Cirrus clouds form from heavy metals and mineral dust

reply to post by luxordelphi


You said:

And by the by there's no such thing as an outrageously persistent contrail.

Persistent contrails spreading out into cirrus cloud layers, or as you call them "outrageously persistent contrails" have been seen since 1918, and beyond. They're more common now than they were in the past, because of the new engines, but they've been around almost as long as aviation has been around.

luxordelphi

mrthumpy

luxordelphi
Last, the Contrail Science website verifying 30,000 feet and also confirming for us that we've been watching jet emissions spread out to cover the entire sky.

Actually the emissions from jet exhaust make up less than 0.1% of a persistent contrail so that's not what is covering the sky

Is this a plea from the darkness for education on cloud formation? Or is this your wacky way of separating stuff? I would think, just off the cuff, that particles in cirrus represent a lot less than 0.1% of cloud content. Got a link for that? And by the by there's no such thing as an outrageously persistent contrail. But thanks for joining the thread.

No this is me passing on some education. As the animated avian has shown, virtually all of the water involved in a persistent contrail (whether or not you are outraged by it) is already in the atmosphere so saying that jet emissions spread out and cover the sky is incorrect.


Has anyone figured out what the point of this thread is? Are we making clouds or making them disappear? Is it intentional or an unintended consequence?

luxordelphi

I don't subscribe to the type of 'science' that constantly changes the parameters for sublimation, throwing up its' hands and claiming something newly discovered is being seen.

How come you believe chemtrails exist then?

That's how 'climate change' as opposed to global warming came into being. Because researchers, imo, are often, these days, describing the effects of clandestine geoengineering without knowing it.

Perhaps you could give them some actual evidence it is happening then?

Navigating these murky waters, as Joe or Jane Curious about the sky or the weather or obscurement of the night sky, is not easy...BUT it's better than falling into lock-step with nonsense.

And yet chemtrails/"clandestine geoengineering" are so utterly indistinguishable from nonsense - being as they are based on nothing more than assertion.

luxordelphi
Do you mean the pseudo-science that tries to win friends and influence enemies in favor of outrageously persistent contrails?

No, I was referring to the very commonly used, and universally accepted and understood science that explains things like how persistent contrail formation usually precedes a frontal system. And how that same science (which has not been proven wrong) explains why trails might last for minutes, or hours.

That, in and of itself, should tell you something. I joined the chemtrail/geoengineering forum, originally, because there was no more Prussian blue in my twilight sky. I had already satisfied myself that something unnatural was going on in our skies. But I took each piece of information that you all had to offer, investigated it for myself and drew my own conclusions. Along the way I have received an education from you all in many aspects of weather.

But why do you not believe the facts? Yes, there are certainly more contrails now, then there were 20 years ago. There are also more flights and vastly different engines. Which has all been explained over, and over, and over. Why must it be something nefarious? Unnatural? Yea, it was man made.

Wing tip contrails are definitely not chemtrails. Hope this helps. lxd.

Yes, and contrails left behind the engines are not chemtrails. (that's kind of why we call them contrails)

What part of the explanation do you not accept, and what facts make you think that way?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

This paper looks at the "ice budget" of a contrail - ie how much comes from the aircraft, and how much comes from the surrounding atmosphere.

Yes...I remember the tests this paper describes now. It's the one where they had trouble getting contrails to form in spite of selecting for perfect conditions.

I didn't notice that as a conclusion - I didn't see anywhere that they said what they EXPECTED to find. Perhaps you mean the pollutants YOU expected to find were not found?

Our results demonstrate that mineral dust and metallic particles are the dominant source of residual particles, while sulfate/organic particles are under represented and elemental carbon and biological material are essentially absent.

Many materials have been shown to act as ice nuclei (IN) in laboratory experiments, including mineral dust, metallic particles, some biological materials, low temperature glasses, and anhydrous salts (4, 9-11). Despite this variety only a small fraction of atmospheric particles at ground level, as low as ~1 in 10 to the 5th, has been shown to act as IN (4,8).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but chemtrail debunkers have been saying for a long time that the particulate matter from jet exhaust acting as nucleation sites is what starts contrails and ultimately ends up with a cloud sheet if that occurs.

