Chemtrails NL

[x-ray peat]

or this

could be a good new name for you: "this or this."

 

[LucyL]

do you have a source? I think modern high bypass turbofans actually produce less contrails. The additional air flow dilutes the water vapor in the exhaust.

Here is a paper from 2000 on the subject http://elib.dlr.de/9281/1/AIAA-2715-2000.pdf. The synopsis sums it up nicely if you don't want to wade through the whole thing:

According to a previously established thermodynamic theory, contrails are expected to form at a threshold temperature that increases with the overall efficiency of the aircraft propulsion. As a consequence, aircraft with modern engines, with higher overall efficiency, cause contrails over a larger range of cruise altitudes. To validate this theory, an experiment was performed in which contrail formation was observed behind two different four-engine jet aircraft with different engines flying wing by wing. Photographs document the existence of an altitude range in which the aircraft with high engine efficiency causes contrails whereas the other aircraft with lower engine efficiency causes none. For overall efficiencies of 0.23 and 0.31 and an ambient temperature lapse rate of 12K km-1, the observed altitude difference is 80 m. This value would be larger (200m) in a standard atmosphere with smaller temperature lapse rate (6.5K km-1). In a standard atmosphere, an increase of overall efficiency from 0.3 to 0.5, which may be reached for future aircraft, would cause contrails at about 700 m lower altitude.

 

[LucyL]

This is pretty ridiculous. If there were secret weather control programs the silver ions would be pretty easily detected.

There were tons of experiments with cloud seeding in the 50s in America, with the clear finding that it's not very useful. I have only heard of it being used by the Chinese during the olympics in recent years.

Shhh. Google is very secret.
Major cloud-seeding test gives mixed results
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Projects/Cloudseeding/CloudSeedingFAQ.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00060.1
City could cancel cloud seeding pact
Meet the People Who Literally Make It Rain
and on
and on
and on

North American Weather Consultants - Cloud Seeding/Weather Modification

oh, you'll especially love these folks
Weather Modification, Inc. Atmospheric Assessment
"Our atmosphere supports virtually all life on the planet. Its gases allow respiration; its precipitation provides fresh water. Weather Modification, Inc., provides the tools to accurately and efficiently observe, measure, and monitor the atmospheric properties that govern how safely and efficiently these life-sustaining functions occur - we can apply these tools throughout the troposphere.

Our atmospheric assessment services provide a more complete understanding of local and regional atmospheric processes, a solid scientific basis, and a higher probability of success, for any cloud modification projects designed to increase precipitation, reduce hail or disperse fog."

more quotes:
Weather modification, commonly known as cloud seeding, is the application of scientific technology that can enhance a cloud's ability to produce precipitation. Weather Modification, Inc., is on the forefront of scientific technology to maximize water availability worldwide. Application of scientific concepts and extensive scientific experimentation has proven that cloud seeding increases the amount of precipitation.

Whether you are looking for a small operation or a full program, Weather Modification, Inc. can ensure your cloud seeding project runs smoothly. From Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved aircraft installations, configured for aerial cloud seeding and cloud physics, to ground-based seeding equipment and training, Weather Modification, Inc., has the equipment, experience and knowledge you need.

These aren't secret government programs. They are for-profit companies, trading on the manual manipulation of local atmospheres. They're in business. They're legal. And they're very public.

Don't ignore them.

 

[chrismeyers]

'Chemtrails' and all of the other bizarre beliefs in the 'information age' to me are indicative of some kind of common societal slight mental retardation that probably results from diet, move away from ancestral foods, hormones etc. You see this on a population wide basis. Plumetting testosterone levels in males, increase in mass shootings on a larger scale with ridiculous amounts of paranoia in the suspects, etc. Something is going on, but its not military jets spraying you

 

[x-ray peat]

Here is a paper from 2000 on the subject http://elib.dlr.de/9281/1/AIAA-2715-2000.pdf. The synopsis sums it up nicely if you don't want to wade through the whole thing:

According to a previously established thermodynamic theory, contrails are expected to form at a threshold temperature that increases with the overall efficiency of the aircraft propulsion. As a consequence, aircraft with modern engines, with higher overall efficiency, cause contrails over a larger range of cruise altitudes. To validate this theory, an experiment was performed in which contrail formation was observed behind two different four-engine jet aircraft with different engines flying wing by wing. Photographs document the existence of an altitude range in which the aircraft with high engine efficiency causes contrails whereas the other aircraft with lower engine efficiency causes none. For overall efficiencies of 0.23 and 0.31 and an ambient temperature lapse rate of 12K km-1, the observed altitude difference is 80 m. This value would be larger (200m) in a standard atmosphere with smaller temperature lapse rate (6.5K km-1). In a standard atmosphere, an increase of overall efficiency from 0.3 to 0.5, which may be reached for future aircraft, would cause contrails at about 700 m lower altitude.

This reminds me of a Harvard study that confirms that PUFA laden diets and seed oils are good for us. This article does a good job debunking this study and explaining how science has become a weaponized means of social control.
False Study: "Experimental Test of the Influence of Propulsion Efficiency on Contrail Formation" | Aerosol Injection ("Chemtrails") Global Newsfeed | Global Skywatch - Geoengineering/Chemtrails

 

[x-ray peat]

Shhh. Google is very secret.
Major cloud-seeding test gives mixed results
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Projects/Cloudseeding/CloudSeedingFAQ.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00060.1
City could cancel cloud seeding pact
Meet the People Who Literally Make It Rain
and on
and on
and on

North American Weather Consultants - Cloud Seeding/Weather Modification

oh, you'll especially love these folks
Weather Modification, Inc. Atmospheric Assessment
"Our atmosphere supports virtually all life on the planet. Its gases allow respiration; its precipitation provides fresh water. Weather Modification, Inc., provides the tools to accurately and efficiently observe, measure, and monitor the atmospheric properties that govern how safely and efficiently these life-sustaining functions occur - we can apply these tools throughout the troposphere.

