I have been getting a lot of flak on social media about “chemtrails” from conspiracy theorists lately, as I’m sure many of you readers have also experienced. So, I decided to work up a reference post that uses bullet points factoids to make rebuttal points. You can also reference my rebuttal from 2016. Feel free to share and use anywhere – Anthony
The chemtrail conspiracy theory alleges that aircraft contrails are chemical agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes. This theory is unsupported by scientific evidence and contradicts well-established atmospheric science, logistical realities, and environmental data. Below is a concise rebuttal addressing key misconceptions, with additional references to strengthen the argument.
- Contrails are water vapor, not chemicals: Contrails form when water vapor from aircraft engine exhaust immediately condenses and freezes into ice crystals at high altitudes (above 25,000 feet), where temperatures are below -40°C. See the graphic below. These crystals create visible trails that persist based on humidity and temperature, as detailed in Shearer et al. (2016). Studies like Schumann (2005) further confirm contrails are primarily water-based, with trace emissions (e.g., soot, sulfur) insufficient to suggest deliberate chemical dispersal.
- Persistence is a natural phenomenon: Chemtrail proponents cite long-lasting trails as evidence of chemicals. However, contrails persist in cold, humid conditions because ice crystals sublimate slowly, as explained in Shearer et al. (2016). The IPCC (1999) report on aviation notes that contrail spreading is a meteorological effect, not a sign of spraying.
- No evidence of chemical spraying: Claims of “chemtrails” rely on anecdotal reports or misinterpretations of contrail behavior. No peer-reviewed studies support a large-scale spraying program. Shearer et al. (2016) found 98% of atmospheric scientists reject the chemtrail theory, aligning with assessments from NASA (2017) that confirm contrails are benign aviation byproducts.
- Logistical impossibility of secrecy: A global chemtrail conspiracy would require coordination among thousands of pilots, technicians, scientists, and officials across nations. Maintaining secrecy is implausible, as noted by Spencer (2025). The Manhattan Project, a far smaller operation, faced leaks; a visible, widespread program like chemtrails would be impossible to conceal, per Mick West’s analysis (2018).
- Water testing misinterpretations: Alleged evidence of metals like aluminum or barium in rainwater is often cited by chemtrail advocates. These elements occur naturally in seawater, soil, and dust, which contribute to rainwater composition through evaporation and precipitation. Spencer (2025) and the USGS (2004) confirm that trace metals in water are consistent with natural environmental processes, not aerial spraying.
- Historical context of the theory: The chemtrail theory arose in the 1990s from misinterpretations of weather modification research, like cloud seeding, and distrust in institutions. Spencer (2025) and West (2018) trace its spread to misinformation about routine aviation, with no credible evidence emerging despite decades of scrutiny.
How contrails form from jet engine exhaust:
Source: AirServicesAustralia.com
Bottom Line:
In conclusion, the chemtrail theory is refuted by extensive scientific evidence showing contrails as water vapor condensing into ice crystals at high altitudes. Their persistence is a natural atmospheric process, and alleged chemical evidence aligns with environmental norms. The impracticality of orchestrating a secret, global spraying program further discredits the theory.
References:
- Shearer, C., et al. (2016). Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program. Environmental Research Letters, 11(8). https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ERL….11h4011S/abstract
- Spencer, R. (2025). Does the Air Force own the weather in 2025? Origins of the chemtrail theory. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/does-the-air-force-own-the-weather-in-2025-origins-of-the-chemtrail-theory/
- Schumann, U. (2005). Formation, properties and climatic effects of contrails. Comptes Rendus Physique, 6(4-5), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2005.05.002
- IPCC. (1999). Aviation and the global atmosphere. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/aviation-and-the-global-atmosphere-2/
- NASA. (2017). Contrail watching for kids. https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/contrail-watching-for-kids/
- West, M. (2018). Debunked: The chemtrail conspiracy. Metabunk. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-chemtrail-conspiracy.893/
- USGS. (2004). Trace elements and radionuclides in U.S. groundwater. U.S. Geological Survey. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/trace-elements-and-radionuclides-groundwater
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Even though there had been a real government program with the easily exploitable name of Project Stormfury, chemtrails were a crock when subject of late night AM radio talk shows, and are still a crock on the internet.
Does anybody know anything about Dane Wigginton and his GeoEngineeringWatch.org? He apparently has volumes of supposed evidence of chemtrails. I am curious because some swear by his research.
There are always uneducated self proclaimed experts who think they’ve uncovered conspiracies or basic flaws in years of scientific research. Climate Deniers come to mind.
The climate is real. There’s no denying that.
Look in the mirror.
But who are the “climate deniers” ?
Is it those who proclaim a perfect past climate existed that has to have been mucked up by modern humans and their darn CO2 ?
Or those who acknowledge climate change as a constant, and point to natural variability/cycles and/or environmental changes ?
Or another group ??
Climate Deniers = Those who deny the conclusions of all scientific research, that “the climate is warming at the fastest rate in millennia and the cause is human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels”.
Alarmists: those who claim that the beneficial warming of one degree is dangerous and an existential threat to humanity.
Thats the finding of all scientific research.start reading the reports. Eg, IPCC 6th Assessment.
Seems like you only read the fake “summary for policymakers” section of the IPCC reports.
Try reading the part that is actual science.
I take it you havent read it.
Someone calculated that if a London inhabitant was worried about climate change they could move to Edinburgh in Scotland which is on average 2 degrees cooler.
And if they were worried about UK emissions, all of te putative warming caused by the UK could be nullified by standing on a brick, and the lapse rate would sort it all out.
Liar = Warren Beeton
Please show us ACTUAL EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing serious (not trivial) global warming.
Note to readers:
I have asked this question (asking for evidence) many times and have NEVER received a response that is not debunked by a simple question or two such as:
1–“how does the fact of warming (or bad weather, etc.) prove that man’s CO2 is the cause? OR
2– Please explain what caused Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods to be warmer than now without man’s CO2 AND to occur every 1000 years, with our current warm period fitting that regular cycle
That tells us that most climate zealots DO NOT ACTUALLY know of any evidence and didn’t realize it until asked to show it. Plus a few others who are lying and they know it.
