Useful Chemtrail Debunking Images and Infographics

November

Member
Why would persistent and expanding jet trails develop over regions that are warm and dry?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The weather at 35,000 feet is not the same as the weather on the ground.

Look at the top of Mt Everest, at around 30,000 feet it's always freezing.

And sometimes it's humid enough.
 

November

Member
Not in the same way. It changes like clouds/non clouds.

I wonder what the humidity percentage would normally need to be, before these jet trails would have more of a tendency to persist and expand?

Are there significant expanding jet trails presenting themselves over the L.A. area?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I wonder what the humidity percentage would normally need to be, before these jet trails would have more of a tendency to persist and expand?
60-70%, depending on various factors. It need to be ice-supersaturated.

Are there significant expanding jet trails presenting themselves over the L.A. area?
Right now? Yes. Here's a photo from two minutes ago:
IMG_0478.JPG 2013-11-19 13-05-08.jpg

Check the contrail forecast here
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-forecast/
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Here's the 11/19 12Z radiosonde data out of San Diego, the closest in space and time to when that pic was taken in LA. Dew point is the squiggly vertical line on the left, temperature on the right. Note how the dew point, and thus humidity, can change suddenly and drastically. What I'm seeing in the radiosonde data is pretty much confirmed in Mick's photo.

2013111912.72293.skewt.gif
 

November

Member
60-70%, depending on various factors. It need to be ice-supersaturated.


Right now? Yes. Here's a photo from two minutes ago:
IMG_0478.JPG 2013-11-19 13-05-08.jpg

Check the contrail forecast here
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-forecast/

I would assume then, that the humidity in the L.A. area right now - would be 60-70%. Is that about normal?
Do you think that the ice-supersaturation requirement is present right now?
Is it normal for the skies over L.A. to get that cold -- above several thousand feet?

I think what I'm getting at, is -- people should pay attention to conditions when they see jet trails persisting and expanding.
It seems odd for jet trails to do this over very dry areas.

The NASA site is fine, but people would just presume that if the gov is doing the chemtrailing, of course the gov would know where they will appear, so of course the gov/NASA would put out scientific-sounding reports to explain them away -- ahead of time.

People might be able to do their own predictions -- based on humidity and climate in their areas at the time -- if they understood the basics of why they form and when.

The question remains as to why most people I know -- who grew up or were around in the 60's -- don't recall seeing these things expand in the sky like they do now. There were jets and jet trails for sure. But not ones that did this -- to most people's recollections.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would assume then, that the humidity in the L.A. area right now - would be 60-70%. Is that about normal?
Do you think that the ice-supersaturation requirement is present right now?
Is it normal for the skies over L.A. to get that cold -- above several thousand feet?

I think what I'm getting at, is -- people should pay attention to conditions when they see jet trails persisting and expanding.
It seems odd for jet trails to do this over very dry areas.

The NASA site is fine, but people would just presume that if the gov is doing the chemtrailing, of course the gov would know where they will appear, so of course the gov/NASA would put out scientific-sounding reports to explain them away -- ahead of time.

People might be able to do their own predictions -- based on humidity and climate in their areas at the time -- if they understood the basics of why they form and when.

The question remains as to why most people I know -- who grew up or were around in the 60's -- don't recall seeing these things expand in the sky like they do now. There were jets and jet trails for sure. But not ones that did this -- to most people's recollections.

Well that's just wrong. Plenty of people remember them from when they were growing up.

And yes, the condition here are right for contrail formation, and there's nothing unusual about them. It's just weather.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
The question remains as to why most people I know -- who grew up or were around in the 60's -- don't recall seeing these things expand in the sky like they do now. There were jets and jet trails for sure. But not ones that did this -- to most people's recollections.

As Mick pointed out, that is not accurate- contrails most assuredly did persist for hours and spread- ever since planes have flown high enough. We have amassed some examples here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pre-1995-persistent-contrail-archive.487/

Here is a paper published in 1970 - with data from 1969- studying persistent, spreading contrails with photos of "this":

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027<0937:AOOCEO>2.0.CO;2

There was, of course, MUCH less air traffic in the 1960s than now:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/growth-in-world-air-traffic-1970-present.2572/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
The question remains as to why most people I know -- who grew up or were around in the 60's -- don't recall seeing these things expand in the sky like they do now. There were jets and jet trails for sure. But not ones that did this -- to most people's recollections.

