Chemtrails? In drought stricken Nebraska.

reply to post by KibbleChild


Used to be that weather could be predicted using persistent contrail formation as a clue because a persistent contrail - sometimes lasting as long as 15 minutes - would form near a weather front.

Today's chemtrails, masquerading as contrails, don't behave like this. They don't signal weather and they don't need fronts in order to form. They are formed deliberately and willfully.

Used to be that persistent contrails (lasting up to possibly as long as 15 minutes) usually formed in winter...spring and fall too. Because it was cold and there was weather about. Chemtrails, though, are not seasonal as this, the 2nd thread in as many days, on grids in the sky, in summer, shows.

As Derepent illustrated in the graphic, these new persistent contrails - chemtrails - cause warming. A study showed this but went on to say that these contrails cause a decrease in natural cloudiness and eat up available water. Which would create a drought situation as per your OP.

Nature surprise: Aircraft contrails "may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation."

On the bright side, “contrail cirrus cause a significant decrease in natural cloudiness, which partly offsets their warming effect.”

Interestingly, spreading-contrail cirrus clouds cause a reduction in natural cirrus, because they modify the water budget in the upper troposphere; however, this reduction in natural cirrus is relatively small (-7 mW mˆ’2).

Earth warmed by Trails of Clouds that Jets Leave Behind

Contrail clouds have another complex effect: They use up water vapor that normally could go into the formation of natural cirrus clouds, according to Kärcher and Burkhardt.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Used to be that weather could be predicted using persistent contrail formation as a clue because a persistent contrail - sometimes lasting as long as 15 minutes -

Actually...No. You are wrong.

It used to be that contrails often persisted and often persisted for hours...as this paper from 1972 will attest:

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
R.G. Knollenberg
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972)


"It is often observed that contrails spread considerably...Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed...If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails."

ciresweb.colorado.edu...

reply to post by Thorazine

Under favorable conditions

These words would be key from the study you quoted. I suggest review of what these conditions are. And then take another look at the sky.

reply to post by luxordelphi

These words would be key from the study you quoted.

Here are some words for you. From 1970.

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight

journals.ametsoc.org...

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorazine

 

Under favorable conditions

These words would be key from the study you quoted. I suggest review of what these conditions are. And then take another look at the sky.

I am well aware of those conditions...about -35f and about 70% RH...no fronts needed for those conditions to exist.

Of course, you are wrong- the KEY words are "persist for HOURS" - even 40 yrs ago- they observed contrails spreading and persisting for HOURS. Covering the entire sky...for HOURS.

So, your "15 minutes" claim is utterly false...as is your claim of the science of persistent contrails being "new"

Its so funny to watch you ignore facts when your Beliefs are exposed as false..

Another crash and burn on the ramparts of fact and logic for Luxor..

Again...the drought is getting worse and covering a vaster area each day....so if they were "Chemtrails" then why the hell have we only had 3 measurable rains?

Why the hell would they allow an entire state to lose damn near all crops when they could just send a plane up and create a little rain?

You can call me a troll if you want. But I live here and I see the skies everyday and I promise you, there is no chem trailing going on.

Im not saying that they don't chem-trail, that I just don't know for sure. But, I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that its not happening here.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
AHHH yes,
The arrogance of ignorance,
using wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone with an account, as a source:

If it had been edited, you could easily show that it is wrong and deny my ignorance by quoting a reputable source, couldn't you? You haven't done this though, have you? No, instead you have simply ignored it because it doesn't agree with your uninformed views, instead of bothering to actually figure out if it's wrong or not. That, is a far more accurate definition of "the arrogance of ignorance".

If you had bothered to investigate your claims, you would see that the Wikipedia page contains sources for you to check. You obviously didn't bother to do that, so I will do it for you. The first source quoted is from the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

vapour trail, also called Condensation Trail, or Contrail, streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

Vapour trail

The second source quoted is from a journal article authored by Patrick Minnis et al, titled "Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate". Here is an excerpt from the introduction.

Condensation trails, or contrails, generated from high-altitude aircraft exhaust may affect climate because they can persist for many hours. Like their natural counterparts, these anthropogenic cirrus clouds reflect solar radiation and absorb and emit thermal infrared radiation causing a radiative forcing that depends on many factors, especially contrail optical depth and coverage

Your continued denial of what is really a very basic component of meteorology is astounding. But as I said, this is what has become all too predictable for those who deny that contrails can persist (and consequently, deny that cirrus clouds should exist). It is no coincidence, that the same people denying that a regular contrail can persist seem to have not only an extremely limited knowledge of meteorology, but an utter refusal to even try to educate themselves. That is the saddest part of your claims, that you feel you can conclusively state that something is wrong when you choose to remain utterly ignorant on the topic.

