Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?
Vapour trails left by British bombers on route to attack flying-bomb sites encircle the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral. London, 1944.
All those who passionately believe that "contrails dissipate quickly" whereas "chemtrails linger" and are deeply offended by the sceptical position that TNRA takes in regard to these claims, are free to "unlike" Truth News.
If, on the other hand, you would like to engage in rational debate, you're most welcome to do so.
However, please be advised that the information I have to impart may be shocking and difficult to grasp if you have been a "chemtrail alarmist" for a long time.
The often cited claim that "normal contrails dissipate quickly" is total bunkum.
There is not a shred of science to backup that claim. Nothing, nada, zippo!
Those who promote this idea are simply repeating something they read on a web page without checking sources.
CONTRAIL SCIENCE
For a contrail to form, suitable conditions must occur immediately behind a jet engine in the expanding engine exhaust plume. A contrail will form if, as the exhaust gases cool and mix with surrounding air, the humidity becomes high enough (or, equivalently, the air temperature becomes low enough) for liquid water to condense on particles and form liquid droplets. If the local air is cold enough, these newly formed droplets then freeze and form ice particles that make up a contrail.
Because the basic processes are very well understood, contrail formation for a given aircraft flight can be accurately predicted if atmospheric temperature and humidity conditions are known.
After the initial formation of ice, a contrail evolves in one of two ways. If the humidity is low, the contrail will be short-lived. Newly formed ice particles will quickly evaporate. The resulting contrail will extend only a short distance behind the aircraft. If the humidity is high, the contrail will be persistent. Newly formed ice particles will continue to grow in size by taking water from the surrounding atmosphere. The resulting line-shaped contrail extends for large distances behind an aircraft. Persistent contrails can last for hours while growing to several kilometers in width and 200 to 400 meters in height. Contrails spread because of air turbulence created by the passage of aircraft, differences in wind speed along the flight track, and possibly through effects of solar heating.
Thus, the surrounding atmosphere’s conditions determine to a large extent whether or not a contrail will form after an aircraft’s passage, and how it evolves. Other factors that influence contrail formation include engine fuel efficiency, which affects the amount of heat and water emitted in the exhaust plume.
- source
TNRA is informed by science and is not interested in propping up anyone's belief systems, and we don't apologise for that.
But, please, don't take it from me, speak to any meteorologist or any pilot and they'll tell you straight, that there is HUGE variation in the length and persistence of contrails. Sometimes they don't form at all, other times they form, but disspate quickly, other times they persist and spread out.
That's the facts folks, and it's been that way since planes first went up in the sky.
If you believe otherwise, I'm afraid you've been conned.
Forgive me if I seem rude or impatient on this topic, but every few months I come across a new wave of people who have been subjected to the same false propaganda about chemtrails, and I have to run the same arguments and cite the same articles over and over again. It does wear one's patience down.
Before making some kind of angry reply, I urge you to read this article and associated links. It's fairly detailed, and deals with most of the usual claims made by chemtrail alarmists.
Finally, let me qualify all this by saying that I do not doubt that geo-engineering programs exist, and that, indeed, some of the patented techniques discussed at international forums include the creation of artificial cirrus cloud. Does this, however, entitle you to conclude that every spreading contrail you see is an example of such geo-engineering?
Think about it.
Related Links
Comments
Would you accept an invitation to such a Geoengineering “Public Consultation”, Josh?
Are they going to secure that public consent to planetary spraying of the upper atmosphere with reflective particles? When at the same time major lobbies are successfully propagating climate change scepticism???
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 10 - 02:56:55
Wayne Hall,
so I must assume that you just accepted what you read about chemtrails, just like you did when you posted the link to the “smoking gun” which was just a software flaw.
Did you ever check the claim that normal contrails dissolve in minutes whereas chemtrails linger for hours? Did you try to verify that?
By Josh on 2012 10 10 - 03:03:33
Wayne Hall, Don’t worry about Josh or Hereward they are being fed a diet of lies. If you want to see the growing list of banned people and why its happeniing take a look at this. As I myself am banned be aware your silly little blocks do nothing except harm yourself.
http://www.facebook.com/horus.sorus?fref=ts
By A banned individual on 2012 10 10 - 08:44:49
Ban as many people as you like but your time is coming sooner than you realize. Horus has nothing to do with this message expect as one of the banned he was happy to host the links for us. Hereward as a computer whatever I hope you know about zombie trojans and how to check for them. Buckle up boys the ride is about to get bumpy. LOL
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=113579592130606&set=p.113579592130606&type=1&theater;
By The nameless one on 2012 10 10 - 08:56:38
Have you really been banned from this forum??? How is it that you are posting now, then? I don’t think that on-line threats and hacking is the way to counter the Hereward/Josh attitude. If there is anything sincere about them, let them have a public discussion between themselves on climate change, where their positions seem to be diametrically opposite. That would be more to the point, and might lead further than repetition of the “chemtrails are contrails” mantra.
Josh could also say whether he thinks geoengineering “proposals” of planetary solar radiation management are something he would subscribe to. Because he believes that anthropogenic climat change, presumably in the form of global warming, is a reality, he may do (like the people in the “Public Consultation”). But would the climate change sceptic Hereward be of the same view? How could he be? Why don’t Hereward and Josh talk to each other publicly about subjects like this? That might break the deadlock here and not make it seem necessary for “our side” to resort to unacceptable threats.
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 10 - 13:12:21
Yes Wayne my IP address has really been banned from posting comments!!! How to post when banned is pretty easy when you are a certified TCP/IP systems engineer. Examples of methods even non technical users could use are a VPN or TOR connection. You yourself say discussion is useless with these guys. As for threats. I don’t think so bro as trojans and bot infections can be picked up by nothing more than clicking links. I’m not threatening anyone just stating what I think is obvious. It makes sense to me that if you block and as many people as these guys and act like truth police then you will get repercussions. A partial list of others whom have been banned is in the previous post by the nameless one. I hope those two TNA stooges enjoy arguing amongst themselves. Good Buy.
