29 votes

Chemtrail Awareness Reaching A Tipping Point?

Chemtrails are aerosol trails sprayed from aircraft that spread out in the sky, forming unnatural clouds that contain reflective, metallic elements such as barium and aluminum, and can contain other chemicals as well as biological pathogens. These are different than ordinary contrails made by jets, and are widely reported to be part of classified projects being carried out by NATO nations. One publicly disclosed purpose of spraying chemtrails is weather modification and sunlight deflection to supposedly counter global warming. However, many theorists and activists believe there are multiple projects being carried out via these spraying operations, with geoengineering and weather modification merely being the purposes that are easiest to acknowledge to the public.

As crops are affected by chemtrail compounds disturbing the soil, Monsanto corporation has developed genetically modified crops that are resistant to being harmed by those conditions, leading some people to suspect that Monsanto may be complicit in these operations, planning to sabotage natural farming and force agribusiness to become dependent on GMO crops designed to tolerate a toxic, polluted environment.

Public awareness has grown steadily since the late 1990s, when the chemtrail phenomenon first drew attention from the alternative media. In recent years, filmmakers have produced documentaries such as What In The World Are They Spraying? and Why In The World Are They Spraying? Millions have watched these films, browsed educational websites, and looked up at the skies to see this mass contamination of the atmosphere happening in plain sight. Activists are hoping to bring even more attention to the issue and encourage the public to pressure public officials to disclose the truth about these programs and halt any operations not approved by the public. - See more at: http://www.zengardner.com/chemtrail-awareness-reaching-a-tip...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Illegetimi non corundum"? B-)

"They certainly are not carrying extra "aluminum" or other chemicals in the fuel, as that would destroy any profit margin they have."

Not to mention destroying the ENGINES, as any aluminum or aluminum compound burns to microscopic aluminum oxide dust - also known as corundum, one of the most abrasive substance known to man.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Your ad-hominem attacks...

...right off the bat, speak for itself. :(

Ad-hominem attacks also show the lack of intelligent conversation, and or lack of evidence one has in an argument.

I think most can see that fairly well. :)

P.S. You shouldn't attack people who may say things that are bewildering to you. They aren't there to hurt you, ya know.

Ah well, best not to engage in such a conversation with one spewing such anti-intellectual attacks.

Carry on.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://geoengineeringwatch.org

Your ad-hominem response

You ad-hominem response speaks for itself... your accusation of my response being an attack is an ad-hominem response! "ad-hominem attacks also show lack of intelligent conversation"... there is plenty of intelligent conversation, you just chose to selectively ignore it, because your feelings were hurt. Go swig down some more Jack Daniels, and ignore things like the details I mention below.

Just because you can speak a few fancy words in English, doesn't mean you are a capable of critical thought. Why don't you take time out from calling names and enlighten everyone on your answers to these questions:
1. where are the chemicals put into the fuel?
2. what extra chemicals are put in the fuel?(jet fuel is loaded with additives, so extra chemicals, not just jet fuel additives)
3. what is it about these additives that makes more distinct vapor trails? (since regular jet fuel will make plenty of vapor trails when the air is saturated and the jet engine heats the air past the dew point)
4. who is paying for these chemicals
5. how do jet engines handle burning extra chemicals not needed in the jet fuel
6. the jets making a 90 or 180, do they make another 90 or 180, and keep making them like mowing the lawn?
7. what percentage of the "chem trails" are 90 and 180 degree turns
8. when the pilot is calculating weight and balance data before each trip (which is what pilots do), and they know the performance of the plane based on the fuel, do they calculate in the decrease in performance of the plane due to the extra weight of these "substances" that are "being sprayed", and decrease propulsion? Or are big jets just accidently crashing into mountains because there were thousands of pounds of non-jet fuel being sprayed that they didn't know about????????

deacon's picture

why do you assume

it is burnt in the engine and comes out as exhaust?
why do you assume they are passenger jets?
why do they shut the streams off,then turn them back on?
why do they criss cross the skies?
why do they come from no known airports? meaning if there isn't an airport
in their flight path,do they come from a civilian air port?

why do they spew nonstop,with no see-able stops/breaks in the exhaust?
why is reported in the congressional records?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Chemtrails don't come from passenger planes

unless they are spewing a nasty fuel additive.