Please quit repeating eco-loonie leis – there is NO RAPID warming:
See: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/no-rapid-warming.html
If you disagree, please post actual evidence with start and end dates of the alleged fastest rate in millenna. AND a link to the data sour with similar historical data for all of the holocene.
Its not scientific research that produces that result.
Just a reminder that you have never been able to put forward a single bit of scientific evidence to back up anything you have ever said.
A science free drone.
It’s in 10s of thousands of research papers published in scientific journals. And no contradictory evidence has ever been found. Check out the IPCC 6th Assessment , reports by the National Academy of Sciences, or NASA for the evidence and summaries of the peer reviewed research.
Bla Bla Bla…… Zzzz… you still posted nothing.
Oh my. There is plenty of contradictory evidence. Folks like you just refuse to accept it. There is plenty of evidence of scientific misconduct too.
Learn and understand the scientific method. It only takes one ‘fact’ to destroy a theory. There are a lot of components around CO2 that refute CAGW.
Are you seriously one of the nitwits who has been thoroughly duped by the climate mafia, and actually believes that malarkey?
Here is the truth, just in case you have a stray burst of critical thinking, or a moment of clarity: Every single word of the Warmista jackassery doomsday scaremongering, is not just wrong, but is literally the exact opposite of what is true.
All of it!
The Earth is not too warm, it is too cold.
CO2 is not too high, it is far too low.
CO2 is not dangerous, it is the most important molecule for life that there is, and there is damn little of it around. We would be very lucky if we can get it up to around four times the present value.
There is absolutely nothing unusual going on with the weather, whatsoever, at all, anywhere on Earth. Period!
Everything, and I do mean everything, is exactly the same as it has always been. All variations are well within historical norms regarding every weather phenomenon that one might care to name.
In fact, we are in a very benign period of conditions regarding he atmosphere, and have been for several decades.
If it does get warmer, there is nothing dangerous about that. The danger will be if it gets sharply colder.
Bad weather is not climate, it is not climate change, and bad weather is certainly not a climate crisis. And nothing that anyone does or does not do is going to change the weather on our planet anyway. When did you dumbasses fall into the delusion that human beings have acquired the ability to control the weather on a planet?
When did people get stupid enough to think that politicians can make the weather better by taxing us into poverty?
What’s next, throwing some virgins into volcanoes?
Stop lying please, it is way past tiresome. All you have accomplished is scaring the children and some weak-minded fools.
Given that there are millions of scientific papers published each year tens of thousands of grant sucking climate denial papers is a mere drop in the ocean
Appeals to authority logic fallacy.
Does not answer the question.
Enjoy your delusions Warren! We climate realists know the science on AGW is a total crock and is only still around due to massive funding and propaganda from the leftist elites. Our day is coming soon when all major nations politicians will have to admit their errors re climate and FF energy, and also the harm they have done to their own people by impoverishing them for a Peter Pan UN inspired idealistic environmental utopian dream. Wake up and get real!
Uh huh.
In my experience, you can never ever convince the true believers of the chemtrails conspiracy, regardless of any amount of evidence and simple logic presented, that they may have been misled. This is also true of true believers of CAGW like Warren.
I accept the findings of all scientific research. Since you do not, you’re the Denier.
Running
climateweather models that have never been validated is not “scientific research.” It is the equivalent of Tarot card reading.Well its actually circular logic
Accepting all research findings would be treating science as a religion.
Not all research is in agreement, on any subject.
How do you reconcile disparate arguments/results?
You must be very confused when a research finding contradicts previously accepted results.
A lot of that “science research” doesn’t support the AGW delusions.
Yes, but to be a true believer, you just ignore things that disprove your delusion. Works for CAGW, Chemtrails, Loose Changers, Anti-Vax, TDS, and well, there is a really long list of them.
In the end you end up in the realms of metaphysics, where what you see is governed by te fundamental assumptions you make.
Believe in God, and you can see his handiwork everywhere.,.
Believe in CAGW and you see imminent disaster everywhere.
So you accept Fall et al’s peer-reviewed and published scientific research?
Warren sez: “I accept the findings of all scientific research.”
That seems doubtful to the point of being impossible to believe.
Really?
How many genders are there, Warren?
Can men become pregnant?
Is gender something that is merely “assigned at birth”
Is it in any way possible for a man to become a woman?
Does a pregnant woman have a human being inside of her?
Do only biologists know what a woman is?
Do men have a distinct and very large physical advantage over women in sports?
Was it good policy to make everyone wear masks, and keep children out of school?
Once you answer these easy ones, we can move on to some hard stuff.
But the CAGW ‘hypothesis’ is not scientific…and there is almost no research in it.
It is simply the very sketchy outcome of a computer model that makes unverified assumptions and shows very poor correlation with the data.
In fact there is – or was when I drew it – a far better correlation between aircraft contrails and climate change..
All scientific research?
Yet you claim there is none contrary to the alarmist narrative.
You obviously read only those things that fit your mental state.
What kind of Climate Denier are you? Apparently, you don’t deny the climate is warming now. Did you deny the climate was cooling and Earth would become an ice planet in a relative few years during the ’70s? During the ’30s you once more were not a denier when the “science” said we were going to become a burned-out planet, but you must have been a denier in the ’20s again when “the science” said we were going to become a snowball again.
Or maybe you were silly enough to change for every one of those eras so you wouldn’t be a “Denier”! Such an epitaph! Always going with the crowd.
But to most of us here, you would look overly naive – trusting the Executive Summaries without reading the science papers that were supposed to be the basis of those summaries. Or maybe you’re just young and stupid, the natural result of an educational system that indoctrinates instead of teaching you how to think for yourself. A loss of human intellect.
I accept the conclusions of allscientific research. Your gobbledygook shows you do not. So you seem to be a Denier, if not a Flat Earther,
It is obvious you have zero actual science training.
The hallmark of the scientific method is skepticism, not credulous belief.
In fact, the statement, “I accept the conclusions of allscientific (sic) research”, may in fact be the dumbest sentence ever written by any human being in the history of civilization.
Truly.
The very dumbest, least informed, most ignorant thought ever expressed anywhere, by anyone, ever.
