Chemtrails or Contrails? Another Alarmist Issue Without Scientific Context

NOTE: like with the essay Saturday about isotasy/glacial rebound being a myth, I don’t think the chemtrails idea has any merit whatsoever. Dr. Tim Ball points out more bad science – chemtrails, which are really just contrails, and which has a cult-like following much like some of the worst theories of global warming zealots – Anthony

“It occurred to me….” To avoid political correctness and say what they really think people say, let me play Devil’s Advocate.

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

One minute people say government does too much, the next they demand action to resolve problems. Environmentalists demand government stop global warming, but oppose remedial actions like spreading iron filings on the oceans to increase uptake of CO2 or spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to create clouds to block sunlight and reduce global temperatures. Both actions are wrong because they constitute geo-engineering – governments playing God. The real problem is neither governments nor opponents know what is happening, but think they do, so demand action. Doing nothing is better if you don’t understand, contrary to the false claim of the precautionary principle. Environmental issues are a war and as Aeschylus said “In war truth is the first casualty”.

Figure 1 shows the different atmospheric layers each defined by temperature changes that reflect different chemistry.

clip_image002

Figure 1: General Layers of the Atmosphere

The critical boundary is the Tropopause between the Troposphere, where 99% of the weather occurs, and the Stratosphere. It’s a very distinct boundary marking different density of gases and a change in temperature from a decrease with altitude to an increase. There are few gases thinly spread in the Stratosphere.

Figure 1 shows the Tropopause at 17 km. Actually, this varies considerably from Equator to Poles, mostly because of temperature. Seasonal temperatures also create differences. Variation at the Equator is 17 km (winter) to 19 km (summer). At the Poles it is 7km (winter) to 10 km (summer). Seasonal range is greater at the Poles because of greater seasonal temperature range.

Naturally, it is far more complicated. Understanding of some Troposphere dynamics are very recent. The Tropopause is not continuous, being broken by wind circulation patterns as Figure 2 shows. 

clip_image004

Figure 2 Tropopause Cross-section.

PFJ =Polar Front Jet; STJ = SubTropical Jet

Twenty years ago my graduate class in Applied Climatology involved a briefing as a commercial pilot flying from Winnipeg to Vancouver. I realized most flights were partly in the lower Stratosphere. Since then these flights have increased because of better aircraft pressurization and more efficient engines in colder temperatures at higher altitudes.

I learned of changing flight patterns when flying search and rescue in northern and Arctic Canada. Flights increased significantly because of the end of the Cold War. with more flights over greater distances and different routes. The amount of traffic has increased significantly, especially the number of flights to Asia, most of which fly out of North America using “great circle” routes that brings them over western North America and Alaska or over the Pole.

Great circle routes take Asian bound aircraft across the general westerly flow of the upper level winds. This means condensation trails and high level clouds, especially Cirrus and contrails in the lower stratosphere are being dispersed in the same direction. Temperatures at these altitudes mean most of the gases condense directly to ice crystals. This makes them very visible, but also slow to dissipate.

A Contrail is exhaust from an aircraft engine cooling very rapidly below the dew point temperature and condensing into a visible trail of microscopic droplets. Through binoculars you can see the gap between the jet engine and the beginning of the trail. Earlier I mentioned that the gas constituency of the lower Stratosphere, where these planes fly, is different being much thinner and colder than in the upper Troposphere. Aircraft exhaust is a much higher percentage of total gas in the Stratosphere. This creates very different contrails, rates of dissipation and other factors. I mentioned that there are clouds in the lower Stratosphere called Noctilucent clouds. Here are some pictures of these clouds from Wikipedia:

clip_image006

clip_image008

clip_image010

clip_image012

Compare those images with these of Cirrus clouds also retrieved from Wikipedia.

clip_image014

clip_image016

clip_image018

clip_image020

Many confuse noctilucent clouds with chemtrails or contrails. Many confuse lower stratosphere contrails with chemtrails. It’s probably because most they want to see chemtrails. I’ve received many photos as evidence of chemtrails that are contrails, high cirrus or noctilucent events.

Noctilucent cloud occurrences are reportedly increasing. Is it possible the increase is because noctilucent clouds “ …are most commonly observed in the summer months at latitudes between 50° and 70° north and south of the equator.” These are the latitudes at which most flight increases have occurred. It is likely the increase in reported chemtrails are actually contrails from lower stratosphere flights.

There may be issues with flights in the stratosphere but nobody is really looking, possibly because the obvious solution is politically unattractive. Fuel consumption increases at lower altitudes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t include the lower Stratosphere in their models. From the 2007 Science report:

“Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere, the models employed for the current assessment do not generally include the QBO.”

The QBO is linked with El Nino/La Nina. They, as well as ozone and clouds in the Stratosphere, are significant factors in Tropospheric weather. Some claim Stratospheric changes explain global temperatures better than IPCC and other models. Lu et al wrote:

All the observed, analytical and theoretical results presented lead to a convincing conclusion that both the CRE (cosmic-ray driven electron-induced-reaction) mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O3 hole and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models.

We need answers from science, free from politics. People need to sort out what actions and issues governments should be taking, but we can only do that if we understand the issues. Since we don’t, it is better to do nothing.

We must avoid the irresponsibility of the precautionary principle.

About these ads

225 thoughts on “Chemtrails or Contrails? Another Alarmist Issue Without Scientific Context

  1. The ‘chemtrails’ myth continues. It is supported by those who treat atmospheric phenomena on a basis of their religious belief in CAGW. Sme real analysis of the matter in contrails would be helpful as a help to truth, but few people are aware of the composition of exhaust gases from combustion engibnes, There is a great deal of alarmist mythology.

  2. Is it time to add another website to the “Transcendental Rant and way out there Theory” category: WUWT?

  3. Perhaps the people who use the “precautionary principle” should be reminded that it only applies if the action taken DOES NO HARM.

  4. Malcolm: the chemtrail mythology has its own life. In Russia, CAGW never attracted any attention and most people have not heard about it, but the myths about their government controlling weather, dumping “chemicals” on them or colluding with foreigners to spread sinister mind-control, birth-control, or disease-causing stuff from the air — those myths are on the rise.

    As you noted, those ideas do infect people with already existing religious beliefs; Russia is now on a rebound from a near-total atheism to a theocracy. It only took a generation to start sliding back into dark ages. But I am surprised CAGW didn’t catch on; probably for the lack of government participation, or maybe because HAARP and cell phone towers were scary enough already.

  5. Your graph of temperature in the atmosphere reminded me of a problem I have had, unanswered, for years.
    Look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
    Not that the curve for the speed of sound AND temperature in the atmosphere at altitude matches closely. I think that with the correct scale, the two would almost be on top of each other. WHY? What is the reason for this correlation? The graph shows that there does not appear to be caused by either air density, or air pressure. WHY? Look at the abrupt changes in the graph. Surely this is not caused by7 “CO2,” or is it?

  6. This is a topic I usually try to stay far away from, since I’ve had some personal experience with a True Believer. Just so you know, ever since, I’ve taken this belief as a sign that there is severe mental illness involved, and I need to take appropriate precautions as quickly as possible.

    Tallbloke, thanks to this I can tell you just what the “True Believers” think. I had a brother-in-law who started off very charming, seemed like a good old boy (yes, part of this story is little sis having to learn some very harsh lessons about character evaluation) and yet even at the reception, once he got to drinking (that took about 5 minutes) he began spouting off about the “plots” the government had against us. He started going on about how it was a lie that these cobwebs in the sky were ice crystals, that they were really chemical saturation sprays being put out of government planes to insidiously control all of our minds and accept whatever we were told on TV. His “proof” was “did you notice how not every plane leaves one behind? Only the government planes do!!!!”

    Hoo boy. I tried to change the subject, politely (I was in his house at the time, and I believe in not offending ones host, even if he is bug-nutz crazy) but that just made him think I was On His Side. And he new I had some knowledge of engineering and had a respectable technical degree, and so he really worked on selling me on it. Well, I heard the whole story, that’s for sure.

    Fast forward a couple of years, he at one time had made a bunch of money, but then sold all of his furniture, and sis finally fled when he started doing oxycontin every day and sitting in the one chair he had left, holding a 30.06 and obsessively loading, unloading, loading, unloading without saying anything.

    The divorce case got pretty funny in court when he tried to prove that the real cause of the trouble was all of the conspiracies targeting him. Sis says she would have a great lifetime movie, if she bothered to write it all down.

    the sad part is that he’s far from the worst relative I’ve had. Sigh.

  7. On HAARP — although it closed down months ago there are still websites publishing graphs of RF intensity due to HAARP. When you challenge them with the fact that there is no HAARP, they counter that there are new, secret, sites in other locations.

    HAARP, chemtrails, AGW … its all the same, an ever shifting definition with shadowy organizations intent on enslaving the population and destroying the world.

  8. usurbrain says:
    September 2, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
    Not that the curve for the speed of sound AND temperature in the atmosphere at altitude matches closely. I think that with the correct scale, the two would almost be on top of each other. WHY?

    I’m not certain, but I’m confident the answer has to do with the velocity of air molecules. Temperature tracks kinetic energy, and that has a v^2 term. The higher the temperature, the higher the velocity, and the faster the air molecules can transmit the pressure wave that constitutes sound.

  9. such a card. Not entirely clear (pun) because of chemtrails and copious amounts of them. How this is even a debate but even those who are 5% right at least in mid Vancouver Island can still be heard above the drone of jet engines. My thought immediately went to a burgeoning interest of law suites associated with aggrieved farmers that have direct evidence. Could be dollar or 2 in it. A man has got to earn a living. Farmers are not included.
    Hey Timmy I’ve got some pictures and would you like to eat a dozen or 2 apples off of my trees. They have a soft highly refined particulate glazing the skin which tracks when you run your finger on it. I had captured the essence of the sky often seen and it’s unique. Aluminescence
    I hope you make a bundle.

  10. “Earlier I mentioned that the gas constituency of the lower Stratosphere, where these planes fly, is different being much thinner and colder than in the upper Troposphere. ”

    I’m confused, the temperature plot you present here shows a higher temperature in the lower Stratosphere than in the upper Troposphere.

    Beyond that, this makes me wonder about the fundamental CO2 forcing. The explanation is that increased CO2 pushes the altitude up at which the atmosphere is opaque, thereby lowering the effective radiating temperature to space (requiring an increase in global temperature to balance the incoming and outgoing radiation). If this threshold altitude is in the stratosphere, then the theory fails, and increasing CO2 would actually increase heat rejection leading to a direct negative forcing, Even if the threshold altitude is in the troposphere, radiative exchange between that layer and the stratosphere will determine the effective radiative temperature in each band.

  11. geoengineering with aluminium?
    ‘What in the world are they spraying’ link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
    When I first heard the chemtrailists, I didn’t think it worth the trouble to find out more. Then one day a friend went on about it and I decided to get some facts to help him see the light.
    I learned something alright. They are spraying a whole range of stuff/sh*te in the atmosphere.

  12. “… spreading iron filings on the oceans to increase uptake of CO2 or spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to create clouds to block sunlight and reduce global temperatures. Both actions are wrong because they constitute geo-engineering – governments playing God.”

    Tim, both actions are wrong period!

  13. Timmy, laid down my thoughts but they were revoked, still if it’s true you can’t forget so here I go again. I think the spokesman will in fact deflect from the obvious. Years of observation, corroborate with time stamp photos many in sequence and then followed up with others. Add the soft glowing highly refined particulate on my apples that as you run a finger on the apple is easily tracked. Particles, hmmm. Farmers branishing their pitchforks at justices gate and clear evidence that geoengineering, it’s patents and their owners will need a perspective not entirely honest but well crafted. Aluminescence is a name that treats the sky 111K from you with awe through discernment (whatever that means) biblical proportions. Don’t dally on the dark side for 2 long Tim.

  14. I should point out that the contrails are not just from engine exhaust.

    There are also very large pressure changes around the wings and particularly at the tip of the wings, enough to cause any moisture to condense then form into ice.

    If look closely you will see that contrails often develop right at the tip of the wings.

  15. Professor David Keith, Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment, Director ISEEE – Energy and Environmental Systems Group, University of Calgary, Canada. Member of the Royal Society Geoenginering Group (2009). In 2010-2011, a Member of the Pipartisan Policy Center Working Group on Geoengineering (Climate Remediation). Dr. Keith ordered this Geoengineering Cost Analysis report from Aurora Flight sciences to dump a million tonnes of SO2/year into the atmosphere at 60,000 ft. from an airplane. To reduce Global Warming.

    http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/pdfs/jet_trails/25_1_2010_University_of_Calgary_Geoengineering_Cost_Analysis_Using_Jets_October_30_2010_Aurora_Flight_Sciences_Final_Report_Keith.pdf

    So what would you call that? A contrail or a chemtrail?

  16. I think that the existence of such research programs as:

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/climate-sunshade-idINDEE87T0K420120830

    is what is commonly referred to as the production of Chem Trails. It is certainly true that there are at least proposals to disperse particles from various aircraft which are designed to disprupt the natural climate (Climate Engineering).

    The “conspiracy” issue arises where people point at every trail in the sky and scream: “Chem Trail, they are poisoning us!”. It is not beyond the realms of possibility though that the US government would run a covert operation without the proper checks and balances to experiment with, for example, how to create a drought above an enemy nation.

    So whilst it is unlikely that the US government are trying to kill US citizens using “Chem Trails”, it is likely that governments are researching how to affect the weather over enemy territory.

    What a fantastic weapon, to be able to destroy a nations food supply! Kaaa boom! It is not a war crime either, since the US has granted itself immunity from any war crimes prosecutions ever! [/sarc /snipe].

  17. A simple calculation of the amount of “product” (which as never been analyzed) should be enough to discredit this stupidity.
    Also why to do it on the oceans or inhabited area, where is the common sens ?
    When we have a video send the 20 of august Californian time and in fact 7 am 21 august 2013 Damascus time (sunset 6.01 am that day) with a sun to nearly zenith we can strongly doubt that the video showing people dead supposed to be killed at 3 am of the same day is at least doubtful.

    If there is a conspiracy it is the stupidity like HARP chemtrails or AGW which all have in common misunderstanding of the amount of energy needed, probably the reason of their success, it make the “believer” thinking that that man is huge , it also can discredit totally some facts which are very real.

  18. “… in the lower Stratosphere called Noctilucent clouds.”

    Should that not read in the Mesosphere, well above the Stratosphere?

  19. I love it when we get to talk dirty! These taboo subjects help clear the air of riff raff theories! Especially when believers try to talk all sciency about them.

  20. I have seen contrails develop only from the engines, never from the wingtips. I travel frequently between Los Angeles and Honolulu (over 200 round trips in 35 years now). Occasionally the airliner I’m in is above and in trail, offset laterally, behind another on the same course for hours. Invariably the contrails form behind each engine. It would be interesting to see any pictures showing contrails from the wingtips.

  21. I changed the meme from “Chemtrail” to “Geo-Engineering” in the blogosphere about two years ago to be more scientifically accurate and get the debate into the mainstream. It really worked like a charm. Both words work for me just fine, but psychological conditioning has made many averse to the discussion. No matter if you acknowledge the persistent contrails in the skies contain added chemicals or not, causing their lingering dispersion overcast effect, I just ask you to do some math.

    Commercial jet aircraft numbers in the skies cannot account for the tick tack toe patters and all day long trail patterns being laid in the skies. In my neighborhood of SW Florida we have maximum number of passenger jets in very low numbers. My skies are not heavenly traveled by commercial passenger aircraft. So who owns the planes lingering in my skies all day long and why are they there? Just to waste jet fuel? I think not.