Would anyone suggest that the only thing a jet plane releases is pure water vapor?

To insist that all the contrails in our skies are the result of benign passenger planes is naive. Obviously you have not done your homework, nor taken a critical look at the sky. Why would a passenger plane take a 90 or 180 degree turn mid-flight? Talk about wasting gas!

Something doesn't add up.

That's true

Why would a passenger plane take a 90 or 180 degree turn mid-flight? Talk about wasting gas!

Excellent point, the airline companies don't waste gas if they can help it, so you can be darn sure that a passenger plane isn't going to just loop around in a small area or make a sharp turn mid-flight! Unless there was a good reason for doing it but what possible reason could there be?!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gAA3vcmR2U

Oh. Nevermind.

It all adds up

"they don't come from passenger planes"... okay... proof? Take a photo of any "chem trail" you or anyone else thinks they see, and then look up the plane on one of the flight sites like flightradar24.com ... it is all passenger traffic.

There are no "chem trails" making 90 or 180 degree turns mid-flight... any picture you see of so called "chem trails" they are regular jet trails...

Why is common sense so uncommon?

Okay, since you have done your homework and are looking critically at the sky, how about some facts?

1. where are the chemicals put into the fuel?
2. what extra chemicals are put in the fuel?(jet fuel is loaded with additives, so extra chemicals, not just jet fuel additives)
3. what is it about these additives that makes more distinct vapor trails? (since regular jet fuel will make plenty of vapor trails when the air is saturated and the jet engine heats the air past the dew point)
4. who is paying for these chemicals
5. how do jet engines handle burning extra chemicals not needed in the jet fuel
6. the jets making a 90 or 180, do they make another 90 or 180, and keep making them like mowing the lawn?
7. what percentage of the "chem trails" are 90 and 180 degree turns
8. when the pilot is calculating weight and balance data before each trip (which is what pilots do), and they know the performance of the plane based on the fuel, do they calculate in the decrease in performance of the plane due to the extra weight of these "substances" that are "being sprayed", and decrease propulsion? Or are big jets just accidently crashing into mountains because there were thousands of pounds of non-jet fuel being sprayed that they didn't know about????????

If something doesn't add up for you, it is because you don't know how to add!

I think the problem is in the terminology.

What is a "chemtrail" vs. a "contrail?"

I think I'll just call them all vapor trails.

Some insist that contrails are just water vapor.
Some say that those trails are chemicals that are intentionally sprayed to slowly depopulate the earth.

Apparently, the word "chemtrail" necessitates the idea of a horrible conspiracy. Hey, it might be true. (There are some people that still refuse to believe that some vaccines were designed to lower the birthrate.) Of course if this was going on, very few would fully understand it. The nasty stuff might be dumped in the fuel and called an additive. Or a separate set of planes might be assigned the mission to spray constantly under the guise of national security or scientific studies or climate control.

Personally, I'm not sure what's going on. But I have seen contrails that melted into a brown haze drifting downward. And I have seen plenty of planes make abrupt turns in fair weather at altitudes that suggest more than simply waiting their turn for a landing strip.

I have read articles from scientists and military who advocate manipulating the atmosphere for various reasons. If they believe there is an advantage for them to do so, why would I assume that they wouldn't try?

If you want more info it's out there. A lot of your questions are the same that I want answers to. If I see that 2+2=6 I might consider that I have overlooked an extra 2 in the equation instead of just assuming that I don't know had to add.

