Chemtrails in Arizona this Week.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It is just a couple of a/c on crossing flight paths & the way it happens is not particularly strange

BS - - it is exactly what I said it was.

And that is exactly what you said it is - amazing.....

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by firepilot

I agree - - from what I've researched on cloud seeding.

But - I've been doing this "conspiracy" thingy for 20 years. Stuff that's denied over and over - - - does seem to have a way of coming to the surface eventually.

I've lived in AZ for 20 years. I've seen thousands of contrails - - under varying conditions. I KNOW what I saw.

Well considering that there are no cloud seeding projects going on in AZ, then it it is not cloud seeding.

Its amazing all the chemtrail believers that while knowing what they see apparently, also can not identify cloud types, have no clue about kinds of airplanes, and know very little about the weather, or science.

I don't care. I KNOW what I saw. Just checked with my hubby - - who is not into any conspiracy stuff. He witnessed it too.

2 planes turning and crossing each others "trail" - - making a Tic-Tac-Toe (grid pattern).

It IS what it IS.

I KNOW what I saw. YOU figure it out.

So would you like laws that prevent planes from crossing the path of another? Or maybe if there was only one jet aircraft allowed in the air at a time over the US?

Can you actually explain how planes can be flying all over the country, and somehow they should not cross paths, and if they do, its some evil conspiracy?

Hi Annee
Ignore these guys
Google
"radiation contrails"
Even if they are not Chemtrails,
Contrails are a form of pollution and affect the weather according to NASA
and Air Force tests and reports.
Thank You for Pointing out the Pollution over our AZ sky's.

You will notice Annee
if you call it pollution instead of
Chemtrails they get more upset.
They will try to tell you that Chemtrails and
pollution are not related.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Who got upset about you saying contrails are pollution??

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


You are confused.

Google
"radiation contrails"

"radiation" has several meanings.

There is fission radiation, associated with nuclear bombs.

There is cosmic radiation, associated with space, and energetic particles (usually emitted by stars, and other active celestial bodies).

There is thermal radiation. (also emitted by stars, such as our Sun. AKA "infrared" radiation).

Radio waves also "radiate". So do water waves. So do sound waves......


SO, when Googling "radiation contrails", we get THIS:

Google results for "radiation contrails"

Please read, and get educated. Will help everyone here (and yourself) understand better.

reply to post by ProudBird


How many people did you deprive of Vitamin D today with your Contrails?
Glad to see your out trying to defend your polluting ways.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Huh????

many people did you deprive of Vitamin D today with your Contrails?

Really, getting silly now......

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

You are confused.

Google
"radiation contrails"

"radiation" has several meanings.

There is fission radiation, associated with nuclear bombs.

There is cosmic radiation, associated with space, and energetic particles (usually emitted by stars, and other active celestial bodies).

There is thermal radiation. (also emitted by stars, such as our Sun. AKA "infrared" radiation).

Radio waves also "radiate". So do water waves. So do sound waves......


SO, when Googling "radiation contrails", we get THIS:

Google results for "radiation contrails"

Please read, and get educated. Will help everyone here (and yourself) understand better.

I did read the NASA /Air Force PDF's
It says cooling or warming depending on radiation blocking or absorbing.
Glad you read it with your fast response.
I would copy and past but we are not suppose to do long quotes on here.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by ProudBird

 

How many people did you deprive of Vitamin D today with your Contrails?

None.

How many did you deprive by driving them inside with fanciful scaremongering?

Glad to see your out trying to defend your polluting ways.

Glad to see you are happy to criticise others and ignore your own efforts. I think there's a word for that...???

reply to post by Gmoneycricket

I did read the NASA /Air Force PDF's

So have I. Of course, I can understand them in context, and not go off on the term "radiation" incorrectly -- I knew what they meant.

(Hint: thermal radiation).

Do you know how a backyard greenhouse works? How it gets hot in your car in the sunlight, with all the windows closed?

Do you know how light colors reflect sunlight (and the heat of infrared)? Do you realize that clouds are reflective (all clouds, even those that form naturally. AND, many, many, many more clouds form naturally than EVER are made by airplanes).