    Pilots Learn about Geoengineering & Chemtrails, presentation by David Lim, UK March 2013

  22. What a load of ballony. I’m sick of all this, white trails are ice crystals forming from the wings of the airline. It is so high up, and depending on the weather too. Gosh when I was shown this I could not believe they were worried or hysterical about it. One picture circulating I showed to a pilot and he laughed. ” This is a 707 hasn’t flown for years and it does not have any exhaust pipes under the plane, where it appears white stuff is being sprayed, it is photo shopped”Chemicals being sprayed on land are done at a low altitude, and heavily regulated regarding sprays being dispersed over habitations, and concerning wind factors and distribution.. I got caught once when a low flying crop duster flew near me, and I got something in my eye, that really stung for a long time. He was obviously just finished and some residue hit me accidentally. I was told later studying my diploma in organic agricultural production that it probably was a phosphate, like super phosphate. Next the 9/II tragedy will be resurrected, as an inside job? Gosh! The problem was there was that they never alerted the air force fighters, they could not believe this was happening to them. A stuff up of a large magnitude.

  23. 30-odd year Professional Pilot big and small- government contractor too-never have I heard of
    seen or been around anyone that has said or done anything that contributes to chemtrails..
    Got into a troll fight on another site years ago about this…

  24. Chemtrails eh? What’s the next conspiracy theory to get a mention – HAARP? vaccines-cause-autism? fluoridation-is-sinister-mind-control?

    On a more serious note – surely noctilucent clouds are at an altitude of ~80 km – way above any air routes?

  25. Seeding clouds was tried in Australia, and they did not work. One university suggested that volcanoes cool the planet and that sulphur dioxide should be sprayed on clouds to do the same.
    That is almost as bad as planting huge fans under the sea to keep circulating the gulf stream.

  26. I’ve often thought about changes to our ‘physical’ atmosphere with time and how this could influence warming/cooling climate trends.
    Is there any information on variations in the height of the tropopause over time?
    Clearly, the thickness of our atmosphere blanket will have a huge influence on ground temperature As our planet has evolved surely the atmosphere has grown thicker as more gases have been added from volcanoes, microbial activity etc – clearly not a steady state system.

  27. Have seen wing tip vortices many times, humidity dependent. Usually see them at low altitude in humid conditions. Fighter jets really show them due to angle of attack. New passenger aircraft have wing tip structures to redue vortices but notice the vortices coming off the flaps of this airliner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uqsfz2tfO0

    But even the raised wing tips shed vortices – here is a picture of engine pod and wingtip vortices at altitude: http://www.flickr.com/photos/spiderman/6246344305/lightbox/

  28. A commercial pilot did tell me once, that dumping fuel for whatever reason was prohibited over some regions, but on occasion when a airline comes into land, some fuel is dispensed that could be toxic. I am not sure about how, maybe when they reverse engines? However, no reports have inferred that people near air landing areas have been exposed to toxic chemicals from commercial aircraft. But there is a smell of exhaust around air ports isn’t there.

  29. We need answers from science, free from politics. People need to sort out what actions and issues governments should be taking, but we can only do that if we understand the issues. Since we don’t, it is better to do nothing. We must avoid the irresponsibility of the precautionary principle.

    Truer words were never spoken, thank you.

  30. Great read. I’ve abided by the site rules for not posting on this subject and I hope Dr Ball will engage some of the chemtrail folks in a polite discussion. Aircraft engines have changed a lot over the last 20-25 years and maybe they just disperse things differently, maybe it is all a mistake.

    Fly a drone behind the aircraft taking samples. That is the real test.

    By the way to those saying HAARP couldn’t do weather modifications, ion ratio changes or other very interesting stuff please read the patents that Dr Bernard Eastland had purchased from him by ARCO. Prior art section: Nickola Tesla

    It is some very interesting reading. I also recommend reading or listening to any interviews with him as he covers ground from fusion torch to HAARP to other fascinating physics topics. I was always amazed at how nonchalant he was in talking about stuff that just blew my mind.

  31. Mariss says:
    I have seen contrails develop only from the engines, never from the wingtips.

    Google “wingtip contrails” change to images. ENJOY ! :-)

  32. I’m guessing that exhaust trails could theoretically be called “chemtrails”, because they do contain some non-atmospheric chemicals.
    But one has to realise that ANY small protruding part can actually cause the pressure differences to cause contrails at altitude. Air speed sensors under the wing for eg.can cause small contrails. and as I mentioned before.. wing tip cavitation can cause major streams

  33. The thing is no one could ever get a paper published in a legitimate peer review journal that claimed that contrails are really chemtrails, a lot of climate alarmists paper are published, and many shouldn’t be.

  34. Wayne Delbeke – Those have got to be something moist venting out of the winglet and engine directly not instant fog resulting from a high AOA pressure drop.in a high humidity condition, (and certainly nothing to do with a vortice – the winglets are there to reduce the creation of vortices).

  35. Mariss says:
    September 2, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    Agreed. The combustion of hydrocarbon fuel generates a lot of water. But there’s not enough pressure drop to condense the tiny amount of water available at altitude in what is a minor wingtip vortex that occurs during cruise flight. Probably what folks are thinking is during landing, in near 100% RH air, it is usual that given the higher angles of attack a strong vortex will generate off the wingtip and generate a vapor trail. Even more strongly off the outboard end trailing flap edge. In the case of the wing generated vapor trail the amount of water is miniscule, being extracted from the water gas available in the air, and very quickly dissipates. In ideal conditions lasting maybe 6 or 8 seconds maximum. In these ideal conditions aircraft propeller tips also leave their cool multi helix vapor trails.

  36. The quality control of aviation fuel is robust. The idea that there is some clandestine/secret government program is putting some kind of contaminate substance in jet fuel is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. To believe in chemtrails you have to believe that thousands and thousands of pilots, mechanics, ground service technicians, refiners and fuel transport companies have all amazingly managed to keep this secret from the public. Occam’s razor applies very well here…

  37. Philip Peake says:
    September 2, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    On HAARP — although it closed down months ago there are still websites publishing graphs of RF intensity due to HAARP. When you challenge them with the fact that there is no HAARP, they counter that there are new, secret, sites in other locations.

    HAARP, chemtrails, AGW … its all the same, an ever shifting definition with shadowy organizations intent on enslaving the population and destroying the world.
    _______________________
    I know a couple of true believers in HAARP, chemtrails, etc. It is completely pointless to include actual science or math in any discussion with those people, as they are convinced of conspiracies which are unencumbered by natural laws. All one can do is to be impersonal to their view of reality and try not to think things about them which are too unkind.

  38. wws says:
    September 2, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    “… the sad part is that he’s far from the worst relative I’ve had. Sigh.”
    _____________________________
    Hells bells, sounds like we’re almost related.

  39. No one believed the NSA was collecting virtually 100% of all Americans communication data before Edward Snowden blew the whistle on it. They’re even building a multi-billion dollar NSA facility in Bluffdale Utah called the Utah Data Center to store all our data forever. Who would have thunk it?

  40. For more reading on Contrails/Chemtrails might I suggest Bill Whittle’s “Seeing the Unseen” Part 1 and 2 (and 3 if you can find it) as a primer. Should be required reading for just about anyone.

  41. I got into it with some “chemtrails” believers and none of them had any technical education at all.
    None of them seem to have much in the way of critical thinking skills either.
    I am an engineer, pilot, former aircraft owner, and former Boeing employee, and have been around aviation all my life.
    The reason for the seeming increase in contrails is twofold. One is the much greater number of flights now than there were back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and the other is that today’s airliner is a much bigger aircraft, with much more powerful engines than existed 40-50 years ago. The amount of horsepower is much higher, therefore the amount of water vapor exiting the engine is many times greater. That plus the fact that they can also fly at higher altitudes means that contrails are more noticeable.
    Anyone who has ever been around commercial aircraft knows that there are literally hundreds of people who interact with each airplane, and there is no way that someone could alter an aircraft and somehow stuff additional tanks in the already very cramped space on board without someone noticing. In addition how would tanks be filled with anyone noticing? The size of the conspiracy required to keep all those folks quiet would be enormous.
    Many, many other reasons that the whole “chemtrails” nonsense is bogus, but its amazing how doggedly those who believe in it will stick to that belief – regardless of the facts presented.

  42. Anthony,

    I think it appropriate that you deal with some of the “conspiracy theory” wackiness that has poisoned the layman’s common parlance wrt science.

    Many of the issues hatching in the backrooms of the those who wish to exploit populism to drive a political agenda are lined up to supplant AGW as the “unscience” fear monger preoccupation.

    Global Warming caused by people was, is, and likely will always total BS exploited to divert resources from the tax base to fund cockamamie social engineering efforts from the left. Now, like then, fake and abused science will be enrolled to give credibility to hoax science for purposes unknown at this time. Chem-trails, HARP, Fluoride, the NSA, mind control, GMOs, etc etc will compete for prominence by the various lobbies to become the news issue of the decade.

    I say since AGW ,as an issue to serious scientists, is a corpse, WUWT can be a zombie killer for the Global Warming dead-enders but also as an advocate of serious science literacy in the popular world.

    Since WUWT is the definitive word on AGW, it can, due its credibility become a reliable arbiter in the discussions if very popular and unscientific pollutants that persist in common culture.

    Please discuss and debunk the crazy unscience in the following:

    1) Alien panspermia…. no evidence at all
    2) HARP as a global Weather modification agent.
    3) Chem-Trails
    4) Fluoride
    5) NSA… big brother (HMMMMMM)
    6) The story about Franken-Foods
    7) the list goes on…

    I guess I am suggesting a more advanced and sustained effort at MYTHBUSTING, especially those MYTHS that creep into the pocketbooks of tax payers by way of the abuse of science through snake oil salesmanship. Like an issue focused JUNK-Science.

  43. “Google “wingtip contrails” change to images. ENJOY ! :-)”

    I think you are mixing up high-altitude contrails with very low altitude wing-tip vortices. There is no noticeable rotation in contrails while wing tip vorticies have an intense rotation when they are made visible in conditions where dew-point and temperature are nearly the same.

    High altitude contrails are formed when water vapor in engine exhaust condenses into ice crystals which is a totally different phenomena. Interestingly, piston engine aircraft form contrails as well. Here are some pictures of piston engine contrails from 1941 that would put any turbine aircraft’s contrails to shame:

    http://contrailscience.com/fightercontrails-over-kent-1941/

  44. “We need answers from science, free from politics. People need to sort out what actions and issues governments should be taking, but we can only do that if we understand the issues. Since we don’t, it is better to do nothing. We must avoid the irresponsibility of the precautionary principle.”

    If I am wrong about this, anyone out there is free to correct me. It is my understanding though that science cannot prove a negative–it cannot prove that something does NO harm. Since the precautionary principle demands exactly that from science, it is irrational. It therefore cannot be the basis for deciding or determining anything having to do with science.

    Pure and simple.

  45. “We must avoid the irresponsibility of the precautionary principle.”

    Playing the sorcerers apprentice with the global climate does not constitute exercising the precautionary principle.

    Trying to service your car before you understand auto-mechanics does not constitute precautionary preventive maintenance.

  46. This talk about chemtrails sparked a memory, about mind vs. matter…

    In the early 1990s, Vancouver had a problem with a gypsy moth infestation. The local governments decided to do aerial spraying, with a natural pesticide called Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki ( Btk ). There was a huge outcry about poisoning the city, that children would die.

    Before the Btk pesticide was applied to the city of Vancouver, the aerial spray planes made a few practice flights over the city. The city was flooded with calls about breathing ailments and allergic reactions. Even though nothing had been sprayed, some people insisted that they were having breathing problems.

    Eventually, the aerial spraying occured. There were no known (real) side effects. The gypsy moths died off.

    Gypsy Moth in British Columbia

    http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/gypsymoth/

    What is Btk?

    http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/gypsymoth/whatisbtk.htm

  47. massagrabber says:
    September 2, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    Hey Timmy I’ve got some pictures and would you like to eat a dozen or 2 apples off of my trees. They have a soft highly refined particulate glazing the skin which tracks when you run your finger on it. I had captured the essence of the sky often seen and it’s unique. Aluminescence

    How do you identify “highly refined”? If you could get some on glass microscope slides, it would be interesting to look at them with a microscope. Local water testing outfits might be able to do some quantitative analyses for you.

  48. “”””””…..Ric Werme says:

    September 2, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    usurbrain says:
    September 2, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
    Not that the curve for the speed of sound AND temperature in the atmosphere at altitude matches closely. I think that with the correct scale, the two would almost be on top of each other. WHY?

    I’m not certain, but I’m confident the answer has to do with the velocity of air molecules. Temperature tracks kinetic energy, and that has a v^2 term. The higher the temperature, the higher the velocity, and the faster the air molecules can transmit the pressure wave that constitutes sound……”””””

    Norty norty !

    Every heard of “Read everything. before doing anything !!”

    So I knew that the speed of sound (longitudinal compression waves) had to do with the restoring force on a displaced element of air; which depends on the pressure, and then it depends on the mass of that air element as to how fast the pressure disturbance can accelerate the air mass.

    So I knew it depended on density and bulk compressibility; I even could work it out at one time.

    So if you read what the evil Wiki says about it, it does confirm that density and pressure are involved. But if you read all of it, when they get down to brass tacks, and figure it out properly from ideal gas laws and the like; plus assume adiabatic conditions, they then declare: The pressure and density cancel out and as a result the velocity of sound (in a specific ideal gas) DEPENDS ONLY ON THE TEMPERATURE.

    For ordinary air which is not a bad imitation of an ideal gas, and generally has a fixed molar composition, then the velocity of sound, almost exactly follows Temperature.

    So your eyes are not deceived it is supposed to be that way.

    Well for the nit pickers, there are secondary and tertiary effects that gum it up a little like how a particular gas molecule stores heat. So mono0atomic, and diatomic gases behave differently.

    So it’s a pretty good exposition there in Wiki. I can’t vouch for the accuracy; but they do a fairly thorough job of exploring all the fine shades of grey.

    But basically, in the atmosphere the velocity of ordinary sound waves follows Temperature only.

  49. michaelwiseguy says:
    September 2, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    Commercial jet aircraft numbers in the skies cannot account for the tick tack toe patters and all day long trail patterns being laid in the skies. In my neighborhood of SW Florida we have maximum number of passenger jets in very low numbers. My skies are not heavenly traveled by commercial passenger aircraft. So who owns the planes lingering in my skies all day long and why are they there? Just to waste jet fuel? I think not.

    When an airplane is “lingering” how long does it linger for? Are they making rounded contrails? Jets can’t make sharp turns, so a lingering jet should be doing more than making tic-tac-toe patterns.

    I have an iPhone app called “Plane Finder” I got to identify the jets that fly over my property the White Mountains of New Hampshire. I figured they were international flights, and Plane Finder confirmed that. Dallas, Houston, Memphis are all common origination places, London, Paris, Barcelona, Rome are common destinations.

    The tic-tac-toe patterns are generally created by jets following “jet ways”, routes that air traffic control and pilots fly. As plane after plane goes along the jetway, crosswinds can blow the contrails off to the side and you get parallel contrails. if a pair of jetways cross (they’re assigned different altitudes!) then you get grids.

  50. Polar air masses that are 6km in thickness… and the Ferrell tri cellular model! Good one… So sad this antiquated vision is still peddled. No excuses.