For those who are genuinely interested in 'denying your ignorance', perhaps you could start looking here and try and make up your own mind. Some of the terminology in the papers may be confusing if you have little or no experience in the fields of thermodynamics and meteorology, but trying to figure it out is a great way to learn. There is a vast amount of material over many decades of research. The papers will often have references to earlier papers, enabling you to see how the science of contrails has progressed over the years from the very early beginnings.

When you guys have time could explain to me how you take -50 degree air temperature.
With high humid conditions and pump it into the passenger cabin
and how it is heated and dried without causing freeze up,
or loss of cabin pressure, or ice crystals within the cabin?

And if outside air is used to pressurize the cabin, what precautions are taken to insure that only clean air is used to prevent harm to passengers from unknown toxins in the air?

And during WW2 how did they prevent freeze up of fresh air intakes at high altitude,
When contrail creation conditions where high?

I only ask, as this thread, is about drought, and they must dry the air to passengers,
so I want to ask if they do the same with exhaust.

Then the next question would be,
if contrails are harmless,
then other planes should be able to follow same exact path as the contrail before it.
And the extra Co2 would not stall combustion of a compression ignited fuel,
and the extra Co2 created would be harmless to passengers as it was compressed into the cabin area.
And we will ignore the ice in the previous contrail and its abrasive effects on the engine.

Now should we look into how water vapor (humidity) increases compression and fuel efficiency and power of compression/combustion engines and why they may seek out those conditions to fly under, or should we wait?

That would have nothing to do with the need of a contrail forecasts, or does it?

I have always wondered,
why forecast harmless contrails,
it has to be be for some profit.

Ok I have come up with my believe, in a need for profit,
this thread is about the side effects of profit, which I believe,
but will not shut out other motives.

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
When you guys have time could explain to me how you take -50 degree air temperature.
With high humid conditions and pump it into the passenger cabin
and how it is heated and dried without causing freeze up,
or loss of cabin pressure, or ice crystals within the cabin?

And if outside air is used to pressurize the cabin, what precautions are taken to insure that only clean air is used to prevent harm to passengers from unknown toxins in the air?

And during WW2 how did they prevent freeze up of fresh air intakes at high altitude,
When contrail creation conditions where high?

I only ask, as this thread, is about drought, and they must dry the air to passengers,
so I want to ask if they do the same with exhaust.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: Removed 1 question I know the answer

They use bleed air. It's assumed to be clean, as there no reason it would not be. Compressing and heating it reduces the humidity.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
Then the next question would be,
if contrails are harmless,
then other planes should be able to follow same exact path as the contrail before it.
And the extra Co2 would not stall combustion of a compression ignited fuel,
and the extra Co2 created would be harmless to passengers as it was compressed into the cabin area.
And we will ignore the ice in the previous contrail and its abrasive effects on the engine.

Planes do not closely follow other planes because of wake turbulence. But the exhaust factors would have little more effect that one truck following another on the highway. There's a lot more atmosphere than there is exhaust.
en.wikipedia.org...
Contrail ice has no more abrasive effect on engine than flying through a cirrus cloud.

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
Now should we look into how water vapor (humidity) increases compression and fuel efficiency and power of compression/combustion engines and why they may seek out those conditions to fly under, or should we wait?

That would have nothing to do with the need of a contrail forecasts, or does it?

I have always wondered,
why forecast harmless contrails,
it has to be be for some profit.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)

Humidity is a very minor effect compared to other factors. The only contrail forecasts now are for military purposes, and for climate research.

Originally posted by Uncinus
So it's not just Wikipedia, it's all of science and history

all of science and history


"Extraordinary claims, require Extraordinary Proof "


feel free to provide it at your leasure, i wont hold my breath


wiki article on Contrail: Revision history

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Uncinus
So it's not just Wikipedia, it's all of science and history

all of science and history

"Extraordinary claims, require Extraordinary Proof "


feel free to provide it at your leasure, i wont hold my breath

edit on 24-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment

wiki article on Contrail: Revision history

edit on 24-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)

Here's the extraordinary proof:
- all the meteorology books and articles quoted on ATS about contrails agree with Wikipedia
- none of them disagree

So what more do you want? Can you find ONE reputable source that disagrees with wikipedia regarding contrails?