Our atmospheric assessment services provide a more complete understanding of local and regional atmospheric processes, a solid scientific basis, and a higher probability of success, for any cloud modification projects designed to increase precipitation, reduce hail or disperse fog."

more quotes:
Weather modification, commonly known as cloud seeding, is the application of scientific technology that can enhance a cloud's ability to produce precipitation. Weather Modification, Inc., is on the forefront of scientific technology to maximize water availability worldwide. Application of scientific concepts and extensive scientific experimentation has proven that cloud seeding increases the amount of precipitation.

Whether you are looking for a small operation or a full program, Weather Modification, Inc. can ensure your cloud seeding project runs smoothly. From Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved aircraft installations, configured for aerial cloud seeding and cloud physics, to ground-based seeding equipment and training, Weather Modification, Inc., has the equipment, experience and knowledge you need.

These aren't secret government programs. They are for-profit companies, trading on the manual manipulation of local atmospheres. They're in business. They're legal. And they're very public.

Don't ignore them.

The two, weather modification and chemtrails are not mutually exclusive. Yes there are a few companies that will cloud seed for rain or other reasons but this is very different than the global use of chemtrailing on a massive scale. I live in a Northwest City with very little agriculture, plenty of rain fall and no need for weather modification yet I see large numbers of chemtrails every few days or so. What possible reason would anyone have for paying the enormous bills to modify our weather? Furthermore, the chemtrailing program is far too large to be part of the small weather modification industry. Take a look at these companies. They are tiny and the planes that they use are tiny as well. Just-Clouds.com. This is a government run effort plain and simple. Why they are doing this is open to debate but it is very definitely happening.

 

[x-ray peat]

'Chemtrails' and all of the other bizarre beliefs in the 'information age' to me are indicative of some kind of common societal slight mental retardation that probably results from diet, move away from ancestral foods, hormones etc. You see this on a population wide basis. Plumetting testosterone levels in males, increase in mass shootings on a larger scale with ridiculous amounts of paranoia in the suspects, etc. Something is going on, but its not military jets spraying you

Personal attacks are always easier than actually having to face the cognitive dissonance when ones preconceived ideas are challenged.

Yes something is going on. It should be obvious that every time there is heavy chemtrailing the sky soon turns to a hazy toxic soup. The relatively small amount of water vapor from a jet engine can’t do this. The amount of evidence for chemtrailing is pretty astounding and only takes a certain amount of curiosity to uncover it. Here are a few good sites with loads of info.
Global Skywatch - Chemtrails Geoengineering
Geoengineering Affects You, Your Environment, and Your Loved Ones
Chemtrails 911 - Exposing aerial crimes and aerosol operations,because it's an emergency!

I do agree with you that society is suffering from a slight case of mental retardation. This is due to all the propaganda and purposeful dumbing down we have experienced from childhood. Debating about whether or not chemtrails exists is very similar to debating if fluoride, vaccines or GMOs are dangerous or not. To the true believers in governmental benevolence and coincidentalist mentality, no amount of proof would be enough to change their mind that something this big could be going on without the evening news reporting on it.

 

[x-ray peat]

 

[LucyL]

This reminds me of a Harvard study that confirms that PUFA laden diets and seed oils are good for us. This article does a good job debunking this study and explaining how science has become a weaponized means of social control.
False Study: "Experimental Test of the Influence of Propulsion Efficiency on Contrail Formation" | Aerosol Injection ("Chemtrails") Global Newsfeed | Global Skywatch - Geoengineering/Chemtrails

That "article" reads like a first year intern at the Ministry of Disinformation authored it.

It's "debunking" consisted of only four statements:
1) "High-bypass turbofans have been flying for decades"

Like all things, technology improves. The effeciency of the first high bypass fan engines in the 60s was far less than the effeciency (and widespread use) of those engines beginning in the 90s, when contrails became a problem.

2) The more efficient an engine is, the less fuel it burns in ratio to the amount of air it ejects making the engine less capable of producing condensation trails,

The more efficient an engine is, the cooler the exhaust plume, and thus the higher the relative humidity of the plume and thus the MORE capable the engine is of producing condensation trails.

3)Disinformationalists claim that helicopters fly too low to produce contrails, yet virtually all early plume sightings from jets occurred in very low airspace, that same airspace you see helicopters flying.

Did you see what he did there? The helicoptor analogy is such hogwash that he has to completely reframe what he is trying to debunk.

4)Even more astonishing is the fact that citizen investigators have discovered that many of the massive plumes emitted from high-bypass turbofans are being emitted from the bypass air stream only, not the turbine exhaust.

This evidence consists of pictures of bifurcated plumes, not evidence of plumes from the bypass air stream. Considering that atmospheric mixing begins as soon as it leaves the engine, and the contrails don't form immediately, bifurcated plumes aren't proof.

Absolutely none of which even attempted to address the real experiment done in the original study. And then at the bottom of the article is a link to a different study by Ulrich Schumann. Use my link, it was a very interesting experiment (there are pictures :) ) and you may enjoy reading it.

Instead, the guy spends 1400 words telling people not to believe what they read, and all mainstream information is garbage. Well, that really stinks, don't you think? I really believe whoever fed Dane Whatihisname that crap about high bypass fan ratio engines not producing condensation streams was a plant from the Ministry of Disinformation. You have to admit it has worked beautifully. Everybody from the greenies on up completely ignores the weather modification side-effect of fuel-effecient high bypass fan engines.

Just for fun now, take a gander at the articles that pop up when you search for the keyword "contrails" in the AIAA Journals arc.aiaa.org.
It's known to be a problem, but nobody is really even looking for a serious solution. MSM never talks about it, the public thinks contrails are so wonderful because they are natural, not at all like those crazy chemtrail conspirators ideas, and the key to global warming is the Paris Climate Accord.

I'll buy that commercial jets are spraying thick trails from SanFrancisco to NYC when someone can produce the weight tape showing the ginormous cannisters and dispersion system components line items that the manufacturers and airlines have happily absorbed into their bottom line.

