Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Jack White]

Over Leichester, England, four jets in close parallel formation lay chemtrails

in a sky already filled with older chemtrails.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Rules of this forum do not require any member to respond to taunts or repeated

questions from any other member. Taunts from moderators should not be tolerated.

Persistent contrails differ from chemtrails. I presented an article which shows the

evaporation times of contrails at various altitudes. The same article noted that

chemtrails do not evaporate. Moisture evaporates at high altitudes. Aluminum and

barium do not evaporate.

Taunts are not research. I have presented numerous photos which Mr. Lewis fails

to address, but that is his privilege. I present research, he presents none.

Jack

How is asking a question a taunt?

What about wondering if you ever actually look at any conflicting evidence? Since you rarely if ever respond to anything conflicting your worldview, one wonders if you even look at it.

Again, persistent contrails have existed since planes could fly high enough. The science behind it is well understood and available for anyone that cares to look. It is completely wrong that contrails must evaporate.

Your article failed to consider the effects of temperature on persistence. More importantly it made the assumption that the relationship between humidity and persistence was a linear relationship and then basing the rest of the article on that. When you make a wrong assumption you come up with wrong conclusions based on it. Clouds also exist at high altitudes. Why? By your reasoning they shouldn't even exist. Aluminum and barium have yet to be proven to be in any "chemtrail". Again, not one "chemtrail" believer has taken a sample from within a trail. They take samples on the ground and then assume they came from some trail in the sky. How is that considered good research? That is sloppy at best and deceptive at worst.

I have yet to see a photo of something that doesn't look like a contrail. I have addressed most but when you show up just to spam the topic with photo and cut and paste articles without responding to anything else I might miss one or two.

I present no research? That's funny! Who knew you were a comedian Jack! I guess you missed the multiple posts showing the science behind contrail formation and the pictures and stories of persistent contrails dating back to before WWII.

Six chemtrail planes in parallel formation, plus others.

Explained earlier but as we know Jack doesn't appear to bother to read opposing viewpoints I'll explain it again. Air cooridors are large. It is highly possible to have multple parallel pathways within a single cooridor. Also possible is for planes to be following the same path and the contrail blown by the wind.

These chemtrails are truly bizarre. Commercial jets doing stunt flying?

How is flying in an oval pattern stunt flying? Jets occasionally have to fly holding patterns. Wind can blow contrails. I see nothing strange here.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

The question is not what are they spraying. Persistent contrails have been known about since before WWII. The real question is why they are more common now than they used to be. There are many pieces to that answer.

1. Jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70's. It is projected to double again in just 10 years.

2. Jet engines today are more powerful than older models. This means they burn more fuel and consequently have much more water vapor in the exhaust.

3. Jets travel higher now (on average) partly due to increased traffic and partly due to increased power allowing higher flight. Higher flight means more contrails. Read this study from 1942 for more explanation on this.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report...ca-wr-l-474.pdf

4. An increase in traffic increases the amount of exhaust put into the atmosphere. This exhaust has a cumulative effect and results in conditions more conducive to contrail formation over the long run. I unfortunately don't have a reference for this. It is something I remember coming across in my studies while in college but I've been unable to locate it since.

5. Evidence that airlines have changed their engines can be found in the noise regulations that the FAA has put out. Around 2000, Stage 3 regs went into effect. This is a regulation governing the noise output of jet engines and required every airline to either replace their engines or install hush kits. These newer engines are not only quieter but are more fuel efficient meaning again, more water vapor. Incidentally, Stage 4 regs were due to take effect in January of this year requiring even more changes. I haven't heard specifically if Stage 4 engines are more fuel efficient but I wouldn't doubt it. I do know that many Stage 3 engines already met Stage 4 regs though so many airlines did not have to update. Some of those that did have applied for extensions as they can't make their planes compliant in time.