What do you make of the

photographic evidence from decades past then? There were fewer planes in the air, and fewer air routes as well, so it wouldn't have been something you'd have seen 30 years ago as often as today.
http://contrailscience.com/30-years-of-airline-travel/
But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Here's a newscast from 1980, "jet aircraft in high frequency can almost completely cover the atmosphere, visible atmosphere, with clouds" (and see the photo he's referring to there),.
http://contrailscience.com/1980-nbc-news-report-on-contrails/
1940's: http://contrailscience.com/fightercontrails-over-kent-1941/
1944 video: http://contrailscience.com/memphis-belle-wwii-bomber-contrai...
Lots more spanning decades: http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/

The science (or what meteorologists *think* is the science) behind contrails is basic stuff, including explaining why some contrails disperse quickly and some spread out and linger. You don't see a lot of scientists talking about it in the media because it's very basic, and nothing new. The same explanations of contrail phenomenon that worked a generation ago still apply today.
http://contrailscience.com/contrails-are-condensation-but-no...
http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-tra...

I do agree with you that you can't trust the government to be honest. But in this case you can ignore anything the government has to say, and verify the photographic evidence independently to prove to yourself that it's not a new phenomenon, and look at the scientific explanations that pre-date chemtrail theory and aren't from the government anyway.

1940's air planes spew smoke...

...1940's air planes spew a lot of smoke.

Jet engines don't seem to spew the amount of smoke that the 1940's air plane did...

The 1940's air plane engine, and today's JET engine is entirely different.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://geoengineeringwatch.org

So the two responses I got

One says that 1940's planes spewed smoke, conveniently ignoring the photographic evidence from the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, and the other suggests that it's all optical illusions.

But even the claim about the 1940's is wrong. Burning fossil fuels produces water vapor. Depending on the temperature and humidity, the water vapor may or may not condense. If it does condense, then at high altitude it will instantly freeze. Again depending on temperature and humidity the ice may sublimate quickly, or slowly, or with high enough humidity the ice crystals may even grow. See this article:
http://contrailscience.com/contrails-are-condensation-but-no...

Watch this:
http://contrailscience.com/memphis-belle-wwii-bomber-contrai...
and pay attention to how they explained contrails in the 1940's. It's condensation, he says it right there in this 1940's video. You don't get condensation from smoke, you get it from water vapor.

So to recap, contrails have been around since long before most people reading this were even born, and scientists explained contrails seventy years ago the same way they explain them now. Photographic and video evidence confirms that contrails have always behaved the way they do now, sometimes dispersing quickly, sometimes spreading out and lingering, etc. The scientific principles of water vapor production from burning fossil fuels, condensation depending on temperature and humidity, water freezing at low temperatures, sublimation, etc., are all very, very basic and well-understood principles.

I Assume You Missed

MY RESPONSE, SCHILL.

I AM
MONTGOMERY SCOTT

You know

your response was posted *after* that article you're responding to here, but apparently that's no excuse for me not to have responded to you before you wrote it. My bad.

No one said...

...that burning fossil fules does not produce water vapor.

I think most here understand the basic principles of water vapor and ice condensation. Not too hard to get.

Some are simply saying that what is happeneing today and being spewed from JET engines, (not the old 1940's air plane engine) is NOT water vapor.

The physical attributes are not consistant with water vapor or ice condensation. But that means one would have to actually watch them themselves to observe these physical attributes.

But yes, old air plane engines do spew A LOT of smoke behind them. Ever seen them before? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BHOF...

What is being left behind is smoke, not water vapor, or ice crystals.
The Jet engine (when working properly) does not leave such smoke.

There is a difference between the two. You see?

There is smoke, and then there is water vapor. The pysical attributes of the two are different.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://geoengineeringwatch.org

What physical attributes?

The things that contrail theorists point to over and over are things that are well explained by simple physical processes that have been studied for decades. I know that some "are saying" that what is happening is not water vapor, but they aren't able to identify anything that isn't explained by the behavior of water vapor under various conditions of temperature and humidity. Contrails that disappear quickly, that spread out and linger, that have gaps, etc., all the usual things are well understood by meteorologists, have been observed for decades, and have been explained for decades.