  51. Paul Westhaver says:
    September 2, 2013 at 9:39 pm
    Please discuss and debunk the crazy unscience in the following:
    1) Alien panspermia…. no evidence at all
    2) HARP as a global Weather modification agent.
    3) Chem-Trails
    4) Fluoride
    5) NSA… big brother (HMMMMMM)
    6) The story about Franken-Foods
    7) the list goes on…

    I don’t feel qualified to address any of the above as I don’t have a degree in crazy unscience. But with regard to Item 1), I would like to note that it has found favor among a number of respectable scientists including Svante Arrhenius, a hero of the alarmists, who early in the 20th century produced a detailed panspermia hypothesis, and the much maligned Fred Hoyle, who to give him credit was an early critic of modern CAGW who pointed out in the 1980s that any CO2-induced “greenhouse effect” would be far to small to result in runaway warming. Interestingly, Stephen Hawking has also touched on the possibility of panspermia. As you point out, there no evidence has been found for alien panspermia and as far as I can see it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis since no matter how many meteors, asteroids or comets we might sample, we could never be certain that the “pansperms” were not lurking somewhere else.

  52. Airliners fly at jet stream altitudes and contrails can persist for hours. A 150 knot jet stream can blow a contrail over 1,000 km from its point of origin in just 4 hours. The contrail you see overhead may have come from an aircraft very far away from you and been created hours ago.

  53. There is a differnce between Chemtrials and Contrails.

    Chemtrails require the action oif a malevelonet agent with no believable motivationor opportunity. nad no evedience that it exists.
    Contrails do exist. Contrails are increasing for the reasons that Kurt Hanke says at September 2, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    The reason for the seeming increase in contrails is twofold. One is the much greater number of flights now than there were back in the 1960′s and 1970′s, and the other is that today’s airliner is a much bigger aircraft, with much more powerful engines than existed 40-50 years ago. The amount of horsepower is much higher, therefore the amount of water vapor exiting the engine is many times greater. That plus the fact that they can also fly at higher altitudes means that contrails are more noticeable.

    Contrails deserve investigation. They are real.

  54. ” Some claim Stratospheric changes explain global temperatures better than IPCC and other models”

    Exactly.

    A warming stratosphere pushes tropopause height down and a cooling stratosphere pulls it up.

    A different level of solar effect on stratosphere temperatures between poles and equator will alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which then allows latitudinal sliding of jets and climate zones so as to change global cloud cover and albedo to change the amount of solar energy entering the oceans to fuel the climate system.

    “Figure 1 shows the Tropopause at 17 km. Actually, this varies considerably from Equator to Poles, mostly because of temperature. Seasonal temperatures also create differences. Variation at the Equator is 17 km (winter) to 19 km (summer). At the Poles it is 7km (winter) to 10 km (summer). Seasonal range is greater at the Poles because of greater seasonal temperature range.”

    Now just consider that the range at the poles would be even greater than that at the equator on longer timescales commensurate with, say, the millennial solar cycle and there you have it.

    More details here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

    At the very least such a proposition needs investigation and serious consideration.

    Note that the Svensmark cosmic ray hypothesis becomes unnecessary since the change in the length of lines of air mass mixing from zonal to meridional jets is sufficient to achieve the required change in total global cloudiness.

    Meanwhile the chemtrail nonsense is simply due to a failure to appreciate the infinite variety of lingering effects from contrails depending on the atmospheric conditions at various heights.

  55. Occam’s Razor where are you now?

    Chemtrails? Where do they hide the tanks that contain the chemtrail fluid? Where are the Certificate of Airworthiness papers approving the modifications? Or, if only in the normal fuel tanks how do the chemtrailers suggest the fuel tanker drivers know which airliners need ‘chemtrail fuel” and which don’t? And where are the tankers picking up the chemtrail fluid? Shell and BP and others have ‘secret’ chemtrail operations?

    It beggars belief that humans can be so incredibly dumb as to think this has been going on for years and no one has ‘blown the whistle’ on the project.

    Are all Governments with airliner operators, in cahoots?

    Nothing to see here – move on……….

  56. Sometimes I despair at the gullibility, nay stupidity, of those who will believe in such ludicrous ideas as chemtrails. And then I read a post such as that from Brian Johnson UK (September 2, 2013 at 11:58 pm) which restores my faith in humanity.

    Thank you Brian, I award you my totally unofficial, totally subjective, post of the thread.

  57. September 2, 2013 at 11:15 pm
    “The tic-tac-toe patterns are generally created by jets following “jet ways”, routes that air traffic control and pilots fly. As plane after plane goes along the jetway, crosswinds can blow the contrails off to the side and you get parallel contrails. if a pair of jetways cross (they’re assigned different altitudes!) then you get grids.”

    But the airport is 35 miles from my house and there are no landing delays do to the the low volume of air traffic. Those airplanes over my house are not passenger jets in holding patterns in my airspace. Whose jets are they? Who owns them? It’s just a scientific mathematical analysis to figure that out.

  58. I’ve flown in and out of RSW dozens of times in the past ten years. I was in a holding pattern once due to bad weather where I saw the thousands of un-developed lots on Lehigh Acres. Never was I in a holding pattern over Cape Coral 35 Miles north. Why are all these jet planes over Cape Coral polluting my airspace?

  59. Mike M says:
    September 2, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    The quality control of aviation fuel is robust. The idea that there is some clandestine/secret government program is putting some kind of contaminate substance in jet fuel is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. To believe in chemtrails you have to believe that thousands and thousands of pilots, mechanics, ground service technicians, refiners and fuel transport companies have all amazingly managed to keep this secret from the public. Occam’s razor applies very well here…

    Well said. This is also the reason the Moon landings could not have been faked: There would be far too many people involved for the ‘secret’ to be kept easily, especially as people retire (and would like to get some book rights).

  60. Didn’t I read about the British government admitting to spraying all kinds of things over its own population in the 50’s or something?
    I’m not surprised the Russians think their government is spraying them. I think they actually did try to change the weather at one time, but can’t remember when. Was it at the time of the olympic games, or does anyone know?
    My thoughts about the supposed chemtrails in the USA is that air spreads to just about everywhere. The supposed perpetrators also live and breathe the same air. Would they spray their own air supply? That’s a bit stupid, methinks.

  61. Tim, these photo are true noctilucent clouds. I see them from my balcony in Moscow every summer. But you are wrong about their altitude: they are not in lower stratosphere, but in mesosphere, more exactly right in mesopause, at 83-85 km above ground. They are also called mesospheric clouds.

  62. There is a lot of evidence out there that chemtrails are real, just as real as contrails. Those going on about the contrail mechanism from atmosphere and fuel, etc – sure, is an accepted real phenomena, no problem. Chemtrails exist too, look at the evidence for yourself – there is official patent info, news reports (look at beijing snow for big example), organic farms and Mnt Shashta with chemical traces that can only have come from spraying and subsequent precipitation. Pilots who know. Just look up weather modification companies, one in particular is weathermodification.com whose ad blurb states:-
    “Now, more than ever, the worldwide need for solutions to atmospheric necessities such as water resource management and environmental quality monitoring, is critical. With nearly a half-century of successful programs, our experience speaks for itself.” Cloud seeding. They have a section on cloud seeding equipment and even talk about ‘plane selection’, FAA approval and so on.
    How do the chemtrail deniers explain cloud seeding without plane loads of chemicals sprayed into the atmosphere? See my video links in earlier posts.
    It is time for people, especially some on WUWT, to open their minds to this and get into a serious debate – this is real and serious business.
    Monsanto engineering crops for abiotic stress and elevated aluminium contamination. Needless to say, aluminium is one of the most talked about cloud seeders that I’ve come across.
    One problem of really seeing what is going on is that when you want to alter a weather pattern in location A, you might need to do your business a long way distance at B, a day or more before. How do you relate the two, when you don’t know what is going on? The evidence is on the ground, with elevated aluminium, strontium, barium copper sulfate and other chemical traces, far above normal.
    There is a science to this that has learned a lot and is being put to use. There is huge money to be made too…

  63. Gene Selkov –

    You don’t seem to understand what a vortex is, a vortex is simply a rotating amount of liquid (including gas). A tornado is a vortex, so is the water spinning as it goes down your bathtub drain.

    And the comment in the aerospaceweb link is rubbish. It includes leading edge slats, (what they’re really called BTW), as being: “the purpose of these devices is to create an energetic, swirling mass of air called a vortex”.

    That’s ridiculous! The purpose of a leading edge slat is to change/stretch the wing’s airfoil into a high lift configuration at low airspeed during takeoff and landing phases of flight. Flaps do the same thing but also to supply drag when fully deployed, (for landing only).

    • Mike M: I see a case of reading comprehension here. I admit the fragment you quote could be written less ambiguously:

      > “the purpose of these devices is to create an energetic, swirling mass of air called a vortex”.
      >
      > That’s ridiculous! The purpose of a leading edge slat is to change/stretch the wing’s airfoil into a high lift configuration at low airspeed during takeoff and landing phases of flight.

      By “these devices” they meant vortex generators, not slats. They are installed on all surfaces whose interference with lift-generating planes is detrimental. Vortex generators protect the function of the leading edge and the rest of the wing surface by organising and compacting the otherwise random turbulence into well-defined vortices that slip away without disturbing the flow where it matters.

      There is even a case where vortex generators are installed along the entire leading edge of the wing, because it is the leading edge that is always a trouble-maker at high wing load.

      You misread the whole thing.

  64. Theresa says:
    September 3, 2013 at 2:06 am

    Didn’t I read about the British government admitting to spraying all kinds of things over its own population in the 50′s or something?

    I don’t know what you read, sorry.

  65. Ric Werme says:
    September 3, 2013 at 5:22 am
    Theresa says:
    September 3, 2013 at 2:06 am

    Didn’t I read about the British government admitting to spraying all kinds of things over its own population in the 50′s or something?

    I don’t know what you read, sorry.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

    “Millions were in germ war testsMuch of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials
    Share Tweet this
    Email Antony Barnett, public affairs editor The Observer, Sunday 21 April 2002 10.23 BST

    Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: ‘Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

    ‘The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.’

    Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: ‘It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.’

    antony.barnett@observer.co.uk

    Whatever is happening, I think it more than a tad naive to put up the straw man that people cannot tell the difference between contrails and something that is not anything like them..

    The page of information about spraying in Chico California, is gone, but maybe the others worth a look, http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tests/

    So many patents, so little time… http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/12/10/chronology-of-us-patents-for-spraying-atmospheric-aerosols/

    And, lastly:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/037451_chemtrails_conspiracy_theory_geoengineering.html

    “Swedish official admits toxic ‘chemtrails’ are real, not a wild conspiracy theory
    Saturday, October 06, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

    “Spraying the skies to save the planet?
    Interestingly, the United Nations (UN) and various Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-backed groups have recently been forced to admit that such sprayings are taking place, and that the emitted particles are not normal contrails. But their excuse for why chemtrail sprayings are being done is that they will somehow save the planet from the devastating effects of so-called “global warming,” that ever-present, pseudoscientific environmental theory that is often used as justification for all sorts of outlandish policy proposals. (http://www.globalresearch.ca)

    In the case of chemtrails, everything from blocking the sun in order to lower the earth’s average temperatures, to deliberately shifting weather patterns for the purpose of offsetting the allegedly melting polar ice caps, have been used as excuses for trying to legitimize the seeding of our skies with a cornucopia of poisons. And if re-elected to another term, Hagberg says she will continue to fight such chemtrailing efforts in her own country, which she says have been co-opted by the Swedish government.”

    What possible reason would anyone have to take ‘official government sanctioned’ denials over empirically tested results, given ‘governments’ track record for dishonesty?

    “a life unexamined is a life not worth living” socrates

  66. Mass hysterias of all types abound, in large part due to the internet. Most seem to involve a conspiracy of some sort involving government, and contain some abominably-bad “science”. With CAGW, what we have is really bad, agenda-driven “science” being supported by governments, “scientific” organizations, and the MSM, all tapping in to the social phenomenon of mass hysteria.
    This creates the spectre of a mass hysteria (CAGW) so huge in scope that it is able (for a time) to paint the opposition as those with a psychological disorder.

  67. if this article is true and “chemtrails” are just contrails from commercial jets, why is that one day will be perfectly clear and there will have no contrails at all and the next the sky is covered with them? Is there no commercial airlines flying on those days?

    • elmer asks:

      > why is that one day will be perfectly clear and there will have no contrails at all and the next the sky is covered with them? Is there no commercial airlines flying on those days?

      Because of weather changes, which occur all the time at cruise altitude, as well as near the ground. You will not only see condensation appear and disappear day-to-day or hour-to-hour, but if you care to look, you will notice that a trail left behind the same airplane may be interrupted where the conditions are not right for the jet exhaust to condense, or where it evaporates faster even if it happens to condense initially.

      You can view those contrails (or their absence) as dew point indicators at that altitude.

  68. From their website:- Texas Weather Modification Association…
    The first cloud seeding project began in 1971 in West Texas. In 1995, several counties in that area formed a weather modification association. To date, there are eight regions that have weather modification programs.

    All organizations that conduct cloud-seeding activities, or firms that contract for
    cloud-seeding services, hold a weather-modification license and permit from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). The American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have issued policy statements on weather modification that attest to the efficacy of existing technology to enhance precipitation.
    The following photos give a glimse of what has been going on for decades…

    http://www.nawcinc.com/photos.html

    Quote:-
    There are two primary methods employed to stimulate precipitation. One, hygroscopic seeding, affects warm cloud processes. The other, glaciogenic seeding, initiates cold cloud processes.

    You can guess the government, military, etc research going on secretly…

  69. Nicholas says September 2, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    I have seen contrails and chemtrails.
    Thirty five years in the airline industry.

    Have you ever seen a ‘jet’ fueled on the ramp by anything other than JP4 or kerosene?

    (My experience has been that not ALL pilots are firmly ‘bolted down’. )

  70. elmer says September 3, 2013 at 6:35 am

    if this article is true and “chemtrails” are just contrails from commercial jets, why is that one day will be perfectly clear and there will have no contrails at all and the next the sky is covered with them? Is there no commercial airlines flying on those days?

    Elmer, you seem to be a good guy, so I say this with kindness:

    Your local community college; go to it. Look up meteorology courses and pay the bucks and audit a few … this may also involve a Physics course or two.

    Thanks for your creative M4GW work too. Loved the cute blonde in the one vid! Say hi to her for me and the gang here at WUWT.

    .

  71. I am very grateful to TIm Ball for knocking the chemtrails nonsense on the head. At nearly every talk, I am approached by someone who asks about chemtrails and I have to explain that there is even less evidence for those than for catastrophic global warming. Well done, Tim.

  72. Cam_S says September 2, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    In the early 1990s, Vancouver had a problem with a gypsy moth infestation. The local governments decided to do aerial spraying, with a natural pesticide called Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki ( Btk ). There was a huge outcry about poisoning the city, that children would die.

    Before the Btk pesticide was applied to the city of Vancouver, the aerial spray planes made a few practice flights over the city. The city was flooded with calls about breathing ailments and allergic reactions. Even though nothing had been sprayed, …

    psy·cho·so·mat·ic (ˌsīkōsəˈmatik), an adjective

    1) Imagined physical condition or symptom created totally or in most part by the mind or belief system.

    2) A physical illness or other condition caused or aggravated by a mental factor such as internal conflict, stress or lack of exposure to (and knowledge ) the workings of technology in a modern day and age (related, see: Cargo-cult science.)

    .

  73. Mike M says September 2, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    To believe in chemtrails you have to believe that thousands and thousands of pilots, mechanics, ground service technicians, refiners and fuel transport companies have all amazingly managed to keep this secret from the public. Occam’s razor applies very well here…

    Amen.

    Ppl living an existence SOLELY on the internet (and in Mom’s basement) don’t have the practical world experience to come to those conclusions, however.

    .

  74. michaelwiseguy says September 2, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    I changed the meme from “Chemtrail” to “Geo-Engineering” in the blogosphere …

    Yeah, we know. Still carrying no weight (BTW, how’s the wx down there in Mom’s cellar?)

    .

  75. TRM says September 2, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    Fly a drone behind the aircraft taking samples. That is the real test.