You should try and study science
It isn’t all that hard
Else you remain the very picture
Of a modern climatard
Very poor. Gamma minus at best. You are just retreating into mudslinging Bandar Log-ic
“We all say it, so it must be true”
Ah. So if the scientific research is contrary to your belief it is not legitimate and therefore should be discarded.
Dear Warren you are painting a highly polarised field of only alarmists and deniers and nothing inbetween.
Alas, the world has more shades of grey than only black and white.
… but you definitely belong in the alarmist group.
yes, he’s part of the problem. If you look around his website, EVERYTHING is caused by chemtrails, including California drought. https://geoengineeringwatch.org.
And if you go to the “climate” websites, until recently with Trump, everything is caused by CO2.
Since all scientific research reaches the conclusion that modern day warming is caused by emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, what is your contradictory evidence?
Modeling scenarios doesn’t produce data thus it is pseudoscience that YOU embrace because you are a science illiterate.
So you missed all the peer reviewed research that attribute warming to less air pollution and cleaner air?
some cause – result sequences:
1 cleaner air – more sunshine in the arctic – more algae – more shrimps – more seals – more polar bears
1 cleaner air – more sunshine – more evaporation – but less clouds due to reduced condensation nuclei – larger drops, less fog, more heavy showers, more hail
all caused by cleaner air and not by co2.
co2 only causes warmer nights.
No research has ever reached that conclusion.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The sun, for a start, is the contrary evidence.
Do they swear by it or at it?
Conspiracy theories make claims, ignorant of actual factors such as variation of occurrence with temperature thus altitude, proximity of popular airline routes, turbulence, ….
Climate alarmism is thus a conspiracy theory.
Dr Edwin X Berry had a post on his site a few years ago on Wigington NB Not Wigginton.
If you would like it I can send it. My e-mail address is sunfacejack#@protonmail.com. I kept a copy of the interaction? Dr Berry has updated the site.
Here is a link to some other aspects. https://edberry.com/chemtrails-are-climate-fiction/
If I wanted to do what the whackoes think is happening, I’d do it at night. It’s pretty obvious that anyone perpetrating a scam this massive couldn’t be quite that stupid to do it in daytime.
It’s also insane to imagine that filling up a commercial aircraft with people and their luggage, then adding in thousands of gallons of ‘special’ liquid is credible.
No evidence of this ‘special’ liquid or containers when commercial aircraft crash. Doubtless, it’s the wrong types of planes that crash.
More obviously, where are these planes landing and taking off from?
Where are these hidden airports located?
Who are the people delivering all of those millions of gallons of whatever it is?
Who are the thousands of mechanics keeping those chemtrail planes operating properly?
Who are the technicians loading them up with chemicals all day, every day, everywhere on Earth?
What exactly are they spraying, and why spray anything so high up it may not reach the surface for days if not weeks, and fall who knows where on the globe, much of it on the ocean?
Which companies are manufacturing all that whatever it is chemical?
Airports are wide open places, so how come no one has ever seen any planes being loaded up with the stuff, since it is obviously going on all the time, everywhere, involving thousands of planes?
Why do the plumes of material being sprayed always line of precisely with the exhaust of the jets engines on the planes making the trails?
All the planes have windows, rows of them, and lots of people, like me for instance, always spend every flight looking out those windows at anything that there is to see, and yet no one has ever seen anything spraying out of any planes, ever,” (except planes that are spraying known substances at low levels like crop dusters and such, and they do not count because they never leave trails that hang in the air, they spray stuff that falls directly onto the ground.)
And why do all the chemtrails, no matter whether they are the ones that control our minds, or kill us slowly, or make us docile, etc, always look exactly the same, and why do they always look exactly like water vapor and ice crystal clouds, and I mean EXACTLY, and never like anything else? How many substances look exactly like water vapor and ice crystal clouds, then spread out to be indistinguishable from regular run of the mill cirrus clouds?
Where are the spectrograms of the funky weird chemicals that would be easy to obtain when sunlight shines through these clouds of chemicals?
ahhh, but notice no mention of the CO2 coming out of those things!
I imagine Bernie and AOC left plenty of commie trails from their private jet flights.
Anyway, the presence of hydrogen hydroxide or dihydrogen monoxide is in fact necessary for contrail formation.
You don’t get contrails from wasted hot air and bluster. 🙂
But you will invariably have to deal with Con trails.
One more thing to add to the list is the contrails from high flying aircraft during WWII. Just search the web and you can find many photos.
And clearly not from engine exhaust, but from propeller tips. It’s all to do with atmospheric conditions.
And occasionally from wingtips — but the conditions have to be just right. High Relative Humidity.
And very occasionally from race car spoilers …
https://www.f1zone.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4692#p221182
When aircraft wings produce a visible condensing water vapor it is due to the very low pressure created when the wing is operating at relatively high angles of attack producing maximum lift. That causes condensation of existing atmospheric water vapor, and is not due to emitting water in engine exhaust as in high altitude contrails. This visible moisture from wing lift is not persistent as it immediately vaporizes again when the air pressure returns to ambient. This effect is not produced at high altitudes because up high there is little to no ambient water vapor, insufficient to create a contrail unless induced by fossil fuel combustion. Also, at very high altitudes the air is very cold – more than 40 deg F below zero, so the condensed water crystals do not melt then evaporate, but instead sublimate at a much lower rate than evaporation.
As a young boy, living in Big Springs, Texas, I saw MANY bombers flying over our house with CONTRAILS behind them. One of them I specifically recall was a ‘flying Wing’. There were all kinds of planes, flying very high, and the ALL had contrails! This would have been sometime in the late 40’s. It’s nothing new, OR sinister!
Propellers don’t cause contrails, as Anthony explained, the visible contrails are composed of ice crystals from engine exhaust that are persistent until sublimated to vapor. All fossil fuel engine exhaust contains water as a combustion product. What you see are engine exhaust crystals that are induced into a spiral pattern by the rotating props.
Well, to be pedantic about it, you might say contrails is just an abbreviation for “water condensate trails”. If that’s the case, the water condensate in question can be a product of fuel combustion which will produce new condensate, or you can induce condensation of water from the pressure shock wave of a propeller or any other fast moving object in a region of high relative humidity. Anthony wouldn’t deny this, it’s just beyond what most people intend to discuss on this topic.
Yes, but they are not the same.