I think maybe you're pulling my leg with that youtube, which is definitely and deliberately smoke, not because of the engine but because it's a stunt plane.

In case it wasn't a joke, let me repeat two things. One, the 1940's contrails explained in that video *aren't smoke either*. They are, as the voiceover says and as you could verify from other sources if you cared, the result of condensation. That was understood in 1940 and it hasn't changed -- burning fossil fuels produces a lot of water vapor.

Go to google books, set the time range to 1940-1950, and search for "contrails". You can find as many explanations as you like about why contrails were occurring at the time. Hint: it's not about smoke.

Even if you want to ignore the 1940's and ignore the scientific explanations given at the time for contrails at the time (the same explanation that applies to burning fossil fuels in jet engines) you are still ignoring the fact that pictures of jet contrails from every decade between the invention of jet aircraft and the present are readily available, showing that contrails back then didn't look any different.

Look at the 1980 NBC video for example. Jet engines. Contrails due to condensation spreading out and covering the sky enough to have a measurable effect on the climate, and that was 33 years ago.

that was a stunt plane...

...you are right, sorry. Got carried away.

But the 1940's airplane engine does spew out much more smoke than today's jet engine does. They are emmissions from the engine, like the smoke here that is being spewed from this engine at :12 seconds. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p1EwuOkA-8

I'm sorry, but I live in CA, and heavy spraying here occurs on the hottest days, Sometimes 100 degrees plus. There is no way that what I am seeing is water vapor, or ice condensation, literally falling down, getting closer, and lingering for hours upon hours at these temperatures. At these temperatures they would have dissapated quite quickly. At high altitude I could cast maybe some doubt, but when they are literally less than 100 feet away from you because they have fallen down that much, and have not yet dissapated at 100 degree temperatures, something is up. No way ice condensation could have lasted that long in that temperature to be able to fall down and still remain ice. These are the phyiscal attributes that I speak of.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://geoengineeringwatch.org

But that's not what's causing it, and it's easy to show that

(1) Yes 1940's engines put out more smoke than today's engines but contrails observed in the 40's weren't smoke. They studied contrails very seriously in the early 40's -- you could go look at books about it from the 40's on google books if you wanted -- because contrails gave away the position of planes. Did they conclude that they needed to make the engines less smoky? No, they concluded that it was condensation trails (hence "contrails") from the water vapor produced by burning fuel, and that it depended on temperature and humidity.

(2) Even if it were different in the 40's, which it wasn't, you still haven't explained the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's, because during that entire time photographic and video evidence shows that all of the kinds of contrails you see today have existed for as long as we've been burning fossil fuels at high altitude.

(3)

I'm sorry, but I live in CA, and heavy spraying here occurs on the hottest days, Sometimes 100 degrees plus. There is no way that what I am seeing is water vapor, or ice condensation, literally falling down, getting closer, and lingering for hours upon hours at these temperatures. At these temperatures they would have dissapated quite quickly. At high altitude I could cast maybe some doubt, but when they are literally less than 100 feet away from you because they have fallen down that much, and have not yet dissapated at 100 degree temperatures, something is up. No way ice condensation could have lasted that long in that temperature to be able to fall down and still remain ice. These are the phyiscal attributes that I speak of.

Explain that in more detail. You're seeing trails that start at high altitude, then drift down (as normal contrails do) but then keep drifiting down until they're just a hundred feet over your head?

Let's break this down. "At high altitude I could cast maybe some doubt" -- some doubt? The phenomena as old as air travel and well explained by very, very simple scientific principles. If you have *any* doubt about the fact that jet engines produce water vapor, and that water vapor can condense and freeze and, depending on temperature and humidity, behave in the ways that we see contrails behave (at altitude) today then there are several decades worth of observations and analysis and scientific explanation just waiting to convince you.

There is no problem scientifically with contrails forming, lingering, and falling to (somewhat) lower altitudes, spreading out as they do. Again, that's been the case for decades, and the scientific explanations are simple, extensively investigated, and well understood.

