably caused due to higher temperatures or humidity below ice saturation. Situations like this are connected to descending air and often happen with atmospheric waves after the air has crossed a mountain.

The moist and dry air layers could have waves as a function of height. See previous explanation.

The most likely explanation is that a jet aircraft, which was initially flying through a relatively moist region, flew through a somewhat wetter parcel of air, and then passed back into a moister parcel of air. Thus, the gap is caused by the air not becoming saturated by the moister in the jet exhaust

The region with a gap has lower RH.

The relative humidity is not constant at flight altitude. In the gap it is lower than ice saturation. This can be caused by the thin cirrus that is visible. The cirrus crystals consume the water vapour in excess of saturation and start to sink due to gravity. But even without a cirrus, the relative humidity field is very variable.

unstable air, we all have been in aircraft when we have turbulence and within a few seconds or minutes out of it

variations in relative humidity from above to below ice saturation

Water vapor fields are not homogeneous or uniform. Part of the contrail is in a region where the relative humidity is less than 100% with respect to ice and the crystals are evaporating

water vapor is a highly variable quantity unlike temperature or pressure. Turbulence may be responsible for this variability seen here

While in general the air may be lifting, leading to the contrail, there may be small regions where there could be subsidence (air moving downwards). This seems to be the case here.

Wind

Wind, downdraft, updraft, or flying through area of different RH

Content from external source

 

This study debunk nothing

-Every single one of these scientists rejected the hypothesis that the four photos shown were evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). They all identified the trails as contrails, and gave scientific explanations for the effects seen in each photo.

Scientists have a magical eyes ? Chemtrails/contrails have a same aspect, best scientists of the world or no , it's IMPOSSIBLE to say 100% is contrails on the pictures.

-SLAP is THE simple explanation ?

Why just ask if is the simplest explanation ? Give all possible explanations !
If contrails is the simplest explanation, what is the others possible explanations ? The hardest explanation ?

Photo B - ON/OFF spraying is ONE possible explanation ? YES !

-Question: "What is the most likely reason there is a gap in this trail?"

The most likely reason !? Give all possible explanations again ! No just, the "most likely".

And again for the samples, simplest, most likely... explanation but never if SLAP is one possible explanation... You can saying anything you want, SLAP is one possible explanation for all (photos & sample)

The only solution they have is to discredit the samples collect methode but why they don't do a news samples collects of 2016 ? IT'S THAT THE REALS SCIENTISTS DO WHEN THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SAMPLES !

Never they say, IT ISN'T SLAP ! They say, it's not THE SIMPLEST or THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION. They don't say : SLAP is an impossible explanation.

I can't think that the best scientists on the subject can do a work also low level !

The "experts" were not paid for this work, is the simplest/most likely explanation for this bad job ?

Sorry, if my english isn't perfect, i trying to do my best for that you can read it.

 

Why just ask if is the simplest explanation ? Give all possible explanations !

That would be an infinite number of explanations.
A basic principle in science is that the simplest explanation should be investigated first.

 

IMPOSSIBLE to say 100% is contrails on the pictures.

So until every trail seen in the sky is tested you will say each one COULD be a "chemtrail"?

 

That would be an infinite number of explanations.
A basic principle in science is that the simplest explanation should be investigated first.

Ok but here the question is about 2 possibilities not an infinite, and the people they call conspiracy say, it's chemtrails. So the question for the scientists is : SLAP is the explanation or not ?

Not the Simplest explanation, most likely.... Especially if you want to be caught in the serious and coming from "specialists". Don't hide behind a basic principe. It's too easy & don't answer at the question : From where the elements far beyond their maximum contaminant levels ? From the planes or not ? That's the question the peoples ask, not the simplest, i don't need a "scientists" for saying to me the simplest explanation. One child can find the simplest explanation ! The planes don't reject only h2o. Where can i see, what he's the rejected ?

You say : the simplest explanation should be investigated first, i'm ok but when you don't have your answer, you investigate more.

So until every trail seen in the sky is tested you will say each one COULD be a "chemtrail"?

No, but i don't say it's impossible. When i could know from where the pollution contaminants then i could reply if yes or no it's from trails.

 

Why just ask if is the simplest explanation ? Give all possible explanations !
If contrails is the simplest explanation, what is the others possible explanations ? The hardest explanation ?