Chemtrail deniers have been saying that jet exhaust is water vapor.

What is an "outrageously persistent contrail", why is it "outrageous", and can you give an example of the pseudo-science that people present "in favor" of them?

Aren't you able to look up and see this yet? Isn't there some sort of NATO accord?

What is called the science of contrails is only an attempt to explain profanity in the sky by telling the public that it has always been so and that it's 'science stuff' that they wouldn't understand anyway.

luxordelphi

Yes...I remember the tests this paper describes now. It's the one where they had trouble getting contrails to form in spite of selecting for perfect conditions.

no.

They found 2 days with appropriate conditions in a 10 day period. On the 2 days they had no problems making contrails. On the other days conditions were not appropriate.

But I am not surprised you misrepresent this!

Chemtrail deniers have been saying that jet exhaust is water vapor.

not that I am aware.

Watervapor is invisible - why would anyone say a visible trail is made of water vapor?? Contrails are ICE CRYSTALS.

Aren't you able to look up and see this yet?

"Outrageously persistent contrails"? No - I have no idea what that means - why don't you define it?

Isn't there some sort of NATO accord?

there are lots of NATO accords - did you mean any one in particular?

What is called the science of contrails is only an attempt to explain profanity in the sky by telling the public that it has always been so and that it's 'science stuff' that they wouldn't understand anyway.

The science of contrails is exactly that - it is what knowledge is verifiable by het scientific method.

There is lots of "science" that people do not understand - I venture that 95% of people don't understand "the science" of computers, telephones, the tyres on their cars, plastics.......in fact pretty much everything manufactured.

People not understanding doesn't make the science any less science.

And people making up stories about chemtrails I not science at all.

luxordelphi
Chemtrail deniers have been saying that jet exhaust is water vapor.

That's a lie. Unless your goal is to misrepresent any and all information you wish to discuss, please don't degrade yourself to lying.

Aircraft exhaust is just like the exhaust of automobiles. Both burn a combustible fuel. The white lines you see in the sky are ice crystals. The process has been explained to you quite a few times.

But I guess that's par for the course when being a chemtrail pusher.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Do you really believe that I don't know what a contrail is? And that I don't understand the mechanics of contrail formation? And that I've never seen a contrail?

So we have established you know what a contrail is, now what is the difference between a persistent contrail and a chemtrail when they both look the same?

reply to post by luxordelphi

Chemtrail deniers have been saying that jet exhaust is water vapor.

Have you never seen this posted, because I know you have?



So that can't be the truth now can it?

reply to post by luxordelphi

Aren't you able to look up and see this yet? Isn't there some sort of NATO accord?

I don't know is there?

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Tiny particles at these heights can remain for 100 years. The particles that wind up nucleating are only a small percentage of the total there. Cirrus isn't going to rain any of this out. Our great grandchildren will experience it.

This sounds like it would be heresy to a "chemtrail believer".

I thought the point of "spraying us like bugs" was to have the poisons fall from the sky.

Bugs? Probably jet exhaust would make a good bug spray.

Sunlight May Turn Jet Exhaust Into Toxic Particles

In the first on-tarmac measurements of their kind, researchers have shown that oil droplets spewed by idling jet engines can turn into particles tiny enough to readily penetrate the lungs and brain.

Sunlight’s oxidation of the exhaust emitted at idling can generate 35 times more particles than the engine originally emitted and 10 times what computer models have typically predicted, the researchers report online May 5 in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Robinson says he found these new data “unbelievable. It sort of blew our minds.”

As pollution from cars, trucks and most smokestacks has fallen, airport emissions have tended to climb, notes Ronald Henry of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Although pollution from airports tends to be localized within a few kilometers, he says, “It now appears it could be a significant source of ultrafine particles — and health effects.”

What's in your jet exhaust?

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

You said:

And by the by there's no such thing as an outrageously persistent contrail.

Persistent contrails spreading out into cirrus cloud layers, or as you call them "outrageously persistent contrails" have been seen since 1918, and beyond. They're more common now than they were in the past, because of the new engines, but they've been around almost as long as aviation has been around.