The only samples that have ever been taken have been on the ground where it is not only possible but highly likely that the samples are contaminated by other sources. Both aluminum and barium are known air pollutants from power plants and various other industrial facilities. To assume they came from a trail 30,000+ feet in the air when collected on the ground when there are other sources on the ground is bad research at best and deceptive at worst. One thing most forget is anything sprayed at altitude may not come down for days or weeks and definitely not in the area they were sprayed.No one has yet taken a sample from a trail in the air.

There is no proof that they are government planes. Quite the opposite actually as anyone can grab a pair of binoculars and see normal commercial flights. One can also get the program flight explorer and compare the contrails they see being formed to the scheduled flights in the program.

Persistent contrails are perfectly explained through science. They have existed since planes could fly high enough and pictures exist of them from before WWII. they have become more common lately at planes have updated their engines with newer more powerful and more fuel efficient engines (thus having more water in the exhaust), jet traffic flying higher (Where the air is colder giving more of a chance for contrails to form and persist), and an increase in jet traffic (jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70s and is projected to double again in less than 10 years) making contrails in general more common and forcing more traffic higher to accomodate (again where the air is colder).

One can even predict the days and areas where they will see persistent contrails (chemtrails as some would like to call them). If you know what to look for in the weather you can tell if an area will have conditions likely for contrails. I have never seen "chemtrails" show up when the weather was not already likely for persistent contrails.

There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

[Matthew Lewis]

Over Leichester, England, four jets in close parallel formation lay chemtrails

in a sky already filled with older chemtrails.

Jack

You can't see the jets in the picture so it is hard to say they were flying in formation. As explained before, it could have been from multiple planes on separate but parallel paths, it could have been multiple planes on the same path and the contrail blown by the wind, it could have also been multiple contrails from a multiengine jet. Since there is nothing in the picture to provide any sense of scale, it is hard to tell how much it is zoomed in.

[Jack White]

A curious horseshoe chemtrail over England.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

I remember, quite some time ago, I suggested to Jack (IIRC but it may have been another member) that he record the locations & directions of what he assumes are "chemtrails"®, then crosscheck that information with local / area ATC services to see if they match up with known air routes and flights.

I've never heard anything more on the subject, so I assume the person did not check on it.

[Evan Burton]

Ah! Here we go:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=47076

[Matthew Lewis]

A curious horseshoe chemtrail over England.

Jack

Are jets not supposed to ever make turns? What's curious is why you think the picture is of a "chemtrail" when by your own definition (which has been shown to be wrong) a "chemtrail" is one that persists and does not evaporate. This contrail appears to be dispersing and not persisting.

I'm also curious when you will be taking back the obviously wrong statement you made that I have offered no research.

[Matthew Lewis]

I remember, quite some time ago, I suggested to Jack (IIRC but it may have been another member) that he record the locations & directions of what he assumes are "chemtrails"®, then crosscheck that information with local / area ATC services to see if they match up with known air routes and flights.

I've never heard anything more on the subject, so I assume the person did not check on it.

I have also offered multiple times that he could check the same thing with the commercially available program Flight Explorer. There are other programs out there as well that perform the same function. That has been met with silence as well. Curious.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

Correct me if I am wrong, but airspace around major airports is designated CLASS A up to 18,000 feet

and is rigidly controlled, limited only to those aircraft under the radar control of the airport control tower.

Only aircraft taking off and landing are allowed in CLASS A space; flyovers are not permitted. Correct?

Then the question arises, WHAT ARE THESE TWO PLANES DOING LAYING CHEMTRAILS OVER THE TERMINAL

AT LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT? What altitude are they flying at? Why are they flying over

this major airport? Are they in violation of FAA controlled airspace rules?

Jack

Yes, you are wrong about much of that. Airspace around major airports is Class B or C airspace. The upper limit is usually 10,000 feet but flyovers are still permitted within that provided they are under positive control and are talking to the tower. Between 10,000 and 18,000, they are often controlled by a regional ATC. Above 18,000 is Class A airspace. Of course none of that really matters when talking about the picture provided as the contrails pictured are likely at 30,000 feet or greater (where the temperature is cold enough to support contrails in general) and well within the normal confines of Class A airspace. So, no, they are not violating any FAA rules. And they are not laying "chemtrails".