    SAMPLE THE FUEL GOING INTO THE FUEL TANKS?

    Too easy huh (Chemistry much)?

    .

  76. lucien says September 2, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    If there is a conspiracy it is the stupidity like HARP chemtrails or AGW which all have in common misunderstanding of the amount of energy needed, probably the reason of their success, it make the “believer” thinking that that man is huge , it also can discredit totally some facts which are very real.

    The ultimate MK-ULTRA ‘win’ eh MWG? (He, MWG, ‘knows’ what I’m talking about …)

    .
    .
    BTW, lucien I agree with you.

    .

  77. @Stephen Skinner 6:52am and 6:53am.
    My money is on The Cathay-Pacific photo as a very poor photoshop job. Perspective of the “contrail” is wrong, the edges are way too sharp, lighting is unbelievable.

    The Lufthansa might be real, but i would not bet on it. I think it is a real contrail with some photoshopped streaking in the gap between the contrail and the plane.

    These are engine contrails from a 747 — Imperfect, diffusing, and tangling.

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/MASkargo/Boeing-747-4H6F-SCD/2223671/&sid=fee5f5548454b30ca80287c658f32043

    Here is some strong over-wing condensation on landing in Santiago Chile in early morning light fog.

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Boeing-767-3P6-ER/2285056/&sid=7f546cb3837dbd783fe1d596b20b9992

    Backlit landing at LAX in the early morning, May 11, 2013, MD-11.
    Condensation visible off leading edge wing slats, trailing edge flaps, and outer flap edge vortices, the winglets, off the horizontal stabilizer tips. The atmospheric conditions are just right for maximum condensation at reduced pressure and the lighting is perfect to show every bit of it.
    “B-16113 (cn 48790/634) Landing early at LAX with a spectacular condensation. ”

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/EVA-Air-Cargo/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11F/2269544/&sid=7f546cb3837dbd783fe1d596b20b9992

  78. Tucci78 says September 2, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    Far be it for me to endorse Wiki-bloody-pedia, but they do have an article on “Chemtrails” which is worth reviewing at this juncture.

    In 2001, one of our more looney-tunes “Liberal” malfeasants-in-public-office,

    …US Congressman Dennis Kucinich …

    That would be Dennis “UFO” Kucinich … during an answer to question on the subject posed by the late Tim Russert during a demo primary presidential debate on NBC:

  79. massagrabber says September 2, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    Timmy, laid down my thoughts but they were revoked, still if it’s true you can’t forget so here I go again. I think the spokesman will in fact deflect from the obvious. Years of observation, corroborate with time stamp photos many in sequence and then followed up with others. Add the soft glowing highly refined particulate on my apples that as you run a finger on the apple is easily tracked.

    Dew.

    You had it analyzed … right?

    What did the analysis coming back from the lab show?

    Water? With a bit of ‘Radon Washout’?

    .
    /mild sarc. Sometimes I think these ‘people’ are just testing *our* competency (w/’trick questions’ or ‘trick’ scenarios and observations).

  80. _Jim:

    Sorry, but I disagree with your reply to Cam_S which you provide at September 3, 2013 at 8:09 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/02/chemtrails-or-contrails-another-alarmist-issue-without-scientific-context/#comment-1406695

    The explanation for the ‘moth myth’ and many other myths is the desire people have to apply causes to observed effects combined with failure to understand that randomness is not uniformity.

    When people notice something they don’t like and they think it to be unusual then they assume a cause. Each day there are some people who experience temporary breathing ailments which are unusual for them. In the case of the ‘moth myth’ some of the people who had temporary breathing ailments assumed their problem was caused by the (non-existent) spray from the observed planes. Their temporary ailment was unusual for them, but some people experience temporary breathing ailments which are unusual for them every day.

    Then there is the problem of randomness.

    Throw some cornflakes in the air and they will fall to the floor, but they will not cover the floor evenly. Their distribution will be approximately random so some regions of floor are covered by clumps of cornflakes while other regions of the floor remain exposed.

    Similarly, a disease (e.g. thyroid cancer) may be randomly distributed which means that some places will exhibit a few sufferers while other places have none. People in a town with no thyroid cancer don’t think about it. But people in a town with above-average thyroid cancer are likely to look for a cause, and will attribute it to something local; e.g. power lines, a local factory, a mobile phone mast, etc.. In reality, there may be no cause for the ‘high’ incidence of the disease in the town: some places have to exhibit above average incidence. And if the people of the town are told there is no cause for the ‘high’ incidence they may become more convinced that the ’cause’ they have decided is real and then assert the rejection of their decision must be a ‘cover up’.

    Richard

  81. A chemtrails conspriracy is a strong idea, and relatively plausible, because:

    1.) Those in government and their minions do manipulate the populace. Corruption and avarice, at a minimum, are real. The motives, motivations, and “usual suspects”, are not lacking.

    2.) George Lucus’ first film, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138″>THX 1138, came out in 1971. It depicts a dystopian society, severely oppressed and forced (by Law) to take mind-control drugs. The concerns of the citizens in the 1960s (half a century ago), made this topic George’s #1 choice in his career-track. George of course patterned his tale after those of George Orwell (Nineteen Eighty-Four, from 1949), and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World, from 1932). [Yes, 'they got to Lucas', evidently. He never returned to his evil-government theme ... though he thought about it ... but thought better, again, following 9/11.]

    3.) We exploded many nuclear bombs in the atmosphere, in hindsight a phenomenal abuse of literally the air that everyone must breath. If we would do something that crazy, and we did!, how farfetched is chemtrails?
    ~~~~

    A chemtrails conspiracy is a weak idea, and relatively implausible, because:

    1.) We train a lot of all-American boys to become & serve as military pilots. A large portion of all aviators are red-blooded Patriots, born, raise & trained … and remain so, for Life. Attempting a chemtrails program, means getting it by these people, who are ‘everywhere’ in aviation, and would “not be amused”. Blow the whistle? Forget whistles – there could be civil war.

    2.) If it is desired to distribute a substance or chemical of some kind, in order to affect the population in some fashion, the obvious way to do it is to load it into trucks and drive around urban & suburban areas, emitting the material close to where most people actually are. Stuff emitted by high-flying airplanes is obviously not close to the subjects whom it is intended for, and is thus ‘missing the target’. Additionally, contrails/chemtrails tend to remain aloft, do not disperse well, and drift long distances.

    3.) There is no information to support the premise that we actually possess the kinds of chemicals or drugs that would do the kinds of things that chemtrails are said to achieve. Not even when we have someone in a mental hospital (or say in Guantanamo Bay, or rendition-centers) do we have the means to control the mind in the manner suggested by the chemtrail proposal. If we did/could, the world would be a much different place.

  82. re: richardscourtney says September 3, 2013 at 8:50 am

    I don’t see any disagreement in regard to a psychosomatic response on behalf of the ppl who called; where is your disagreement on that point again?

    Generally, this ‘response’ can be seen from a group who is a subset of the population who a) oppose the spraying and b) are aware of some level of risk in spraying c) see planes performing what are perceived to be ‘spraying sorties’ THEN imagine a series of maladies or symptoms along the lines of what they have read previously in literature somewhere. There are also the usual phone calls and meet-ups between associated individuals where this info is shared (and common maladies discussed or ‘fleshed out’) before and probably after the dry ‘spray’ runs took place (an aspect of ‘community organizing’?)

    This process is applicable with chemtrails too, but there is an added complicating technical factoid; the creation of contrails in differing atmospheric conditions at altitude and their varying characteristics; atmospheric physics is seemingly beyond the comprehension of this arm of the con-spiracy ‘industry’.

    .

  83. Neil says September 3, 2013 at 4:30 am

    The evidence is on the ground, with elevated aluminium, strontium, barium copper sulfate and other chemical traces, far above normal.

    Show your lab work ….

    Is the presence of Strontium or Barium verified by any of the number people who have their own Gamma Spectrometers at home now?

    Gamma Spectroscopy:

    https://sites.google.com/site/diygeigercounter/sa-tests

    PRA – Gamma Spectroscopy Software:

    http://www.gammaspectacular.com/software-downloads/pra-spectrometry-software

    PRA is a smart software that transforms your PC sound card into a powerful multi channel analyser for gamma spectrometry. PRA was developed by Marek Dolleiser at Sydney University as an aid to teach physics students about atomic theory.

    The sound card in your PC can digitise the audio signal from your scintillation detector at 48Khz or in some cases 96 Khz which is even better. The software then processes the signal by calculating the RMS value of the signal and filtering out any badly formed pulses. the result is amazing!

    Remember, about these elements and compounds, you said they were ” far above normal “.

    They ought to be detectable then.

    .

  84. What is a chemtrail?
    Oxforddictionary: a visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

    By this definition, a normal everyday contrail IS a chemtrail because someone somewhere is going to believe it is from a covert operation seeding the sky with who-knows-what. So It is a rather pointless definition, without objectivity. This definition will not do.

    Are chemtrails objectively real? Yes! You don’t even need a plane. Walk down a sidewalk, park, of field. Chances are a bloodhound will be able to follow your chemical and biological leavings, your chemtrail, and track you down.

    A contrail is a chemtrail in a sense. A plane burns JP4, trailing the combustion chemicals CO2, H2O, and minor amounts of SO2, soot (carbon based particulates), and other trace elements like vanadium that are in the JP4 as it exits the refinery. It is a chemical trail left behind the plane. But it isn’t, and shouldn’t be called, a Chemtrail, even if you are in the minority who think burning JP4 is a crime against humanity.

    What is a workable definition of a chemtrail that does not include contrails and bloodhounds?
    Well, it must be chemical or biological trails from planes that do not include combustion products of hydrocarbons. I would argue that whether the operations are covert or not, has no bearing on the definition. If a Chemtrail operation is covert, and we find out about it, does it cease to be a Chemtrail? No. Covertness is irrelevant.

    Is the aerial spraying of malathion a real chemtrail? Hard to argue it isn’t even though we knew about it. Cloud seeding, crop seeding, and crop dusting would all count as Chemtrails that are not covert and arguably beneficial, though not all agree.

    But sometimes the crop dusters ARE out to get you! ;-)
    Sequencing the North by NorthWest Crop Dusting Scene

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/north-by-northwest-crop-duster/

    A peek behind some classic movie magic I stumbled upon today.

  85. Stephen Rasey says:
    September 3, 2013 at 8:28 am
    @Stephen Skinner 6:52am and 6:53am.
    “My money is on The Cathay-Pacific photo as a very poor photoshop job.”

    Photo looks pretty genuine to me and I’ve also seen this affect myself with jets overflying at altitude. Od course not every time. How about this one of B17s during WWII with contrails generated by the prop tips?

    Is this a photoshop job also?

  86. Hey, I am just looking up and observing. Yesterday and today for instance in Minnesota, same low temps and dew point both days, no trails yesterday everywhere you look today.

  87. @Stephen Skinner 10:00am
    Wow! THAT’s a PICTURE!
    Odd, the caption says: Two B-17 Flying Fortresses’ vapor trails light up the night sky over Eastern Europe
    This image or file is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties
    Ah! Betcha it’s shot from another plane in formation. But not at night. Shutter speed is real fast to stop the props. Contrails are backlit by the sun against a dark sky at altitude.

    Hmmm. Plane Length is 75 feet and probably 400 feet/sec at cruise. I make about three turns of the prop for a length of the plane. So plane length in .2 sec. Prop turn in 0.07 sec. Stopped the prop in 1/40 of a turn. 1/500 of a second shutter speed. Quite possible. Engine speed 14 rps, or about 850 rpm. Propeller 11′ 7″ Call it 12. Circumference is pi*D, 38ft. Times 14 rps is all most 550 fps tip speed, which about 55% the speed of sound. A little slow but Close enough. Yep, it’s real.

  88. _Jim says:

    At September 3, 2013 at 9:37 am you ask me

    I don’t see any disagreement in regard to a psychosomatic response on behalf of the ppl who called; where is your disagreement on that point again?

    Generally, this ‘response’ can be seen from a group who is a subset of the population who a) oppose the spraying and b) are aware of some level of risk in spraying c) see planes performing what are perceived to be ‘spraying sorties’ THEN imagine a series of maladies or symptoms along the lines of what they have read previously in literature somewhere.

    Our disagreement is clear.

    In my post at September 3, 2013 at 8:50 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/02/chemtrails-or-contrails-another-alarmist-issue-without-scientific-context/#comment-1406737

    I said

    When people notice something they don’t like and they think it to be unusual then they assume a cause. Each day there are some people who experience temporary breathing ailments which are unusual for them. In the case of the ‘moth myth’ some of the people who had temporary breathing ailments assumed their problem was caused by the (non-existent) spray from the observed planes. Their temporary ailment was unusual for them, but some people experience temporary breathing ailments which are unusual for them every day.

    You say, people “imagine a series of maladies or symptoms “.
    But I say, “people who had temporary breathing ailments assumed their problem was caused by the (non-existent) spray from the observed planes.”

    There is a great difference between
    (a) imagining something because it is expected
    and
    (b) ascribing a wrong cause to a real effect.

    Please note that my post explained why mistaken popular scares are common. But your claim of a psychosomatic cause is specific to scares of the ‘moth myth’ type.

    Richard

  89. elmer says September 3, 2013 at 10:14 am

    Hey, I am just looking up and observing. Yesterday and today for instance in Minnesota, same low temps and dew point both days, no trails yesterday everywhere you look today.

    What was the dew point at 30,000 feet?

  90. re: richardscourtney says September 3, 2013 at 10:59 am

    I think you’re attempting to draw distinctions based on additional supposition; feel free to suppose as you will. Have a good day, Richard.

    .

  91. Can anyone link to some actual results from any analysis as to what would be sprayed?
    I still find it interesting that there has been “test” with spraying biological compounds in Britain. You cannot sweepingly discount all indications of aerosol dispersion from planes, just because you know what the regular contrails are.

  92. Jim says: What was the dew point at 30,000 feet?

    That is the question isn’t it? It seems like this whole controversy could be very easily solved, if there were way to find out what the weather conditions are at 30,000 ft on any given day and compare that with whether or not there was jet exhaust trails that day.

  93. The ways politically powerful dingbats exercise control through propaganda are manifold:

    Carlisle student takes national science honor

    http://cumberlink.com/news/local/education/carlisle-student-takes-national-science-honor/article_5b2945b6-144f-11e3-bae2-0019bb2963f4.html

    “Short for Math, Applied Science, Technology and Engineering as Rising Stars, MASTERS is a national middle school competition for students in those subject areas.”
    It’s usually STEM in the USA and MINT in Germany.

  94. _Jim:

    Your post at September 3, 2013 at 11:09 am says in full

    re: richardscourtney says September 3, 2013 at 10:59 am

    I think you’re attempting to draw distinctions based on additional supposition; feel free to suppose as you will. Have a good day, Richard.

    I made no “suppositions”: but you did.
    Read my post which you commented. It is at September 3, 2013 at 8:50 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/02/chemtrails-or-contrails-another-alarmist-issue-without-scientific-context/#comment-1406737

    I think you are being deliberately foolish because you know you are wrong.

    Feel as offended as you like.

    Richard

  95. elmer says September 3, 2013 at 11:16 am
    Jim says: What was the dew point at 30,000 feet?

    That is the question isn’t it? It seems like this whole controversy could be very easily solved, if there were way to find out what the weather conditions are at 30,000 ft on any given day

    From http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/upper/ the conditions (Temperature over dewpoint) as reported by the twice-daily balloon launches at the US weather bureau balloon launch sites:

    300mb (approx 30k ft) level – http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/upper/upaRAOB_300.gif

    200mb (approx 38k ft) level – http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/upper/upaRAOB_200.gif

    Table for rough height estimate based on pressure (in mb or millibars):

    300 MB 30065 ft 9166 m
    250 MB 33999 ft 10366 m
    200 MB 38662 ft 11787 m

    .