Assuming those planes have a forward trajectory, explain how exhaust emitted from behind the prop makes spiral patterns. I’ll wait.
Wait no longer. All propellers create spiral vortices which are created ahead of the exhaust outlets unless it is a pusher type engine which is rare. The contrails from high altitude prop aircraft also naturally take on the same spiral vortices. The vortices are persistent in both time and space as the aircraft moves through the air. Ditto with boat or ship propellers or screws that create vortices in water. This is all very well known and proven.
The spiral vortices created by spinning aircraft propellers induce asymmetrical forces on the entire length of the fuselage due to the corkscrew flow lines. In very high power high angle of attack flight regimes such as takeoffs, the effect is very pronounced and is called “P factor” which causes a strong yaw whose vector direction is determined depending upon whether the propeller is rotating clockwise or counterclockwise. In the case of single engine prop planes or multi engine prop planes that aren’t counter-rotating, strong counter rudder pressure is needed to avoid veering off the runway or flight path. Multi engine prop planes with counter-rotating engines experience very little P factor, the same with turbojet or aircraft.
With turbojets the hot section exhaust is more or less coming out in a well mixed straight line and there is no propeller creating vortices in ambient air in advance of the exhaust.
“When non-visible-moisture-laden air moved rapidly from a high-pressure area to a low-pressure area a rapid change of air temperature takes place due to the expansion of the space between air molecules. In cool air water molecules clump closer together than they are in warm air, sometimes to the point that the moisture actually becomes visible.
All other things being equal, the faster the velocity of the moving air mass from the high-pressure area to the low-pressure area the more likely visible moisture will appear. That is one reason you can see visible moisture coming off the propellers of the C-130’s in the photos which have been submitted to this website. The propeller tips are moving at nearly the speed of sound, their angle-of-attack relative to the air in front of them is such that they move a huge amount of air past them at a very high speed. The amount of moisture in the air is such that when it undergoes a compression/de-compression cycle as it passes the tip of the propeller blade is is quickly compressed then de-compressed and then is appears as vapor behind the propeller.”
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/17422/do-propeller-planes-give-contrails-like-jets-do
P factor is one of the reason rudders are there. Put a big engine on a little aircraft, give it full power and boy oh boy you got trouble. WWII fighter pilots learned that early in their training.
It doesn’t. That is an entirely different mechanism producing an entirely different pattern.
True persistent contrails occur behind the aircraft as water vapour from the engines cools and condenses into effectively clouds, and these persist.
The spirals from prop tips and wing tip vortices happen in humid air that suddenly encounters a pressure drop. The amount of water vapour the air can contain depends on pressure, and as that falls the vapour condenses out into clouds at the tips of the propellers or wings. And this dissipates a short distance behind the aircraft as the water droplets enter high pressure air again
No. the wing tip vortices and prop tip vortices are due to low pressure causing water droplets or ice crystals to form. This generally dissipates a short distance behind the aircraft.
The engines supersaturate the air with water vapour and that condenses into contrails that do not need low pressure to continue to exist.
Here is a picture showing that the contrails start some way behind the aircraft once the hot exhaust has cooled enough to condense the moisture in it.
And also condensation from the wings caused by the low pressure
And another
Or this one…
Or this…
Many thanks to Anthony for this excellent post! The photo he used reminds me of the sky over Lausanne, Switzerland, when I was teaching a science course for University of the Nations. The contrails were so thick that I quickly devised a way to record their impact by connecting a homemade full-sky photometer to a data logger. The results were published in a short paper.
Of course you did. Me, I’d have just been amazed by them. You? You invented a way to measure them.
Well done, that man!
w.
Thanks, Anthony.
The many times I have flown over the Pacific Ocean, such as from Australia to West Coast US, without seeing a contrail alongside demonstrates the vast size of that part of the Earth.
Single photos taken near airports to demonstrate a high density of contrails are misleading, for they represent a tiny part of the area above Earth.
From Physics, it is probable that contrails do absorb and emit light for a short time after they form, but it is a tiny part of the status quo. Worried folk need to produce more than photos.
Geoff S
On returning from Singapore over the Pacific I was monitoring flight status and noticed that while our altitude was very stable, within a few feet of 38,000, the outdoor temperature slowly varied over the range of -50C to -80C, and varied by 10C over a short time timescale, similarly to ground speed variations.
It’s just plain fun to talk about chemtrails even if you don’t believe they have any added chemical agents.
Sadly that is a real problem.
While you are having fun, someone else is believing it is true.
Kinda like Warren Beeton and “climate science.”
Plus the fact that SOME people are constantly on the lookout for conspiracies. They’ll believe just about anything, it seems.
Apologies, I wasn’t aware that guiding others was part of my duties.
Well now you know, so cut it out. Those jackasses are clogging up the interwebs!
It has recently become sharply worse.
In my web browsing, the only place I’ve come across chemtrail discussions is here. I’ve gotta explore a bit more, broaden my horizons.
I generally just post the URL https://contrailscience.com/ and look for better things to do.
Personally, I think the moon landing hoaxers are the dumbest, most of what they claim I could refute from following the manned space program when I was growing up.
The Flat Earthers, or flerfers, seem to be by far the most creative and intelligent. They come up with some rather intricate explanations for their delusions. I try not to argue with them because no one can change their minds.
However, it once occurred to me that I could use the spine of my copy of Science News as a straight edge and maybe use it as a tangent to Earth and look for curvature of the Earth from a airplane – I could see it.
Last year I was going to photograph it while trying to look not too suspicious, but then realized my cell phone’s horizontal and tilt guidelines might work better and also not get me in trouble. It worked great – the horizon’s dip angle about 3.2°, not counting atmospheric refraction, which is only about 0.5°. The next time you fly, see if you can reproduce my results ala https://wermenh.com/misc/flat-earth.html We need more samples online!
One of my cousins has the trifecta for you. He adamantly believes in chemtrails, a flat earth, and that the moon landing was a hoax. Not too many talk with him any more and that is just the family.
“All the world is a stage.” I believe that we all are subjected to various psyops, probably some of these are “red herrings” meant to distract. We are targeted individually and collectively.
At first I thought you were referring to Rush’s live album. As a Rush fan we see things like that. If there are other Rush fans on this website, they know. 🙂
Appropriate.