High cirrus clouds have a tendency to reflect some sunlight (not ALL....ever been to the beach, on an overcast day, and gotten a bad SUNBURN? I have, and so have many others).

During periods of sunlight, and clouds present will tend to reflect, lessening the radiative heating effects of sunlight.

At night, if clouds are still present, they will tend to act in a manner similar to the blanket on your bed...helping to hold back a lot of the radiative heating that is lost to the upper atmosphere, at night....and that helps to cool in darkness.

These are very, very minor differences, and minor in effects. Persistent contrails do NOT form every day, over continuously wide-spread areas. They are quite minimal in over-all contribution to the REGULAR cycles of clouds that occur due to normal weather and climate activity on this planet.

So do you have anything to convince me that you are not polluting our sky's.
Contrails have become so concentrated over certain areas of America that it is becoming a problem.
And you feel it has to be defended.
Don't want to spend extra fuel, reroute planes to lower contrail concentrations, why tell us?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
So do you have anything to convince me that you are not polluting our sky's.

Why do you define others with a different opinion/explanation as "you" ....as if we are the ones doing it?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Contrails have become so concentrated over certain areas of America that it is becoming a problem.
And you feel it has to be defended.

....not defended, just explained.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Don't want to spend extra fuel, reroute planes to lower contrail concentrations, why tell us?

So you seem to understand this part of the contrail situation.....what's stopping you from understanding the rest ?
I encourage you to keep on this path. I (and others) am telling you these things, because they are truths.
I don't like "visual pollution" either.
Example....Billboards to me, are "visual pollution", but I don't think they are put there to block the sun, nor do I think they are harming my health or that they are gov't sponsored.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


A question occurs to me after reading your posts. How much pollution is generated by an aeroplane compared to the amount generated by a car?

Does one A330 with 300 people on board crossing from coast to coast generate more or less pollution that if those 300 people made the journey individually in 300 cars?

Maybe there's also the consideration of extra pollution generated by the gridlocks created by all these cars because there are no planes to catch? It seems that aircraft are an easy target if ou don't have to think too hard. The question is a genuine one though, I would be interested to see such a comparison.

Has that been researched?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
So do you have anything to convince me that you are not polluting our sky's.

You haven't done anything to show that you aren't doing it either.

We know who is doing it - airlines, flying clubs, private aircraft operators. You might also want to include hte crews, the passengers, the people who buy stuff that gets freighted on aircraft.

And anyone who uses electricity from a coal fired power station, anyone who buys anything made in china, anyone that uses a car or a truck or a fireplace.

Just to be completely fair about it.

Contrails have become so concentrated over certain areas of America that it is becoming a problem.

Where and when?

And you feel it has to be defended.

Nope.

Don't want to spend extra fuel, reroute planes to lower contrail concentrations, why tell us?

That doesn't make sense - don't tell you what??

Of course MOST aircraft pollution is not visible - the aircraft are making exhausts whether they make contrails or not.

If you make them fly lower to avoid contrails you will actually make MORE pollution because they will use more fuel to fly at lower altitudes.

If you are anti-pollution from aircraft then you should want them to fly as high as possible - jet aircraft - because that is where they are the most economic - where they burn the least fuel.

And you would want them to fly the shortest routes possible - longer routes around contrail conditions will burn more fuel.

So you cannot actually say you want to reduce pollution and also say you want to force jet aircraft to fly lower or reroute to avoid making contrails - the 2 are complete opposites.

Bit of a problem for you to think about....

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket Hi Annee Ignore these guys

Why are you suggesting that people ignore anyone who has a different opinion? Are you afraid they might learn something they don't like?

I'd think that people who really consider themselves "researchers" or "seekers after truth" would welcome differing opinions, so that they could determine the truth for themselves. I would think, Gmoneycricket, that if you really wanted to convince people that your assertions about "chem-trails" were valid, you'd provide a sound argument for them rather than attempt to censor people with other views.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket Even if they are not Chemtrails, Contrails are a form of pollution and affect the weather according to NASA and Air Force tests and reports.

