1.) Normal contrails quickly dissipate within seconds of being emitted.
2.) Condensed water vapor trails (called contrails) can only be produced by non high-bypass turbojet engines under rare atmospheric conditions that exist only at extremely high altitudes - usually around 35,000 to 45,000 ft - well above cloud ceilings.
3.) Lingering and spreading chemtrails that are sprayed BELOW the cloud ceiling are obviously NOT high-altitude water vapor contrails.
Yesterday in Los Angeles, I woke up just as the sun was breaching the sky. Of course I got a range of red to purple in the clouds near me, but closer to the horizon, I saw an entire rainbow of color. I even saw a band of bright green along the horizon. Is this normal? That has to be from something more than pollution, right?
Chemtrail chemical componets have a radically different refraction rate from normal water vapor, which causes rainbow sun-dogs and purple or greenish colors in clouds.
Hello Subzeb8! Clouds and high-altitude contrails (condensation trails) are absolutely not the same thing. Normal jet-engine contrails created by warm engine exhaust (vapor) expelled into extremely cold air produces water condensation, which then quickly evaporates away in the same manner as warm breath (vapor) condenses and disappears into the cold air on a very frigid day. One never sees one's breath turn into a cloud or linger for hours in cold air.
You may have noticed that sometimes, jet contrails remain relatively short as they track along behind the jet, visibly disappearing yet maintaining the same length behind the plane as it evaporates into the cold high-altitude air. Those are normal jet contrails.
Then you may have also noticed that quite often, jets fly in crisscross patterns while emitting thick vapor-cloud trails that stretch all the way across the sky and do not evaporate, but instead linger for hours as they spread out into cloud-like structures. These "cloud-producing" trails often become a thick cloudy haze that reduces sunlight or even obscures it completely. Those are chemtrails. Chemtrails turn into clouds - contrails do not.
Why do normal clouds sometimes persist for hours (or days or even weeks) before evaporating away? To be honest, I can't answer that one. Its an interesting question, but unfortunately is not on topic.
If you want to research more information on chemtrails and geoengineering, there are lots of links that are available in the side bar to help you get started.
Normal jet-engine contrails created by warm engine exhaust (vapor) expelled into extremely cold air produces water condensation, which then quickly evaporates away in the same manner as warm breath (vapor) condenses and disappears into the cold air on a very frigid day. One never sees one's breath turn into a cloud or linger for hours in cold air.
Can you link to a scientific paper or something for this? It seems that engine exhaust (water vapor, hydrocarbons, dirt or non-burned fuel) would be ideal for cloud formation. Why isn't this the case? What's the mechanic that prevents these millions or billions of nucleation sites from fostering cloud formation?
Then you may have also noticed that quite often, jets fly in crisscross patterns while emitting thick vapor-cloud trails that stretch all the way across the sky and do not evaporate, but instead linger for hours as they spread out into cloud-like structures. These "cloud-producing" trails often become a thick cloudy haze that reduces sunlight or even obscures it completely.
But most flight patterns are criss-crossing. You only notice them when they produce contrails that persist, which coincidentally (actually, not coincidental at all) are days when temperature and humidity are just right for cloud formation.
I'm just confused how that "contrails can't persist" line popped into existence with no real explanation. I keep hearing "Oh yeah, contrails just dissipate quickly" but never get a scientific explanation as to why. Don't you find that strange? Aren't you curious as to why you've fed me that line without understanding the science behind it?
How could you possibly know what I do notice or don't notice? Actually, I pay a great deal of attention to where normal flight patterns are in the sky. I take notice of all air traffic, regardless of whether or not the jets flying overhead are emitting contrails or chemtrails or nothing at all.
Please don't assume that I lack any understanding of the science behind contrails or chemtrails, merely because I didn't articulate my understanding in "science" terms that meet your satisfaction. There are real explanations, but I'm just a layman, so if you want a detailed scientific explanation about contrails, go ask a scientist or do your own research.
Also, I didn't "feed" you a "line". You seem to be implying that I don't know what I'm saying or that I merely parroted something I heard without having first acquired any understanding about it, and I view such under-handed implications as being both offensive and disrespectful. I would like to conduct a respectful discussion with you here without having barbs thrown at me in an apparent attempts to dismiss or discredit me.
Here are some informative links that support my assertions that chemtrails and contrails are two different phenomenons, and that normal contrails are formed only at high altitudes and DO indeed dissipate quickly, whereas cloud-producing chemtrails are being sprayed from aircraft and are not produced by normal jet engine exhaust.