The Flat Earthers, or flerfers, seem to be by far the most creative and intelligent. They come up with some rather intricate explanations for their delusions. I try not to argue with them because no one can change their minds.
Hi Ric!
Just send them this link to a video of Carl Sagan explaining how the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round and how they did it. Also how they did a fairly accurate estimate of its circumference, some 2000+ years ago!
May take is the flat earthers are putting us all on. Though I’m sure there are many nutters in the bunch.
Thereby came the explanation “Neat, complicated, plausible and wrong”?
Sagan was great. The story of Eratosthenes figuring (accurately) the size and curvature of the Earth using geometry is astonishing. But the de jure method for measuring miles – hiring a walker to pace out the distance – blows me away. A lot of footsteps between Alexandria and Syene – 800 Km!
Sagan was great, indeed. Watch his testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change.
You mean his failed Nuclear Winter hypothesis…….
Or when he declared that for sure, according to his calculations, the Iraq war oil fires were definitely going to cause a nuclear winter!
Yup, that prediction aged like milk alrighty!
The Iraq war oil fires did emit a tremendous amount of carbon (smoke) and also some CO2. The particulate carbon in smoke does cause some cooling.
Well, come to think of it, when wintertime came around, we did have Winter…
Would seem to be easier to use two guys with a long rope.
In fact, that makes so much sense, I bet that is how they actually did it.
I mean, if it is just people counting steps, what if you lost count when you were almost done? Or what if you stumbled? That is not exactly smooth terrain, lemme tell yah!
With two guys and a rope, one guy walks, while the other guy stands still and holds the rope, takes a breather, grabs a smoke or a cold one, and writes down some notes to keep it all straight…then they switch off.
Yes – and a key part of that is that the atmosphere can be supersaturated with water vapor. Engine exhaust provides cloud condensation nuclei or enough vapor to force condensation, then that grows in the surrounding atmosphere and soon produces enough ice particles to weigh more than the airplane.
Lmfao “Conspiracy”
https://x.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1917344919162704133
I get
chemcontrails over my place regularly.Something to do with being under one of the domestic flightpaths into Newcastle (Williamstown) Airport.
Also get regular flyovers, at a lower level, by RAAF planes.. which is super-cool 🙂
One of the coolest moments over my place was a low-flying C-130 directly oherhead as I mowed the grass. Probably 1500 feet above me. I just stopped and watched, absorbing the sight and sound.
I live within 90 minutes drive of:
Heathrow Airport (busiest in Europe)
Gatwick Airport
Luton Airport
Stansted Airport
London City Airport
Biggin Hill Aerodrome
The only contrails I regularly see are those of overflying aircraft at their maximum altitude, and they are few and far between. Occasionally lower when climatic conditions are right.
Pretty sure the RAAF plane that regularly flying over here are the F35A…
You have to look quite a long way ahead of where the sound is coming from…
… and they seem to really like flying in slightly overcast conditions, then spotting them is almost impossible.
Agree HotScot…
I live 3 or 4 miles off the main flight path about 10 miles out from Calgary International Airport…about 200 flights per day…very rarely are there contrails…when there are visible contrails, it is planes going overhead, 6 miles or so up…right now I can see planes every couple of minutes on final….not a contrail or even a cloud in the sky today…and a good view of the Rocky Mountains 60 miles away….
When I lived and worked in the north part of Florida, I used to see them fairly often.
But here in Southern part of the state?
Nope. Never.
Really…never.
Nothing.
Nada.
Why?
I reckon it must be due to us being in the descending leg of the Hadley cell.
Descending air, just no way to make them persist.
Seriously, they do not happen here…ever.
I have never ever seen a single persistent contrail in southern Florida.
This is a great photo of some, and note they cut off in northern Florida.
It is also evident that they are most common where there are already cirrus clouds, where obviously layers of the atmosphere are saturated, and also nearby areas of cirrus where presumably the air is nearly saturated, or maybe saturated but no condensation nuclei present, but tend to cut off where there are no cirrus, the sky is clear, and it is evident that the upper layers are much dryer, and hence no persistent contrails:
I’ve been in the turbine repair industry for 35+ years. Almost all single aisle planes built in the last 8 years have engines with take-off turbine combustion temps at least 200 degrees F hotter and they are flying 5,000 – 8,000 ft higher than the planes they replaced. Going into Covid, very few of these planes existed, then they were all parked, but now the current production rate of these next gen planes is over 1,000 planes/year.
The best example of the change, an Airbus A220, is a direct replacement for the MD80 in passenger capacity, but it can fly at 40,000 ft (instead of 28-30K ft) and its engines burn nearly 300 deg F hotter than the MD80 engines did. Planes are much different now vs 10-12 years ago.
Metal Alloys and coatings have pretty much reached their durability limits in these new engines (and Ceramics are not where they need to be for commercial turbine airfoils, yet), so engine manufacturers are actively working on steam injection – for take off and climb, not cruise. Manufaturers are also looking at ways to extract the water vapor during cruise – for use for steam injection during take off and cimb.
Aside from the extra metal burning and oil leakage that plagues these modern engines, its mostly just good old steam coming out the back, but significantly more of it and at signifiacntly higher altitudes. If someone were to ask me “is the sky different now vs. 15 years ago?” My answer would be “probably”.
I have also seem contrails appearing to come from the wingtips at times.
I assume this is some sort of pressure change induced condensation effect ?
Wilson cloud.
Bernoulli’s law…increase in velocity causes a local pressure reduction in a gas and in turn can cause it’s temperature to be reduced…if there is moisture in the air, the temperature might be reduced below the dewpoint and become visible as “fog”.
It is
It’s the same effect that is used in cloud chambers to ‘see’ subatomic particles
From the post –
From Richard Feynman –
Brilliant. One of my favorite Feynman quotes because it cuts to the essence of science.
I find myself in complete agreement with Richard Feynman on most things. We actually share one scientific achievement – neither Richard nor myself has had a scientific effect named in our honour.
In my case, the reason is easy to understand. In Feynman’s case, he just had bad luck! His lectures are genius, or something very close.
Where do the “chemicals” come from? The “chemicals” have to be stored in tanks inside the aircraft and in large storage tanks at airports. The aircraft require some sort of mixer to spray the alleged “chemicals.”
