Vindog's Contrail Questions [Contrails Near Boston]

And Vindog's ban is only for two days. He's more than welcome to come back and discuss contrails and the chemtrail theory.
 
Hama Neggs came indeed across as "snarky", as Vindog perceived it.

If some "dissenter" starts to post here, it's not unlikely that he/she is a bit anxious or touchy at first. I strongly believe we should take that into account.

Am I repeating myself? Probably not often enough.
 
It did kindof feel like Vindog was standing on trial. Antagonism isn't always the way to go about these things.
 
Hama Neggs came indeed across as "snarky", as Vindog perceived it.

I'd like to "stand up" for member "Hama Neggs".

Although...yeah, member "Hama Neggs" (might) have infuriated member "vindog" on occasion.

Perhaps they both could "hug" it out??? (**)

(**) A "virtual" hug, of course. Even if in PMs...we don't have to know..... :cool:
 
It did kindof feel like Vindog was standing on trial. Antagonism isn't always the way to go about these things.
No, it's true. It's best to be as kind as you can. It's a distinction easily made by any onlooker. Oldies may be bitter with each other, if the necessity ever arises, having covered the preceding more courteous ground. I've had moments with George and Joe, and Oxy, in the past. And I've sat in the cooler. But newbies are in foreign ground, and need gently guiding, I think. And of course, no-one's infallible, anyway.
 
It's been a few months but there was a thread a while back where I, myself, was sort of on the defense about something and it can be frustrating since everyone so rapidly and vehemently comments. If vin dog comes back there needs to be a system or a rule or something so that it's not 5 against 1 and so only one issue is discussed at a time until that issue is resolved in either agreement or disagreement. My $.02.
 
Mick generally comes across best, but then he's probably some NLP guru or something. Definitely not to be trusted cos of that.

So many arguments turn into nothing more than arguing the semantics. "You said this" "Oh, I didn't actually mean it like that."

Take the "All day everyday". Cracks me up whenever I hear that one. "Oh, bad choice of words". No it's not, it's a lie.

Got sod all to do with the friggin' topic of conversation anyway. But whoever says such a thing HAS to realise what it makes them look like to the people reading it.
 
Hey guys I'm still here, haven't abandoned ship yet. I'm up in MA until Saturday night, so I'm not gonna respond with a lengthy post until I'm back in NJ.

I would like to say that I know I wasn't banned for dissent. I was banned cause I lost my cool, maybe for good reason , maybe not.

I plan on making a video response to address a few things if that's ok..
 
Yes, "sod all" means "absolutely nothing", similar to "fuck all", but considerably more polite, despite the etymology.

Heh! See, if I weren't such an Anglophile, I would never have known that before....but my years of "Monty Python" and "Benny Hill" (et al)....plus a good dose of actually travelling the World, helps (me, at least) in this knowledge.

Glad to see 'Vindog' is back. "Woof!"

{EDIT} For "Vindog": If you read this -- I am an experienced airline pilot (not the only one who is a member, 'TWCobra' as well).

ANY questions you have, I am more than happy to respond to them. You see, pilots LIKE to help others understand....well, most pilots. Nowadays, seems we don't get the kind of respect that we used to. NOT that we crave it...it's just....after I retired, I looked back and I look at the industry now, when I travel....and some people see (us) as "bus drivers". Not to diminish the skills needed to drive a bus, but.....

I started out in my career by being a Flight Instructor. It was a few decades ago, (and I can sometimes 'come off' a bit harsh) but teaching is still in me, regardless.
 
Last edited:
My bark is worse than my bite.

Great!!! Very funny, and I mean that human-to-human.

I think that on an Internet Forum, when there are MULTIPLE time-zones involved...meaning, contributors from around the globe...it can seem daunting. There is also an inevitable "lag-time" based on each individual user's Internet connection speed.

So, PLEASE keep that in mind. I try to....I wish that the Internet was the same as portrayed on "Star Trek" viewscreens...we are close, but not yet...(I know from using Google Video with friends, and talking on their cell-phones at the same time...there is a delay. Not "5 minutes" of course....which is the issue here, AFAIK at MB).

