A further consideration on the aspects of engineering with regard to chemtrails is that of oil and water. Fuel is refined from oil. Take some crude oil and try to mix it with water. It doesn’t happen because the oil floats on top of the water. Aviation kerosene is refined from crude oil to a degree required to produce that type of fuel. Try mixing water in a glass container with Avtur or Jet-A1 and you have a difficult job. Some fuel will be mixed at first but will soon settle out to the bottom of the container.

Leonard Clampett said:

“The reason there is no cloud is, considering the altitude, not enough moisture in the surrounding air.”

Again, you don’t take into account supersaturation. There may be more than 100% relative humidity in the air with no immediate condensation. You could call it “a cloud waiting to happen”.

Wikipedia has a nice “daily-life” example of supersaturation:

Carbonated water is a supersaturated solution of carbon dioxide gas in water. At the elevated pressure in the bottle, more carbon dioxide can dissolve in water than at atmospheric pressure. At atmospheric pressure, the carbon dioxide gas escapes very slowly from the supersaturated liquid. This process may be accelerated by the presence of nucleation sites within the solution, such as small bubbles, caused by shaking the bottle, or another solute, such as sugar powder or a widget.

For water vapour and air, the effect is this:

In air that is supersaturated, water droplets may precipitate upon being disturbed. This can be observed in a cloud chamber. In the more general context a precipitate may form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersaturation

In a saturated environment, the ice crystals formed from the exhaust vapour of a jet engine will not sublimate and vanish, in a supersaturated environment they will grow - just like snowflakes.

Leonard Clampett said:

“Try mixing water in a glass container with Avtur or Jet-A1 and you have a difficult job.”

The water vapour in a jet exhaust is created by combustion; it was not there before. BTW, it’s the same with AvGas and piston engines, or cars and gas.

The large fuel molecules are cracked and recombine with the oxygen from the intake air. The outgoing products are water and carbon oxydes, plus a bit of soot from incomplete combustion.

“Never underestimate the damage that can be done by just a small number of men, with evil intent and unlimited resources.”
This is a good starting point for the discussion. The first question that could be asked is “How do we know the intent of this small number of men is evil?” The simple, in fact too simple, answer is that virtually everything that comes out of nuclear weapons laboratories is evil, and the clandestine global spraying of toxic aerosols that is being justified, by insinuation, under the title of “geoengineering” is an idea that comes very largely from American nuclear weapons laboratories.  Edward Teller, who popularized the geoengineering proposal in 1997 with a short article entitled “The Planet Needs A Sunscreen”, made his name as the father of the hydrogen bomb and of Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” proposal for an anti-missile shield. He says that he borrowed the idea from the physicist Freeman Dyson, who was likewise one of the team working on the Manhattan Project that gave the world the atom bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and everything that has followed.

The surest way not to understand what is happening with geoengineering is to become involved in the contrails versus chemtrails debate. Rather than debate whether chemtrails are contrails, one should point out the parallel with what happened with genetically modified food production: the corporations and their laboratories and their lobbyists decide to introduce a change, so at the same time they start a public relations campaign to deny that any change has occurred. In the case of genetic modification the key word was “substantial equivalence”. Genetically modified foods are not the same as non-genetically modified foods, chemically, nutritionally or in any other way. Sometimes they look the same. “Substantial equivalence” means that they have to be treated as if they are the same. Soon laws are introduced to make it illegal to make any distinction between them or to say that they are not the same. Something similar has happened with geoengineering: a decision was taken to change aircraft emissions and turn them from being an unwanted side-effect of flying jet aircraft into being a deliberate means for changing the temperature and the chemistry of the atmosphere. So naturally it was denied that any change had occurred. Almost fifteen years after the implementation of a massive increase in the use of climate modification on a planetary scale, people are still conducting the chemtrails versus contrails debate. This is NOT what is happening with genetic modification. Ecologists are mostly not wasting their time arguing with corporation spokespersons over whether there is substantial equivalence between genetically modified and non-genetically modified food. The same should have happened with geoengineering, and if it hasn’t happened it should happen now.
I could mention just in passing that the general strike that took place in Greece last week made it possible for us to make a distinction that is normally concealed. For three hours, between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Wednesday 6th November Greece’s air-traffic controllers staged a work stoppage. All “conventional” air traffic was halted and timetables were altered to take into account the stoppage. Throughout these three hours chemtrail spraying planes continued their activity undisturbed. So they are not being monitored by air-traffic control.
(to be continued)