Well, contrails certainly can affect the weather, just like clouds can, since contrails are nothing but cirrus clouds. They block two kinds of radiation:

Ultra-violet (UV), which comes from the sun during the day; and
Infra-red (IR), which is the heat radiated from the earth's survace at night.

This means that cloud cover will result in slightly cooler days and slightly warmer nights, and we end up with a "lower nocturnal-diurnal temperature delta" which if just science-talk for "the temperature doesn't change as much between night and day"

I don't know if you'd call that "pollution", though. Releasing lots of CO2 into the sky, though, like we do with all the hydrocarbon-burning machines, is a lot worse, because CO2 allows the UV to come through (resulting in hotter days) while blocking the IR from going out (which means the nights stay hot). This is the greenhouse effcts; that is the real pollution.

reply to post by waynos

Does one A330 with 300 people on board crossing from coast to coast generate more or less pollution that if those 300 people made the journey individually in 300 cars?

I suggest a possible (and fairly easy) math problem here, using simple thought processes we can arrive at a rough estimate.

One merely has to calculate the number of gallons of fuel used by the Airbus A330 for the flight, compared to the number of gallons of fuel that would be required for the 300 automobiles to consume, for the duration of the full nearly 3,000-mile journey.

Think just off the top of one's head, and educated guess could be made, even without putting pencil to paper......


Here to add....just to help everyone out who are not familiar with the aviation aspect of it......

The A330 could be considered to burn an average of about 6,000 pounds of fuel, per hour, per engine....during cruise flight. It burns substantially more during the climb to altitude, and less during the final descent to landing.. It has two engines...so, round about 12,000 lbs/hour. (You may convert to metric units, for those who are more familiar with them....I will stick with U.S. measures, since it's what I am used to).

Those are very rough averages....but, rather than go into technical "what ifs" there, let's just get down to basics. A jet will never use *all* its fuel on a flight, there is always a reserve amount. But, let's just look at the A330 capacities, and use them as benchmarks:

A330-200 Total Fuel Capacity = 36,745 U.S. Gallons (139,090 litres)

A330-300 Total Fuel Capacity = 25,700 U.S. Gallons (97,286 litres)


Back to the 12,000 lbs/hour burn rate....figure about 5 to 5.5 hours enroute across the contiguous USA. Heck bump it up to 6 hours. So, 72,000 pounds ---- at an average of 6.7 pounds per gallon weight, that's about 10,750 gallons for the trip.

Now, add up the 300 cars, and how much fuel they will use for a roughly 3,000-mile journey across land.

If we have a good, say....25 MPG per car, then 3000 miles divided by 25 MPG = 120 gallons. Times 300 cars = 36,000 gallons.

Fill the cars up with more than one person, and you then lower the total fuel used, for the cars. (Since fewer cars...). So, you could say it about evens out, depending on many different scenarios........

used by the Airbus A330 for the flight

Nothing personal here, brethren but if you want to compare cars to aircraft, why not pick the aircraft with the best fuel economy, highest quality, and handsomest engineers?

Not that I want to mention who sends me a paycheck every two weeks, but it rhymes with "going".

Originally posted by ProudBird

One merely has to calculate the number of gallons of fuel used by the Airbus A330 for the flight, compared to the number of gallons of fuel that would be required for the 300 automobiles to consume, for the duration of the full nearly 3,000-mile journey.

Think just off the top of one's head, and educated guess could be made, even without putting pencil to paper......

Or one could Google:

www.google.com...

It's an oft-asked question, results vary based on assumptions made.

reply to post by Off_The_Street


LOL!! I'm far more familiar with them, yes....just going with the flow, here!

It was a learning experience, to look up the specs for the Scarebus....but, it's is about the engines, after all (the GE CF6, P&W 4000 or Rolls Royce Trent).

The 767 family use both the GE and P&W (JT9D) powerplants. Each of those engines are approximately similar in average fuel burn rates. The A330 and B767 are somewhat comparable machines.

"Somewhat" is used loosely, of course.

"If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going....." LOL....