Until then, I have to suspect the real conspiracy is the disinformation being fed to Dean & co. So to one of the conspirators, can I ask how is it on the inside?

 

[x-ray peat]

Well let’s just say I disagree with your debunking of the debunker.

1) "High-bypass turbofans have been flying for decades"

Like all things, technology improves. The efficiency of the first high bypass fan engines in the 60s was far less than the effeciency (and widespread use) of those engines beginning in the 90s, when contrails became a problem.

Yes but as I explain below this should result in fewer contrails not more.

2) The more efficient an engine is, the less fuel it burns in ratio to the amount of air it ejects making the engine less capable of producing condensation trails,

The more efficient an engine is, the cooler the exhaust plume, and thus the higher the relative humidity of the plume and thus the MORE capable the engine is of producing condensation trails.

This is not how it works. The relative humidity of the 600 degree C exhaust gas is not what’s relevant but rather it’s the absolute humidity of the exhaust and the Relative Humidity of the surrounding ambient air. Whether the plane exhaust is at 600 or 800 degrees the water is so far from its dew point that a higher relative humidity at 600 doesn’t mean anything.

For an equivalent amount of thrust, today's modern more efficient engine will need to burn less fuel and therefore produce less water in its exhaust. Though it may have a higher relative humidity due to its lower exhaust temperature it will still have a lower absolute humidity than that of the lower efficiency engine. This lower water content will therefore have a lower dew point and be less apt to produce contrails than older less efficient engine. This doesn’t even take into consideration the higher air bypass rates of modern engines that further dilute the water vapor in the exhaust and therefore lowering the dew point even further.

What these guys are claiming completely negates all basic principles of thermodynamics and tosses every freshman engineer's steam table out the window. It is not surprising that when the IPCC made this claim many scientists called BS. I imagine that the whole point of this rather ridiculous experiment was to give some ammo to the IPCC witch doctors when any basic computer simulation could have given them the correct answer. From the study:

“The special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that aircraft equipped with more efficient engines cause more contrails than aircraft with less efficient engines. This statement is based on the so-called Schmidt–Appleman criterion, which is well documented in the literature. However, the statement was highly debated during the final acceptance procedure of the report, and not all critics could be convinced that this statement is correct. Therefore, we performed an experiment to test the influence of engine efficiency on contrail formation.”

The IPCC is a political body and not a scientific organization. They have been caught faking their numbers and trying to defraud the world countless numbers of time.

3)Disinformationalists claim that helicopters fly too low to produce contrails, yet virtually all early plume sightings from jets occurred in very low airspace, that same airspace you see helicopters flying.

Did you see what he did there? The helicoptor analogy is such hogwash that he has to completely reframe what he is trying to debunk.

I don’t think they are reframing the question at all. He is saying that since helicopters use a very similar engine you should be able to see contrails coming out of helicopters at the same altitudes that you often see “contrails” coming out of planes. The fact is you don't.

4)Even more astonishing is the fact that citizen investigators have discovered that many of the massive plumes emitted from high-bypass turbofans are being emitted from the bypass air stream only, not the turbine exhaust.

This evidence consists of pictures of bifurcated plumes, not evidence of plumes from the bypass air stream. Considering that atmospheric mixing begins as soon as it leaves the engine, and the contrails don't form immediately, bifurcated plumes aren't proof.would produce contrails I am not sure what research you Allow me to just point out one

A true contrail can only come out of the center of the engine's exhaust as combusted gas. This gas is fully mixed in the combustion chamber of the turbine so it is impossible to see a bifurcated contrail coming from it. The equivalent would be seeing a bifurcated exhaust coming out of a car exhaust on a cold day. It doesn’t happen. The bifurcation has to result from two or more injection nozzles in the bypass air chamber surrounding the gas turbine. These injected streams are kept separated by the center hot exhaust of the engine until fully mixed downstream of the engine.

Absolutely none of which even attempted to address the real experiment done in the original study. And then at the bottom of the article is a link to a different study by Ulrich Schumann. Use my link, it was a very interesting experiment (there are pictures) and you may enjoy reading it.

Instead, the guy spends 1400 words telling people not to believe what they read, and all mainstream information is garbage. Well, that really stinks, don't you think? I really believe whoever fed Dane Whatihisname that crap about high bypass fan ratio engines not producing condensation streams was a plant from the Ministry of Disinformation. You have to admit it has worked beautifully. Everybody from the greenies on up completely ignores the weather modification side-effect of fuel-effecient high bypass fan engines.

The author’s main claim is that the original research must have been faked as the theory goes against basic thermodynamics. The fact that research is often faked for political purposes is why he spends so much time addressing that issue.

I do agree that there is a lot of disinfo coming from all sides of the issue. I have a feeling that many of the “truth tellers” about chemtrails are just controlled opposition. For example some chemtrail whistleblowers claim that the program is being used to combat global warming so believers in chemtrails will rest easy as the government is poisoning our skies for our own good.

I will say that it is far more likely that most of the disinfo is coming from government funded scientists or industry sponsored associations than by your average internet researcher with a web-site. Again the fact that this study was purposely undertaken to support a questionable IPCC conclusion makes it highly suspect.

Just for fun now, take a gander at the articles that pop up when you search for the keyword "contrails" in the AIAA Journals arc.aiaa.org.
It's known to be a problem, but nobody is really even looking for a serious solution. MSM never talks about it, the public thinks contrails are so wonderful because they are natural, not at all like those crazy chemtrail conspirators ideas, and the key to global warming is the Paris Climate Accord.

I would suggest that they are not really trying to solve the problem of contrails because it isn’t a problem. How the very small amount of water from a jet engine can cause any lasting effect on the environment is mind boggling. Hi bypass airplanes on their own are not affecting the environment. If a persistent contrail was real then we should all have problems with persistent water vapor from our morning tea, car exhaust, or just breathing on a cold day. Any condensed water vapor in the air is quickly evaporated back into the air once it is diluted beyond its saturation point. This process doesn’t last for several minutes if not hours like some chemtrails.