It is worth tracing the different stages of the mainstream debate over aircraft emissions. This is not the debate among chemtrails activists. I am talking about the mainstream debate.  A few years ago, when Stavros Dimas was the EU’s Environmental Commissioner, the European Union introduced a policy of extending the EU’s emissions trading scheme to cover aviation, because aircraft were said to be contributing to a large and increasing extent to global greenhouse gas emissions and so to global warming. Dimas had the support of virtually all ecologists when he introduced these measures, because ecologists are virtually all on one side of the climate change debate, the side that is against the climate change skeptics. Once the scheme was introduced, the political mainstream no longer had the same need for support from the Greens and we suddenly started hearing about the corruption of climate scientists: the Climategate scandal broke out shortly before the Copenhagen Climate Summit and contributed to the ruining of that summit.  Copenhagen marked a turning point: there was a sudden rapid expansion of open public discussion of geoengineering, including proposals for solar radiation management. Paradoxically the task of promoting geoengineering schemes for dealing with global warming was left very largely to the climate change skeptics, who in the previous phase had been denying that there was a problem of anthropogenic global warming. Publicity videos began to appear, including one well-known one from the BBC, arguing for the idea that contrail cirrus from aircraft emissions played a valuable role in cooling the planet. So now, by implication, the public was being called simultaneously to support two contradictory proposals: that there should be financial incentives to encourage airlines to reduce emissions to slow global warming, and also that it would be good for airlines to increase emissions to spread contrail cirrus and slow global warming by having not fewer but MORE aircraft in the sky.
So both sides of the climate change debate have been instrumentalized and exploited, both the skeptics and the ecologists, and the result is that geoengineering is going from strength to strength and acquiring something like respectability, as a publicly admitted proposal. This is without even going into the question of chemtrails and the evident fact that while deliberate large-scale spraying is not being admitted by any government, it is obviously a well-established planetary reality, even if it is being represented as something that is not deliberate and not any different from the situation in the past, except that more aircraft are now flying.
Ecological organizations which twenty years ago would not have taken the risk of recommending geoengineering or identifying themselves with geoengineering are now beginning to do so.  A publicity poster from the WWF in Switzerland is a case in point. Acceptance of geoengineering by the WWF runs counter to the moratorium on large scale geoengineering projects passed at Nagoya in Japan in 2010 at the Conference on Biodiversity. The moratorium is not being implemented and that is what the WWF should be publicizing. It should not be suggesting that there can be any tolerance by the citizens of this planet of the global spraying of toxic aerosols in the name of dealing with climate change. For a start the climate change skeptics, who deny that there is a problem of anthropogenic global warming, should be challenged on their attitude to geoengineering.  If there is no problem, how can the skeptics accept the so-called “solution” of geoengineering?  The fact that the two sides of the climate change debate have spent the last twenty years arguing with each other about climate change while never talking about geoengineering, and even saying that people who do talk about geoengineering are conspiracy theorists, is something that has to stop.

(continued from preceding post)

Last week the meteorologist Scott Stevens created a minor sensation in the alternative media through his accusations that hurricane Sandy had been caused by geoengineering.  In fact anyone who wants to can see the Tesla Tech Array infrasonic undulations from the satellite tracking that show how Sandy was steered out of the mid-ocean to destroy all of the northern part of the USA’s Atlantic seaboard.  The only question is not whether it happened, but why it happened: to influence the Presidential election result, to promote economic revival through reconstruction of destroyed cities, or simply to enrich certain criminal individuals. These are some of the questions that the economist Dimitris Kazakis began to examine on the first of our Enouranois videos.

Chemtrails do not serve a single purpose, of increasing albedo, cooling the planet or whatever. They also serve the purpose of increasing the conductivity of the atmosphere to facilitate the operations of Alaskan ionospheric heater HAARP, and the similar smaller installations that exist in other countries. HAARP was the subject of a report in the European Parliament in 1998, the work of the Swedish anti-nuclear campaigner Maj Britt Theorin.  Mrs Theorin’s report is entitled “On the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy”. It describes HAARP as “weapons system which disrupts the climate” and concludes that “by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment it is a global concern. Its legal, ecological and ethical implications must be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing.”