By really been banned on 2012 10 10 - 14:18:32
I didn’t know they were blocking people.
In fact it is a waste of time arguing. The only point is that apparently there are certain numbers of people following what is said here.
911 Truth is a vital subject, though, and it is not necessary for activists to be OK on all fronts for communication with them to be kept up as much as possible.
Julian Assange, for example, is not OK on a number of fronts, including 911 Truth. But there seems to be a genuinely subversive dynamic to what he is doing.
I think one should try to find out in what particular way activists compromise, or are comprosmised. Then it becomes more possible to know what they do and what they can’t do.
Still, yes, blocking people is bad news, if there are no real threats to order, as with swearing or not respecting the rules of civility and rationality.
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 10 - 15:00:18
Wayne Hall said:
“apparently there are certain numbers of people following what is said here”
What indication do you have about that?
To all “chemtrail stooges”:
Refusing to provide evidence for extraordinary claims is not a waste of time. It would give you credibility.
Just claiming something and then sticking fingers in the ear and calling “blah blah” when asked about evidence is not giving the impression of intelligence.
Wayne Hall, would you object to be labelled a critical thinker?
By Josh on 2012 10 10 - 23:08:21
The indication about the numbers of people following is that on the Home Page of this site, this thread is listed as the most popular.
Once again, I am impressed by Josh’s pretension that he has chemtrails activists best interests at heart and that it is in his power to bestow or withhold “credibility”.
Why not accept frankly the status of enemy, with whatever that may or may not entail? You are an enemy, not only my enemy, but the enemy of thousands, of millions. Do you feel that you are as easily identifiable as I am? Do you want to be anonymous? Or are you happy for people to know who you are?
As for questions, and so on, it is your turn to answer my last question, which was whether you would accept an invitation to a Geoengineering “Public Consultation”. Perhaps it would be beneath your dignity to be among such ignorant people. But it is not beneath your dignity to do what you are doing.
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 10 - 23:43:08
Wayne Hall said:
“I am impressed by Josh’s pretension that he has chemtrails activists best interests at heart”.
Where did you find that? Not my statement.
About credibility: do you say that claims without evidence are credible? I’m certainly not alone in dismissing this.
Did you check the claims about chemtrails? Did you ever consider alternative explanations?
By Josh on 2012 10 11 - 00:07:17
No, I didn’t.
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 11 - 00:13:18
Morgellons fibre in chemtrail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxfFZ6E3Kvk&feature=related
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 11 - 06:07:15
Wayne Hall,
where is the evidence that chemtrails exist?
Where is the evidence for a connection between skin problems and trails in the sky?
Two unchecked claims in four words ...
By Josh on 2012 10 11 - 07:35:56
Where is the evidence that your father was really your father?
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 11 - 14:56:50
Wayne Hall said:
“Where is the evidence that your father was really your father?”
Don’t you think that’s pretty lame?
Besides, I did not claim that. You are claiming that chemtrails are a reality and that the Morgellons syndrome is caused by them.
By Josh on 2012 10 11 - 16:18:54
I have asked a number of questions and made a number of informational postings, but the only thing I have claimed is that the European Union wants to tax aviation for raising global temperatures while at the same time preparing the ground for public acceptance of subsidies to airlines for lowering global temperatures through their emissions. Something which you do not dispute, while at the same time refusing to see any connection with the chemtrails discussion.
You say I have to prove things to you. I say you have to prove things to me. Namely that there is no such connection. Is a discussion possible on this basis??
If not, who is going to throw in the towel first and withdraw? Please try to avoid being repetitive.
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 11 - 17:58:15
Wayne Hall said:
“I have asked a number of questions and made a number of informational postings, but the only thing I have claimed is that the European Union wants to tax aviation [...]”
If you post a link without commenting it in any way, it’s your claim. If that is not intended, you can always clarify.
Or is it that you want to spread bunk while avoiding a discussion?
“You say I have to prove things to you.”
Not just to me, no. You say people are reading all this. Don’t you think they deserve some fact checking?
Where is the connection between between skin problems and trails in the sky? It’s just an assumption, no more.
Did anyone check for pathogen souces on the ground? Or did anyone bring an electron microscope into a jet trail?
Yet you / they are making these far-fetched claims.
By Josh on 2012 10 12 - 02:05:11
Most of the people reading this don’t need me to prove anything to them.
The discussions, or non-discussions, that go on here do not have any bearing on what is happening politically in relation to chemtrails.
The pattern is I post, you react. I post, you react. Meanwhile the focused action proceeds elsewhere, in interactions between people living in reality.
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 12 - 03:01:25
Wayne Hall said:
“The discussions, or non-discussions, that go on here do not have any bearing on what is happening politically in relation to chemtrails.”
The reason is that the “political happenings” are not about chemtrails, contrary to what you are implying and wishing for all the time.
The discussion here is about whether chemtrails exist at all.
“The pattern is I post, you react. I post, you react.”
And this will go on as long as you are posting bunk. It may change as soon as you stop refusing to discuss the facts about chemtrails and contrails.
Or if you stop posting alltogether.
By Josh on 2012 10 12 - 03:30:38
I am not going to stop posting.
I will keep updating on developments in the world outside the intellectual slum that is this thread.
By Wayne Hall on 2012 10 12 - 03:54:40
Page 21 of 36 pages ‹ First < 19 20 21 22 23 > Last ›
In order to leave a comment you may need to register and sign in.