  96. re:richardscourtney says September 3, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Perhaps if you wrote more clearly your points would come across, vs your present style. Thank you.

  97. Without any doubt, governments do use clandestine aerial spraying for a variety of purposes. Some of which are for weather control, tests to find out dispersion patterns for chemical/biological weapons (both for offence and defence) and how air currents disperse nuclear fallout from commercial and military sources.

    However, the current fear of chemtrails is much over-hyped and most of what are observed to be chemtrails are in fact simply contrails. A balanced approach to these sorts of topics is essential as nothing is ever black and white.

  98. Theresa says September 3, 2013 at 11:16 am
    Can anyone link to some actual results from any analysis as to what would be sprayed?

    No one has any ‘data’. No actual amounts of material that ‘precipitated’ overnight from the sky collected and what subsequent ‘lab analysis’ determined the material to be.

    You would see pdf’s of the lab analysis posted were those ‘reports’ existent, because these ppl *so* want to prove their case …

    .

  99. “Dr. Tim Ball points out more bad science – chemtrails, which are really just contrails, and which has a cult-like following much like some of the worst theories of global warming zealots – Anthony”

    Sorry Anthony but even Al Gore is speaking of chemtrails, not contrails (water vapor). I just happened on one of Al Gore;s interviews yesterday and he is speaking of many climate “scientists” speaking of chemtrail injection of sulfur dioxide and other substances into the atmosphere. (however, even Al thinks they are absolutely out of their minds, me too). Didn’t think I would agree with Al on anything, but, well, there is one finally.

  100. Jim says:

    No one has any ‘data’. No actual amounts of material that ‘precipitated’ overnight from the sky collected and what subsequent ‘lab analysis’ determined the material to be.

    for Theresa

  101. re: elmer says September 3, 2013 at 11:38 am

    Do they show any data Elmer – or just ‘conjecture’? I want to see a report. Post a link to it.

    BTW, what’s the blond’s name in that one vid? Just the first …

  102. michaelwiseguy says: September 2, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    Commercial jet aircraft numbers in the skies cannot account for the tick tack toe patters and all day long trail patterns being laid in the skies.
    _____

    This is a common misunderstanding among the chemtrail nutters. The criss-coss pattern of contrails is created by two airways intersecting at 90 degrees. The upper wind has to be perpendicular to these two airways. Aircraft fly these two airways all day, but their trails are blown downwind. The two trails-tracks, at 90 degrees, eventually build up a great criss-cross of contrails that drifts downwind, forming a lattice.

    ******************
    ******************

    cotwome says: September 2, 2013 at 6:51 pm
    Wingtip Contrail:

    http://hypeitng.com/2013/06/turkish-airlines-777-fc-barcelona-livery-contrails

    ___

    That is not a wingtip trail, that is an engine trail. The gasses are too hot to condensate at the back of the engine, and take a few fractions of a second to mix and cool. Thus the contrail often forms at the back of the aircraft, by the tailplane (where they form depends on the dew-point of the air).

    ******************
    ******************

    AndyG55 says: September 2, 2013 at 5:49 pm
    I should point out that the contrails are not just from engine exhaust.
    There are also very large pressure changes around the wings and particularly at the tip of the wings, enough to cause any moisture to condense then form into ice.
    If look closely you will see that contrails often develop right at the tip of the wings.

    _________

    Not at high level you will not. And these smaller wingtip vortices only produce transient vapour trails that re-evaporate very quickly. To get a sustained contrail in the atmosphere you need to inject water into the atmosphere, which is what the engine does when it burns fuel.

    You can get wingtip vortices, of course, but only at low level. But you don’t get this at high level, because the air is too dry. Here is a classic low-level wing-tip vortex creating a vapour trail.

    Here is another trail that people confuse with a wingtip vortex trail. But it is not. With big 4-engine aircraft, the outer engine’s contrail gets sucked into the wing vortex (as opposed to the wing-tip vortex) and creates a great swirl of condensation. So a 4-engine jet will only ever have two trails, which again confuses some people:

    Here is the wing vortex, as opposed to the tiny wingtip vortex. I’m not sure if this image has been digitally enhanced to produce the heart shape, but this is exactly what the aircraft does to clouds. The image is wrongly labeled as a wingtip vortex – it is not, it is a wing vortex:

    ******************
    ******************

    Nicholas says: September 2, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    I have seen contrails and chemtrails.
    Thirty five years in the airline industry.
    _______________

    Then you are a fool. Who do you think is adding chemicals to the fuel? Please do tell us.

    And as to ‘spraying’, sorry but I have spent a lifetime in the air and the only people flying at contrail levels are the well-known airlines. We see them, we hear them, and they are producing water contrails the same as we do. The amount of high altitude military traffic is negligible, because most military aircraft are very expensive, have a short endurance, and do not fly on airways. Unlike airliners, most military aircraft sit on the ground all day.

    Here is a truism for you. It COSTS the military to fly their aircraft; but it COSTS an airline to have an aircraft on the ground. So the logic is inescapable – airliners fly all day, while military aircraft sit idle all day.

    .

    • ralfellis says:

      > Here is the wing vortex, as opposed to the tiny wingtip vortex…
      >
      > http://www.imagegossips.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/118.jpg
      > http://flyingindian.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/wingtip_vortices_lg.jpg

      Ralph, many aviation theorists, starting with Zhukovsky and including many today, would correct you here. They would say it is the same vortex. Circulation theory has it as a distorted toroidal vortex, one side of which disappears into infinity. The part of it that circulates around the wind they call “bound vortex”, and the part that bends around the tip and trails into infinity is called “slip vortex”.

      They will also object to your qualification of the slip vortex as tiny. The energy in the slip vortex is comparable to that of the bound vortex; it is in fact so high that it can make smaller craft caught in it capsize and it can damage larger aircraft. The wonderful visualisations of the aircraft-induced vorticity that you have found make it easy to believe.

      One other useful role that such visualisations play, besides illustrating the geometry of circulation, is that they kill another stupid myth of “how airplanes fly” that people like more than actual knowledge. What they demonstrate is that the airplanes fly by displacing large quantities of air downward. They are just air pumps.

      Of note is the fact that if you took those airplanes shown in these images, and replaced them with helicopters — the more obvious air pumps — you would see the same impression made on the clouds.

  103. elmer says: September 3, 2013 at 6:35 am
    if this article is true and “chemtrails” are just contrails from commercial jets, why is that one day will be perfectly clear and there will have no contrails at all and the next the sky is covered with them? Is there no commercial airlines flying on those days?
    ______________

    Which just goes to show that opinion is being driven by ignor@nce. And this in this ignor@nce, there is always some malign government or organisation doing sinister things.

    If its agriculture, its Monsanto. If it energy, its oil companies. If its money, its the Jews. etc: etc:

    No, Elmer (great name that, Elmer). The problem is not a vast conspiracy, the problem is that on some days the atmosphere is drier, and the contrails will not form. And you cannot see the aircraft, because they are up at 40,000 ft, and merely a pinprick of a diamond in the sky.

    ,

  104. michaelwiseguy says: September 2, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    Commercial jet aircraft numbers in the skies cannot account for the tick tack toe patters and all day long trail patterns being laid in the skies.
    _____

    This is a common misunderstanding among the chemtrailers. The criss-coss pattern of contrails is created by two airways intersecting at 90 degrees. The upper wind has to be perpendicular to these two airways. Aircraft fly these two airways all day, but their trails are blown downwind. The two trails-tracks, at 90 degrees, eventually build up a great criss-cross of contrails that drifts downwind, forming a lattice.

    ******************
    ******************

    cotwome says: September 2, 2013 at 6:51 pm
    Wingtip Contrail:

    http://hypeitng.com/2013/06/turkish-airlines-777-fc-barcelona-livery-contrails

    ___

    That is not a wingtip trail, that is an engine trail. The gasses are too hot to condensate at the back of the engine, and take a few fractions of a second to mix and cool. Thus the contrail often forms at the back of the aircraft, by the tailplane (where they form depends on the dew-point of the air).

    ******************
    ******************

    AndyG55 says: September 2, 2013 at 5:49 pm
    I should point out that the contrails are not just from engine exhaust.
    There are also very large pressure changes around the wings and particularly at the tip of the wings, enough to cause any moisture to condense then form into ice.
    If look closely you will see that contrails often develop right at the tip of the wings.

    _________

    Not at high level you will not. And these smaller wingtip vortices only produce transient vapour trails that re-evaporate very quickly. To get a sustained contrail in the atmosphere you need to inject water into the atmosphere, which is what the engine does when it burns fuel.

    You can get wingtip vortices, of course, but only at low level. But you don’t get this at high level, because the air is too dry. Here is a classic low-level wing-tip vortex creating a vapour trail.

    Here is another trail that people confuse with a wingtip vortex trail. But it is not. With big 4-engine aircraft, the outer engine’s contrail gets sucked into the wing vortex (as opposed to the wing-tip vortex) and creates a great swirl of condensation. So a 4-engine jet will only ever have two trails, which again confuses some people:

    Here is the wing vortex, as opposed to the tiny wingtip vortex. I’m not sure if this image has been digitally enhanced to produce the heart shape, but this is exactly what the aircraft does to clouds. The image is wrongly labeled as a wingtip vortex – it is not, it is a wing vortex:

    ******************
    ******************

    Nicholas says: September 2, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    I have seen contrails and chemtrails.
    Thirty five years in the airline industry.
    _______________

    Then you are, erm, greatly mistaken. Who do you think is adding chemicals to the fuel? Please do tell us.

    And as to ‘spraying’, sorry but I have spent a lifetime in the air and the only people flying at contrail levels are the well-known airlines. We see them, we hear them, and they are producing water contrails the same as we do. The amount of high altitude military traffic is negligible, because most military aircraft are very expensive, have a short endurance, and do not fly on airways. Unlike airliners, most military aircraft sit on the ground all day.

    Here is a truism for you. It COSTS the military to fly their aircraft; but it COSTS an airline to have an aircraft on the ground. So the logic is inescapable – airliners fly all day, while military aircraft sit idle all day.

    .

  105. re: richardscourtney says September 3, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Maybe you can shed some light on this subject after all Richard.

    The topical subject at hand here is mass hysteria. Its official name may also at times be referred to or labeled: 1) mass psychogenic disorder, 2) collective hysteria, 3) mass psychosomatic reaction or 4) mass hysteria. Got any relevant experience in this area that you can share?

    I am going to propose that the reaction *some* (this means not all, Richard) citizens of city of Vancouver exhibited as related by Cam_S to overhead aerial spraying was similar and resulted in mental-to-physical (i.e. “psychosomatic”) reactions similar to those in the story partially excerpted below.

    How much power do our minds have over our physical health? Is health simply a biological concept, or is there more to it? A recent story from Mexico may provide some clues.

    In 2006, a mysterious illness began to affect girls at a boarding school in Chalco, Mexico, near Mexico City. The school, which is run by Roman Catholic nuns, is one of 10 in Asia and Latin America operated by a charity called World Villages for Children in Asia. The girls, ages 12 to 17, showed strange symptoms: difficulty walking, fever and nausea. After the girls returned from a 10-day Christmas break, the illness spread. Eventually 600 out of the 3,600 girls at the school showed symptoms. Still, no one could figure out what was making the girls sick, and public health officials were called in.

    After conducting numerous tests, surveying the facilities and interviewing some of the afflicted girls, doctors have decided that a psychological disorder is responsible. Its official name is mass psychogenic disorder, also called collective hysteria, mass psychosomatic reaction or mass hysteria.

    Mass psychogenic disorder is a rare — but not unheard of — phenomenon. The disorder is usually characterized by the mysterious spread of a variety of symptoms without a discernible cause. It frequently occurs in isolated communities. Teenagers and girls are also frequent victims. Collective hysteria can spread when a fear exists of exposure to a disease, combined with a contained, stressful environment.


    the full story

    Many more references to mass hysteria and psychosomatic (psychosomatic = mind (psyche) and body (soma)) reactions …

  106. Of course (caution – possible conspiracy theory follows) the whole Chemtrails nonsense may be a red herring designed to deflect attention of the possible human impact (positive/negative? I don’t have the math) on temperature by adding clouds to the sky. Wasn’t there a report that the days after 9-11, while the planes were all grounded, that global temperatures dropped slightly?

    (ducking)

  107. _Jim:

    re your post addressed to me at September 3, 2013 at 12:01 pm.

    No, I have no knowledge of mass hysteria which is why I have never written about it.

    Perhaps your thinking I have such knowledge is another example of your lack of reading comprehension skills?

    Richard

  108. elmer says: September 3, 2013 at 11:49 am

    ______________________

    Wow, Elmer. Your evidence is based upon some dumb broad who knows nothing about aviation, engineering, chemistry or the military, and she can prove chem-trailing is real. And the proof is – wait for it, wait for it:

    The trails switch on and off…..

    Jeez, Elmer, I hope you are not paying good money to confidence tricksters and scammers like this.

    Elmer, the atmosphere is dynamic. It moves, it has layers, it has knots and wrinkles (remember clear air turbulence?). In that dynamism you end up with some areas having higher humidity than other areas, and the contrails will only ‘switch on’, as you call it, when you hit a higher humidity region. Thus the contrail can flick on and off intermittently, over hundreds of miles.

    .

    Look at this herringbone sky, Elmer. Now this is completely natural – not an aircraft in sight. It is caused by wave formations in the atmosphere, probably caused by mountains, but also caused at high level by the interaction of a fast jetstream with surrounding slower air (interference wave).

    Now imagine the same block of air as this, but a bit drier, so no clouds had formed at this level (but the wave pattern is still there). Along comes an aircraft, injects more water into the atmosphere from its engines, and PRESTO – you get a contrail ‘switching on and off’ as it passes through the different regions of air that are at different temperatures and dewpoints.

    Elmer (love that name, Elmer), lets not go back to the Dark Ages, where life was ruled by fears and superstitions – and evil people in authority took advantage of the people’s ignorance to scare them into being subjugated serfs. We have had enough of the big bogey-man in the sky scaring the ignorant in antiquity, without the big chemtrail in the sky doing the same thing in the modern world.

    .

    • ralfellis says:

      > Look at this herringbone sky, Elmer.
      > http://www.moc.noaa.gov/mt/photos/olympic-coast-NMS/herring%20bone%20sky%203.jpg

      I’m afraid they got this covered already. While riding a bus out in the country, I had a conversation with one of “them” who noticed a Bénard-like cloud pattern that persisted over the continent for much of this past June. I explained how these clouds formed and evolved, and all that, but my explanation was met with vigorous objections. “No, no, no! It is the government making its experiments. They are all the agents of the Antichrist and they are paving the way for the forces of darkness to come and destroy our world”.

  109. There are no ‘chemtrails’. It is a figment of conspiricist imaginations.

    How do I know this? Because I understand a few basics about human nature.

    One of the basics is that you could not possibly keep all of the several hundred, to several thousand people from blabbling — people who would have to be employed in a chemtrails program. Someone always spills the beans.

    You cannot easily keep a secret between three people. How could they possibly keep a secret like ‘chemtrails’ between several hundred, or maybe a few thousand people? Cheap, tiny cameras are available everywhere. Even phones have cameras. And plenty of people crave notoriety. So if a ‘chemtrails’ organization and program had been in existence all these years, it would be front page, above-the-fold news, with pictures in the WaPo and the NY Times. And National Geographic. And Science, and so on. Every one of them would dearly love a legitimate ‘chemtrails’ scoop.

