Reduction in chemtrails, are they done?

I live in Phoenix and it's as bad as ever...
This is from Friday night. To all of the debunkers out there, if you believe this is nothing but "condensation", then you can be convinced of anything.

reply to post by General.Lee


I don't have to "believe".....

... if you believe this is nothing but "condensation";....

Because I KNOW what they are. I have known for decades.

It's called "experience".

Search results for images of cirrus clouds.


The only thing about contrails that is "unique" when comparing to naturally-occurring cirrus, is their shape. Merely as a result of the way they are formed, artificially, by the engines' hot exhaust.


They are clouds, dude!:

reply to post by Tygart


They do it in limited spurts during the winter, but they are back up to full speed now.

Just wait til it's the middle of Summer, hot as hell everywhere, and not a cloud in the sky. They will show up in extremely low moisture skies, which is totally anomalous behavior for persistent trails. Of course they are chemtrails, but debunkers will claim they are normal, and then fail to explain where all the moisture came from.

reply to post by General.Lee


I wonder where all that moisture came from. Oh wait, Phoenix, AZ it's like the Amazon there it's so wet.

J/K

Those planes must have been carrying dehydrated water on board to make those persistent trails.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I know what cirrus clouds are, I've studied meteorology and I'm a pilot, but thanks for the lesson. Now run along, sport.

As a side note, on my way back from Florida on Friday I had a window seat and am very observant of my surroundings. I'm constantly looking outside the plane for anything interesting. I did see a couple other airliners spitting out a nice, white "contrail". However, one in particular caught my eye; the "contrail" was dark brown/gray. Almost black. But, I'm certain it was just a cirrus cloud coming out of that aircraft.

Further more, if these are created by the engines, why do we only see one? Even up close and personal, I only saw one. I don't believe there are a large number of single-engine airliners out there, but hey, common sense is over-rated.

Oh yea, and don't call me dude.

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
I guess because they suspect it´s not just normal contrails, I don´t know why don´t you ask those people.

Aren't you those people?

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
Ten years ago we never saw these kind of contrails that linger and haze out, covering the entire sky.

That is a BS, flat-out lie. Either on purpose, or from lack of research.

Go to this link and look at CONtrails dating back 30-60 years ago that linger and haze-out:

contrailscience.com...


Now, after looking at those, wanna change your statement?

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
So you are suggesting these chemtrails contain aluminium and barium?

Just going by what the poorly-researched video called "What in the world are they spraying" said.

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
You could at the very least say that air traffic is having an effect on our weather and climate

I have said that before and I am in total agreement with that. In fact, there was a news release about a year or 2 ago that said jet engine manufacturers and plane manufacturers were devising ways to cut down or eliminate the condensation that causes contrails because they are blocking out some of our sunlight.

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
I can´t see how someone that supports 911 truth would try to stop any debate on this subject

I'm not trying to stop debate. I'm just trying to educate people on facts, because there is very little factual evidence coming from those that peddle the "chemtrail" "theory".

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
calling it BS and fearmongering

"ZOMG they're spraying everywhere, day and night. ZOMGGGZZ!!!!"

It is fear-mongering. You need some sort of real evidence before people can make such claims.

Originally posted by Mizzijr
If you pay attention, you would more than likely see that one of those aircrafts do not have the gassy substance emitting from the rear, yet the other does. Why is that?

Those planes were likely flying at different altitudes, thus the temperature and humidity would be different.

Originally posted by General.Lee
To all of the debunkers out there, if you believe this is nothing but "condensation", then you can be convinced of anything.

To all of the "chemtale" peddlers out there, if you think those pictures are of anything other than condensation, then you can be convinced of anything.


Here, take a look at pictures dating back 30-70 years of contrails acting and looking exactly like they do today:

contrailscience.com...

Originally posted by General.Lee
I know what cirrus clouds are, I've studied meteorology and I'm a pilot, but thanks for the lesson. Now run along, sport.

Then there really is no excuse for you then, now is there?

Originally posted by General.Lee
Oh yea, and don't call me dude.

Dudette?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Byteman


This is the point I make about Phoenix. We always have clear, blue skies. Humidity is usually extremely low. That's what the debunkers can't explain. If we have clear, blue skies (ie, the conditions are not conducive for creating clouds), then why is the sky filled with artificial clouds but no natural clouds? One would think, if the conditions were right for clouds, then there would be clouds, right? But there aren't until the chemtrails show up.

I totally get the concept of conventional contrails. I've been watching them since I was a kid. They were long, skinny and dissipated quickly. They didn't grow to by a half-mile wide and stay there for hours.

reply to post by General.Lee


Oh, really???

....I've studied meteorology and I'm a pilot, but thanks for the lesson.

Then, you have come up against your worst nightmare, probably. I soloed 38 years ago. Got about 20,000 hours total, by now. Spent last nearly 24 years of my career at a major U.S. airline, with a large International route structure.

"buddy".....

Yeah....you can use some lessons, no doubt. My CFI is long ago inactive, dis-used. My ATP, though, is good for instructing in Transport Category jets, don't need a CFI for that......

Want to go back, and learn up on contrails??? Seems you need a refresher. Maybe your next Biennial Review...ask the Instructor.....during the BFR.

reply to post by General.Lee


You are repeating the same misinformed stance:

Humidity is usually extremely low.