No one has ever seen any of these.
They’re stored in cloaked tanks – invisible to the general public. Cunningly pumped into aircraft tanks under the guise of emptying the toilets – you might notice two hoses in use – one is really pumping chemicals into hidden tanks.
Be very suspicious if you see men with beards, braids, spectacles or turbans supposedly emptying waste tanks on airplanes. They might be heavily disguised Government agents.
Best to wear a mask at all times, gloves, and a wig lined with aluminium foil. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Ah. Technology imported from Romulus.
“There is not a specific, definitive number for weather modification patents, but research indicates that hundreds of patents exist, with some sources suggesting over 700. These patents cover various methods and devices for influencing weather conditions, including cloud seedingand geoengineering technologies.Information on issued patents in this category has not been disclosed since 2014”.
if you are saying no weather modification is going on through bioengineering technologies then you haven’t done serious research. Of course there won’t be peer reviewed studies for military sponsored projects, at least for public consumption. The question isn’t if it is happening but how often and where.
You’re all over the place.Show us the results of your “serious research”, Where, when, by whom and how weather modification taken place. Empty assertions don’t cut it here.
p;s; patents do not prove that the claimed processes actually work or are even cost effective. Per AI Claude, “Only about 2-10% of patented inventions ever become commercially viable products or processes in the marketplace.” You’re in a strange place if you try to argue that patents for weather modification are numerous, but their results are kept secret by the military. How conveeenient.
Available Cloud Seeding EquipmentWeather Modification, Inc. manufactures a variety of cloud seeding equipment. We complete FAA-approved installations of seeding equipment, emphasizing functionality, safety, reliability, and ease of use. Aerial cloud seeding equipment includes:
http://www.weathermodification.com/images/img_cs_a_1.jpg
http://www.weathermodification.com/images/img_cs_a_2.jpg
http://www.weathermodification.com/images/img_cs_a_3.jpg
http://www.weathermodification.com/images/img_cs_a_4.jpg
Selecting Aircraft for Aerial Cloud SeedingThe type of seeding method, whether it’s cloud top seeding or cloud base seeding, and the type of measurements required often determine the model of aircraft used for the mission. Weather Modification, Inc. has several types of aircraft availablewith a wide range of capabilities and cabin capacities. We can also provide operation and maintenance expertise.
search Justia website for weather modification patents and there are many with various modes. Yes weather modification is all over the place with multiple methods and technologies involved.
Jeb, you might profitably re-read the comment just above yours. You don’t have to have something that actually works to patent it, and most patents never see the market. Among those, most of them never become popular.
w.
It’s obvious people believe what they want to believe. I am open minded to these issues unlike apparently the many down-voters who are downvoting because certain evidence hurts their beliefs. It seems like this blog is becoming an echo chamber. Interesting that RFK just indicated he thinks DARPA is actually adding materials to jet fuels which many people incorrectly call chem trails. Maybe some real research will come out of this.
my point is not to prove or disprove chem trails but to expose information which may disprove a allegation that something is debunked for such and such a reason. That isn’t science!
RFK is a dork of the first order.
Once again, just wishful thinking without experimental support. The US military is trying desperately to catch up at the moment – F35 fighter aircraft that can’t be used if it’s too hot or too humid. The aircraft carrier USS Ford, has been unable to operate for more than 35 days continuously, suffering from a variety of defects and design deficiencies.
I’m not even sure how influencing weather conditions is supposed to be of benefit. Maybe you could give some examples, and say how you would prevent your opponent from doing the same to you.
This was used in Vietnam war which was widely known about. President Johnson even gave a speech on the subject. “He who controls the weather controls the world”. These are not conspiracy theories. I don’t have copies of the patents at my fingertips but I could come up with many and their uses. If you can’t think of applications for weather modification then you aren’t trying.
Was weather modification used in the Vietnam War? Yes, but unsuccessfully …
Did Johnson mention it in a speech? Absolutely.
Did Johnson say “He who controls the weather controls the world”? Nope. There is no record of him ever saying that.
Does this have anything to do with imaginary “chemtrails”? Nope. Totally different subject.
w.
The video recording linked here supports the claim that Johnson said, “He who controls the weather controls the world.”
https://texasarchive.org/2010_00003
Yes, Agent Orange changes the rain !.. Kills all the foliage.
And MANY of the troops on the ground, as well! The VA is just starting to realize that!
My father died of lung cancer 16 years ago. The VA said agent orange, and mom still gets residual disability benefits because of that diagnosis. As I understand it, beginning in about 2005, the VA formally recognized this, and gave benefits to anyone in country while agent orange was used, if they suffered from any one of a large number of medical problems.
The main problem with cloud seeding, etc., is that it cannot be shown to work. Just like water divining. I have successfully used “divining rods” to find subterranean water, verified by using a “spear point”. Unfortunately, I also found water by just wandering around, stopping, and saying “There’s water beneath my feet.”
And there was. Radiesthia or blind luck? Rain dances, animal sacrifice, firing cannons, and modern, high tech, expensive “scientific” methods involving silver iodide particles released from airplanes etc., all produce rain – except when they don’t!
Sorry, my gullibility only goes so far.
“This was used in Vietnam war which was widely known about.”
“These are not conspiracy theories.”
Obviously not. But has our weather changed in the intervening 50 years?
Also, obviously not, so it’s been a bit of a waste of time and effort, hasn’t it.
I don’t think we’ll ever convince him he’s wrong. He still hasn’t produced any evidence but somehow he ‘just knows’
Remember it is “the age of feeling”
Clod seeding has been used since the first hot air balloon was invented. There’s nothing secretive about it whatsoever.
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in the UK is stuffed full of millions of patents, most of them completely wacky, stretching back generations, many hand drawn by what appears to be children with description written by barely literate people.
Of the remainder which appear quality submissions, most are still wacky and the very few that make sense are very obviously, utterly impractical.
If information on cloud seeding technologies and patents has been stifled since 2014, those technologies have no protection in law. Who would manufacture a miraculous geoengineering solution to all mankind’s problems only to have it knocked up in an ambitious entrepreneur’s garden shed?
Utter nonsense.