We didn't just if they thought SLAP was the simplest explanation, we asked them what they actually thought it was. None of them though the photos were anything even remotely like "chemtrails" or some kind of spraying. Read the posts directly before yours, where the various explanations are listed in the words of the scientists.

 

From where the elements far beyond their maximum contaminant levels ?

What do you mean? Please be more specific.

 

It's too easy & don't answer at the question : From where the elements far beyond their maximum contaminant levels ? From the planes or not ?

When i could know from where the pollution contaminants then i could reply if yes or no it's from trails.

There are plenty of other threads on Metabunk that address your questions. Please stick to the topic of this thread as per Posting Guidelines.

 

We didn't just if they thought SLAP was the simplest explanation, we asked them what they actually thought it was. None of them though the photos were anything even remotely like "chemtrails" or some kind of spraying. Read the posts directly before yours, where the various explanations are listed in the words of the scientists.

You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.

[...]

 

You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.

But there you are just saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrail experts.

So basically the photos are not evidence of "chemtrails". Which is the point. The study is about the proposed evidence. We show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails because they look and act like contrails.

 

You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.

[...]

Like Mick says, the study wasn't intended to disprove the possibility of chemtrails. It was intended to gauge what the consensus of experts is: people who study the atmosphere or soil all the time in their professional lives. If anyone should see evidence for chemtrails, it should be people who study those things. The fact is that they see any evidence for them, nor do they feel that chemtrails are needed to explain what they see in the sky or in water/soil samples.

 

But there you are just saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrail experts.

So basically the photos are not evidence of "chemtrails". Which is the point. The study is about the proposed evidence. We show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails because they look and act like contrails.

Yes i saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrails experts. How are the chemtrails photos ? Can you show me for comparison ? Sorrry but Here we need a chemtrails experts, not a contrails "experts".
You don't show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails, you just show that isn't SIMPLEST EXPLANATION !

Like Mick says, the study wasn't intended to disprove the possibility of chemtrails. It was intended to gauge what the consensus of experts is: people who study the atmosphere or soil all the time in their professional lives. If anyone should see evidence for chemtrails, it should be people who study those things. The fact is that they see any evidence for them, nor do they feel that chemtrails are needed to explain what they see in the sky or in water/soil samples.

Quantifier Expert Consensus AGAINST Covert géoingénierie / Chemtrails

- Je vous laisse chercher la traduction : https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasoir_d'Ockham

Une formulation plus moderne est que « les hypothèses suffisantes les plus simples sont les plus vraisemblables ». C'est un des principes heuristiques fondamentaux en science, sans être pour autant à proprement parler un résultat scientifique. Dans le langage courant, le rasoir d'Ockham pourrait s'exprimer par la phrase « Pourquoi faire compliqué quand on peut faire simple ? ». Cependant, la simplicité dont il est question ici ne signifie pas que l'hypothèse la plus simpliste, la plus évidente ou la plus conventionnelle est forcément la bonne.

 

You don't show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails, you just show that isn't SIMPLEST EXPLANATION !

We show that the experts think they are contrails.

We also show the experts have found no evidence of chemtrails.

There might still be chemtrails, just that these photos are not evidence of it.

 

That the experts think... with her magical eyes... You turn around... Show me chemtrails photos for comparison !?
No evidence of chemtrails is not an evidence of no chemtrails. A real prove can be but they never given. They just want debunked, it's why the study name "The experts against..."

There might still be chemtrails, just that these photos are not evidence of it.

This is one of the answers that should have been in this study if it had really been serious. And it is all your honor to finally acknowledge it, pity that it did not come from you and that it was necessary to debate so much to have this truth. SLAP is a possible explanation to each element, the one that says the opposite is not credible! I do not assert in any case that this is the explanation and also acknowledges that it might be contrails but until someone does a study worthy of the subject treated, for me the two possibilities remains conceivable.
Now, i see that You delete and edit my answers that seem not to please you, because they are off topic. All my questions, remarks or other are related to what is said in this study. No need to answer more in these conditions. But I'm not surprised, it fits well with the low level of this study ... Hav fun, You can now delete & edit all you want to match your needs.

 

So if we had titled it:

"Quantifying expert consensus about the evidence for the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program"

Would that have been okay?

 

No if they have, do a samples 2016 in the con/chem-trails & show an evidence that it's not the reason of high levels of contanimants (far beyond their maximum...), i have been ok

If they have saying also : there might still be chemtrails but that photos are not evidence of it. I maybe can think that this study is a serious work.