EDIT: And if you read this, please know that this is a genuine offer: As a long-time pilot I am happy to help you understand contrails. 40+ years total AS a pilot, last 22 years with a major airline, flying the B-727, A-300, DC-10, DC-9/MD80 and of course, the B737 (all series), and the B757/767.
 
It might be a good idea to define terms, Vindog.

Contrail or condensation trail
Chemtrail

Those two in particular.

Altitude generally means physical height above some datum, like mean sea level.
Elevation generally means the angle up between the horizon and an object in the sky.

If the conversation used terms that are generally and commonly understood, and defined any new ones that turn up, then some "go forward" can be achieved.

First we must get agreed on what these terms mean:
Contrail or condensation trail
Chemtrail
... regardless of judging if they are real, unscientific, mythical, a hoax or whatever.
 
As a previously non-participating reader of this thread I just wanted to say thank you to @Vindog for coming back and giving this another chance. I'm honestly pleased to see someone who is determined about furthering their own knowledge and understanding about the world.

:cool:

Respect to you sir/ma'am.
 
Welcome back Vindog.

If I can make a suggestion?.. Try to keep the statements/questions just one at a time, and maybe nominate someone you wish to respond/ answer it. This will avoid confusing the issue and the appearance that you are being "piled on". No-one on this forum wants to make that impression with someone making honest enquiries.

There are people with specialties here who can give in-depth replies.
 
That's one way to go about it. However, I think most issues are already addressed on the contrailscience site. Not sure how much of that you've (vindog) looked at, but it sure is a good starting point. Make sure you read the comments too, since many chemtrail believers pop in there and have their questions addressed (even though it's not always received well, obviously).

Most Chemtrail believers don't like going to the contrailscience site because they think it's dis-info and being run by some kind of paid shill (that would be you, Mick). However, regardless of who's running it, I think the science/information contained within it's pages stands by itself, and can usually be checked independently too.

And if you really don't like going there.. well at least familiarize yourself a bit with basics, such as some meteorology (especially what kind of clouds are there, at what altitudes do you find them, and what do they consist of?), how a jet engine works, aviation in general. I know these are all very broad topics, but just pick those that may address your particular chemtrail beliefs. For instance: learning what a Cirrus cloud is can be very helpful in understanding what a persistent contrail actually is.

Here's another good starting point:

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/contrail-edu/

In short: educate yourself! (inasmuch as you haven't already, but I guess we'll be able to tell soon enough ;) )

And I think that's also one of the main differences between this site and the Chemtrail believing crowd (at least in my experience). We're able to tell to you to look at both sides of the story, while they'll only allow you to look at the 'chemtrail believers'side of things, and discourage you from looking at 'our' side (we're 'disinfo agents', after all).

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Here is a question. How does a 53% increase in air traffic from the 90's to today account for a roughly 5000% increase in(edit) "persistent contrails". I say "roughly" 5000% because in my observable area there were no chemtrails in the 90's, now a days you will see an average of at least 50 a day. Some days you dont see any, some days you see WELL over 50 or so many that you cant count.
 
Here is a question. How does a 53% increase in air traffic from the 90's to today account for a roughly 5000% increase in "contrails". I say "roughly" 5000% because in my observable area there were no chemtrails in the 90's, now a days you will see an average of at least 50 a day. Some days you dont see any, some days you see WELL over 50 or so many that you cant count.

Your "5000%" figure is incredibly exaggerated.

But, this here is a true statement, however:

...there were no chemtrails in the 90's...

That is correct, there WERE no "chem"trails in the 90's. (There were plenty of CONtrails though, just as there are today. Problem is, a confirmation bias sets in now, because now you are noticing them more).

There are STILL no "chem"trails today, either.
 
Your "5000%" figure is incredibly exaggerated.
To calculate the percentage increase: First: work out the difference (increase) between the two numbers you are comparing. Then: divide the increase by the original number and multiply the answer by 100. If your answer is a negative number then this is a percentage decrease.

When you do the math there is no exaggeration. used to see 0, now I see an average of 50. Its not bias. You cannot say that I just didn't notice them, as I was an Avid sky watcher. I do no accept this as a real answer.

But, this here is a true statement, however:



That is correct, there WERE no "chem"trails in the 90's. (There were plenty of CONtrails though, just as there are today. Problem is, a confirmation bias sets in now, because now you are noticing them more).