CONTRAILS typically form behind high-flying jets in a low-humidity environment. Cold, dry conditions -- exactly those found in the upper atmosphere -- are prerequisites to contrail formation The humidity level of the upper atmosphere is LOW, which is the reason clouds form in the troposphere -- the lower portion of our atmosphere. Jet contrails, which occur at high altitudes (e.g., 40,000 feet) disappear quickly -- much like your breath on a cold winter day. They are simply made of water vapor. (Why do contrails disappear? They evaporate in the dryness, helped along by solar radiation.)
Now, boys and girls, CLOUDS need two elements in order to form -- particles and moisture. They require condensation nuclei (small particulates) for water vapor to adhere to. The size of these nuclei is about seven microns (picture a red blood cell). Clouds also need conditions of about 70% humidity before they amass at various levels of our troposphere. Clouds hang around for a long time, and come in basic varieties: cirrus (high altitude, feathery looking), cumulus (puffy and fat, with noticeable vertical dimension), and stratus (low-hanging ... those sheets of gray that create an overcast day).
The lesson: Clouds and contrails require opposite conditions to form!
REMEMBER THE RULES: Clouds need 70% moisture to form. Contrails need low humidity (moisture) to form.(source)
Near the close of WW2 jets were used. It was, of course, very important for these jets to avoid detection. NASA and the USAF began to research methods of predicting the occurrence of contrails. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail.
Using these reports and observations of temperature, pressure and relative humidity, the USAF found that the forecasts using the Appleman method were correct about 60 to 80 percent of the time. Looking more closely at the data, they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails.
Due to the inaccuracy in predicting YES contrails with the appleman chart, we should focus solely on the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails.
Used in combination with triangulation and atmospheric sounding data, it becomes trivial to predict whether one should be seeing contrails over their city or whether the trails seen are in fact chemtrails.
Chemtrail Debunker: "This chart was made in 1953! The science is 60 years old!"
Do you think the laws of physics have changed since then? The chart was reviewed in 1992, here. You will find that the review was done to better predict the occurrence of YES contrails and the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails was never found to be inaccurate.
Chemtrail Debunker: "Atmospheric sounding is unreliable."
Readings are taken twice daily, sometimes hourly. The closer you are to the station and the time of reading the more accurate your results. If you are a pilot, you can use live atmospheric readings in-flight.
Chemtrail Debunker: "You can't know the conditions up there. There are tiny pockets of vastly dissimilar air, accounting for trails appearing to start and stop, etc."
This does not make good sense, especially when the atmospheric conditions are completely un-supportive of contrail formation to begin with. I challenge you to support your claims.
Chemtrail Debunker: "Newer engines could make it more likely for there to be contrails."
Yes they may, just as some newer engines might be less likely to form contrails. Such variables are mentioned in the 1992 review of appleman chart contrail formation science. In my view, the change will be negligible (perhaps a few thousand feet and a degree or two celcius) and the appleman chart will be enough to show glaring differences in what we should be seeing and what we are seeing.
If you intend to prove or debunk chemtrails being created by "planes", be sure that you use legitimate NASA USAF contrail formation science such as the appleman chart!
If you catch someone denying chemtrails and they aren't familiar with and actively promoting this chart (or updated contrail-formation science as shown), it would be wise to suspect their motives.
"Max T. Persistence" does not necessarily mean indefinite persistence. From what I've seen in documentaries by pilots & investigators and online in journalist tests, 30s-2 mins is normal. (Must dig up links) Taking into account what we know about contrail and cloud science, including exhaust particulate, humidity, pressure and temperature, it would seem obvious that the conditions for indefinite persistence with a given engine are quite specific.
Further, remember that the prediction of YES contrails by the appleman chart is only correct 25 - 35% of the time. So predicting when a contrail will persist with any accuracy is impossible.
The USAF reviewed the Appleman Chart in 1992 as they wanted to improve prediction of YES contrails, and the method ETACFCST was developed:
ETACFCST
We are told by all official sources, agencies, and elected officials, that all we are seeing in our skies are "condensation trails". They say that it is perfectly normal for this "condensation" so stay in the sky for hours or days, widening and spreading until whole horizons are completely blotted out. Yes, what we see is exactly what they say they want to do with solar radiation management (SRM), but they assure us that geoengineering is not actually going on. Those that choose to believe these blatant lies simply do not yet want to wake up. Here is the fact of the matter, all commercial jet aircraft and all military tankers are fitted with a type of jet engine that is by design nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under the most extreme circumstances, the high bypass turbofan.
imgur.com
1.) Normal contrails quickly dissipate within seconds of being emitted.