I'll buy that commercial jets are spraying thick trails from SanFrancisco to NYC when someone can produce the weight tape showing the ginormous cannisters and dispersion system components line items that the manufacturers and airlines have happily absorbed into their bottom line.

Until then, I have to suspect the real conspiracy is the disinformation being fed to Dean & co. So to one of the conspirators, can I ask how is it on the inside?

I don’t think I have ever said that commercial planes are chemtrailing us. If they are adding anything to there exhaust it is in relatively small amounts. Chemtrailing for the most part is done by military aircraft that is fully designed for this purpose. These planes typically fly at very high altitudes and are completely white with no commercial markings. Also you can check flightradar24.com and will see that these planes don’t show up on the tracking site. This can only mean that they are military as all commercial and private planes must use transponders.

 

[LucyL]

This is not how it works. The relative humidity of the 600 degree C exhaust gas is not what’s relevant but rather it’s the absolute humidity of the exhaust and the Relative Humidity of the surrounding ambient air. Whether the plane exhaust is at 600 or 800 degrees the water is so far from its dew point that a higher relative humidity at 600 doesn’t mean anything.

Except that it does. Water vapor capacity is very low at low temperatures, that’s why you can do fun things like create condensation clouds off your balcony in the winter. Like the video at this link. (The Science Behind Turning Boiling Water Into "Snow" on a Frigid Day) Coming out of an aircraft, the hot exhaust plume cools to the critical temperature within a second (or about 700 feet behind the aircraft engine).

The contrail factor (basics of which were developed in the 1950s) is the predictor of how the exhaust approaches ambient conditions (and its dewpoint). It is simply the ratio of the amount of water injected into the aircraft wake to the amount of heat injected into the aircraft wake. It defines how the wake reaches the critical temperature, the highest temperature at which a contrail will form.

When you look at the two elements that make up the contrail factor, it is obvious that the high bypass fan engines will have higher contrail factors than low bypass or no bypass engines. This paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(1995)034<2400:AROTFO>2.0.CO;2) is one of many that shows the effect of contrail factor on critical temperature, in the appendix chart. Higher contrail factors lead to higher critical temperatures and thus contrails form at lower altitudes.

For an equivalent amount of thrust, today's modern more efficient engine will need to burn less fuel and therefore produce less water in its exhaust. Though it may have a higher relative humidity due to its lower exhaust temperature it will still have a lower absolute humidity than that of the lower efficiency engine. This lower water content will therefore have a lower dew point and be less apt to produce contrails than older less efficient engine. This doesn’t even take into consideration the higher air bypass rates of modern engines that further dilute the water vapor in the exhaust and therefore lowering the dew point even further.

Not so. Efficient engines burn less fuel, but produce more water vapor because they burn cleaner. Old engines burned hotter and dirtier so less water vapor produced. Plus, when flying through moist air, the bypass fan pushes additional ambient water vapor into the exhaust stream. The end amount of water vapor between engine types is pretty close.

What these guys are claiming completely negates all basic principles of thermodynamics and tosses every freshman engineer's steam table out the window. It is not surprising that when the IPCC made this claim many scientists called BS. I imagine that the whole point of this rather ridiculous experiment was to give some ammo to the IPCC witch doctors when any basic computer simulation could have given them the correct answer. From the study:

“The special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that aircraft equipped with more efficient engines cause more contrails than aircraft with less efficient engines. This statement is based on the so-called Schmidt–Appleman criterion, which is well documented in the literature. However, the statement was highly debated during the final acceptance procedure of the report, and not all critics could be convinced that this statement is correct. Therefore, we performed an experiment to test the influence of engine efficiency on contrail formation.”

The IPCC is a political body and not a scientific organization. They have been caught faking their numbers and trying to defraud the world countless numbers of time.

The IPCC didn’t invent the Contrail Factor, Appleman developed it in the 1950s. Schumann just tested it in experimentation (with pictures).

I don’t think they are reframing the question at all. He is saying that since helicopters use a very similar engine you should be able to see contrails coming out of helicopters at the same altitudes that you often see “contrails” coming out of planes. The fact is you don't..

High altitude helicopters only operate up to 23000 feet, and I’ve never seen one. 25000 feet is about the lowest altitude where contrails start forming. And that is just with first problem with the helicopter analogy.

A true contrail can only come out of the center of the engine's exhaust as combusted gas. This gas is fully mixed in the combustion chamber of the turbine so it is impossible to see a bifurcated contrail coming from it. The equivalent would be seeing a bifurcated exhaust coming out of a car exhaust on a cold day. It doesn’t happen. The bifurcation has to result from two or more injection nozzles in the bypass air chamber surrounding the gas turbine. These injected streams are kept separated by the center hot exhaust of the engine until fully mixed downstream of the engine..

In the pictures I’ve seen of military aircraft spraying, they don’t do it through the engine exhaust. Why would they? They have nozzles attached along the wing trailing edge. There is not a lot of similarity between ambient atmospheric conditions of a jet exhaust plume and a car exhaust plume. I wouldn’t expect them to behave the same way.

The author’s main claim is that the original research must have been faked as the theory goes against basic thermodynamics.

If he really thinks that is true, why doesn’t he prove it? It’s just math. The people who are really trying to “debunk” global warming spend time in the hard math, and that is a lot more difficult that aircraft engine equations.

The fact that research is often faked for political purposes is why he spends so much time addressing that issue.

I do agree that there is a lot of disinfo coming from all sides of the issue. I have a feeling that many of the “truth tellers” about chemtrails are just controlled opposition. For example some chemtrail whistleblowers claim that the program is being used to combat global warming so believers in chemtrails will rest easy as the government is poisoning our skies for our own good.

I will say that it is far more likely that most of the disinfo is coming from government funded scientists or industry sponsored associations than by your average internet researcher with a web-site. Again the fact that this study was purposely undertaken to support a questionable IPCC conclusion makes it highly suspect.