There are STILL no "chem"trails today, either.
Now you are arguing semantics. You know what I meant. For sake of argument, lets not do this. I will not say "i win" if you had just answered the question w/o clarifying your OPINION on whether is Chemical or Condensation
 
Now you are arguing semantics.

No, I want the definition of what is being discussed to be crystal clear and unambiguous.

The modern notion of a "chem"trail as is popularly now tossed around is an Urban Legend...a myth. It is an over-reaction to a perfectly ordinary phenomenon. Contrails.

I have simplified this myth into three reasons for its endurance:

1) Scientific lack of knowledge and understanding of a complex, and counter-intuitive phenomenon....contrails.

2) That non-understanding leads to unnecessary and unwarranted "fear" (often turning into anger).

3) Certain unscrupulous individuals over the last few decades are capitalizing on this and thus promoting this myth, which means they knowingly perpetuating a hoax. This is the worst sort, because they know the reality, but have realized there is a potential for profit, or some other gratification.

This (#3) is similar to those who shill for "As Seen On TV" so-called "miracle cures" (for example), those who bilk people by giving them "astrology readings", and their cousins, the "psychics"....etc.
 
No, I want the definition of what is being discussed to be crystal clear and unambiguous.

The modern notion of a "chem"trail as is popularly now tossed around is an Urban Legend...a myth. It is an over-reaction to a perfectly ordinary phenomenon. Contrails.

I have simplified this myth into three reasons for its endurance:

1) Scientific lack of knowledge and understanding of a complex, and counter-intuitive phenomenon....contrails.

2) That non-understanding leads to unnecessary and unwarranted "fear" (often turning into anger).

3) Certain unscrupulous individuals over the last few decades are capitalizing on this and thus promoting this myth, which means they knowingly perpetuating a hoax. This is the worst sort, because they know the reality, but have realized there is a potential for profit, or some other gratification.

This (#3) is similar to those who shill for "As Seen On TV" so-called "miracle cures" (for example), those who bilk people by giving them "astrology readings", and their cousins, the "psychics"....etc.
This does not answer my question at all. This is a run around statement to avoid the numbers, and the legitimate question that I posed to you. If you are not going to adress the question I asked, then dont respond. Again, weedwhacker should be punished for this statement as I was similarly punished for not answering someones question.

Again. I ask anyone here, to tell me how does a 53% increase in air traffic from the 90's to today account for a roughly 5000% increase in "persistent contrails" from the 90's to today.
 
Again. I ask anyone here, to tell me how does a 53% increase in air traffic from the 90's to today account for a roughly 5000% increase in "persistent contrails"

It doesn't these are completely made up numbers.

I TOLD you already....did you not see the term "confirmation bias"? (It is a fact, a trait shared by all Humans).

Here's one way how it works: Say you took a road trip to see grandma a few towns away.

After you returned, someone asks you if you saw any white cars during the drive. You really don't recall...

Now, next day you take the same route, but THIS TIME the idea of "white cars" is in your mind...and, you begin to notice them EVERYWHERE!

You count 50 of them....when you don't remember seeing any the previous day. THAT is your imaginary "5000%" increase.
 
It doesn't these are completely made up numbers.

I TOLD you already....did you not see the term "confirmation bias"? (It is a fact, a trait shared by all Humans).

Here's one way how it works: Say you took a road trip to see grandma a few towns away.

After you returned, someone asks you if you saw any white cars during the drive. You really don't recall...

Now, next day you take the same route, but THIS TIME the idea of "white cars" is in your mind...and, you begin to notice them EVERYWHERE!

You count 50 of them....when you don't remember seeing any the previous day. THAT is your imaginary "5000%" increase.
You are assuming that this is true. which it is not. I didnt notice them after someone else suggested it to me. I noticed them because I am an AVID skywatcher and they just started appearing all of the sudden. Your answer is your opinion. It is not acceptable and does not explain the increase. And also, you all cannot have it both ways. When i originally asked the question about 10 pages ago, about why did they just start showing up, someone gave me the 53% increase in air traffic as the main factor of the appearance. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Again anyone other than weedwhacker feel free to chime in. How does a 53% increase in air traffic from the 90's to today account for a roughly 5000% increase in(edit) "persistent contrails".
 
in my observable area there were no chemtrails in the 90's, now a days you will see an average of at least 50 a day. Some days you dont see any, some days you see WELL over 50 or so many that you cant count.

