Contrails *do* influence the weather, here is proof by NASA

originally posted by: Rob48

Funny how often he is accused of being a "paid disinfo merchant". Usually by people who are selling something based on the chemtrail theory, or their supporters.

Look at the kind of abuse that gets hurled at him. Read this and tell me if you think chemtrail believers are mentally balanced people?

The old 'mentally unbalanced' comment. So predictable. Classic losers tactics. ridicule anyone who opposes what you believe yourself. Very scientific. Well done!

a reply to: robbo961

Okay, now bring on the debunkers and the 'ice crystal' fairies, lets hear what you have to say about geo engineering

Are you operating under the delusion that contrails are not ice crystals?

You're dreaming if you think a plane could "spray" a sufficient amount of material to account for the mass of persistent spreading trails.

Regardless of what you *think* is in the trails, you can't explain them without what we call "Contrail Science".

ETA: Have a look science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

Are you open minded enough for the truth?

a reply to: robbo961

Firstly, I have seen evidence of our skies being blighted.

And that evidence is what, because I have asked and you don't seem to provide the answer?

Then I find that the UN are having a debate on the legitimacy of some the companies involved with existing UN programs that are spraying aerosols into the atmosphere

And what companies are doing this, again can you provide the evidence of this happening?

Further to this I discover a BBC webpage dedicated to explaining the science of geo-engineering using aerosols (spraying)

There is a difference between explaining what it is and actually doing it, so the big question again can you provide the evidence it is happening as we speak?

So unless you can prove to me that contrails are not a part of this global program (so elequently explained by the BBC) then you're up the creek without a paddle mate.

So which article is the one that shows proof...

news.bbc.co.uk...

or this one...

www.bbc.co.uk...

or this one...

www.bbc.com...

or this one...

www.bbc.com...

or this one...

www.bbc.com...

or...

www.bbc.com...

Interesting but none of these articles say they are using contrails as geoengineering and none of the articles discuss this as happening now, so what paddle are you using to paddle up the creek?

I mean, who the hell are you exactly to tell me you have a better explaination than every other IP who logs into a forum? And give me one good reason why I should believe your version of events?

It's not my version, but the scientists that do the research for a living's version. Do you have any scientific evidence that contrails are in fact geoengineering, because the BBC doesn't state that as being fact so where is your evidence to prove science wrong?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: robbo961

Okay, now bring on the debunkers and the 'ice crystal' fairies, lets hear what you have to say about geo engineering

Are you operating under the delusion that contrails are not ice crystals?

You're dreaming if you think a plane could "spray" a sufficient amount of material to account for the mass of persistent spreading trails.

Regardless of what you *think* is in the trails, you can't explain them without what we call "Contrail Science".

ETA: Have a look science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

Are you open minded enough for the truth?

Contrail science? that's a good one. Has that just been invented?

originally posted by: robbo961

originally posted by: Rob48

Funny how often he is accused of being a "paid disinfo merchant". Usually by people who are selling something based on the chemtrail theory, or their supporters.

Look at the kind of abuse that gets hurled at him. Read this and tell me if you think chemtrail believers are mentally balanced people?

The old 'mentally unbalanced' comment. So predictable. Classic losers tactics. ridicule anyone who opposes what you believe yourself. Very scientific. Well done!

Do you think accusing people of being "paid disinfo shills" is something that sane people would do?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: robbo961

Firstly, I have seen evidence of our skies being blighted.

And that evidence is what, because I have asked and you don't seem to provide the answer?

Then I find that the UN are having a debate on the legitimacy of some the companies involved with existing UN programs that are spraying aerosols into the atmosphere

And what companies are doing this, again can you provide the evidence of this happening?

Further to this I discover a BBC webpage dedicated to explaining the science of geo-engineering using aerosols (spraying)

There is a difference between explaining what it is and actually doing it, so the big question again can you provide the evidence it is happening as we speak?

So unless you can prove to me that contrails are not a part of this global program (so elequently explained by the BBC) then you're up the creek without a paddle mate.

So which article is the one that shows proof...

news.bbc.co.uk...

or this one...

www.bbc.co.uk...

or this one...

www.bbc.com...

or this one...

www.bbc.com...

or this one...

www.bbc.com...

or...

www.bbc.com...