    So if someone can explain how they could keep a ‘chemtrails’ program secret among so many participants, I’ll listen up. But if the True Believers in chemtrails are claiming that this giant program has been up and running, but that everyone involved is keeping the chemtrails secret, well then, you could probably convince me that CO2 is causing global harm — but the damage is being kept secret.

    Other than that, a ‘chemtrails’ belief is no more harmful than a belief in fortune tellers. If you need something to believe in, have at it. Chemtrails is as good as anything. But it makes no sense to anyone who understands basic human nature. You just cannot keep that kind of a secret. It’s no different than folks claiming that the moon landings were faked. Those folks all tend to be anti-science, evidence-deficient True Believers — just like ‘catastrophic AGW’ nutcases who need no evidence, only their Belief.

  110. How I figure out if I’m on the right or wrong side of an argument is, I always go against whatever the official government position is.

    • elmer says:

      > How I figure out if I’m on the right or wrong side of an argument is, I always go against whatever the official government position is.

      Stupid is this heuristic is (what if the government is correct by accident?) I believe it can safely guide you through the rest of Obama’s second term. His government hasn’t allowed any such accidents so far.

  111. You know how I spot a crank?

    Tesla. The speed with which someone cites Tesla is directly proportional to their degree of being a crank.

    Which is sad, because Tesla did some great work.

  112. “Hey Timmy I’ve got some pictures and would you like to eat a dozen or 2 apples off of my trees. They have a soft highly refined particulate glazing the skin which tracks when you run your finger on it. ”

    Yeast.

    The “powder” seen on fruits of all sort is naturally occurring yeast that grows on the skins of fruit.

  113. ” Whose jets are they? Who owns them? It’s just a scientific mathematical analysis to figure that out.”

    No, it’s binoculars to get the tail numbers and then either a web search or a call to the FAA.

  114. [Snip. Snip. Snip. Labeling those you don't agree with as "deniers" goes against site Policy. You did it 3 times. Try again, but no more calling others "deniers". ~ mod.]

  115. “Whatever is happening, I think it more than a tad naive to put up the straw man that people cannot tell the difference between contrails and something that is not anything like them..”

    Except the thing you say is “not anything like” contrails are exactly like contrails.

  116. “if this article is true and “chemtrails” are just contrails from commercial jets, why is that one day will be perfectly clear and there will have no contrails at all and the next the sky is covered with them? Is there no commercial airlines flying on those days?”

    Find a dictionary and look up the word “weather”.

  117. “Ppl living an existence SOLELY on the internet (and in Mom’s basement) don’t have the practical world experience to come to those conclusions, however.”

    It’s not just that. There’s the allure of being on the inside of “secret knowledge”, and the “freedom” that comes from being able to blame your lot on life on some inscrutable conspiracy.

  118. “Yes, ‘they got to Lucas’, evidently. He never returned to his evil-government theme … though he thought about it … but thought better, again, following 9/11.”

    Bunk. Look at some of the laughable names in the idiotic prequels. He just decided that Republicans were evil. Probably easier to get by in Hollywood that way.

  119. “Hey, I am just looking up and observing. Yesterday and today for instance in Minnesota, same low temps and dew point both days, no trails yesterday everywhere you look today.”

    After you’ve looked up “weather”, look at the diagram of the atmospheric layers, above. Do you assume the conditions are constant from one altitude to another? Why? Do a little study on fluid dynamics — maybe order a black and tan at a good bar — and ponder.

  120. “I still find it interesting that there has been “test” with spraying biological compounds in Britain.”

    Why?

  121. “That is the question isn’t it? It seems like this whole controversy could be very easily solved, if there were way to find out what the weather conditions are at 30,000 ft on any given day and compare that with whether or not there was jet exhaust trails that day.”

    Then get to it.

  122. @dbstealy
    mmm, I know human’s can’t keep a secret so chemtrails are not real mmm
    that’s not quite evidence. You have not done any reading/looking aboiut on this have you?
    If you had you would be saying how you know human greed, need for more and more and power and control and that, therefor chemtrails are real.
    You really should look at a couple, or just one of the video documentaries out there – go on I dare you.
    Now I know a bit about human nature too, guess what I think you’ll do….

  123. “Without any doubt, governments do use clandestine aerial spraying for a variety of purposes.”

    No, not “without any doubt”. I doubt it completely, because it would be impossible to keep secret at the scale asserted.

    Provide evidence of your assertion.

    • Rob Crawford says (responding to Tenuc):

      > “Without any doubt, governments do use clandestine aerial spraying for a variety of purposes.”
      >
      > No, not “without any doubt”. I doubt it completely, because it would be impossible to keep secret at the scale asserted.

      Another argument, just for yucks, is that of utility. The only useful types of aerial spraying are crop dusting (elevation: 2 metres, the lower, the better), firefighting (50 .. 200 m), and bombing (50 .. 20,000 m). The bombs are, you know, designed to fall as steeply down as possible, or to be driven at an oblique path towards a fixed target. In the absence of major thunderstorms, whatever those clandestine government operators are “spraying” 10,000 metres above your head can land no closer than Japan.

      The only clandestine spraying operations I know about but can give you no evidence of (they were clandestine, you know) were nuclear waste dispersal experiments, where a fine aerosol was blown in the wind from a tower 300 metres tall. While in college, I was mentored by people who ran the math for those operations. The idea at the time was that it was the safest form of waste disposal because the resulting concentrations fell to background levels within a relatively short range from the source (they could only detect such events on the ground up to about 800 km away, and only when they knew what isotopes to look for). I lived in a town only 90 km downwind from the tower, where we could not detect anything, even during or immediately after the event has occurred (and we knew when, because a bright orange colorant was added at the source, for everybody to see). So when you spray in a steady wind at 300 metres, the plume gets carried away for thousands of kilometres, and you have no idea where. And by the times it gets there, it is diluted to naught.

      You would’t be able to tell any better if the spraying took place at 10,000 metres. It’d be all over the globe, at the concentration precisely equal to zero.

  124. “You really should look at a couple, or just one of the video documentaries out there – go on I dare you.”

    I have. I see horribly misguided people more intent on excusing their failures and blaming people they hate than in finding the facts. I see fanatics with their eyes alight over their Absolute Knowledge Of The Truth.

    What I don’t see is much science.

  125. Rob Crawford says: Find a dictionary and look up the word “weather”.

    I already commented on this but anyway.

    I do pay attention to the “weather” for instance the past 2 days in Minnesota, same temp same dew point, no contrails yesterday tons of contrails today.

    Then Jim said what is the dew point at 30,000 feet or 40,000 feet? I said that was a good question.

    If someone had data showing the weather conditions at the altitudes where jet traffic was and compared it to whether there were any contrails that day that would solve the issue once and for all for me.

    Does anyone know of such a site? I would just need the data for the weather conditions at those altitudes I can look out the window and determine the rest.

  126. Is it possible the increase is because noctilucent clouds “ …are most commonly observed in the summer months at latitudes between 50° and 70° north and south of the equator.” These are the latitudes at which most flight increases have occurred.

    What?

    The only SH landmass at those latitudes is a sparsely populated part of South America, where there might be a few local air services. Otherwise, the only regular flights at those latitudes are to and from Antarctica.

  127. “Wasn’t there a report that the days after 9-11, while the planes were all grounded, that global temperatures dropped slightly?”

    I understand it continued to drop for the next few months.

  128. “I explained how these clouds formed and evolved, and all that, but my explanation was met with vigorous objections. “No, no, no! It is the government making its experiments. They are all the agents of the Antichrist and they are paving the way for the forces of darkness to come and destroy our world”.”

    Odds were 50/50 you’d get that or an anti-corporate rant.

  129. “If someone had data showing the weather conditions at the altitudes where jet traffic was and compared it to whether there were any contrails that day that would solve the issue once and for all for me.”

    If only…

  130. Michaelwiseguy: Have a look at the following for a few hours.

    http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KRSW

    It’s likely not the traffic out of or into RSW causing the contrails. The aircraft generally take about 50 miles after take-off to get to altitude and start their descents about 120 miles from destination.
    I too have been in aviation all my life like some of the other posters. I agree that chemtrails exist. I don’t believe it, but it keeps the nutters happy and I can merrily go about my business. I was involved in agricultural spraying for several years and aviation regulation for several more. Never saw any evidence for chemtrails, but then, I wasn’t looking and I’m not about to start now. Ridiculous!

  131. To clarify: never saw any evidence of of high altitude chemtrails. Saw plenty of low level chemtrails from the dedicated spray gear on dedicated agricultural aircraft.

  132. “…bet you snip this too.”

    (Reply: Right you are. We have a clear, explicit, and straightforward Policy page. Apparently you believe you should be exempt from the rules everyone else follows, Mr Jackson. Sockpuppetry is also against the rules, “neillusion”, or whatever screen name you’re using today. Let us be clear: deliberately labeling those who may not agree with your point of view as “deniers” violates this site’s Policy. “Deniers” explicitly refers to neo-Nazis; to Holocaust deniers. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, not a political propaganda blog. Not using “deniers”, “denialists”, etc., is a simple rule to remember, isn’t it? It will even help you to think for yourself, instead of mindless labeling of those with different views. There are plenty of blogs that allow, and even encourage, those particular pejoratives. This site is not one of them. We are better than that. So either follow Anthony’s rules, or take the consequences. Your choice. — Mod)

  133. Mariss says:
    September 2, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    Wingtip Contrail:

    Sorry, I watched the video and it is an ideal textbook illustration of exhaust contrails. Didn’t you notice they were directly in line with the axes of the engines? And that they began about halfway from the engines to the tail surfaces?

    Evidence, folks. Contrails are condensed water from the combustion of hydrocarbons, when the exhaust temperature is cold enough (entrainment mixing with ambient high altitude air). The temperature isn’t cold enough to condense the carbon dioxide. This has been known since before the jet age.

    Of course, the fact that I am an aeronautical engineer with a specialization in propulsion chemistry might account for my opinion.

  134. Rob Crawford @ September 3, 2013 at 2:20 pm;

    ” “Yes, ‘they got to Lucas’, evidently. He never returned to his evil-government theme … though he thought about it … but thought better, again, following 9/11.”

    Bunk. Look at some of the laughable names in the idiotic prequels. He just decided that Republicans were evil. Probably easier to get by in Hollywood that way.”

    “[T]he idiotic prequels” don’t bear much comparison with THX 1138.

    His hesitation is reminiscent of Colin Powell.

  135. In Chanhassen MN yesterday at 30,000 ft the temp was -33.8C and the dew point was -47.1C which produced no contrails, today in Chanhassen MN AT 30,000 ft. the temp was -30.2C and the dew point was -37.8 C which produced all kinds of contrails.

    http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2013&MONTH=09&FROM=0212&TO=0312&STNM=72649

    Yesterday there was a -13.3º difference between temp and dew point today was a only a -7º difference. hmmmm…

  136. Richard Courtney and Jim

    The primary cause of reported illnesses due to aerial spraying, or whatever, is anxiety.

    A large proportion of the population has increased anxiety to situations they don’t understand and have no control over. Increased anxiety can lead to physical symptoms, and difficulty breathing is a common symptom, although there are others. When symptoms occur this reinforces the belief that aerial spraying, or whatever, does cause health problems and has caused their symptoms, frequently increasing the severity of the symptoms.

  137. @rob crawford
    I have. I see horribly misguided people more intent on excusing their failures and blaming people they hate than in finding the facts. I see fanatics with their eyes alight over their Absolute Knowledge Of The Truth.
    What I don’t see is much science.

    Really?, really?, really? and really?
    100’s of 1000’s, possibly even milliions of people are onto Chemtrails worldwide – and you see them all as you describe above? mmm
    How did you miss the science? and where is your science proving them false?

    You have so much less (nothing, nada, zilch) than they have to support your opinion, so…

  138. Philip Bradley:

    Thankyou for your post at September 3, 2013 at 3:34 pm.

    Interesting. Do you have a reference for that, please? This request is not because I doubt your information, but I truly am interested in following this up. Anxiety can have many causes and it seems reasonable to suppose that the symptoms would – at least to some degree – be independent of the cause.

    Richard

    • Bravo Elmer!

      You’re on the right track. Just keep in mind that airline flight levels occupy the lower reaches of the stratosphere, and there is a reason stratosphere is called so. It is not unusual to observe well-defined strata thin enough to fit between two adjacent flight levels, so it is possible that you will see one airplane leaving a thik trail, while another one flying next to it on a parallel course leaves none. Strata can be curved, wavy, and they can also be patchy — in other words, not necessarily parallel to the flight path.

  139. People believed in demons once visiting humans, then it became UFO’s and abductions, now they have turned it on their government for deliberating contaminating the atmosphere and killing off the elderly and young. These chemtrails are in this category. They must be paranoid beyond belief. Or mentally ill.

  140. Philip Bradley says:
    September 3, 2013 at 4:22 pm Richard, here is an NHS page describing General Anxiety Disorder. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anxiety/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

    Are you sure you are not looking for something a little more advanced than anxiety?

    “A phobia is more than a simple fear. It develops when a person begins to organise their life around avoiding the thing they are afraid of, whether it’s an animal, object, place or situation.
    A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder.”

    Although, there are other phobias displayed by the ch—trail/haarpy manics that deserve attention. This crowd also have exaggerated phobias of agriculture, of industry, of fossil fueled powered cars, etc., and a definite affection for economic and environmental solutions of the Clinton Foundation. Another interesting symptom is the need to compulsively spread the phobias to others. This could be more advanced than general anxiety.

  141. I wonder if CAGW and Chemtrails attracts individuals with the same disordered thinking process. Both seem to be remarkably similar in being impervious to doubt and have an unwillingness to examine any evidence contrary to what they believe.

  142. But hey, if you can believe an extra whiff of CO2 can make freaky weather, you would have to believe a few puffs of chemtrails could do a better job. I put the blame on the AGW mouthpieces feeding naive people with stupid ideas about what causes weirdo weather.

  143. Just to throw a hand grenade in the fishpond, there have been attempts to suppress contrails as, during the daytime the contrails point to the aircraft making them. Bad if you are flying any kind of stealth aircraft or in a fighter on combat air patrol at high altitude where you would maybe want to be at a particular altitude but find you are conning there. Search for “contrail suppression”. Some of the methods involve injecting certain chemicals into the exhaust, others, novel engine designs.

  144. Are you sure you are not looking for something a little more advanced than anxiety?

    Phobias are anxiety disorders.

    Is CAGWism an anxiety disorder?

    I suspect it is with many people. And many others exploit people’s general anxiety to focus it on CAGW, Gore for example.

  145. I would think that ordinary high performance jet engines, would burn fuel that is just hydrocarbons, containing essentially nothing but C and H, maybe O, but maybe not.

    So with efficient combustion, the exhaust should be just CO2 and H2O.

    I don’t see how the H2O can do anything, but ultimately cool to the dew point and condense, at high enough altitude. There is a question of how quickly the exhaust disperses laterally, which would affect the relative humidity.

    I have watched high flying mostly commercial jets laying out contrails, which sometimes then evaporated, leaving trails of finite length. But then I have watched other contrails persist, and slowly spread, and then grow into significant cloud streams. I have always assumed that the local Temperature must be below the dew point, and that the solar blockage by the trail is enough to cause cooling under the trail, and thus additional condensation of water vapor that was there before the jet passed through.

    Sometimes, I have seen these “stimulated” cloud trails criss crossing the bay area in all directions; this being a local traffic node. I can’t be sure I have ever seen wing tip contrails, but I suspect they exist. I have seen automobile contrails, mostly going on hiway 5 over the grapevine, in certain rain conditions. The humidity gets so high, that the Bernoulli pressure drop in the air going around the car, is sufficient to dump out water droplets. Took me a while of close observation to convince myself, that it was not water being kicked up off the road; but it was emanating from ahead of the front wheels.