I would suggest that they are not really trying to solve the problem of contrails because it isn’t a problem. How the very small amount of water from a jet engine can cause any lasting effect on the environment is mind boggling. Hi bypass airplanes on their own are not affecting the environment. If a persistent contrail was real then we should all have problems with persistent water vapor from our morning tea, car exhaust, or just breathing on a cold day. Any condensed water vapor in the air is quickly evaporated back into the air once it is diluted beyond its saturation point. This process doesn’t last for several minutes if not hours like some chemtrails.

The harmful environmental effect is the cloud cover produced by the increase in frequency and duration of condensation trails. It’s not mind boggling if you’ve ever driven across Iowa on a clear day. You can literally watch the clouds form on the contrails right over your head. It’s mind boggling to think our military has that many dedicated tankers to spraying the entirety of the country on a daily basis. A few, sure. I can’t imagine anyone suggesting the military wouldn’t spray, and probably some awful harmful stuff. After all, they’ve got HAARP to control, and battlefields to obfuscate, and humanity to experiment on, but then, why Iowa? Major commercial airline thoroughfare? And not further north, like Minnesota, where contrails are pretty rare (and is flyover traffic) but the substances would get picked up by the jet stream easier?

As for the persistence of the vapor, remember that video I linked to above? My estimation, he used about 9 pounds of water, as much as a modern jet engine puts out every 2 seconds of flight. The ice crystals in the cold atmosphere seed it, and it takes very little moisture to saturate the lower the temperature is.

Here is an interesting study about contrail spreading and persistence, from 1971, so no high bypass fan engines. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029<1367:MOTGOT>2.0.CO;2

I don’t think I have ever said that commercial planes are chemtrailing us. If they are adding anything to there exhaust it is in relatively small amounts. Chemtrailing for the most part is done by military aircraft that is fully designed for this purpose. These planes typically fly at very high altitudes and are completely white with no commercial markings. Also you can check flightradar24.com and will see that these planes don’t show up on the tracking site. This can only mean that they are military as all commercial and private planes must use transponders.

Then you’d be the first person who bought into chemtrails that I’ve heard say that. How do you explain all the pictures of contrails from jets in commercial livery?

 

[x-ray peat]

Except that it does. Water vapor capacity is very low at low temperatures, that’s why you can do fun things like create condensation clouds off your balcony in the winter. Like the video at this link. (The Science Behind Turning Boiling Water Into "Snow" on a Frigid Day) Coming out of an aircraft, the hot exhaust plume cools to the critical temperature within a second (or about 700 feet behind the aircraft engine).

The contrail factor (basics of which were developed in the 1950s) is the predictor of how the exhaust approaches ambient conditions (and its dewpoint). It is simply the ratio of the amount of water injected into the aircraft wake to the amount of heat injected into the aircraft wake. It defines how the wake reaches the critical temperature, the highest temperature at which a contrail will form.

When you look at the two elements that make up the contrail factor, it is obvious that the high bypass fan engines will have higher contrail factors than low bypass or no bypass engines. This paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(1995)034<2400:AROTFO>2.0.CO;2) is one of many that shows the effect of contrail factor on critical temperature, in the appendix chart. Higher contrail factors lead to higher critical temperatures and thus contrails form at lower altitudes.

That seems like a different argument than what you had previously said:

The more efficient an engine is, the cooler the exhaust plume, and thus the higher the relative humidity of the plume and thus the MORE capable the engine is of producing condensation trails.

Again it’s not the relative humidity of the exhaust gas that is relevant but rather the relative humidity of the ambient air and the absolute humidity or total water content of the exhaust. What you are now saying is more correct except that I still think that they are bull sh***ing us by saying that today’s more efficient engines are more likely to produce contrails.

Not so. Efficient engines burn less fuel, but produce more water vapor because they burn cleaner. Old engines burned hotter and dirtier so less water vapor produced. Plus, when flying through moist air, the bypass fan pushes additional ambient water vapor into the exhaust stream. The end amount of water vapor between engine types is pretty close.

That would be true for other types of combustion engines but not for gas turbines. They use so much excess air in their combustion chambers that the amount of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons is practically negligible. In other words practically 100% of the jet fuel is burned in both high bypass and low bypass engines. Gas turbine efficiency has more to do with maximizing inlet turbine temperatures and increasing airflow through the turbine. My point was that the more efficient the gas turbine, the less fuel needed for the same amount of thrust creating less water and therefore reducing the occurrences of real contrails.

Also sub zero ambient air at flight altitudes always has less water in it than the exhaust gases so an increase in the bypass ratio doesn’t add to the absolute humidity of the exhaust but rather dilutes it.

The IPCC didn’t invent the Contrail Factor, Appleman developed it in the 1950s. Schumann just tested it in experimentation (with pictures).

My point was that your cited paper states that several scientists refused to accept the IPCC claim that more efficient engines produce more contrails. This is a pretty basic question and should tell you that if these scientists are arguing about it someone is trying to pull a fast one. So to shut up the scientists they couldn't bribe they had to run this little “experiment.” Here is the picture you refer to.

It looks awfully suspicious. For one thing these plane's efficiencies are not that different that one would have a full blown contrail plume while the other would have completely nothing. This is not an all or nothing phenomenon. I would expect to see a much smaller difference in the exhausts. It seems a bit too perfect and contrived to me. I bet those skeptical scientists are still not convinced.

High altitude helicopters only operate up to 23000 feet, and I’ve never seen one. 25000 feet is about the lowest altitude where contrails start forming. And that is just with first problem with the helicopter analogy.

Yes real contrails typically form only at cruising altitudes. What the debunker was saying is that many people have seen “contrails’ (actually chemtrails) at much lower altitudes coming from planes but no one has ever seen a contrail coming from a helicopter at a similar low altitude. I am not saying this was his best argument but just that he wasn’t doing a complete redirect like you thought.