Relative humidity is low at the surface! In the desert (except in "monsoon season"....I lived in PHX for years).

You don't have any high altitude, high performance jet experience, I gather??

Do you know what the Appleman Chart is? It's not perfect, but a rough guide to predicting contrails.

Let's look at the latest radiosonde data for the PHX area:

weather.uwyo.edu...

Tucson (TUS) is the closest:

weather.uwyo.edu...

At pressure altitudes of ~300 hPa, that is about 31,000 feet. (You can see they have the altitude in meters, there -- 9,430).

FL310, a typical cruise altitude. Let's see....RH is 18%....bit low, but look at the other levels, above and below. Still,though.it is the TEMPERATURE that matters.....and, you DID KNOW that the water in contrails is provided not only by the existing atmosphere, but by the fuel itself....correct?? There are unburned HYDROGEN atoms that are in the exhaust....and can combine with the OXYGEN in air....and that makes....H2O!

Going into the Appleman Chart, for 300 hPa.....temperature is -40.5°C. So, it is in the "Maybe contrails" portion of the chart.

That's what the debunkers can't explain. If we have clear, blue skies (ie, the conditions are not conducive for creating clouds),....

See, the presence of the airplanes ADDS moisture!

One would think, if the conditions were right for clouds, then there would be clouds, right?

Not unless there is sufficient nuclei, and a trigger for clouds to form.

But there aren't until the chemtrails show up.

CONtrails, no "chem"......and, that is your clue, there!! The contrails DO encourage more clouds to form, in some cases....just, it varies all the time, due to variations in local conditions.

I totally get the concept of conventional contrails. I've been watching them since I was a kid. They were long, skinny and dissipated quickly. They didn't grow to by a half-mile wide and stay there for....

You need, now, to research into the HIGH-BYPASS TURBOFAN engine designs, and the differences from when you were "a kid"....when the majority of jet engines were LOW-bypass, or some even straight turboJETS!....hence, different contrails, in look and persistence potential.

(Plus....well, selective memory, too......)

Originally posted by General.Lee
I live in Phoenix and it's as bad as ever...
This is from Friday night. To all of the debunkers out there, if you believe this is nothing but "condensation", then you can be convinced of anything.

Wow. Sorry to hear it. What a pathetic looking sky.

I wondered where all of the planes were at these days.

I know the issue is a big one out there, I seem to recall there is a big group who is monitoring all this in Arizona.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by DONTBEIGNORANT


www.osti.gov...

Description/Abstract While Impact incorporates diagnostic radiation routines from our work in previous years, it has not previously included the stratospheric relaxation required for forcing calculations. We have now implemented the necessary changes for stratospheric relaxation, tested its stability, and compared the results with stratosphere temperatures obtained from CAM3 met data. The relaxation results in stable temperature profiles in the stratosphere, which is encouraging for use in forcing calculations. It does, however, produce a cooling bias when compared to CAM3, which appears to be due to differences in radiation calculations rather than the interactive treatment of ozone. The cause of this bias is unclear as yet, but seems to be systematic and hence cancels out when differences are taken relative to a control simulation.

reply to post by DONTBEIGNORANT


Read up buddy

www.osti.gov...

Shortwave radiative forcing of climate by anthropogenic sulfate aerosols is estimated to be equal in magnitude but opposite in sign to that of greenhouse warming, with a global annual average value of approximately -1 W m[sup -2] uncertain to at least a factor of two. Estimates of the 2 contributions to this forcing by the direct effect are -0.4 W m[sup -2]. It is therefore necessary to accurately and efficiently represent this forcing in climate models, specifically including spatial and temporal variability. Here we explore a method to expedite the process for determining this forcing. The method utilizes an approach where the forcing is computed precisely at several discrete radii (r) and then integrated over an arbitrary aerosol size distribution. Additionally, the forcing is calculated at several values of relative humidity (RH), solar zenith angle (SZA), and aerosol optical thickness ([tau]). The parameters can be interpolated to provide the forcing at specific intermediate values. Alternatively, an empirical relationship between the forcing and the above mentioned variables can be utilized to further reduce computation time. At present, the calculations are restricted to ammonium sulfate particles over an ocean surface. The advantage of the ocean surface is the constant and low albedo compared to the highly variable albedo of land surfaces. Ultimately, the sensitivity of forcing to surface albedo and composition will be included.

reply to post by DONTBEIGNORANT






www.osti.gov...

Sponsoring Org USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
Subject 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; CLIMATIC CHANGE; BIBLIOGRAPHIES; RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Description/Abstract This report presents abstracts in Russian and translated into English of important Russian-language literature concerning aerosols as they relate to climate change. In addition to the bibliographic citations and abstracts translated into English, this report presents the original citations and abstracts in Russian. Author and title indexes are included to assist the reader in locating abstracts of particular interest.

reply to post by Tygart


I think they just moved south. I had NEVER seen a chemtrail in California, San Francisco Bay area, until last week. Been spraying them everyday, and now I'm a believer! burning sinuses, itchy skin, coughing up flegm... sucks.

One question... WHY, with all the lame videos that don't show anything, hasn't there been some good time lapse videos of chemtrails!! I watch them spray 'em, they float away for 20 minutes, and dissolve into a haze. All sorts of weird wavy clouds this last week. It's really obvious something is going on.