I wait again your chemtrails photos for conparison...

 

Yes i saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrails experts. How are the chemtrails photos ? Can you show me for comparison ?

If by "chemtrail" you mean some aerial spray that produces persistent spreading trails when contrails would not be persistent and spreading, I don't think that is possible. No matter what you spray in the air, it will not persist and spread unless contrails also persist and spread. But then you can simply use contrails to produce such trails.

 

I wait again your chemtrails photos for conparison...

What chemtrail photos?

 

Now, i see that You delete and edit my answers that seem not to please you, because they are off topic. All my questions, remarks or other are related to what is said in this study.

Please read the posting guidelines
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

If you'd like to discuss other topics related to 'chemtrails' find teh appropriate thread or start a new one.

but until someone does a study worthy of the subject treated, for me the two possibilities remains conceivable.

You seem to be misunderstanding the study.

Actual experts, in atmospheric fields, were shown the evidence that 'chemtrail experts' claim is evidence for chemtrails. The 'chemtrail experts' photos claim that these are chemtrails is ONLY based on visual assessment. "Look up".

'Chemtrail experts' claim that those particular water/soil samples prove chemtrails.

The actual experts opinions were that those particular 'claims of evidence from chemtrail experts', presented to them, did not prove chemtrails.

That's all the study was about.



i added bold for emphasis:

To address these claims, we surveyed two groups of experts—atmospheric chemists with expertize in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution—to scientifically evaluate for the first time the claims of SLAP theorists.

Results show that 76 of the 77 scientists (98.7%) that took part in this study said they had not encountered evidence of a SLAP, and that the data cited as evidence could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols.

Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying program—who often reject counter-evidence as further proof of their theories—but rather to establish a source of objective science that can inform public discourse. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011

Content from external source

 

You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.

[...]

But apparently people who believe chemtrails exist do have such eyes - and while other explanations COULD be possible there are no actual real life scenarios that would enable them to exist.

Go figure.....

 

But apparently people who believe chemtrails exist do have such eyes - and while other explanations COULD be possible there are no actual real life scenarios that would enable them to exist.

Go figure.....

Exactly this. Go onto a chemtrail website of your choice and chances are it will tell people exactly how to identify chemtrails using only their eyes: because, they claim, chemtrails look different (spreading, persistent) from contrails (thin, quickly dissipating)!

The people claiming to have magic eyes aren't the experts quoted in this study, but the self-styled chemtrail experts who tell people all they have to do is "look up"!

 

If there ARE no chemtrails, how can there be chemtrail photos to compare with?
If ALL the evidence of chemtrails is visual (i.e looking at trails) but they don't look any different to normal persistent contrails, then there is NO specific evidence for chemtrails.

 

If there ARE no chemtrails, how can there be chemtrail photos to compare with?
If ALL the evidence of chemtrails is visual (i.e looking at trails) but they don't look any different to normal persistent contrails, then there is NO specific evidence for chemtrails.

I'd like to reiterate here that there is only one chemical known to form persistent spreading clouds (including trails) in the Earth atmosphere. It is called water and is already present in abundance at the Earth surface and in the atmosphere in three different states - solid (ice), liquid (water) and gaseous (vapour). Condensation of invisible vapour in the atmosphere creates visible clouds - aerosols of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals. Contrails (short for condensation trails) are the same clouds, their formation is triggered by the pressure drop on the aircraft wing and/or the injection of extra water vapour into the atmosphere - byproduct of hydrocarbon fuel burning.

No other chemical has been shown to have similar properties in the Earth conditions. Although other chemical compounds can be sprayed into the air, they will not hang there for long as a visible cloud; they will quickly dissipate as smoke does after the smoke generator's turned off. Therefore, until it is demonstrated experimentally, in laboratory conditions, that an alleged chemical compound or mixture can imitate the behaviour of water vapour in the atmosphere, the hypothesis of some persistent trails above being "chemtrails" can be dismissed as lacking scientific basis.

It should not be surprising at all that the expert scientists did not consider it seriously.

 

Which is another major point of course. MOST of the water was already in the atmosphere. There is not enough cargo capacity in ANY plane to be able to spray enough of ANYTHING to make clouds this big (bearing in mind they are foten hundreds of miles long.

 

This military fighter jet pilot explains contrails, he is what I would consider an expert as he has to be aware of conditions that produce contrails in order to not be easily seen. He covers a lot in this very good and informative 15 minute video.