In the pictures I’ve seen of military aircraft spraying, they don’t do it through the engine exhaust. Why would they? They have nozzles attached along the wing trailing edge. There is not a lot of similarity between ambient atmospheric conditions of a jet exhaust plume and a car exhaust plume. I wouldn’t expect them to behave the same way.

Now was that a redirect? He was referring to clear pictures of dual contrails coming from a single engine. The fact that the military also uses external nozzles on other planes doesnt explain this. A bifurcated contrail exhaust cannot originate from the single hot exhaust opening of the gas turbine as the exhaust gases are too well mixed to produce anything but a single stream. The two separate trails must come from two separate nozzles on either side of the bypass airway. I don’t see any other explanation.

If he really thinks that is true, why doesn’t he prove it? It’s just math. The people who are really trying to “debunk” global warming spend time in the hard math, and that is a lot more difficult that aircraft engine equations.

You don’t need to run a model or solve a thermodynamic equation to call BS on a claim that goes against science. Not all man-made global warming skeptics are running models either.

The harmful environmental effect is the cloud cover produced by the increase in frequency and duration of condensation trails. It’s not mind boggling if you’ve ever driven across Iowa on a clear day. You can literally watch the clouds form on the contrails right over your head. It’s mind boggling to think our military has that many dedicated tankers to spraying the entirety of the country on a daily basis. A few, sure. I can’t imagine anyone suggesting the military wouldn’t spray, and probably some awful harmful stuff. After all, they’ve got HAARP to control, and battlefields to obfuscate, and humanity to experiment on, but then, why Iowa? Major commercial airline thoroughfare? And not further north, like Minnesota, where contrails are pretty rare (and is flyover traffic) but the substances would get picked up by the jet stream easier?


As for the persistence of the vapor, remember that video I linked to above? My estimation, he used about 9 pounds of water, as much as a modern jet engine puts out every 2 seconds of flight. The ice crystals in the cold atmosphere seed it, and it takes very little moisture to saturate the lower the temperature is.


Here is an interesting study about contrail spreading and persistence, from 1971, so no high bypass fan engines. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029<1367:MOTGOT>2.0.CO;2

I would suggest that you were witnessing chemtrailing over Iowa. What surprises me is that you seem to be very informed on a lot of issues such as HAARP, military spraying and human experimentation yet you don’t believe in chemtrails.

I found this interesting quote from the same researcher in another article regarding the situations that would lead to a persistent contrail.

Contrails persist if the ambient humidity is larger than saturation humidity over ice surfaces (relative humidity over ice RHi larger than 100 %). In such ice-supersaturated air masses, the ice particles within the contrails grow by deposition of water vapour molecules from the ambient air. Contrails may persist as long as the ambient air in which the contrail forms stays ice-supersaturated.

Although the first detection of ice-supersaturation in the upper troposphere dates back at least to the 1940es, it was generally believed that ice-supersaturation occurs only exceptionally and that clouds of ice particles form soon after the humidity exceeds saturation. Most weather and climate models still assume that cirrus clouds form immediately when the humidity reaches ice saturation.

globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=8133&filename=Schumann_Contrails.pdf

So again our favorite researcher needs to rewrite commonly accepted science to perpetuate his BS. Super saturated air is not a stable phenomenon and is certainly not as prevalent as this guy would have us believe. The weather modelers certainly don’t buy it.

Then you’d be the first person who bought into chemtrails that I’ve heard say that. How do you explain all the pictures of contrails from jets in commercial livery?

Those are most likely contrails assuming that they dissipate within a few airplane lengths. If they last much longer than that then it wouldn't surprise me that they are paying the airlines to spray us. I don't buy into persistent contrails.

I don't know if commercial planes are part of it but I am very certain that the lines that can persistent for hours, leave criss cross patterns and eventually turning the sky into a hazy soup are mainly from military aircraft. As I said these planes do not show up on any flight tracker site, are often plain white, and many times will fly in a free style manner which commercial pilots definitely do not do as they try to fly in the most direct way possible to conserve fuel. They also will fly in tandem formation in close proximity which commercial jets also don't typically do. The fact that I and many others have never seen this type of phenomenon before tells me that these are not your average contrails.

 

[x-ray peat]

@LucyL

I just came across an interesting video showing contrails/chemtrails turning on and off in a rather unnatural manner. The wind speed at cruising altitudes is often 150 mph so I don't think its due to hyper localized weather patterns changing every 100 feet or so.

 

[LucyL]

Ok. A higher contrail factor means a contrail is more likely to form. So Contrail Factor = (water in the exhaust) / (heat in the exhaust). So you can see, the lower the heat of the exhaust, the higher the contrail factor will be.

The atmosphere holds less and less water as the temperature decreases so it takes less and less water added to reach 100% relative humidity in the plume (mixing zone) and form a cloud. And the less heat added (from the aircraft exhaust) the more likely a cloud will form .

Then the cloud, given favorable conditions, grows. From that 1970’s paper http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029<1367:MOTGOT>2.0.CO;2 that looked at persistent contrails from a Sabreliner, this quote: “There were at least four orders of magnitude more ice present in the contrail core than the Sabreliner originally exhausted!”

The contrail is not just exhausted gas. The exhausted gas is the spark, if you will, of the contrail.

The contrail spreads and is visible because of ice nucleation. (From the Sabreliner paper) “If nucleation proceeded slowly, the ice crystals initially formed would rapidly cause evaporation of unnucleated water droplets and much fewer ice crystals would be produced. At temperatures 10C warmer one would expect greatly reduced numbers of active ice nuclei. It may not be apparent but the formation of an order-of-magnitude fewer ice crystals would result in the glaciation of a contrail with one-tenth of the optical depth of the one in this study. Such a glaciated trail may not be visible from the ground.”

Temperature again. Low bypass, fuel inefficient, hot burning engines would be expected to produce less visible contrails.