And then the British government goes and spoils it all by announcing a geoengineering project. Why bother if it’s already happening?
Where are the pictures of the airplanes with the tanks?
All it would take is someone with a cell phone to take a photo of the equipment.
There _ARE_ some photos of jet cabins with rows of tanks but those are for static load testing.
These never fly.
I like to redirect the conversation:
Why spray from five miles up?
If I was going to drug a population, I would use fake Amazon trucks.
Or maybe REAL ones. Hmmm… Is Jeff Bezos in on this nefarious plot?
It would be more effective to add something to gasoline in cars and trucks.
Instead, they took the lead out, which was supposed to make people aggressive (amongst other things) but the world seems a lot more aggressive now than it did then.
They added fluorine to the drinking water decades ago.
That’s a proven dispersal system.
Seems to be the easiest way, where one of such an inclination.
Or just spray from the trucks that drive around at night spraying for mosquitos!
Wonder why the photo did not attach…try that again:
Maybe you’re right, Anthony, but then how do you explain the stupidity epidemic? Are you sure chem trails haven’t lowered IQ’s of the general public into the teens? Something sure did.
The U.S. Department of Education.
Add to the list, the Teacher’s Union.
+10 were it possible.
Kinda the same silly idea that the earth is flat. Despite sufficient proof and logic that it isn’t flat self proclaimed “experts” try to convince you of the contrary.
“Believism” I call it…to generalize it as one of the many and flawed religions we live with nowadays. I wonder how empty someone’s life must be to grasp to a hollow straw that’s furthermore pretty short and lit on fire.
Sorry you all “true” believers of what ever:
– truth and science are not subject to “democratic” vote
– the more you repeat a lie it still won’t make it true
– and ignoring hardcore facts only proves that YOU are the ignorant and not me
So much the summary, outing me as a practicing atheist (I openly worship the holy spirit in the untinted bottle – Gin f.e.), I never allow my brain to fog or being fogged by anyone.
Curious how all “believers” shift when you back them in a corner with arguments they can’t counter. A short and simplyfied sample of personal “disputes”:
“Son, god is in the heaven (aka sky – depending on language and translation)” – But mummy that can’t be, I just looked out of the airplane window and couldn’t see him. “Oh no, God is invisible and in all of us”… aha so what now?
“Chemtrails impeed rain to fall, the Nazis already used that technology in WW2”
well first documented experiments with silver iodine date from 1948 and in the US
“yeah…those were all the german scientist they snatched away from the russians”
“The jet engines cause the chemtrails, they emit all that silver iodine so that it doesn’t rain”
silver iodine is actually small particles, you need special attached dispensers to emit it that are clearly visible.
“They add it to the fuel now”
My personal and Absolut (yeah I had to take out that “bottle” to ridicule it a bit) favourite comes from a “flatearther” and I quote his eye watering bBSe after being cornered to death:
“you have to open your mind to the simple possibility that the earth could be flat”
Well I rest my case and watch “The meaning of life”, that movie makes me laugh hard and above all in a enjoyable manner.
A toast “believers” if you think I’m (a) drunk, skål 🤣
sarcalarm
“98% of atmospheric scientists reject the chemtrail theory”
So it’s a ‘consensus’ thing. Got it.
Not consensus.
Dissensus.
Grog’s assessment of this post, what do you think?
Strengths:
Scientific Basis: The explanation of contrail formation aligns with established atmospheric science. Contrails form when water vapor from jet exhaust freezes at high altitudes (above 25,000 feet) in cold, humid conditions, a phenomenon well-documented since at least the 1950s.
Logistical Argument: The post effectively highlights the implausibility of a massive, secret operation involving thousands of people across nations without leaks, comparing it to the Manhattan Project, which faced leaks despite its smaller scale.
Addressing Misinterpretations: It counters claims about metals like aluminum and barium in rainwater by citing natural environmental processes, supported by references to USGS data and Spencer (2025).
Historical Context: The post traces the theory’s origins to 1990s misinterpretations of weather modification research and a 1996 USAF paper, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” clarifying that the paper was speculative and not reflective of current policy.
Weaknesses
Source Credibility: Watts Up With That? is known for climate skepticism, which may undermine its perceived objectivity among some audiences. The site’s reputation could lead readers to question its motives, even if the science presented is sound.
Limited Engagement with Counterarguments: While the post addresses common chemtrail claims, it doesn’t deeply engage with why the theory persists (e.g., distrust in institutions, social media echo chambers) beyond a brief mention of historical distrust.
Lack of Primary Data: The post relies on secondary references (e.g., Spencer, USGS) and doesn’t present original data or experiments, which could strengthen its case. It also references a 2016 rebuttal by the author but doesn’t link to primary studies like the 2016 Environmental Research Letters paper that surveyed 77 scientists, 98.7% of whom found no evidence of a secret spraying program.
Tone: The tone is dismissive, which might alienate readers sympathetic to the theory rather than encouraging critical thinking. Phrases like “conspiracy theorists” can feel pejorative, potentially reducing the post’s persuasive impact.
Structure and Clarity
– The use of bullet points makes the post concise and easy to follow, ideal for a reference guide as intended by the author.
– Each point is supported by a brief explanation, though some (e.g., water testing) could benefit from more detailed citations or links to primary sources.
– The post is accessible to a general audience but assumes basic familiarity with atmospheric science concepts, which might limit its reach among less scientifically literate readers.
Credibility and Context
Critical Examination
While the post’s scientific claims are sound, it overlooks the psychological and social factors driving conspiracy beliefs, such as distrust in government or the role of social media echo chambers, which studies show amplify such theories. Additionally, the post doesn’t address the “kernel of truth” that fuels chemtrails, like historical government experiments (e.g., 1950s UK chemical tests or Cold War bioweapon simulations), which conspiracy theorists often cite. A more empathetic approach acknowledging these factors might improve its effectiveness. Finally, the lack of transparency about WUWT?’s editorial stance or funding could raise questions about its impartiality.
TL;DR The post effectively debunks the chemtrail conspiracy theory using scientific evidence, explaining contrails as water vapor and highlighting the logistical implausibility of a global spraying program. It cites natural processes for metals in rainwater and traces the theory’s 1990s origins. However, its dismissive tone, limited engagement with psychological drivers of belief, and the site’s climate skepticism may reduce its persuasiveness. While aligned with scientific consensus, it could be strengthened with primary data and a more empathetic approach.