I remember them in the 1960s from growing up in Christchurch, New Zealand - jets were only introduced in domestic routes in NZ in 1968, so it was pretty much "suddenly" there were contrails from then on.

They would fly from Wellington to Dunedin overhead Chch - the 2 cities were each about 200 miles north and south of Chch. Often the first contrail would still be there when the jet flew back the other way an hour or 90 minutes, and often the contrail would pretty much span the entire visible sky!
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
The RH (with respect to water) at which ice-saturation occurs depends solely on the ambient air temperature.
At the temperatures where contrails typically form, it is above about 62%.
 

Barnacle

New Member
I think it might be helpful for chem believers to see this image. It's fairly simple and would explain in simple terms that if contrails can persist on the ground under the right conditions, why would it now happen in the sky. Perhaps some of them in colder climates can relate to the information in this image. Who knows

freezing fog.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog
 

BenGordonShow

New Member
I have, on several occasions, tracked two flights on radar 24 flying over my city, one leaving a contrail, the other NOT leaving one and they have near identical altitudes and sometimes they are BOTH 757's or another same sized plane

Satellite views of airports are useful for demonstrating the relative sizes of planes, showing how hard it would be to say if two planes are at the same altitude:

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have, on several occasions, tracked two flights on radar 24 flying over my city, one leaving a contrail, the other NOT leaving one and they have near identical altitudes and sometimes they are BOTH 757's or another same sized plane

It only takes a hundred feet of so. Generally thought the planes will be at least 1,000 feet apart. Do you have links to the two flight tracks?
 

BenGordonShow

New Member
Um, a hundred feet difference means the difference between no contrail and a very prominent contrail? Hmmm? The app only gives you "36,000" feet so it does NOT round to the nearest hundred--but, If it is above the contrail elevation range, these planes SHOULD output the same or near same vapor if one is at 35,000 and the other at 36,000, no? BTW, contrails ruin my day on plenty of occasions. I don't know about chemicals in the planes or not, all i know is, I get out a lawn chair, watch the planes go by and leave the trails that expand forever and turn beautiful blue skies into white misty, hazed out, sun blocking bummers
 

BenGordonShow

New Member
i'll do a video of this test, I've done this a few times now--the only thing I can think of is maybe, maybe I misidentified the planes i thought i was seeing, but i was being pretty careful and Radar24 updates every few seconds to show the trajectory of the flight/flights you are watching
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Um, a hundred feet difference means the difference between no contrail and a very prominent contrail? Hmmm? The app only gives you "36,000" feet so it does NOT round to the nearest hundred--but, If it is above the contrail elevation range, these planes SHOULD output the same or near same vapor if one is at 35,000 and the other at 36,000, no?

No. The transition between contrailling and not can be very sharp. It's not aways something that gradually increases, it's either there, or it's not. Like cloud is either there or not.
 

Barnacle

New Member
contrails ruin my day on plenty of occasions. I don't know about chemicals in the planes or not, all i know is, I get out a lawn chair, watch the planes go by and leave the trails that expand forever and turn beautiful blue skies into white misty, hazed out, sun blocking bummers

Yeah, agreed. A lot of the archive news articles mention residents in certain areas complaining about contrails blocking out the sun. It's happening more now by default. It's a real issue and it seems to be kept fairly quiet int he mainstream media.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Yeah, agreed. A lot of the archive news articles mention residents in certain areas complaining about contrails blocking out the sun. It's happening more now by default. It's a real issue and it seems to be kept fairly quiet int he mainstream media.

Essentially you have pointed out the reason for the chemtrail hoax. The almost exponential increase in air traffic has caused more contrails and the ill-informed have applied their own interpretation to what they have seen.

Air traffic will continue to increase but in my view it will start to run up against natural limits of the Air Traffic Control system in the not too distant future..

The introduction of RVSM airspace and ADSB has greatly increased the efficiency of enroute airspace but the biggest bottlenecks are the airports themselves. Safety considerations pose immutable limits on the amount of traffic a runway can handle in an hour.

Pilots are under pressure to keep runway occupancy times to the bare minimum because there is always someone breathing down your neck, but wake turbulence separation standards must be applied and maintained. To do otherwise is unsafe.