The European Commission said that it could not act on the report or try to implement it, because the European Commission does not have authority over defence questions, which are the responsibility of NATO. There are two things to say about this: firstly this amounts to a challenge to the United States’ representation of what HAARP is, because US government says that HAARP is an ionospheric research programme, not a weapons system.  Secondly the European Commission’s acceptance of the status of not having responsibility for the defence of European citizens, and accepting that this should be entrusted to NATO. is completely intolerable. A new organization called Skyguards is at present under development, including Green activists from Sweden, Spain and Cyprus, along with other activists, and is planning to continue the work started by Mrs. Maj-Britt Theorin in 1998. When one sees phenomena such as Cyclone Sandy one can understand that Americans, as much as Europeans and the people of the rest of the planet, need this work to be continued, because they are not being defended by their own government. They are being attacked by it.

Meagain said:

“type in the word RARE - and hit enter until you find the relevant quote”

The word is there, exactly once. Here is the context from the paper:

The second variable is known as the Hanssen-Kuipers discriminant or the true skill statistic (HKD) (Wilks, 1995). The HKD is calculated as (ad - bc) / [(a + c)(b + d)]. This measure of forecasting skill measures the skill of the “yes” and “no” forecasts of contrail occurrence equally, regardless of the relative numbers of each forecast. Gandin and Murphy (1992) show that HKD is the only equitable skill score for a two-event (i.e., yes-or-no) forecast, and thus accounts for the tendency of a “no” contrail occurrence forecast being more likely to be correct than a “yes” because persistent contrail occurrence is relatively rare.

As far as I understand this, it’s about a weighting formula as part of a model for prediction of persistant contrail conditions.

There is no quantitative statement though, as this is obviously not the focus of the paper. So “relatively rare” can be anything. I’d say if five percent of all contrails are persistent, they are relatively rare.
Considering the amount of air traffic worldwide, the absolute number is still large.

As the measurements of Immler et al. have shown (see the paper linked before, “Cirrus, contrails, and ice supersaturated regions in high pressure systems at northern mid latitudes”), there can be local peak zones and periods, particularly during stable high pressure conditions. This would match parts of Australia, I think.

For those who believe Wikipedia, which I think is about as useful for scientific argument as is an ashtray on a Boeing 747 wingtip, please go to meteorological textbooks, and study up on the immutable laws of thermodynamics, and apply “dew point”. Dew point is the temperature at which saturated air suffers condensation of its moisture content. That is, the moisture condenses out of the air into “visible moisture” i.e. cloud/fog. This occurs at 100% humidity. The so called “super-saturation” is about as clever as saying over-saturation or very high saturation or ultra high saturation, none of which exist. That kind of language is the same as used by people who talk about giving more than 100%. Can’t happen. The maximum effort you can give is 100%. Anything else is Hollywood poetic licence. Read any aviation weather report or forecast and you will see FZL which is aviation speak for freezing level. In Australia this is mostly given in Flight Levels, which are altitudes above 11,000 feet above the International Standard Atmosphere altimeter setting of 1013.2 millibars or 29.92 inches of mercury or what ever other measurements are used/chosen. In winter in the southern climes FZL may be seen down around 8,000 feet above mean sea level. Last summer at 6 o’clock in the morning I noted a chemtrail across Brisbane airport laid from the east and directly overhead our house. It had not long been laid and was voluminous and expanding and was at around 10,000 feet. It was only just above a layer of scattered fair weather cumulus cloud.  FZL at that time was well above 20,000 feet.
I am not here to alter anybody’s beliefs, just would like to get to the bottom of what is being sprayed.

As an admin on this site, I wish to apologise for the way in which this thread has been taken over by people who think childish insults and out of context quotes are a clever way of advancing an argument.

Unfortunately, the parties concerned have previously evaded my attempts at banning by spoofing IP addresses.

I refuse to engage in any further dialogue with those concerned. I recommend they stop posting here as they are not welcome.

I will try once again to block the offending IP addresses.

Leonard Clampett said:

“The so called ‘super-saturation’ ...” [...] “Can’t exist.”

If you are looking for scientific papers about supersaturation, Google estimates “about 150000” to choose from:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=supersaturation

Searching for books returns 59,400 results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=supersaturation&tbo=u&tbm=bks

A lot of them are hard-to-read specialist material, but some try to actually explain the phenomenon, like this one:
http://books.google.de/books?id=f41x2ObCqW0C&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f;=false

In relation to your beer glass analogy: supersaturation in the atmosphere is happening because there is no beer glass - no surface for condensation.