Interesting but none of these articles say they are using contrails as geoengineering and none of the articles discuss this as happening now, so what paddle are you using to paddle up the creek?

I mean, who the hell are you exactly to tell me you have a better explaination than every other IP who logs into a forum? And give me one good reason why I should believe your version of events?

It's not my version, but the scientists that do the research for a living's version. Do you have any scientific evidence that contrails are in fact geoengineering, because the BBC doesn't state that as being fact so where is your evidence to prove science wrong?

Ha ha, you are funny. Blighted skies... I see them with my own eyes. Do you disagree that our skies are blighted? whether it be contrails or whatever. Do you not know the difference between clear blue skies and blighted ones?

Yes there is a difference between explaining and doing, you are right about that. But people like me tend to be worried that the two are connected. Call me cynical but I need a bit more reassurance than 'ice crystal' explainations. Do you object to that?

You keep saying "can you provide the evidence". Short answer. No. But neither can you. Your explainations do not do enough to dispel my fears that a global geo engineering program is underway. So what are you going to say when they go public with the implementation of this program? will you go along with it and say "but...it's for our own good"

I like clear blue skies... what's your preference?

a reply to: robbo961

I like clear blue skies... what's your preference?

I like clear blue skies too. But if we want to be able to use jet aircraft, we have to accept contrails. You cannot have one without the other.

Contrail science? that's a good one. Has that just been invented?

No, it's been around since at least the 1950s. Have a look at some old weather textbooks. I'm afraid this one is only from 1991, but I could dig up some more scans from older books.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: robbo961

originally posted by: Rob48

Funny how often he is accused of being a "paid disinfo merchant". Usually by people who are selling something based on the chemtrail theory, or their supporters.

Look at the kind of abuse that gets hurled at him. Read this and tell me if you think chemtrail believers are mentally balanced people?

The old 'mentally unbalanced' comment. So predictable. Classic losers tactics. ridicule anyone who opposes what you believe yourself. Very scientific. Well done!

Do you think accusing people of being "paid disinfo shills" is something that sane people would do?

I don't know, I'm not a paid disinfo shill. Are you saying my point is not valid?

a reply to: robbo961

Contrail science? that's a good one. Has that just been invented?

Well if it was 1940 then yes you could say it was, but the fact it is 2014 then no it isn't.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: robbo961

I like clear blue skies... what's your preference?

I like clear blue skies too. But if we want to be able to use jet aircraft, we have to accept contrails. You cannot have one without the other.

Contrail science? that's a good one. Has that just been invented?

No, it's been around since at least the 1950s. Have a look at some old weather textbooks.

Hmm.. after googling, 'contrail science' is synonymous with 'debunking chemtrails' is that a fully recognised in the curriculum? Where can I study this to get a qualification? What a load of bollocks if you'll pardon my french.

originally posted by: robbo961

Hmm.. after googling, 'contrail science' is synonymous with 'debunking chemtrails' is that a fully recognised in the curriculum? Where can I study this to get a qualification? What a load of bollocks if you'll pardon my french.

No, contrail science is the study of formation of contrails and the conditions that cause them to form.

It is pretty important to the military because if you are trying to fly stealthy missions, you don't want a whacking great contrail forming behind your aircraft. It gives the game away somewhat.

That is why it has been an important field of study for more than half a century. It was around decades before the word "chemtrail" even existed.

Here is a nice bit of contrail science from 53 years ago: www.dtic.mil...


So no, I won't pardon your French because you are the one talking rubbish.

a reply to: robbo961

Call me cynical but I need a bit more reassurance than 'ice crystal' explainations. Do you object to that?

Ok Cynical. I need a bit more reassurance than "chemtrail" explanations. Do you object to that?

"Chemtrail" explanations can't account for what you're afraid of. Water does. What do you not understand about that?


BTW, have you heard of this 'new' thing called cirrus clouds?


Here's a little bite sized nugget for you.

Cirrus clouds are the most common of the high clouds. They are composed of ice and are thin, wispy clouds blown in high winds into long streamers. Cirrus clouds are usually white and predict fair to pleasant weather. By watching the movement of cirrus clouds you can tell from which direction weather is approaching. When you see cirrus clouds, it usually indicates that a change in the weather will occur within 24 hours.

www.weatherwizkids.com...