    Well we’ve all seen automobile chemtrails of course; never a cop around to pull them over though.

  146. I agree Phillip, I knew someone, who told me he feared for his life every day, and voted Green. There is so much bullshhh being threatened, i.e. The present Australian government and its acting PM know they are in for a hiding at the polls this coming Saturday, and have now stated if the coalition go ahead with repealing the carbon tax, they will call a double dissolution and call another election within a year. Obviously, Tony Abbott is wary of this, and the new senate will not come into power until July next year. That’s where the Greens hold the balance of power. To me that is going to frighten people who are sick of this campaign, but let’s hope that they will make sure they vote the Nationals and Liberals joint ticket into the Federal senate seats that will become vacant.

  147. Philip Bradley says:
    September 3, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    Are you sure you are not looking for something a little more advanced than anxiety?

    Phobias are anxiety disorders.

    Is CAGWism an anxiety disorder?

    I suspect it is with many people. And many others exploit people’s general anxiety to focus it on CAGW, Gore for example.
    ________________________________

    “He betrayed this country. He played on our fears!”
    – Al Gore, during campaign against George W. Bush

    Could there be a better example of a two- faced trickster?

  148. Rob Crawford says:
    September 3, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    ““Wasn’t there a report that the days after 9-11, while the planes were all grounded, that global temperatures dropped slightly?”

    I understand it continued to drop for the next few months.”

    If the temperature did drop are a result of the planes being grounded and it continued to drop – or stayed below the average – for months after might that not also be a result of fewer plane trips, and thus fewer contrails? This has nothing to do with the chemtrails nonsense of course.

    Ah, found some references with links to their references (always a good sign):

    Jet Contrails Alter Average Daily Temperature Range

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm

    Alternate story where contrails may reduce daytime temperatures –

    Airplane contrails and their effect on temperatures

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures

    On page two of this a reference to Jim Hansen pops up saying contrails can’t possibly affect temperatures – its the CO2 stupid (in aviation emissions)

    “Of course, aviation’s real impact on climate probably has nothing to do with contrails. In 2005, NASA’s James Hansen published a study to that effect. He found that, even if the number of contrails were quintupled, global mean temperature would increase by just 0.03 degrees C (0.05 degrees F.). Aviation emissions, which are rising dramatically, are the true culprit. ”

    There seems to be research being done on the effect of contrails on climate but the jury appears to be out discussing the matter…

  149. Philip Bradley:

    Sincere thanks for your post at September 3, 2013 at 4:22 pm.

    The NHS link gives me some good leads. Thankyou.
    And, incidentally, it does seem pertinent to why some people are easilly duped by scares such as AGW, chemtrails, Frankenfoods, etc.

    Richard

  150. I have a question… Why would a government spend a Eff-ton of money to have black helicopters and airplanes spray mind control chemicals and other stuff into the atmosphere, when, in reality, all they would have to do for mind controlling a vast amount of people would be funding Jersey Shore, Big Brother or Dancing with the Stars?

    Who needs a three letter government agency conspiracy when you can have the same effect with Justin Bieber of Kim Kardashian’s butt?

    Heck, what’s there to mind control anyway? Hitler already knew in the 1920s that the large mass of people was blind and stupid, and that even without TV. Why would a government want to mind control a mass of people who have already turned themselves into total zombies, and that willingly?

  151. george e. smith says:
    September 3, 2013 at 9:58 pm
    //////////////////

    No naturally produced hydro carbon is pure in the sense that it only results in a combination of CO, CO2 and H2O upon burning.

    To give you some insight into the specification of jet fuels, have a look at this http://www.exxonmobil.com/AviationGlobal/Files/WorldJetFuelSpecifications2005.pdf

    If you look at the specification tests, you will get an impression of what chemicals are released upon burning. Of course, not everything is tested, merely items which may be of concern to the user.

    The source of these ‘chemicals/pollutants’ is not necessarily an artefact of the raw material and distilation thereof, but also storage and transport. Both shore tanks and ships tanks are not necessarily used exclusively for the storage and transport of jet fuel. In fact tanks dedicate in that fashion are not the norm (shore side may be more so than ship tanks), and jet fuel inevitably picks up residues from cargoes previously stored/carried in those tanks as well as coating residues (the tanks are rarely stainless and are usually coated).

  152. Further to my post above, I should have observed that when you see a detailed analysis of jet fuel, it is not uncommon to see iron, copper, vanadium, tin, antimony etc in very small quantities.

  153. Mike says:
    September 4, 2013 at 3:46 am
    ///////////////////////////

    Can you expand on that since depending upon the time of year the sun moves over the tropical region, ie., between the tropics of cancer (north) to the tropic of cancer (south) and back again crossing the equator twice a year.

  154. Gene Selkov says: September 3, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    Ralph, many aviation theorists, starting with Zhukovsky and including many today, would correct you here. They would say it is the same vortex.
    ______________________

    You mean the great Russian designer, Zhukovsky? Well if he says so, one aught to listen. However, the wingtip vortices we see on a regular basis are only ever very small and never spread out into the larger wing vortices. Here is an illustration of the smaller wingtip vortex.

    • ralfellis says:

      > However, the wingtip vortices we see on a regular basis are only ever very small and never spread out into the larger wing vortices.
      >
      > http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/0/1/3/44037_1148142310.jpg

      What you see here is just the core of a much larger and extremely violent vortex. You are only able to see it because of condensation in the core, which does not occur every time. We almost never see it in such an awesome rendering as on the picture you found. To see it all, on a regular basis, a very large instrument is used:

      These vortices are very long-lived. Depending on the wind direction near the ground, it is possible to have a wake vortex from an airplane that just took off linger on the same spot for minutes or slowly drift across the runway, still having enough energy to wreck small aircraft. The flow visualisation instrument shown in that video owes its existence to concerns over safety hazards posed by wake vortices.

      So it’s not tiny, and it’s not just the visible part.

      By the way, while looking for images, I found this picture showing a vortex generator in action:

      Aerodynamics 101:  AIrflow over a Boeing 777 airfoil (landing @ Changi)

      You don’t see it as clearly every day, either. It’s a shame he missed the leading edge, but it’s awesome, nonetheless (incidentally, I know the fellow who made it — it’s a small world).

  155. I was going to continue my observation of visible contrails and compare it to the weather conditions at 30,000 feet today but the site is down… make you wonder.

    http://weather.uwyo.edu

    Plus, now David Suzuki says he’s a chemtrail denier.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/03/conspiracies-fuel-climate-change-denial-and-belief-chemtrails?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    If David Suzuki says it isn’t happening I think I will have to do the opposite and say it is.

    …for today anyway.

  156. Not precisely on topic, but a few decades back, I had gotten interested in contrails after seeing a newspaper item about researchers at the University of Illinois studying to see if contrails were affecting surface weather conditions.

    Effect of Contrail Cirrus on Surface Weather Conditions in the Midwest:
    Atmospheric Sciences Division at the U of I

    Changnon, Semonin, Wendland

    http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/cr/iswscr-236.pdf

    If you’ve ever lived in the Midwest, you’ll know that, in certain years, certain seasons, the sun never shines on weekends.

    Gene Selkov says:
    September 2, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    … ideas do infect people with already existing religious beliefs; Russia is now on a rebound from a near-total atheism to a theocracy. It only took a generation to start sliding back into dark ages.

    I take it then that when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics dismantled itself, all those former commie atheists just suddenly decided to “convert” to Christianity. And Is that a rebound, or a slide?

    Finally, we’ve read in this thread several variants of the argument that people can’t keep secrets:

    dbstealey says:
    September 3, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    You just cannot keep that kind of a secret.

    Please provide proof that people cannot keep secrets. The fact that some secrets are exposed is no proof that some are not.

    • Steve P,

      I don’t know the full story of what happened in Russia, and I am not really a competent Russian; I had to leave because I was never able to figure out how Russia worked, and I left it under the impression that it was not a user-friendly country. So I can’t give you any explanations; only a few vignettes from memory.

      When I was a kid, and up until early 1990s, the were only two sources of talk about Christianity. One consisted of senile women in their 80s who shuffled between their miserable homes, graveyards, and a few remaining churches where they fed obese pigeons with bread crumbs. The other conspicuous category was made up of young and middle-aged men who had just been released from prison. Those were returned to civilian life with crosses and church icons tattooed on them; many were promptly sent back where they came from and they did not have a chance to leave a lasting impression.

      There was a third source, although it did not have a broad reach: Radio Liberty and VoA programmes about the plight of dissidents in the USSR; they would often talk about religious dissidents.

      The commie atheists were not really atheists by conviction, I reckon. Their only cult was subordination to their party and a firm belief that nothing in that country would ever change.

      Of course, before then, there was a cult of Stalin, about which I know next to nothing, but I surmise it was just the thing that confined Christianity to prisons and graveyards. For which I will be eternally grateful, as I was able to spend the first half of my life unmolested by cults of any sort (communism does not count; it never made it to the level of a cult on my watch).

      There was also the fear of mass repressions, which many people took seriously, while for others like myself it was a very remote threat.

      It was not a bad time, overall. Science was generally encouraged and even funded, if not lavishly, at least steadily. There was no need to beg for money. You either had it or not, and once you had it, nobody really cared what you did, with a few exceptions. One exception I knew about very well was ethology. People could get in trouble for publishing works about the behaviour of animals. Like in any cult, there were taboos and censorship. We had foreign journals in libraries, but they had patches of text smothered in indelible ink. Those I remember best were Letters to the Editor in Nature. They were completely torn out. But overall, that was not a bad time. People could concentrate on what they liked to do.

      All in all, I judge that to have been the high time for science in Russia. I doubt it will be as good under the present government.

      This started changing with the die-off of party bosses, many of whom spent months on life support before they died, to the gleeful cheering of the citizenry. One of the favourite jokes was about the progress in medicine that gave Andropov an artificial kidney and was ready to equip the next one with an artificial brain.

      When Gorbachev came to power, many political prisoners were released, and with them came multiple waves of amnesty to criminals. At the same time, a rudimentary form of private business emerged, providing ample prey for rampant hierarchies of robbers and racketeers. The prison culture left its underground confines and began filling the space between TV commercials.

      By the time Yeltsin came to power, the commie atheists were overrun by criminal Christians. I understood Yeltsin’s televised church visits as manifestations to the latter that he was the right sort of guy. That’s what started an avalanche of church-building, reparations and “return to the roots”. Twenty years later, people voluntarily send their children to church schools.

      Now there is virtually nobody there who wouldn’t bother you with conversations about quack medicine, supernatural healing, teleportation, anti-gravity, bio-fields, good and bad energy, Chinese philosophy, astrology, and, of course, chemtrails, HAARP, and the coming end of the world.

  157. Steve P says:
    September 4, 2013 at 11:47 am

    dbstealey says:
    September 3, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    You just cannot keep that kind of a secret.

    Please provide proof that people cannot keep secrets. The fact that some secrets are exposed is no proof that some are not.

  158. Steve P says:

    “Please provide proof that people cannot keep secrets.”

    Translation:

    “Please prove a negative.”

    Re-read the article’s title. That says it all, my friend. No scientific context. Also, no legitimate whistleblowers, with verifiable photos, or emails, or chemical ingredients, or manufacturers, or procurement orders, or authorizing legislation, etc., etc. And etc.

    ‘Chemtrails’ is simply a Belief. If it were real, there would be plenty of people competing to sell their stories to the NY Times. Any effort like what is claimed for a chemtrails organization would certainly have hundreds, if not thousands of people on various payrolls. Despite what you believe, that many people cannot keep a secret. There are always Bradley Mannings ready to blab.

    But you can’t find a single chemtrails employee to corroborate your belief. I’m a ‘show me’ kinda guy. Show me verifiable evidence. Otherwise, I view the chemtrails conspiracy theory like I view the tooth fairy: a very unlikely belief.

  159. db,
    You’re barking up the wrong tree. Please note that there is no defense, no mention whatsoever of chemtrails in my post.

    But I will stand by my assertion that some secrets are kept. 50 years on, we still don’t know who killed President Kennedy.

  160. [My comments in square brackets, and my bold]

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails

    “At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.

    “In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007

    [My bold. What in that statement gives problems to comprehension?

    [That article is worth reading for a basic flavour of the history, some here]:

    “Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.

    Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.

    [Why propose a UN moratorium on something that does not exist?]

    “Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:

    “The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.

    “Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.

    “Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.”

    “New York dry ice seeding 1946 (Life Magazine)

    1947 Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]

    1949 Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque. [31]

    1950 Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]

    1952 The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]

    1962-1983 Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]

    1966-1972 Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]

    1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]”

    [There seems to be a distinct lack of critical thinking about this - links to governments' admissions are being ignored - as it says on this page]:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemtrails-politician-ignites-controversial-debate-in-swedish-media/5308948

    “Conspiracy or conspiracy theory ?

    “Chemtrails are a fact not a conspiracy theory – the suppression of information about this issue by the mainstream media and the ridiculing and ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to speak out is a conspiracy.”

    “Even the US Navy admits that tiny particles of aluminium (chaffs) are sprayed. [3] There is no doubt that there is a military connection to chemtrails…:

    “A research paper produced for the United States Air Force written in 1996 speculates about the future use of nano-technology to produce “artificial weather“, clouds of microscopic computer particle all communicating with each other to form an intelligent fog that could be used for various purposes. “Artificial weather technologies do not currently exist. But as they are developed, the importance of their potential applications rises rapidly.” Weather modification technologies are described as “a force multiplier with tremendous power that could be exploited across the full spectrum of war-fighting environments.” [4]”

    “[3] “Effects of Navy chaff release on aluminum levels in an area of the Chesapeake Bay.”
    PubMed. US National Library of Medicine. June2002:
    http://www.ncbi.nl.nih.gov/pubmed/12061831

    [4] “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025″. US Air
    Force. http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf. Retrieved April 17, 2012.”

    [The question is not whether chemtrails/persistent contrails are real or not, they are fact, but how can we prevent abuse of it?]

  161. @ mod, snipper…thankyou for correcting me.
    I looked into what you said and admit not knowing such. If the word deniers is linked so forcefully to holocaust deniers then I distance myself from the term and understand now that site policy.
    the sockpuppety you mentioned – it is allowed on the other site I comment on and seem to remember seeing same here, quite often, so followed suite, neillusion is not so bad surely?
    Yes my name is neil. You identify me as Mr. Jackson and you had already changed my id from neillusion to neil. The last comment to you, that you snipped, had a genuine arguement I thought?
    I do like this site.
    Keep up the good work.
    Kind regards
    Neil

    [ We don't change user ID's nor can we. That is what was entered in the comment box before you pressed ENTER - mod ]

  162. @dbstealy – you only have to look up a couple of the links on this site to find what you claim is non-existent. That you profess as you do seems then to say more about your own judgement/comprehension (lack of) than the issue.

  163. @mod, snipper,
    I’ve just looked up what sockpuppetry is, the term you applied to me, my id as neillusion, although you had already changed my id to neil.
    When you corrected me, I guessed it meant using an login/user id other than your own name. But I was wrong and you were wrong in your criticism of me earlier…
    from wiki – sockpuppet(ry)
    Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. (a lot of this relates to multiple accounts/logins to perpetrate deceptions, etc, above)

    What, pray, was I guilty of in respect of your claim of sockpuppetry, my id was my id, not changed, linked with a genuine email account, only one id have I and used consistently.
    I may have slipped up using the word den*er, but that doesn’t come under ‘sockpuppety’
    So how find you of your own ‘sockpuppetry’ criticism?
    Kind regards
    neil

  164. @mod snipper
    your own ‘reply’ re den*er and sockpuppetry, influenced the proper evaluation of the contributions I made to this debate, as such issuing bias as mod and overall bias of the balance of this debate – don’t you think?
    Neil

  165. This comment is for Anthony, to complain in the open, about the reply I got.

    I’ve come to realise that there is a ‘bully’ moderator, see ‘reply’ to neil earlier.