Correct...I should have said CLASS B, not A. Class A is ABOVE 18000 feet, and is generally reserved for

commercial and military planes. Class B airspace is controlled above airports by the control tower for

approaches, takeoffs and landings. I read of a recent incident over LaGuardia where a private pilot

made an unauthorized "flyover" of Class B airspace and military jets were sent to investigate. Pilots in

Class B airspace must meet certain requirements, including being in radio contact with the tower and

able to fly on instruments.

Regarding planes at 30000 feet causing contrails, the RELATIVE HUMIDITY at that altitude will support

CONTRAILS for only a few seconds before they evaporate.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Regarding planes at 30000 feet causing contrails, the RELATIVE HUMIDITY at that altitude will support

CONTRAILS for only a few seconds before they evaporate.

Jack

Sorry, that is also wrong. If that were true, then how would clouds ever form? A persistent contrail is effectively a cirrus cloud. The article you posted made the wrong assumption that the relationship between relative humidity and contrail persistence is a linear one. It is not. Other variables are temperature and pressure. Further, the correct term to use is relative humidity with respect to ice or RHI although not all sites use the ice term.

More info

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm

Persistent contrail formation requires air that is ice-supersaturated (Brewer, 1946). Ice-supersaturated air is often free of visible clouds (Sassen, 1997) because the supersaturation is too small for ice particle nucleation to occur (Heymsfield et al., 1998b). Supersaturated regions are expected to be quite common in the upper troposphere (Ludlam, 1980). The presence of persistent contrails demonstrates that the upper troposphere contains air that is ice-supersaturated but will not form clouds unless initiated by aircraft exhaust (Jensen et al., 1998a). Aircraft initiate contrail formation by increasing the humidity within their exhaust trails, whereas local atmospheric conditions govern the subsequent evolution of contrail cirrus clouds. Indeed, the ice mass in long-lasting contrails originates almost completely from ambient water vapor (Knollenberg, 1972).

Ice-supersaturated air masses are often formed when ice-saturated air masses are lifted by ambient air motions. While the air lifted, it may remain cloud-free until it is cooled adiabatically to near-liquid saturation (Ludlam, 1980). Other evidence for large supersaturation occurring in the upper troposphere is provided by cirrus fallstreaks that grow while falling through supersaturated air layers (Ludlam, 1980) and by a few localized humidity measurements (Brewer, 1946; Murphy et al., 1990; Ovarlez et al., 1997; Heymsfield et al., 1998b). Recent humidity measurements by commercial aircraft show that-in flights between Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Asia-14% of flight time was in air masses that were ice-supersaturated with a mean value of 15% (Helten et al., 1998; Gierens et al., 1999).

Commercial and military planes are the primary users of Class A airspace but anyone can fly there if they can reach it, have a transponder, radio and file a flight plan.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

Attached is a chart I found illustrating contrail forecasting. Note that contrails can and will form even at 0% relative humidity(yes, zero) if the temperature is cold enough

found here

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resourc...an_student.html

Later on that page there is this info (bolding is mine)

Persistent contrails:

Some contrails are short, and last for only a few seconds. Other contrails are very long, and continue to grow long after the jet airplane has passed. Why do some contrails remain in the sky so long? Let's go back to the example of the cloud forming on your breath during the winter. Such clouds usually disappear as soon as you take your next breath. The relative humidity of the winter air at the surface is usually well below 100%, and cannot sustain a mixing cloud for a long time. The relative humidity at the altitudes where airplanes fly can sometimes be as high as 90%. Surprisingly, at cold temperatures ice clouds (including contrails) can form and persist at humidities lower than 100%. The red line (dash-double dot line) in the Appleman chart shows at what humidities contrails can persist (usually between 60% and 70% relative humidity). Thus, if the air is moist enough, and colder than (temperature profile is to the left of the red line), then the Appleman chart indicates that persistent contrails can form.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

I was out in my yard working from 5 till 7 pm this evening. During that time

I counted 13 separate chemtrail flights in the sky. What a massive operation!