Grok is a mish-mash of junk it can find on the web, much of which is scientific nonsense and trash-talk from paid climate propagandists.
Most of it is meaningless tripe.
Willie Soon disagrees with you. And Soon makes a good point that Grok is the entity with the highest IQ in the entire world. But you think you know better than Willie Soon??????
Willie knows how to circumvent all the crap.
You obviously don’t…
Your post is littered with junk non-science and “opinions”
Grok does not have an IQ.
Grok cannot read a book and make an original book report that offers any insights and opinions unless it is connected to the web so it can hijack someone else’s opinion.
The point of this exercise is, none of the AI are worth their weight in sand if not connected to the internet or other data sources.
Did you bother with the reference material Grok used?
The first place it heads is to the Guardian, the BBC and CNN for it’s ‘opinions’.
Seriously, try it.
Do you believe in the chemtrail scam?
What’s the point?
The point is to get the assessment of the smartest entity in the world, Grok.
B.S. alarm!
It’s not smart. It fakes being smart.
What next, are you going to tell us that Willie Soon is not smart because he also speaks the truth about Grok’s huge IQ??
Nothing is correct because of who believes it to be true.
Nothing.
Huge IQ? Spewed my coffee over that.
Is that supposed to be funny?
Because if not, it is really sad.
And wrong.
Lack of transparency on funding? bwahahaha
Rational discourse cannot change the minds of those who did not arrive at their positions rationally.
Never engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. They never know when they have lost.
heh, deja vu. Never wrestle with a pig. you’ll get covered in sh*t and the pig likes it.
I was waiting for this. LOL.
British scientists could experiment with techniques to block sunlight as part of a £50 million government funded scheme to combat global warming.
The geo-engineering project is set to be given the go-ahead within weeks and could seescientists explore techniques including launching clouds of reflective particles into the atmosphere or using seawater sprays to make clouds brighter.
The chemtrail believers reject any of those arguments. I know, because I’ve gone to battle with them online and in person. They get emotional about it, as if they take it personally. That theory, as well as the idea that the September 11 attacks were an inside job, or that the moon landing was fake, makes them feel special, as if they’re privy to knowledge that the rest of “the brainwashed sheeple” don’t know, or won’t accept. As such, they feel mentally superior. To challenge them is to insult their self-delusional intelligence. It threatens their worldview, and their fantasy that they’ve constructed. Unless you fly to the moon with them, or have them personally inspect every aircraft in the world, or time travel back to 9/11/2001, then nothing will influence them.
Nailed it. Some people simply need to feel ‘special’ without doing the hard slog of trying understand real science etc.
Are you saying that you believe that the Pentagon was actually hit by a jet airliner? That it was flown by a pilot who failed basic flight training in Florida? If so, why was not a single piece of a wrecked airliner ever recovered from the crime scene?
Do you believe that the WTC towers collapsed due to aeroplane impact? How did the entire steel superstructures collapse at freefall velocities?
Do you believe that WTC7 collapsed in an explainable manner despite not being hit by an aeroplane and that it collapsed 30 minutes after the BBC went on air stating that the tower, still standing, had already collapsed? Do you deny that controlled demolition is the mechanism overwhelmingly favoured by demolition professionals?
The evidence that the official announcements on 9/11 were false is so voluminous as to make it nonsensical to believe that it was true.
That’s very different from saying who did what on whose orders, but it does cast damning aspersions onto the US Deep State and how they inform the public about acts of mass murder.
Well set out. Not that it will convince a single chemtrails nutjob
You can’t fix stupid nor you can you reverse a believer’s opinion.
I think Armageddon will be nigh once Jehovas Wittnesses start including geoengineering in their Watchtower leaflets
As an exploration geologist for 45 years sampling and analysis is the first tool I use on a mystery. So when I encounter chemtrail religionists who are dismayed at my skepticism I always suggest they do something very simple, very inexpensive, and utterly repeatable and verifiable, that would convince the most hardened skeptic: take samples. Attach filters – activated carbon or pick your favorite – to the outside of an airplane and fly directly through the “chemtrails,” then analyze the results. They always say it can’t be done (as a pilot I know it can, of course) and then they get very angry and resort to ad hominems.
My favorite chemtrails story happened a few years ago when I was working as a trimmigrant in Southern Oregon. Of course, given the location and occupation, the conversation among the half-dozen folks around the trimming table was about things like the healing power of crystals, the magic of pyramid power, the deep insights of psychics, the wisdom of the Ancients, the tales of Lemurians, and of course … chemtrails. But hey, the sun was shining, and the pay was good.
One day the guy clipping leaves next to me tells us, “Did you see all the chemtrails this morning?” Everyone nodded in agreement. He followed that with “I knew they were there before I even went outside. I could taste that chemical taste in my mouth” …
I struggled to refrain from telling him how long it would take a finely dispersed aerosol, one light enough to linger at altitude for hours, to descend to the ground … or how little of the imaginary chemicals there would be for him to taste …
Instead, I just continued trimming the buds, kept my science to myself, and nodded my head with the rest of those good folks …
w.
(PS: The Lemurians are people believed to live inside Mount Shasta, a mountain in Northern California just below the Oregon border. They are said to be survivors of a sunken continent called Lemuria. These beings are said to have taken refuge in caverns beneath the mountain and even built a crystalline city called Telos. Some believe they are tall, robed figures with psychic abilities. I grew up about 100 miles from Mount Shasta in the 1950s, and some people back then fully believed in the Lemurians. Now you are 100% qualified to be a trimmigrant …)
“the healing power of crystals, the magic of pyramid power, the deep insights of psychics, the wisdom of the Ancients, the tales of Lemurians, and of course . . . ” – the power of CO2 to make air hotter, simply by adding CO2!
Yes, people are a gullible lot, and capable of believing anything.
Of course Willis, it’s a good thing that rational people like us don’t believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter! If we did, we’d probably be silly enough to believe in the GHE!
No evidence there is any such thing as “trimmigrants” either.
Trimmigrants!
Now I have really heard everything!
Mine has been a curious life …
w.