In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 9. Not a "Delusion"

a reply to: bitsforbytes

What Knollenberg said was that the trails can weigh 50 tons a mile which is at least four orders of magnitude (10,000 times) the amount of water created by burning the fuel. The "new" water is only 0.01% of the visible contrail. The rest was already there in vapour form.

To work out how much water is created by the plane itself, multiply the mass of fuel used by 1.37.

The same goes for your car, roughly speaking. Every time I use a tank full of petrol (60 litres, weighing about 44kg) I have created about 60 litres of water.

a reply to: waynos

Not quite correct. Water *is* being artificially created, just as it is when you burn any hydrocarbon. But the amounts are absolutely insignificant compared to the amount already in the atmosphere. It's like pouring a cup of water into the ocean.

You guys are missing my point. I am not saying that new water is being created, but that the planes impact on the environment is that the existing water is transformed from vapor or from its natural state in the sky, to crystals via compression and expansion in the engines. That is the result and that creates clouds which cover the sky and from what I know clouds block the sun and that given then number of planes flying at any given moment around the world probably has an impact.

We are far away from chemtrails I know, but I was just entertaining the idea that other effects can come out of these contrails, like covering the sky and blocking the sun.

a reply to: Rob48

I completely agree, I was just trying to keep my reply short. Mea culpa

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Well, yes you did, but leaving that aside, you seem to have missed my point. How are you deciding that contrail formation is resulting in the creation of a cloud that wouldn't otherwise occur, as opposed to simply triggering it a bit earlier than it was going to anyway? You do realise that the atmosphere is full of naturally occurring aerosols?

a reply to: waynos

No, I never heard of aerosols like those.

According to NASA:

One critical new area of aerosol research involves how the varied particles impact clouds. Clouds play an important role in regulating Earth's climate, and without aerosols, clouds could not exist. The introduction of a larger number of aerosols will modify cloud's natural properties, leading to clouds that are bigger, brighter, and longer lasting. Two time lapsed scenes with zooms to particle-level conceptual animations help to illustrate this concept. In a pristine environment, like the ocean scene depicted here, naturally occurring salt particles serve as condensation nuclei for water vapor in the atmosphere. The water molecules are drawn to the salt particles like magnets, forming water droplets and eventually creating a cloud. The city scene reveals how an increase in the number of aerosols modifies the properties of a naturally formed cloud. The large influx of soot particles increases the number of centers of attraction for the water molecules, and the water droplets become smaller in size but greater in number.

NASA - Aerosols

Seems very important in regulating earths temperature and weather, those naturally occurring particles. Also, seems to get in the way of us predicting the weather. I would bet that man made particles or airplane engines, in great numbers, they are affecting the balance of clouds in the sky. Furthermore, planes play a nice role as a detractor, in producing "clouds" where it isn't needed.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

OK, so now that you do know about naturally occurring aerosols, thanks to NASA, how are you deciding that a sheet of cirrus wouldn't occur without a plane kick starting it?

Contrsils will either disappear quickly, linger and fade or spread into cloud depending on pre existing conditions. How are you deciding that without the contrail there wouldn't have been cloud formation from naturally occurring aerosols? I don't see how anyone can make that judgement.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Rob48



Bottom line for me is that planes are not supposed to be making these lines in the skies with or without destructive agents in them. I suspect that 20% is a lot and that number seems to be growing.

Why aren't they supposed to make these lines? The science is pretty well established.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Rob48



Bottom line for me is that planes are not supposed to be making these lines in the skies with or without destructive agents in them. I suspect that 20% is a lot and that number seems to be growing.

Why aren't they supposed to make these lines? The science is pretty well established.

I often wonder if they would be so if planes didnt generate Xs and the dreaded grid patterns. Even though they are laughably easy to explain, they seem to be the icing on the chemtrail cake for chemmies.

Very

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Rob48



Bottom line for me is that planes are not supposed to be making these lines in the skies with or without destructive agents in them. I suspect that 20% is a lot and that number seems to be growing.

Why aren't they supposed to make these lines? The science is pretty well established.

I often wonder if they would be so if planes didnt generate Xs and the dreaded grid patterns. Even though they are laughably easy to explain, they seem to be the icing on the chemtrail cake for chemmies.

Very

They can't even get past the 'planes don't make clouds' stage