The study of contrails is only as old as aircraft. One fo these papers mentioned studies done in the 40s on contrails formed by propeller driven aircraft. That every nuance is not agreed or settled, predictable, and describable engineering is hardly surprising. The turbulence of the entire aircraft wake probably has to be considered in predicting how a contrail will form, and probably influences that bifurcation that is often seen. The wake creates pressure differences. Solar radiation influences the heat budget. And, not too long ago I read about bacteria that live in the upper atmosphere. Surely that will also play a role into the contrail phenom, though I have yet to read any hints of influence in the literature.

Aircraft contrails........ - Page 31

This forum thread has awesome pictures - bifurcated contrails, the whole lot, on liveried planes with their flight radar designations.

Nice little paper on contrail observations - contrail.gi.alaska.edu/misc/WendlerTACold.pdf
What makes it special is that it is a study of observed contrails, the atmospheric conditions of which were based on relating the contrail to its flight radar appearance, positively linking its formation to a commercial jet flight. One wonders if the raw data these authors have would divulge how many contrails were observed that weren't related to logged flights.

http://akclimate.org/sites/default/files//papers/Stuefer_MWR.pdf

Another paper of logged data of visually observed contrails. This paper compared different predictive techniques, and concluded our favorite researcher, Schumann, had the best approach - incorporating engine efficiency into his predictive model.

There are probably more papers out there based on observed and tested contrails cross-referenced with real commercial or non-spraying military aircraft, but I see more than enough to convince me that large, persistent contrails can be sparked by your standard everyday jet. Is that a good thing? Probably not. Is that the only source of atmospheric contamination? Yea, doubtful.

I heard an old professor from Purdue University give an interview a few years ago about glyphosates. The one thing this pretty conventional guy kept harping on was people should stop for a while complaining about GMO's, because all that fuss created a diversion from the real, immediate and provable harm of glyphosates saturating everything He had a good point. I don't like GMO's, so no need to go there ;-) but I see similarities in the chemtrail fuss. Most of what your average person sees in the sky is not tons of harmful chemicals. But that doesn't mean the trails are harmless, and it doesn't mean the harmful substances aren't also there, hiding behind the fuss.

This morning offered up a perfect example - this article about a contrail from a Boeing 787 Incredible footage of a Boeing 787 leaving a huge vapour trail through the sky

This is a quote: "The new Boeing 787 Dreamliner's are seen as a revolutionary new "greener", "jet lag-busting" passenger plane." Then it went on to talk about how air pollution has been linked to bad nights' sleep. Implication is clear - air pollution is bad, so wonderful modern high efficiency engines that cover our skies in clouds are good.

The comments as expected, divide right down the line - "It's all chemicals, the government is conspiring to kill us". "No, it's all water vapor, nature loves us".

It's all BS. It's cloud cover that is changing our environment in ways that are unnatural and therefore not good.

But nobody cares.

 

[jaa]

This stuff is just water vapour created from jet exhaust. It is less harmful than the byproducts from the fuel itself. There is not a conspiracy to spray the population with ***t from chemtrails. Just search debunking chemtrails for a laundry list of reasons, but the prime one for any conspiracy like this is how would the government convince the aviation industry to go along with this without a single leak? And why would everyone who is on board with it ok with it seeing as how them and their love ones inhale the same air?

 

[x-ray peat]

Ok. A higher contrail factor means a contrail is more likely to form. So Contrail Factor = (water in the exhaust) / (heat in the exhaust). So you can see, the lower the heat of the exhaust, the higher the contrail factor will be.

The atmosphere holds less and less water as the temperature decreases so it takes less and less water added to reach 100% relative humidity in the plume (mixing zone) and form a cloud. And the less heat added (from the aircraft exhaust) the more likely a cloud will form .

Then the cloud, given favorable conditions, grows. From that 1970’s paper http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029<1367:MOTGOT>2.0.CO;2 that looked at persistent contrails from a Sabreliner, this quote: “There were at least four orders of magnitude more ice present in the contrail core than the Sabreliner originally exhausted!”

The contrail is not just exhausted gas. The exhausted gas is the spark, if you will, of the contrail.

The contrail spreads and is visible because of ice nucleation. (From the Sabreliner paper) “If nucleation proceeded slowly, the ice crystals initially formed would rapidly cause evaporation of unnucleated water droplets and much fewer ice crystals would be produced. At temperatures 10C warmer one would expect greatly reduced numbers of active ice nuclei. It may not be apparent but the formation of an order-of-magnitude fewer ice crystals would result in the glaciation of a contrail with one-tenth of the optical depth of the one in this study. Such a glaciated trail may not be visible from the ground.”

Temperature again. Low bypass, fuel inefficient, hot burning engines would be expected to produce less visible contrails.

The study of contrails is only as old as aircraft. One fo these papers mentioned studies done in the 40s on contrails formed by propeller driven aircraft. That every nuance is not agreed or settled, predictable, and describable engineering is hardly surprising. The turbulence of the entire aircraft wake probably has to be considered in predicting how a contrail will form, and probably influences that bifurcation that is often seen. The wake creates pressure differences. Solar radiation influences the heat budget. And, not too long ago I read about bacteria that live in the upper atmosphere. Surely that will also play a role into the contrail phenom, though I have yet to read any hints of influence in the literature.

Aircraft contrails........ - Page 31

This forum thread has awesome pictures - bifurcated contrails, the whole lot, on liveried planes with their flight radar designations.

Nice little paper on contrail observations - contrail.gi.alaska.edu/misc/WendlerTACold.pdf
What makes it special is that it is a study of observed contrails, the atmospheric conditions of which were based on relating the contrail to its flight radar appearance, positively linking its formation to a commercial jet flight. One wonders if the raw data these authors have would divulge how many contrails were observed that weren't related to logged flights.

http://akclimate.org/sites/default/files//papers/Stuefer_MWR.pdf

Another paper of logged data of visually observed contrails. This paper compared different predictive techniques, and concluded our favorite researcher, Schumann, had the best approach - incorporating engine efficiency into his predictive model.