Meagain,

what you are saying is that most persistant trails are actually chemtrails with no visual difference - based on this one sentence from a scientific paper about models for contrail prediction.

At the same time you dismiss all other scientific papers that conclude that persistant contrails are far from “rare”, based on observation and hard numbers.

You challenged me to find you “the data that says its conducive to persistent contrails day after day” over your house.

You gave me a whole continent as location, and “day after day” is not a very useful quantification.
What would you say is the percentage of (daylight) occurrence of persistant trails?
Maybe there are observations by others in your area?
What is your area (e.g. largest town in 20 miles distance)?

Meagain said:

“i also asked how youd differentiate between chemtrails and contrails.. but you have no answer for that.. “

Until there is evidence for the existence of chemtrails, I can safely assume that all I see are persisting contrails.

Unfortunately Tanker Enemy is also giving problems to some people in his milieu who are attempting a higher-level approach to these subjects. Of course it is also an approach that devotes less time to arguing with idiots.

The above post is a comment on a link that has been removed.

For anyone who looks up in the sky every so often while fostering some recollection of what a sunny day used to resemble, the reality of geoengineering—what are often referred to as “chemtrails”—can no longer be easily dismissed. For over a decade military and private jet aircraft have been spraying our skies with what numerous independent researchers, journalists, and activists observe to be an admixture of aluminum, barium, strontium, and other dangerous heavy metals. Such substances distributed into the atmosphere as microscopic subparticulates eventually descend to earth where they are breathed by living things and absorbed by the soil and plant life.
According to the linked report, in 1964 the National Science Foundation formed a Special Commission on Weather Modification. Thereafter, weather weapons in the form of cloud seeding were used to flood North Vietnamese supply lines during the Vietnam War.

More recent documentation points to private and government bodies’ active pursuit of weather modification, including the US Department of Homeland Security’s Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program.[6] And in mid-2012 scientists proposed a $5 billion geoengineering plan to potentially unleash one million tons of particulates in the upper atmosphere each year to “cut world greenhouse gas emissions.”
Since this is such an open program—taking place in plain sight directly over our heads—why is there almost complete silence about it in academic circles as well as mainstream and “alternative” progressive media outlets, particularly if one is to conclude that academe and the press are where disinterested inquiry and the dissemination of information and ideas in the public interest are allegedly anticipated and guaranteed? Indeed, geoengineering and weather manipulation are “a scientific taboo,” Michel Chossudovsky points out.

The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, is never considered as relevant. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.
In this way such a condition is also attributable to the deleterious effect of intellectual disengagement and naivete originating within scholarly and journalistic communities that, combined with well-funded public relations efforts promoting the CO2-specific theory of global warming, eventually compromises the reasoning and communicative capacities of the broader public sphere.

Upon closer observance it has become increasingly difficult to ignore the activity of numerous high altitude aircraft leaving plumes that over the course of several hours expand and coalesce to make massive cloudlike formations that could be easily mistaken for overcast above sometimes naturally-occurring cumulus clouds. I recognized how throughout most of the year this was an almost daily phenomenon initiated by planes with sometimes bizarre and inconsistent flight paths. 

Additionally A review of the 1998 report “sunscreen for planet earth a listed source material may be enlightening for anyone still struggling to come to terms with the geoengineering facts http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemtrails-the-realities-of-geoengineering-and-weather-modification/5311079

I’m surprised the previous exchanges have not left a more lasting impression and that you think it is acceptable to belittle block and ban in the name of truth.  That makes as much sense as arguing all chemtrails are only contrails and that regardless of description they have nothing to do with climate and weather modification that is in turn all part of the now evident global geo engineering campaign.  Your credibility is no longer of any concern to us so you should “expect us” to not cease and desist any time soon.

Phoenix Man said:

“I’m surprised the previous exchanges have not left a more lasting impression”

That goes for my side as well.

“you think it is acceptable to belittle block and ban in the name of truth”

Blocking and banning was the moderator’s reaction to threats and continued insulting. Try to post on a chemtrail website or FB group in a polite but skeptical way and you will quite often be banned almost immediately.

After 30 long pages of comments, I don’t think anyone can accuse Mr. Fenton of censorship if he starts deleting posts that contain insults.