Maybe there was indeed no air traffic route over your area in the nineties? Increase in air traffic obviously involves the creation of new connections.

Anyway, as has been repeated in many discussions here, the atmosphere - including its higher levels - is changing continuously, and hardly ever homogenous, vertically and horizontally. So sometimes it's contrail weather, sometimes it's not. The planes are still there, just harder to spot.

It may be interesting to employ a flight tracking web site to identify the trail-creating planes that fly through your area. Take care if you estimate the distance to your observation spot though; this has been a source of confusion before:
http://contrailscience.com/how-far-away-is-that-contrail/

Flightradar24 is a partly community-driven effort, but the coverage should be good in your corner of the world:
http://www.flightradar24.com/
 
...they just started appearing all of the sudden.

Define "avid" and "all of a sudden".

Because, from MY perspective with 40+ years total as a pilot, the last 22 at a major U.S. airline I saw countless numbers of contrails all through the 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s (and of course, today). I see the expected increases due to more airplanes, combined with the ever-increasing (now totally ALL jets) equipped with High-Bypass Turbofan engines.
 
Define "avid" and "all of a sudden".

Because, from MY perspective with 40+ years total as a pilot, the last 22 at a major U.S. airline I saw countless numbers of contrails all through the 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s (and of course, today). I see the expected increases due to more airplanes, combined with the ever-increasing (now totally ALL jets) equipped with High-Bypass Turbofan engines.
And I told you already, I'm not going to argue semantics. Look the word and phrase up yourself man im not going to do work for you.

You cannot answer my question with my question....My question is how does a 53% increase in air traffic cause a 5000% increase in "persistent" contrails, and you answer me with "more air traffic".....

How does a High-Bypass turbofan engine help to make more "persistent contrails"?
 
Here is a question. How does a 53% increase in air traffic from the 90's to today account for a roughly 5000% increase in(edit) "persistent contrails". I say "roughly" 5000% because in my observable area there were no chemtrails in the 90's, now a days you will see an average of at least 50 a day. Some days you dont see any, some days you see WELL over 50 or so many that you cant count.
The last I heard, air traffic was doubling every 15 years, which is an increase by 100%. That's exponential growth, such that air traffic has increased by 5000% since the dawn of cheap jet passenger travel at the end of the fifties.

The other part of the conundrum is that the passenger aircraft making the dense trails which have been (wrongly) given the name "chemtrails" are doing so in supersaturated layers in the higher troposphere. These are water-vapor-saturated layers which, due to their stillness and non-turbulence, have managed (over a period of time) to absorb a larger amount of water vapor molecules (by diffusion from below) than they can possibly sustain when a plane barrels throughout them at 800 feet per second, trailing hot steam, CO2, and billions of carbon-based molecules generally bearing the designation of "UHCs and SOOT".

The amount of water per unit volume air isn't THAT great: at 35,000 feet and -40 deg C not a lot of water is needed for supersaturation. (It's very different at ground level). So when the planes fly through a supersaturated layer seven miles up they leave heavy trails of frozen ice crystals with a central molecular impurity which increase in weight sufficiently to fall en masse out of the layer in minutes.

These trails don't desaturate the layer (though they may de-supersaturate parts of them) because they are tiny with respect to its size, and they fall quite quickly out of the layer which produced them. These ice crystal trails are going to have to fall a couple of miles before they enter air which is above freezing temperature. But they can spread up to ten miles wide by the time they have done this. So where, say, in the sixties you might get a single huge trail ten miles wide, now, all other things being equal, you would see SIX of these trails. Six trails ten miles wide - and the whole of your sky could be white.

So basically it IS the increase in air traffic which accounts for this dramatic change in appearance. I have watched the sky over the Home Counties "white out" since the sixties, as long-distance air routes have existed and intersected there in all that time. The residents will tell you about living beneath a triangle of white (with blue skies on the horizons) for at least the last FORTY years - on occasion. These days it's a bigger triangle - on occasion.