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: robbo961

Call me cynical but I need a bit more reassurance than 'ice crystal' explainations. Do you object to that?

Ok Cynical. I need a bit more reassurance than "chemtrail" explanations. Do you object to that?

"Chemtrail" explanations can't account for what you're afraid of. Water does. What do you not understand about that?


BTW, have you heard of this 'new' thing called cirrus clouds?

Yes I've heard of them, and they don't look anything like what I'm seeing when I look up. And I still dont believe that water can account for what I see. Give it up, you're wasting your time, you're just not clever enough to put your argument across well enough. But don't dismay... we can't all be scientists

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: robbo961

Call me cynical but I need a bit more reassurance than 'ice crystal' explainations. Do you object to that?

Ok Cynical. I need a bit more reassurance than "chemtrail" explanations. Do you object to that?

"Chemtrail" explanations can't account for what you're afraid of. Water does. What do you not understand about that?


BTW, have you heard of this 'new' thing called cirrus clouds?

Yes I've heard of them, and they don't look anything like what I'm seeing when I look up. And I still dont believe that water can account for what I see. Give it up, you're wasting your time, you're just not clever enough to put your argument across well enough. But don't dismay... we can't all be scientists

originally posted by: robbo961

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: robbo961

Call me cynical but I need a bit more reassurance than 'ice crystal' explainations. Do you object to that?

Ok Cynical. I need a bit more reassurance than "chemtrail" explanations. Do you object to that?

"Chemtrail" explanations can't account for what you're afraid of. Water does. What do you not understand about that?


BTW, have you heard of this 'new' thing called cirrus clouds?

But don't dismay... we can't all be scientists

I am. I spent four years studying for a masters degree. Not that it really matters, because facts are facts whoever writes them, but it does mean that I know more than the average layman about vapour pressures, sublimation, deposition and so on. That is all chemistry. I'm also quite interested in meteorology, so I know about lapse rates, dewpoints, skew-T plots etc.

Do you now accept that contrail science has been around for more than half a century?

And could you show me one photo of a chemtrail and explain how it is something different from the contrails I see all the time? Contrails like this:

a reply to: robbo961

Yes I've heard of them, and they don't look anything like what I'm seeing when I look up.

It's about what they're made of.

And I still dont believe that water can account for what I see.

Then what are cirrus clouds made of?

ETA:

Give it up, you're wasting your time, you're just not clever enough to put your argument across well enough.

Let's see if you're clever enough to realize that nature is mocking you.

"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men." ~ "Godzilla" by Blue Oyster Cult

a reply to: robbo961

Its fine to be skeptical, it's fine to ask questions to the people you think might be doing all this. But you seem to be sure it's happening, when in fact, you aren't sure, you just THINK it might be. If you approach it like that, then you might be able to gather more information.

The science that explains cirrus clouds and persistent contrails isn't up for debate, it's science fact. If you chose to ignore it, that's on you, but anyone can find the information and verify that it's all true.

I would think that a chemtrail advocate would want to learn all he could about his adversary, so he will be able to recognize when something is REALLY different.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: robbo961

Yes I've heard of them, and they don't look anything like what I'm seeing when I look up.

It's about what they're made of.

And I still dont believe that water can account for what I see.

Then what are cirrus clouds made of?

Cirrus clouds are made of water particles (obviously)
I have spent half a day watching cirrus clouds. They behave differently. They thin out and dissipate naturally without blocking the sun. The contrails spread out and eventually block the sun causing a greying out effect. What initially begins as a bright clear day becomes overcast and dull.

a reply to: robbo961

I have spent half a day watching cirrus clouds. They behave differently. They thin out and dissipate naturally without blocking the sun.

Do you know how they form?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: robbo961

Yes I've heard of them, and they don't look anything like what I'm seeing when I look up.

It's about what they're made of.

And I still dont believe that water can account for what I see.

Then what are cirrus clouds made of?

ETA:

Give it up, you're wasting your time, you're just not clever enough to put your argument across well enough.

Let's see if you're clever enough to realize that nature is mocking you.

"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men." ~ "Godzilla" by Blue Oyster Cult

More wise words eh (Yawn) Nature does not mock, nature is and has been ever since the dawn of man and long before. I have no problem with nature.