2.) Condensed water vapor trails (called contrails) can only be produced by non high-bypass turbojet engines under rare atmospheric conditions that exist only at extremely high altitudes - usually around 35,000 to 45,000 ft - well above cloud ceilings.
3.) Lingering and spreading chemtrails that are sprayed BELOW the cloud ceiling are obviously NOT high-altitude water vapor contrails.
Yesterday in Los Angeles, I woke up just as the sun was breaching the sky. Of course I got a range of red to purple in the clouds near me, but closer to the horizon, I saw an entire rainbow of color. I even saw a band of bright green along the horizon. Is this normal? That has to be from something more than pollution, right?
Chemtrail chemical componets have a radically different refraction rate from normal water vapor, which causes rainbow sun-dogs and purple or greenish colors in clouds.
And yet regular clouds can persist for hours. How do you explain that?
Hello Subzeb8! Clouds and high-altitude contrails (condensation trails) are absolutely not the same thing. Normal jet-engine contrails created by warm engine exhaust (vapor) expelled into extremely cold air produces water condensation, which then quickly evaporates away in the same manner as warm breath (vapor) condenses and disappears into the cold air on a very frigid day. One never sees one's breath turn into a cloud or linger for hours in cold air.
You may have noticed that sometimes, jet contrails remain relatively short as they track along behind the jet, visibly disappearing yet maintaining the same length behind the plane as it evaporates into the cold high-altitude air. Those are normal jet contrails.
Then you may have also noticed that quite often, jets fly in crisscross patterns while emitting thick vapor-cloud trails that stretch all the way across the sky and do not evaporate, but instead linger for hours as they spread out into cloud-like structures. These "cloud-producing" trails often become a thick cloudy haze that reduces sunlight or even obscures it completely. Those are chemtrails. Chemtrails turn into clouds - contrails do not.
Why do normal clouds sometimes persist for hours (or days or even weeks) before evaporating away? To be honest, I can't answer that one. Its an interesting question, but unfortunately is not on topic.
If you want to research more information on chemtrails and geoengineering, there are lots of links that are available in the side bar to help you get started.
[removed]
Can you link to a scientific paper or something for this? It seems that engine exhaust (water vapor, hydrocarbons, dirt or non-burned fuel) would be ideal for cloud formation. Why isn't this the case? What's the mechanic that prevents these millions or billions of nucleation sites from fostering cloud formation?
But most flight patterns are criss-crossing. You only notice them when they produce contrails that persist, which coincidentally (actually, not coincidental at all) are days when temperature and humidity are just right for cloud formation.
I'm just confused how that "contrails can't persist" line popped into existence with no real explanation. I keep hearing "Oh yeah, contrails just dissipate quickly" but never get a scientific explanation as to why. Don't you find that strange? Aren't you curious as to why you've fed me that line without understanding the science behind it?
How could you possibly know what I do notice or don't notice? Actually, I pay a great deal of attention to where normal flight patterns are in the sky. I take notice of all air traffic, regardless of whether or not the jets flying overhead are emitting contrails or chemtrails or nothing at all.
Please don't assume that I lack any understanding of the science behind contrails or chemtrails, merely because I didn't articulate my understanding in "science" terms that meet your satisfaction. There are real explanations, but I'm just a layman, so if you want a detailed scientific explanation about contrails, go ask a scientist or do your own research.
Also, I didn't "feed" you a "line". You seem to be implying that I don't know what I'm saying or that I merely parroted something I heard without having first acquired any understanding about it, and I view such under-handed implications as being both offensive and disrespectful. I would like to conduct a respectful discussion with you here without having barbs thrown at me in an apparent attempts to dismiss or discredit me.
Here are some informative links that support my assertions that chemtrails and contrails are two different phenomenons, and that normal contrails are formed only at high altitudes and DO indeed dissipate quickly, whereas cloud-producing chemtrails are being sprayed from aircraft and are not produced by normal jet engine exhaust.
CONTRAILS typically form behind high-flying jets in a low-humidity environment. Cold, dry conditions -- exactly those found in the upper atmosphere -- are prerequisites to contrail formation The humidity level of the upper atmosphere is LOW, which is the reason clouds form in the troposphere -- the lower portion of our atmosphere. Jet contrails, which occur at high altitudes (e.g., 40,000 feet) disappear quickly -- much like your breath on a cold winter day. They are simply made of water vapor. (Why do contrails disappear? They evaporate in the dryness, helped along by solar radiation.)