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Uncinus
So it's not just Wikipedia, it's all of science and history

all of science and history

"Extraordinary claims, require Extraordinary Proof "


feel free to provide it at your leasure, i wont hold my breath

edit on 24-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment

wiki article on Contrail: Revision history

edit on 24-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)

Here's the extraordinary proof:
- all the meteorology books and articles quoted on ATS about contrails agree with Wikipedia
- none of them disagree

So what more do you want? Can you find ONE reputable source that disagrees with wikipedia regarding contrails?

- all the meteorology books and articles quoted on ATS about contrails agree with Wikipedia

LL
and now you've moved the goalposts

convienient eh?

well it's been fun
but due to the fact that you and other...

contrail proponents

are not above acting behind the scenes
and mass complaining about a post that in no wise was an attack on you or any other member
but on the methodologies contrail proponents utilize to "muddy the waters"

having failed to properly "debunk" it [or whatever it is you think you are doing]

you have employed force [appeal to the mods] to silence it.

i can only conclude that you and others in your group
have absolutely no interest in the truth or denying ignorance, for that matter
only winning by any means possible.

after all:

The Purpose of Argument is to alter the Nature of Truth

so i'll just excersise my right to ignore your posts and of others that have or may have done such a thing
as i, the OP, and others are interested in getting to the bottom of the matter re CT's

and not to have psychological, and semantic games played with us


denying ignorance

DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
and now you've moved the goalposts

Not at all, I simply offered up the ATS posts with references to meteorology texts as a sampling of all texts. I chose that set as it's one you would be familiar with, and one where you don't think everyone posting is a disinformation agent.

I'm assuming by your response that you agree that they all agree with Wikipedia?

So I'm challenging you to find ONE meteorology text that disagrees with the Wikipedia depiction of persistent contrails. But instead you just want to avoid the issue?

One does not deny ignorance by ignoring facts.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Uncinus
So it's not just Wikipedia, it's all of science and history

all of science and history

"Extraordinary claims, require Extraordinary Proof "

Do you really think that "contrails are man made cirrus clouds" is an extraordinary claim? This is a very basic fact that even most chemtrail proponents do not deny. Why can you not do a shred of research to back up what you claim? It's very simple if you're actually trying to 'deny ignorance' as you claim to be doing. But so far you haven't provided anything except baseless rhetoric and easily disproven lies which you simply believe in faith.

Did you decide to ignore my post? Here I'll post it again for you.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
AHHH yes,
The arrogance of ignorance,
using wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone with an account, as a source:

If it had been edited, you could easily show that it is wrong and deny my ignorance by quoting a reputable source, couldn't you? You haven't done this though, have you? No, instead you have simply ignored it because it doesn't agree with your uninformed views, instead of bothering to actually figure out if it's wrong or not. That, is a far more accurate definition of "the arrogance of ignorance".

If you had bothered to investigate your claims, you would see that the Wikipedia page contains sources for you to check. You obviously didn't bother to do that, so I will do it for you. The first source quoted is from the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

vapour trail, also called Condensation Trail, or Contrail, streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

Vapour trail

The second source quoted is from a journal article authored by Patrick Minnis et al, titled "Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate". Here is an excerpt from the introduction.

Condensation trails, or contrails, generated from high-altitude aircraft exhaust may affect climate because they can persist for many hours. Like their natural counterparts, these anthropogenic cirrus clouds reflect solar radiation and absorb and emit thermal infrared radiation causing a radiative forcing that depends on many factors, especially contrail optical depth and coverage

Your continued denial of what is really a very basic component of meteorology is astounding. But as I said, this is what has become all too predictable for those who deny that contrails can persist (and consequently, deny that cirrus clouds should exist). It is no coincidence, that the same people denying that a regular contrail can persist seem to have not only an extremely limited knowledge of meteorology, but an utter refusal to even try to educate themselves. That is the saddest part of your claims, that you feel you can conclusively state that something is wrong when you choose to remain utterly ignorant on the topic.

For those who are genuinely interested in 'denying your ignorance', perhaps you could start looking here and try and make up your own mind. Some of the terminology in the papers may be confusing if you have little or no experience in the fields of thermodynamics and meteorology, but trying to figure it out is a great way to learn. There is a vast amount of material over many decades of research. The papers will often have references to earlier papers, enabling you to see how the science of contrails has progressed over the years from the very early beginnings.

Originally posted by Uncinus

The only contrail forecasts now are for military purposes, and for climate research.

I will have to absorb,

"contrail forecasts are for military purposes"

And get back to you on that.