There are probably more papers out there based on observed and tested contrails cross-referenced with real commercial or non-spraying military aircraft, but I see more than enough to convince me that large, persistent contrails can be sparked by your standard everyday jet. Is that a good thing? Probably not. Is that the only source of atmospheric contamination? Yea, doubtful.

I heard an old professor from Purdue University give an interview a few years ago about glyphosates. The one thing this pretty conventional guy kept harping on was people should stop for a while complaining about GMO's, because all that fuss created a diversion from the real, immediate and provable harm of glyphosates saturating everything He had a good point. I don't like GMO's, so no need to go there ;-) but I see similarities in the chemtrail fuss. Most of what your average person sees in the sky is not tons of harmful chemicals. But that doesn't mean the trails are harmless, and it doesn't mean the harmful substances aren't also there, hiding behind the fuss.

This morning offered up a perfect example - this article about a contrail from a Boeing 787 Incredible footage of a Boeing 787 leaving a huge vapour trail through the sky

This is a quote: "The new Boeing 787 Dreamliner's are seen as a revolutionary new "greener", "jet lag-busting" passenger plane." Then it went on to talk about how air pollution has been linked to bad nights' sleep. Implication is clear - air pollution is bad, so wonderful modern high efficiency engines that cover our skies in clouds are good.

The comments as expected, divide right down the line - "It's all chemicals, the government is conspiring to kill us". "No, it's all water vapor, nature loves us".

It's all BS. It's cloud cover that is changing our environment in ways that are unnatural and therefore not good.

But nobody cares.

Well I don’t want to go backwards and rehash the issue with whether or not high efficiency planes produce more or less contrails or the combustion efficiencies of gas turbines because I think that is a red herring and far from the real the issue. Let's just agree to disagree on that.

What I do think is important is the issue with persistent contrails and what is causing them. I think you would agree that a contrail lasting only a few seconds is not going to affect anything but a “contrail” or “contrails” lasting for hours and turning the whole sky into one big overcast cloud however will.

Perhaps this point got lost in my last post as you didn’t address it but I think this helps get to the truth behind the whole chemtrail vs contrail debate.

So allow me to repeat this quote. From the same author as the paper you cited, Ulrich Schumann

Contrails persist if the ambient humidity is larger than saturation humidity over ice surfaces (relative humidity over ice RHi larger than 100 %). In such ice-supersaturated air masses, the ice particles within the contrails grow by deposition of water vapour molecules from the ambient air. Contrails may persist as long as the ambient air in which the contrail forms stays ice-supersaturated.

Although the first detection of ice-supersaturation in the upper troposphere dates back at least to the 1940es, it was generally believed that ice-supersaturation occurs only exceptionally and that clouds of ice particles form soon after the humidity exceeds saturation. Most weather and climate models still assume that cirrus clouds form immediately when the humidity reaches ice saturation.

globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=8133&filename=Schumann_Contrails.pdf

According to contrail theory the persistence of contrails and their growth can only occur when the atmosphere around the plane is supersaturated with water vapor. This is because the condensed water vapor and particles from the plane cause a chain reaction that causes more and more water vapor to condense and cause a continual growth in the trail. For this theory to hold supersaturation of water vapor in the atmosphere would have to be a stable and common phenomenon to explain the everyday sighting of persistent “contrails.”

However this is not the case. Supersaturation is not very common. Like most examples of scientific deception, the proposed theory makes a lot of sense on the surface until you discover the fatal flaw where the theory completely contradicts a scientific law or an observed natural fact.

“Supersaturation of more than 1–2% relative to water is rarely seen in the atmosphere, since cloud condensation nuclei are usually present.”[26] Cloud physics - Wikipedia Even the author admits this in the above quote and concedes that weather and climate scientists still hold to this conclusion today. The author however is trying to assert that a commonly accepted state of nature is no longer true in order to justify his theory but provides zero proof.

The fact is that persistent contrails are very rare and only occur in very limited circumstances. The white lines that can last for hours above us must therefore be something else entirely. Many whistle-blowers within the industry and military, including the one I have posted above from Germany, have explained exactly what is going on. We are being sprayed.

 

[x-ray peat]

This stuff is just water vapour created from jet exhaust. It is less harmful than the byproducts from the fuel itself. There is not a conspiracy to spray the population with ***t from chemtrails. Just search debunking chemtrails for a laundry list of reasons, but the prime one for any conspiracy like this is how would the government convince the aviation industry to go along with this without a single leak? And why would everyone who is on board with it ok with it seeing as how them and their love ones inhale the same air?

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen."

Ask your parents or grandparents if they think this is normal. I never saw anything close to resembling this growing up in the late 70s and 80s but did see a lot of normal contrails. How come those contrails never lasted more than a few seconds? What is going on today is something completely different.

Not only is this scientifically dubious but commercial planes don't fly in such a random haphazard manner. They follow distinct routes or highways in the sky to avoid such a dangerous situation as above.

 

[jaa]

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen."

Ask your parents or grandparents if they think this is normal. I never saw anything close to resembling this growing up in the late 70s and 80s but did see a lot of normal contrails. How come those contrails never lasted more than a few seconds? What is going on today is something completely different.
View attachment 5795
Not only is this scientifically dubious but commercial planes don't fly in such a random haphazard manner. They follow distinct routes or highways in the sky to avoid such a dangerous situation as above.

Chemtrails - RationalWiki

If you want to use rational wiki for this argument you're going to have to change your mind.

 

[x-ray peat]

Chemtrails - RationalWiki

If you want to use rational wiki for this argument you're going to have to change your mind.

That's like saying if you want to use the Internet for this argument you're going to have to change your mind.
What Are the Benefits of Polyunsaturated Fat?

 

[jaa]

That's like saying if you want to use the Internet for this argument you're going to have to change your mind.
What Are the Benefits of Polyunsaturated Fat?

Not really. You're referencing a quote from a site based on rational thought, then going completely off the deep end into crazy conspiracy land by ignoring rational thinking.