Now, boys and girls, CLOUDS need two elements in order to form -- particles and moisture. They require condensation nuclei (small particulates) for water vapor to adhere to. The size of these nuclei is about seven microns (picture a red blood cell). Clouds also need conditions of about 70% humidity before they amass at various levels of our troposphere. Clouds hang around for a long time, and come in basic varieties: cirrus (high altitude, feathery looking), cumulus (puffy and fat, with noticeable vertical dimension), and stratus (low-hanging ... those sheets of gray that create an overcast day).
The lesson: Clouds and contrails require opposite conditions to form!
Near the close of WW2 jets were used. It was, of course, very important for these jets to avoid detection. NASA and the USAF began to research methods of predicting the occurrence of contrails. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail.
Using these reports and observations of temperature, pressure and relative humidity, the USAF found that the forecasts using the Appleman method were correct about 60 to 80 percent of the time. Looking more closely at the data, they found that when no contrails were forecast, the forecast was correct 98 percent of the time! However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails.
Due to the inaccuracy in predicting YES contrails with the appleman chart, we should focus solely on the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails.
Used in combination with triangulation and atmospheric sounding data, it becomes trivial to predict whether one should be seeing contrails over their city or whether the trails seen are in fact chemtrails.
Chemtrail Debunker: "This chart was made in 1953! The science is 60 years old!"
Do you think the laws of physics have changed since then? The chart was reviewed in 1992, here. You will find that the review was done to better predict the occurrence of YES contrails and the 98% accurate prediction of NO contrails was never found to be inaccurate.
Chemtrail Debunker: "Atmospheric sounding is unreliable."
Readings are taken twice daily, sometimes hourly. The closer you are to the station and the time of reading the more accurate your results. If you are a pilot, you can use live atmospheric readings in-flight.
Chemtrail Debunker: "You can't know the conditions up there. There are tiny pockets of vastly dissimilar air, accounting for trails appearing to start and stop, etc."
This does not make good sense, especially when the atmospheric conditions are completely un-supportive of contrail formation to begin with. I challenge you to support your claims.
Chemtrail Debunker: "Newer engines could make it more likely for there to be contrails."
Yes they may, just as some newer engines might be less likely to form contrails. Such variables are mentioned in the 1992 review of appleman chart contrail formation science. In my view, the change will be negligible (perhaps a few thousand feet and a degree or two celcius) and the appleman chart will be enough to show glaring differences in what we should be seeing and what we are seeing.
If you intend to prove or debunk chemtrails being created by "planes", be sure that you use legitimate NASA USAF contrail formation science such as the appleman chart!
If you catch someone denying chemtrails and they aren't familiar with and actively promoting this chart (or updated contrail-formation science as shown), it would be wise to suspect their motives.
"Max T. Persistence" does not necessarily mean indefinite persistence. From what I've seen in documentaries by pilots & investigators and online in journalist tests, 30s-2 mins is normal. (Must dig up links) Taking into account what we know about contrail and cloud science, including exhaust particulate, humidity, pressure and temperature, it would seem obvious that the conditions for indefinite persistence with a given engine are quite specific.
Further, remember that the prediction of YES contrails by the appleman chart is only correct 25 - 35% of the time. So predicting when a contrail will persist with any accuracy is impossible.
The USAF reviewed the Appleman Chart in 1992 as they wanted to improve prediction of YES contrails, and the method ETACFCST was developed: ETACFCST
Source: NASA Appleman Chart - Contrail / Chemtrail Science used by USAF
We are told by all official sources, agencies, and elected officials, that all we are seeing in our skies are "condensation trails". They say that it is perfectly normal for this "condensation" so stay in the sky for hours or days, widening and spreading until whole horizons are completely blotted out. Yes, what we see is exactly what they say they want to do with solar radiation management (SRM), but they assure us that geoengineering is not actually going on. Those that choose to believe these blatant lies simply do not yet want to wake up. Here is the fact of the matter, all commercial jet aircraft and all military tankers are fitted with a type of jet engine that is by design nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under the most extreme circumstances, the high bypass turbofan.
Video: High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines
websource: High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines, Geoengineering, And The Contrail Lie
Now its my turn to pose some questions to you.
1.) Have you examined evidence both for and against the existence of chemtrails/geoengineering with an open mind?
2.) If so, what conclusions or opinions have you formulated after researching both sides of the issue?
3.) Will you provide links to the data or articles that most influenced your conclusions.
4.) Are you here on this sub with the intention of debunking chemtrails or to learn more about them?