I'm not disputing that contrails exist nor even that they have always existed...as a curiosity, an odd atmospheric phenomena. That quickly dissipates.

Preferred nucleatable particles cause cirrus, per the study. Not engines.

luxordelphi
I'm not disputing that contrails exist nor even that they have always existed...as a curiosity, an odd atmospheric phenomena. That quickly dissipates.

How quick do you define as "quickly"?

Preferred nucleatable particles cause cirrus, per the study. Not engines.

Engines generate nucleatable particles, and so can precipitate cirrus - hence can cause cirrus.

As per the studies.

luxordelphi
What's in your jet exhaust?

Same as everyone else's probably:

reply to post by luxordelphi


And a persistent contrail is just a contrail that lasts longer. Why can't there be persistent contrails?

Engines produce small particles of soot, which then produce the contrails you see behind the plane.

If not the engines then what's the explanation for why contrails are always seen behind them?

mrthumpy

luxordelphi

mrthumpy

luxordelphi
Last, the Contrail Science website verifying 30,000 feet and also confirming for us that we've been watching jet emissions spread out to cover the entire sky.

Actually the emissions from jet exhaust make up less than 0.1% of a persistent contrail so that's not what is covering the sky

Is this a plea from the darkness for education on cloud formation? Or is this your wacky way of separating stuff? I would think, just off the cuff, that particles in cirrus represent a lot less than 0.1% of cloud content. Got a link for that? And by the by there's no such thing as an outrageously persistent contrail. But thanks for joining the thread.

No this is me passing on some education. As the animated avian has shown, virtually all of the water involved in a persistent contrail (whether or not you are outraged by it) is already in the atmosphere so saying that jet emissions spread out and cover the sky is incorrect.


Has anyone figured out what the point of this thread is? Are we making clouds or making them disappear? Is it intentional or an unintended consequence?

Are you asking or polling?

Seriously, thank you for trying to bring the thread back on topic.

I was out one day hunting for some missing silica. My preference was silica that was aloft. Found the study in the OP. Thought it was strange: mineral dusts make clouds disappear; mineral dusts make clouds appear. All, seemingly, within the same time frame.

Because cirrus, I believe, is still considered responsible for a net warming, it was mystifying. Also: how did the silica get up there? It arrived at 30,000 feet in pristine condition. What does this mean?

Mineral dusts and heavy metals have both found their way into geoengineering proposals. So has seawater - but that doesn't seem to be something that cirrus prefers. That's the thread - pretty basic.

luxordelphi
I'm not disputing that contrails exist nor even that they have always existed...as a curiosity, an odd atmospheric phenomena. That quickly dissipates.

Preferred nucleatable particles cause cirrus, per the study. Not engines.

Alright. So could you please define the amount of time a contrail is allowed to persist before it becomes a chemtrail?

reply to post by luxordelphi


OK so you're just not understanding the articles. The dust forms clouds of larger ice crystals than would occur otherwise so they fall faster and the cloud dissipates quicker. The dust gets carried on the wind.

I'm still not seeing the point of this thread.

luxordelphi
Because cirrus, I believe, is still considered responsible for a net warming, it was mystifying. Also: how did the silica get up there? It arrived at 30,000 feet in pristine condition. What does this mean?

Mineral dusts and heavy metals have both found their way into geoengineering proposals. So has seawater - but that doesn't seem to be something that cirrus prefers. That's the thread - pretty basic.

why must you bypass the rational explanation in favor of the fantastic? As volcanic ash, silica is carried into the atmosphere and it stays there for a while. So while we know volcano's have spewed ash clouds way up into the sky, it must have been covert geo-engineering that did it. You know, the stuff that the UN has laws against.

I don't expect you to ever answer my previous question. But you seem perfectly fine to paint yourself into a corner of absolutes. Perhaps it is just cleaver use of a thesaurus.

NASA

The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth.

Does it really matter what causes them? They're being MADE, for a reason. Some of you need to put the "conspiracies" aside and stick to the "science" of things; especially those that constantly comment on any chemtrail topic.