Calling Contrails Chemtrails is a lot less damaging than calling Chemtrails ““Contrails”” Att; JOSH there is plenty of proof that Chemtrails exist Stop acting like a spoilt little child and denying that Chemtrails exist, Most of the time the weather and altitude are not consistent for the lines to even possibly be Contrails. and why would you care if sometimes they are wrong??? If you possessed a brain you would be more worried about getting to the ““TRUTH”” about governments spraying untested chemicals that may be quite harmful to human beings. There is no legislation to allow ‘‘CONTRAILS’’ but they have written legislation to allow Chem Spraying. so any body who says they do not exist is nothing short of a complete moron or simply wants to blow their creditability out of the sky they are not looking at.

JOSH YOU ARE A FOOL

THIS SITE IS GOING TO BE HACKED AGAIN BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPIDITY

josh.. tell the whole truth, or its not the truth

fenton insulted me first, ive done no worse than he.  dont you pretend to be holier than anyone else either..

your smarmy condescension in your unqualified commentary, and pretense that there is no evidence to support a counter view, is as insulting as a direct insult, of which you have also indulged in.

to call you a hypocrite is not an insult… its a fact

——————————————————————————-

these comments deleted 3 times now… if only fenton had of not called me a troll, and deleted my comments, for simply pointing out his blatant hypocrisy for telling everyone to get of facebook while he whole heartedly embraced it..

my simple truth wouldve slipped into oblivion..

now he wants to play these silly games..

deleting comments and blocking ips.. sigh….

————————————-

more deletions ...

——————————————-
your comprehension issues are no ones fault but your own.

  persistent contrail occurrence is relatively rare.

its plain and simple.

i have no interest in what you understand, or what you dont understand, but clearly you are unqualified to be telling anyone anything, as if you are some sort of authority on the subject.

By meagain on 2012 11 11 - 12:17:37

the “Space Preservation Act of 2001”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2977/text

defines “chemtrails”

as an exotic weapon.

The term `exotic weapons systems’ includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

josh shouldve been there to tell them all “theres no such animal”

By meagain on 2012 11 11 - 14:56:47

————————————————

As an admin on this site, I wish to apologise for the way in which this thread has been taken over by people who think childish insults and out of context quotes are a clever way of advancing an argument.

Unfortunately, the parties concerned have previously evaded my attempts at banning by spoofing IP addresses.

I refuse to engage in any further dialogue with those concerned. I recommend they stop posting here as they are not welcome.

I will try once again to block the offending IP addresses.

——————

@ fenton..

back to censorship again eh? you should apologise for your deceitful hypocrisy

—————————

btw.. i havnt taken over the thread, the quote is not out of context, and you cant back up a single claim you make with anything except your unqualified opinion..

if your forum membership numbers are any guide, the only people whove read you pathetic apology is me and a ahndful of others.. get a clue - just because youre head is shaped like a spark plug, that doesnt make you a champion.

———————————————

@ josh..

i just did a google search for unicorns..

18,300,000 results..

and last time it rained here.. there were no beer glasses in the sky either

@ fenton, get off the internet, your not welcome.

————————————————-

yeah… despite govt description of chemtrails, and the report that govts spay populations with chemicals.. you say theres no such thing..

onya goober

ya cant answer anything, you have nothing, so lick my taint

————————————————

this video posted called chemtrail proof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K46lXCAYPDU

what others are witnessing all over the world, every day..

———————————

“Be advised, I will continue taunting you like this until you go away. I won’t waste my time blocking your IP address again, since you have, with the skills of a pubescent car jacker, learned how to circumvent these security measures. “

liar liar pants on fire ...nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah (_X_)
security measures… bwahahahahahhahahahahahah

try sticking to the truth loser… that way you wouldnt stuff up so much.

————————————————

public opinion says josh is an idiot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVMHpQ_1Nxg

—————————————————-

btw.. i havnt taken over the thread, the quote is not out of context, and you cant back up a single claim you make with anything except your unqualified opinion..

if your forum membership numbers are any guide, the only people whove read you pathetic apology is me and a ahndful of others.. get a clue - just because youre head is shaped like a spark plug, that doesnt make you a champion.

By meagain on 2012 11 11 - 18:47:10
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.

————————————————————

@ fenton..

back to censorship again eh? you should apologise for your deceitful hypocrisy

By meagain on 2012 11 11 - 18:40:51
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.