The only way you can sometimes tell there's a supersaturated layer up there, is when it is already carrying some natural cirrus. And, of course, when a plane flying through it produces a dense trail. Otherwise, supersaturated layers are invisible.

Cirrus clouds only exist stably in saturated air. And supersaturation can only happen to already-saturated air. When you see cirrus clouds you are looking upwards through a transparent troposphere into a transparent layer of saturated air with either or both the layer boundaries delineated by newly-forming ice crystals which will itself become supersaturated over time if it isn't shaken or stirred.

So, when you see cirrus, expect trails. Horsetail cirrus, thinnish trails. Cirrostratus, heavy trails. (Because horsetail ice clouds are being whipped up, while flat strata ice clouds are obviously at peace).

Horsetail cirrus seems to be caused by the confluence of layers traveling at different speeds and directions, one of which must be saturated. Cirrostratus forms when a non-turbulent saturated layer loses solar illumination at sunset, or a layer is made to gain height. Either way, that's by cooling. When a saturated layer is made to cool, it must either supersaturate, or precipitate out ice crystals, which it will certainly do if it is turbulated. The more it cools, the less stimulus it needs to do this, until finally it needs none. That happens above eleven miles up - three miles above passenger aviation.

Water vapor doesn't really feature above that altitude, which is why Edward Teller proposed "chemtrails" to be used at 80,000 feet*. Water washes out those sorts of particles to earth remarkably quickly below that altitude. Check out the lifetime of the dust from a large volcanic eruption.

Well, Teller's main aim would have been to see to it that the materials stayed up a long time to do the job of reflecting the sun's ray back into space - hence the 80,000 feet (16 miles) required. There's no point in putting it up for a couple of weeks.

* Unachievable, of course.
 
Last edited:
The last I heard, air traffic was doubling every 15 years, which is an increase by 100%. That's exponential growth, such that air traffic has increased by 5000% since the dawn of cheap jet passenger travel at the end of the fifties.
And I am just supposed to believe you on this? How about a source?
 
The other part of the conundrum is that the passenger aircraft making the dense trails which have been (wrongly) given the name "chemtrails" are doing so in supersaturated layers in the higher troposphere. These are layers which due to their stillness and non-turbulence have managed to absorb a larger amount of water vapor molecules (by diffusion from below) than they can possibly sustain when a plane barrels throughout them at 800 feet per second, trailing hot steam, CO2, and billions of carbon-based molecules generally bearing the designation of "UHCs and SOOT".

The amount of water per unit volume air isn't THAT great: at 35,000 feet and -40 deg C not a lot of water is needed for supersaturation. It's very different at ground level. So when the planes fly through they leave heavy trails of frozen ice crystals with a central molecular impurity which increase in weight sufficiently to fall out of the layer in minutes. These trails don't desaturate the layer (though they may de-supersaturate parts of them) because they are tiny with respect to its size, and they fall quite quickly out of the layer which produced them. They are going to have to fall a couple of miles before they enter air which is above freezing temperature. But they can spread up to ten miles wide by the time they have done this. So where, say, in the sixties you might get a single huge trail ten miles wide, now, all other things being equal, you would see SIX of these trails. Six trails ten miles wide - and the whole of your sky will be white.
This is basically the explanation for how regular dissipating contrails manifest. It does not explain the increase in the "persistent contrails". I have already been given good information on the increase on air traffic from someone in this thread, and it is an increase of 53% since the 90s.

Still waiting for someone to solve this problem for me.
 
I know we're all piling on you again but I have to comment. One of my favorite sayings is "the plural of anecdote is not data". Which basically means you question is purely anecdotal and we can't answer it because it's not real data. All we can do is point out data that says there has not been a 5000% increase in persistent trails and suggest that you are the victim of a few common illusions.

I say I have noticed extensive contrails my entire life but even that is anecdotal. Can you admit that it's possible you are wrong?
 
Please consider these questions.
When you say 'chemtrail', are you referring to a persistant contrail that lasts longer than 20 minutes?
Do you dispute that contrails can last longer and spread out to become high altitude cirrus?
How large is the 'chemtrail' at a guess?
What plane do you imagine can carry that much material into the air to disperse?
How many of the planes you see are 'chemtrail' carrying planes?
Does that rule out commercial air traffic?
 
Back
Top