    I think it undermines the credibility of the sight for its efforts in promoting/allowing a balanced debate.
    I freely admit i use the word ‘den*er’ and had not looked at site policy.
    I am grateful for correction on this.
    But to go on as the volunteer moderator did after snipping my comment amounts to
    bullying/insulting/ranting/lying.
    Why mention ‘hol*caust’, why accuse me of sockpuppetry? why try to scare me off with ‘Mr. Jackson’
    So Anthony, thanks for this debate/site – great job
    thanks for opening it up to Chemtrail – I’m sure that the links, info and other interesting experiences provided here has sparked interest/open mindedness to the subject and many will pursue it and realise what is really going on, and also its real relevance to the global weather debate too.

  166. Myrrh says:
    September 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails

    The term Chemtrail is pejorative and the various examples in the above link or the other links do not make a good case for contrails that are persistent being nefarious. There are no ‘specifications’ for how long any type of cloud should persist, whether weather generated or artificially. So, if a contrail ends up seeding persistent cirrus clouds it is absolutely possible just from having a jet pass through that air if it is susceptible and has enough moisture in it.
    Cloud seeding technology is not a secret and tends to involve putting stuff into clouds already formed and that contain moisture. These will be Cumulus clouds and not Cirrus clouds. The explanations and descriptions given in the above link can be sloppy such as: “1946 General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]” The photo does not show any “‘explosive’ growth”, but a large hole. No doubt the dry ice cooled the air so that the moisture froze and dropped out. It’s interesting but I see no link between this and the claim about so called nefarious ‘chemtrails’.

    “1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]” They didn’t divert the fallout. By cloud seeding they obviously managed to ‘rain out the fallout before it reached Moscow. Diverting something is changing it’s course. it says they seeded clouds.

    Then we have the 1rainmaker’ Charles Hatfield. A few searches reveal a slightly more complicated story with supporters and detractors. The example given here was in the end ruled an act of god. Where was he during the dust bowl years and if all this is geo engineering is so advanced how come it hasn’t been used during the recent US drought or the Russian heat wave etc etc. With the casual understanding that I have cloud seeding is very local.

    “1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]”
    ????? What has this got to do with geo-engineering? This is just throwing any old story in just because something was thrown out of a plane.

    The US military may have experimented with cloud seeding but it tends to be a commercial activity for the benefit of farmers. There is a photo of a plane used in Operation Stormfury. It has a very visible lump. Planes used in cloud seeding also have additional bits so as to dispense the silver iodide or whatever it is. To suggest as some do that the high altitude persistent contrails are some kind of plot or whatever is absurd. There are just too many people who either fly the planes, who maintain planes, who are passengers, who load the planes, who fuel the planes, who direct the planes, who manage the planes, who just watch the planes for someone not to notice something a bit more tangible than what amounts to a gut feeling.

  167. I’m not convinced aviation exhaust plumes result in completely harmless condensation trails. They are effectively chemical trials from burning fuel and these chemicals and particles are introduced into a reaction sensitive area of the atmosphere. Just how much effect I don’t know but….

    “The impact of aviation on the atmosphere is under way through the complex of interconnected processes. In present, there are no any standard limitations for the concentrations of gaseous and particulate pollutants emitted by aircraft engines at cruise altitudes. Nevertheless, it is believed that emissions of different gaseous species and aerosols by aviation engines are of reverence (relevance even) to the impact of aviation on atmospheric chemistry, ozone depletion, and climate ”

    “Numerous model investigations showed that gaseous species, mainly NOx, HOx, COx, SOx, organics, emitted from aircraft engine as well as combustion and newly formed in the exhaust plume aerosols may influence significantly the total ozone concentration, cloudiness, Earth’s radiation budget, and climate.”

    “The elements of NOx and HOx groups participate in the catalytic cycles of ozone destruction and the abundance of the species HNO2, HNO3, and NO2 as well as H2O can results in a broadening of the polar stratospheric cloud formation areas due to appearance of additional HNO3 and H2O in Polar Regions.”

    “Soot particles are believed to be the most important aviation aerosols impacting contrail and cirrus cloud formation.”

    “A number of modeling studies have demonstrated that the emission of sulfur oxides (SO2, SO3) and, especially, of sulfate aerosol particles can considerably affect the surface area of the sulfate stratospheric aerosol layer. Moreover, the emission of sulfate aerosol particles into the stratosphere caused by the fleet of supersonic high-speed civil transport aircraft, known as HSCTs, can result in ozone depletion.”

    “The important precursors of volatile aerosol particles are CIs, (Chemi-ions) which form in the combustor during the combustion of hydrocarbon fuel with air via radical-radical and ion-molecular reactions . CIs may induce the nucleation of volatile aerosols and promote the growth of aerosols via ion-assisted coagulation. Another possible mechanism of CIs influence on volatile and nonvolatile (with soot core) particle formation is connected with ion-soot interaction. CIs may attach to soot particles, induce the charge, and as a consequence enhance the water uptake by soot particles”

    http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/EN/RTO-EN-AVT-150/EN-AVT-150-15.pdf

    Anyway there are a lot of them up there!

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/18/see-what-more-than-6000-planes-flying-worldwide-at-one-time-looks-like/

  168. Ray C says:
    September 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    “A number of modeling studies have demonstrated that the emission of sulfur oxides (SO2, SO3) and, especially, of sulfate aerosol particles can considerably affect the surface area of the sulfate stratospheric aerosol layer. Moreover, the emission of sulfate aerosol particles into the stratosphere caused by the fleet of supersonic high-speed civil transport aircraft, known as HSCTs, can result in ozone depletion.”

    Interesting. Models have demonstrated…and what is this fleet of supersonic high-speed civil transport aircraft? This is old and mentions the 1999 IPCC report on aviation which was what triggered my general skepticism of AGW. There have been no supersonic transports for 10 years and I find it suspicious that 14 SSTs received so much criticism while the 30,000 odd supersonic military planes built during the same time received non at all. Thats sloppy. At the same time Concorde was the only plane that could fly supersonic without reheat, thereby burning a lot less fuel than anything else trying to do the same thing, including the Russian SST.

    “On the other hand, a constant increase in the frequency of aircraft flights gives grounds to predict an increase in the mass concentration of aviation soot aerosols exactly at a height of 10 km in northern latitudes. At the specified index of soot emission 0.04 g/kg, in the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, the annual maximum increase in the mass concentration of soot particles can reach 0.6 ng/m3″
    How is this possible if the atmosphere constantly turns over and mixes. Even the 1999 IPCC report admitted it was hard to differenciate emssions from aviation and other sources because the atmosphere is well mixed. Which leads to the next question. If somehow soot can be deposited at altitude and it stays there then what is the point of chemtrails because how is this ‘spraying’ going to reach the ground?

    Also, Is it coincidental that this is written in Russia and only western aircraft are mentioned?

  169. Stephen Skinner says:
    September 5, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    Thank you for the education, I’m no expert, obviously!!
    It struck me reading the paper that the burning of fuel by aviation in general emits many chemicals and particles which otherwise would not be there, irrespective of speed and type. This seems to indicate an ongoing injection, from thousands of flights per day, of material that must interact with climatic processes. I did say I couldn’t quantify the effect.

    I can only guess that the soot concentration might increase due to the wind speed in jet stream air flow acting like a river carrying sediment, as it does with other aerosol species,

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012360/abstract

    releasing it when, as you say, the atmospheric circulation mixes.

    “ If somehow soot can be deposited at altitude and it stays there then what is the point of chemtrails because how is this ‘spraying’ going to reach the ground?”

    Soot from the combustion of fuel happens and jets fly at altitude where strong jet stream winds prevail, so yes it can be deposited at altitude and stay there long enough to interact with other chemicals and aerosols and radiation but in the end it goes the same way as most aerosols. As for chemtrails and ‘spraying’, I’m not saying it’s intentional just a consequence.

    My post was to highlight the fact that combustion did not just result in water and carbon dioxide by-products but which produced other chemicals too which have the potential to interact with climatic processes and which can consequently influence the formation of aerosols and their growth to cloud condensation nuclei status.

  170. I think we can do the maths about the pollution caused in the lower atmosphere, and petrol driven cars and vehicles must create pollution as well as surface uncontrolled coal fires. Planes well if they inject fuel they can cause pollution too. But military aircraft use a different fuel and it is too expensive for commercial airlines.

  171. If contrails are really chemtrails deliberately laced with chemicals to somehow control or effect people, then what makes the “them” who put them there immune from their effects?

    • Gunga Din says:

      > If contrails are really chemtrails deliberately laced with chemicals to somehow control or effect people, then what makes the “them” who put them there immune from their effects?

      “They” are already “under influence” and are enjoying it. Now we can all pile in for free!

  172. “””””…..richard verney says:

    September 4, 2013 at 3:41 am

    george e. smith says:
    September 3, 2013 at 9:58 pm
    //////////////////

    No naturally produced hydro carbon is pure in the sense that it only results in a combination of CO, CO2 and H2O upon burning.

    To give you some insight into the specification of jet fuels, have a look at this http://www.exxonmobil.com/AviationGlobal/Files/WorldJetFuelSpecifications2005.pdf

    If you look at the specification tests, you will get an impression of what chemicals are released upon burning. Of course, not everything is tested, merely items which may be of concern to the user……”””””

    Well I don’t doubt what you say for a minute. BUT

    The whole idea of putting a fuel into an internal combustion engine, and incinerating it, is simply to heat the engine working fluid (air), and just incidently adding additional exhaust mass to the stream.

    And since carrying such fuel up with you is expensive, it is normal to employ combustion processes that are quite chemically efficient in producing heat energy from the chemical stored energy. Full combustion of Hydrogen, and carbon, are the most cost effective ways of doing that.

    So yes I am sure a million varieties of atoms or molecules can be found in the air stream behind a high performance aero-plane engine; but if it isn’t mostly (like 97%) H2O or CO2, I would like to sell that airline’s stock short. Maybe you can build in additional molecular energy, such as with acetylene for fuel for example.

  173. Ray C says:
    September 5, 2013 at 4:43 pm
    Stephen Skinner says:
    September 5, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    Thank you for the education, I’m no expert, obviously!!

    OK. I take your point and I don’t disagree that there are other chemicals emitted besides water vapor. I also don’t disagree that pollution or human activity can affect the weather as this is well documented with things like rain following the Friday commute or snow downwind of cities etc. The trouble with some of the conclusions that are drawn is that they are without scale or proportion. In this case it means all attention is focused on a transport t that consumes 2% to 3% of all the worlds oil and is made out to be the biggest problem. What kind of maths is that? And as george e. smith points out above the engines have to produce energy in the most efficient way so there is only so much other additives that can be added. The number of registered airliners in the world is still below 20,000. Meanwhile the number road vehicles has passed 1,000,000,000,000! So why focus on aviation? What are the additives in unleaded petrol and diesel?

  174. _Jim say from previous thread:
    September 3, 2013 at 8:15 am
    michaelwiseguy says September 2, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    “I changed the meme from “****trail” to “Geo-Engineering” in the blogosphere …
    Yeah, we know. Still carrying no weight (BTW, how’s the wx down there in Mom’s cellar?)”

    The home I bought in 2009 taking advantage of the housing bubble bust and paid cash for, a 2006 2,000sf luxury home under air is paid off and no mortgage. How are you?

    Question; Why do US fighter jets leave smoke trails to their location and Russian jets don’t? That doesn’t look too stealthy to me and gives away their location. Not a very bright defense strategy if you ask me.

    File:Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s – DF-ST-90-05759.jpg

  175. The tic tac toe contrail I saw that made me question my normal skepticism of everything… was made with a military jet that looked like an old phantom jet. Prob had nothing to do with the weather. More likely creating cloud cover to hide troop movements etc. It produced a nice silvery haze.

  176. Stephen Skinner says:
    September 5, 2013 at 12:18 pm
    Myrrh says:
    September 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails

    The term Chemtrail is pejorative and the various examples in the above link or the other links do not make a good case for contrails that are persistent being nefarious.

    Shrug, I gave a link in my first post to what the British government had done in this sorry history of the industrial/military’s psychopathic complex .., the history of this can also be traced by the patents taken out.

    We can see for ourselves through the auspices of blogs such a these how easy it has been to corrupt all the once great science institutes and universities now producing AGW scaremongering to order, and goverments have fallen into line with scams. Wishful thinking does not change the fact that those in positions of power do not actually give a d*mn about the rest of us, if you are content to continually find excuses for them by regurgitating their “conspiracy” meme, that it up to you, but the information is out there..

    http://chemtrails.cc/2011/07/02/new-world-order-chemtrails-olgacom-connection-explained/

    “In the past, contrails dissipated quickly, and didn’t turn into a persistent blanket of haze. How many days have you watched clear skies turned solid gray by chemtrails?”

    To suggest as some do that the high altitude persistent contrails are some kind of plot or whatever is absurd. There are just too many people who either fly the planes, who maintain planes, who are passengers, who load the planes, who fuel the planes, who direct the planes, who manage the planes, who just watch the planes for someone not to notice something a bit more tangible than what amounts to a gut feeling.

    The ones I have seen are not high altitude, not in any civilian plane routes and not crop spraying.

  177. I used to be a plane spotter when I was a kid and although that may not be a great thing to admit I was pretty good at it, but then so were all the others I met doing the same thing. So I have seen persistent vapor trails and intermittent all along the way. I’ve seen airliners holding over Bournemouth on their way into Heathrow when all the other stacks were full. They left race track vapor trails in the sky that persisted. We all had air-band radios and knew what each plane was, at what height and what they were wanting to do. Others had air-band that could listen to Military so not much was missed and it was fairly competitive to know it all. Among the many sights was seeing air to air refueling with the tankers holding over head and holding perfect position describing a race track while the vapor trail would be dragged out by the air mass leaving a kind of corkscrew shape vapor trail.
    After 9/11 it was disappointing hearing the conspiracy rubbish said about the aircraft from people who have no clue about aviation or are self publicists or delusional. And so it is with this subject. So I’ve deliberately been watching the sky and planes for decades and been fortunate enough to have flown in many also. With the ‘evidence’ that is supposedly going to open my eyes I haven’t seen anything that is not known or new or in any way convincing.
    I came across this video but still there are those who say it’s fake.

    Out of interest I looked up Project Cumulus and do you honestly think that cloud seeding 3 days before a heavy down burst is related? And the seeding wasn’t even in the same area.

  178. I’ve looked up the ExxonMobil fuel specification and it provides no chemical compositions, so stop waving that around like it proves anything. However, I am aware of the composition of jet fuels. They are predominantly blends of alkanes (straight-chain hydrocarbons) with small percentages of alkenes, aromatics, and olefins, all of them carbon-hydrogen compounds. They burn to CO2 (and a little CO, can’t be helped) and H2O. Some other stuff comes along for the ride, but get over it. We get NOx from lightning, SO2 and SO3 from volcanic emissions, and soot (once called carbon black, and now nicknambed Black Carbon, as though it were a pirate captain) from forest fires. Odd metals? Just think of how much vaporized meteorite you must have inhaled in your lifetime. Strictly out of this world.

    Look, you can go crazy by looking at a dustball with a microscope. All this phobia and paranoia about contrails and “chemtrails” comes down to suppositious speculation by those who have no education on the actual subject matter and therefore are reduced to “it could be…” arguments, when they have no idea of what could be, or be not.

    (Don’t get me started on aerofuel dumping by jet airliners near airports. I live under a flight approach/departure path and there have been some days when it reeks of kerosene. But there’s no conspiracy, just environmental obtuseness.)

Comments are closed.