The last two flights ceased spraying at the same point in the sky, with the

two trails forming a giant V in the sky. Most of the patterns formed Xs.

Next time I will stop my yardwork and go inside for my camera.

Jack

Archived RHI data at altitude from that date and time

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cont_p...25&engEff=2

(some instructions for those that would like to use the forcast)

To obtain a better estimate of potential contrail formation, examine the 'Individual level (mb)' results. Select a pressure value between 200 and 250 mb for the best estimate.

As we know from the post above, contrails can persist with RHI as low as 60%. Also note that RHI values well in excess of 100% are possible. Appears to show that persistent contrail formation near the Dallas area was expected. I'm aware that the Dallas area is on the northern edge of the graphic but the resolution is low and the Dallas area is well within the margin of error.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

MET 101

The amount of water vapour present in the air depends upon the amount of evaporation, which will be greater over wet surfaces such as oceans and flooded ground than over a desert or continent. The actual amount of water vapour in the air, known as humidity, is not in itself important; what matters is whether the air can support that amount of water vapour or not. When a parcel of air is supporting as much water vapour as it can, it is said to be saturated and have a relative humidity (RH) of 100%. Air supporting less than its full capacity of water vapour is said to be unsaturated, and will have a relative humidity of less than 100%. In cloud and fog, the relative humidity is 100% and the air is saturated. Over a desert, relative humidity by day might be as low as 10%.

How much water vapour a particular parcel of air can support depends upon the air temperature. Warm air is able to support more water vapour than cold air. If the temperature of the air falls, it is capable of holding less water vapour, and so will be closer to being saturated; that is, its relative humidity will rise. So relative humidity increases with a decrease in temperature for the same water vapour content. The temperature at which the relative humidity reaches 100% is known as the dewpoint temperature.

Once air has become saturated with respect to water, provided sufficient suitable solid particles are available in the air, condensation will take place on them to produce water droplets. Such particles include microscopic pieces of dust, smoke, sea salt, bacteria, pollens etc. These are known as condensation nuclei and vary greatly in their affinity for water.

The condensation process may be delayed if there are insufficient condensation nuclei in the air, or conversely, certain types of condensation nuclei may induce condensation shortly before the 100% relative humidity is reached. Sea salt, for example, has a strong affinity for water and fosters condensation; such particles are called hygroscopic nuclei.

Clouds form only when the water vapour actually condenses.

If saturation of free air occurs at temperatures less than 0°C, supercooled water droplets are formed initially in temperatures down to near -40°C. In temperatures lower than -40°C and in the presence of particular types of nuclei, known as ice nuclei, ice crystals will form. These ice crystals may form in the same environment as supercooled water droplets, but at very low temperatures, ice crystals are more likely to form alone.

All clouds are grouped into one of three levels (étages) according to the height of the base of the cloud. By convention, high-level clouds are those above 20,000 ft and consist of cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus. Middle-level clouds have bases between 7,500 ft and 20,000 ft, consisting of altocumulus, altostratus and nimbostratus. Low-level clouds have bases generally below 7,500 ft, consisting of stratocumulus, stratus, cumulus and cumulonimbus. Nimbostratus is almost always found as middle-level cloud, but it can extend upwards as high-level cloud, and downwards as low-level cloud. Cumulus and cumulonimbus nearly always have their bases as low-level cloud, but their great vertical extent means that the tops will invariably reach into the middle-level and high-level cloud layers.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Jack White]

Some chemtrail plane pilots have a fondness for skywriting ASTERISKS. Now if

we could just locate the footnote....

Jack

Edited April 14, 2008 by Jack White