Western countries don't build many new airports these days and curfews add to the inefficiency. I don't know what the upper limit is for air traffic, but it isn't "blue skies". We will hit in in our lifetimes barring some technological revolution.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
I'm interested to know why you posted that screen grab here in this thread.
How is it useful to debunk chemtrails?
Do you agree with what Russ Tanner is saying there?
Every statement in that post is wrong and the errors have already been discussed in other threads here.
What is the point are you making?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I'm interested to know why you posted that screen grab here in this thread.
How is it useful to debunk chemtrails?
Do you agree with what Russ Tanner is saying there?
Every statement in that post is wrong and the errors have already been discussed in other threads here.
What is the point are you making?
I think he was just trying to preserve a copy of RT's statement. Barnacle seems to understand the falsity of it.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/us...mages-and-infographics.1007/page-3#post-75320
 

Barnacle

New Member
I'm interested to know why you posted that screen grab here in this thread.
How is it useful to debunk chemtrails?
Do you agree with what Russ Tanner is saying there?
Every statement in that post is wrong and the errors have already been discussed in other threads here.
What is the point are you making?

I think it's debunking information. For anyone getting into chemtrails, starting to believe the theories, it might be helpful for them to see how ridiculous the theory has to get, to withstand counter evidence.
As I have shown, automobile exhaust can persist in the right conditions also wind turbines have created contrails. Why Tanner would think that jet can't leave persistent trails, should be beyond the belief of most people, even young chemlings.
 

November

Member
Well that's just wrong. Plenty of people remember them from when they were growing up.

And yes, the condition here are right for contrail formation, and there's nothing unusual about them. It's just weather.

I don't know of anyone who is old enough to remember the skies in the 60's -- who also remember jet trails being persistent and expanding.
Perhaps someone will visit a retirement home soon and can do an impartial survey of the residents -- and see what the overall memory is.

The fact that there is more air traffic is irrelevant, because there would still have been this phenomena happening, and people would remember it.

Perhaps the general public has photographs of expanding and persistent jet trails from this decade -- that were caught by accident while taking photographs of other things.

Someone could write a book and put the mystery to rest, just using these two avenues of research. Not pictures taken by scientists, but pictures taken by the general public, that inadvertently caught this jet trail behavior going on in the sixties, in order to show that it is nothing new.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
I don't know of anyone who is old enough to remember the skies in the 60's -- who also remember jet trails being persistent and expanding.

Me. Granted I was young, but in the late 60s my grandmother moved to NYC, and thereafter every time I saw a plane fly overhead I thought it was flying to NYC, and wouldn't it be great to be on it. Back then one of my uncles would often take me fishing with him, and as he preferred to ledger rather than fly fish, a lot of time was spent lying back on the river banks and staring up at the sky. The contrails were of great interest to me, and how they dispersed seemed to vary considerably from week to week. Some would last ages, others would vanish quite quickly.

Of course there were a lot less than there are now, as there were a lot less flights back then.
 

November

Member
It would be valuable to see photographs of this having taken place in the 60's -- by photographers who were not focused on them, but on other things.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
I don't know of anyone who is old enough to remember the skies in the 60's -- who also remember jet trails being persistent and expanding.
Perhaps someone will visit a retirement home soon and can do an impartial survey of the residents -- and see what the overall memory is.

The fact that there is more air traffic is irrelevant, because there would still have been this phenomena happening, and people would remember it.

Perhaps the general public has photographs of expanding and persistent jet trails from this decade -- that were caught by accident while taking photographs of other things.

Someone could write a book and put the mystery to rest, just using these two avenues of research. Not pictures taken by scientists, but pictures taken by the general public, that inadvertently caught this jet trail behavior going on in the sixties, in order to show that it is nothing new.

I was born in 1963, I remember watching jets leave trails from horizon to horizon, as Alhazred said, there were not as many back then.

Lot's of photos here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pre-1995-persistent-contrail-archive.487/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I don't know of anyone who is old enough to remember the skies in the 60's -- who also remember jet trails being persistent and expanding.
Perhaps someone will visit a retirement home soon and can do an impartial survey of the residents -- and see what the overall memory is.
I'd suggest a visit to a war veterans organization. That will narrow down your search and you can actually speak to some pilots who made the contrails.

But will you have the guts to do this? I'll be waiting, and I've got a good memory.

All I had to do was ask my father. He didn't lie.
http://forum.armyairforces.com/In-Memory-of-Capt-John-B-Reynolds19202009-m172700.aspx
http://forum.armyairforces.com/photo.aspx?photoid=6902&albumid=476

dad.jpg
 
Top