But contrails that begin at high altitude then fall to within 100 feet of the ground, where obviously the temperature is going to be very close to the temperature at ground level, now that would be significant!

Let's look at this like scientists though. Haziness within 100 feet of the ground can happen for some mundane non-contrail reasons. And since the formation of contrails depends on atmospheric conditions, it wouldn't be surprising to learn that there's a correlation between days that you can see contrails and days that you can see ground-level haze.

Correlation doesn't prove causality. There's a correlation between contrail persistence and rain or hazy/overcast conditions, but that's not because the contrails are causing the rain/haze/overcast conditions, it's because (scientists say) a front moving in and bringing higher relative humidity at high altitude creates conditions that allow for contrail persistence. That's for the same scientific reasons that allowed people long before airplanes existed to predict rain based on the formation of certain kinds of clouds. It's a visible indication of a change in atmospheric conditions at high altitude.

So can you prove that the haze you see at ground level *is* the trail that continues to persist after falling from tens of thousands of feet to ground level? That would be significant. On the other hand if all you've observed is a correlation between contrail persistence and later haze at ground level, then how do you rule out the simple and mundane scientific explanation?

Yes I can ...

...prove that the haze that I have seen at ground level is the trail that continues to persist after falling from tens of thousands of feet to ground level, for I have observed them personally.

This is a reaccuring thing here, and some video footage could definitely prove this.

This is nothing new, for these sorts of trails that I have explained are occuring, and have occured constantly.

If you have'nt seen them for yourself, or have taken the time to observe them personally, then I can understand your disbelief.

But it doesn't mean it is not occuring.

Take some time out to observe the sky more often. Make it a habit to always look up, and see if you can see anything. The spraying is occuring all over the world, mainly in NATO countries. I am sure they do it around where you live. Possibly not as much as here, but it's worth a gander.

Anyways, take care brother.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://geoengineeringwatch.org

I'm skeptical

but unlike most of what chemtail theorists claim, nearly all of which are things that have occurred for as long as we've been burning fuel at high altitude and things that are easily explained scientifically, if you can prove that what you say is true, exactly the way you've said it, you'd have something significant.

This is a reaccuring thing here, and some video footage could definitely prove this.

Why not get that footage then?

But keep in mind that certain cloud types at high altitude have been known for a long time to precede hazy/overcast/rainy conditions, and the same is true of condensation trails for the same reasons and has been for as long as airplanes have been flying, so the trick here is to rule out that explanation. In other words, you somehow need to prove that the haze at ground level doesn't just follow the observation of persistent trails, but that it *is* the tail and it is persisting at ground level under conditions that rule out condensation. Because obviously if you can prove that it's the same trail, and prove that it isn't condensation at ground level, then it wasn't condensation when it started.

I'll definitely watch with interest any video you can post that would prove that!

In other words, teThe trick will be showing that the "stuff," whatever it is, that was observed behind a jet airplane at high altitude is the exact same stuff that makes up the haze at ground level.

contrailscience.com: only source of info?

I do believe that we see vapor trails because of condensation. But jet fuel residue is not good for living creatures. It is pollution, if nothing else. Unnatural clouds caused by extra water vapor can change our climate, reducing sunshine and the normal cycles of evaporation and cooling.

Vapor trails also alert us to the activity of planes. Many are not passenger planes. It is fair to inquire what those planes are and where they are traveling. They are in our airspace above our properties.

There are open documents recording and suggesting military and scientific uses for deliberate release of various substances in the atmosphere by planes. This has been done without the knowledge or approval of the general population.

Whether the planes are being used by genocidal lunatics, or simply being careless with serious substances, it is not smart to ignore what is going on.

No not at all!

Contrailscience puts a lot of useful stuff in one place, but the photographic and video sources are not original with contrailscience so you could go independently verify any of that. The scientific explanations haven't changed, or needed to change, since the effects were first explained. You could look all of that up in as many sources as you care to find, but really it's just very, very basic science.

One way to get chemtrail theory taken more seriously would be to have someone who understands that basic science to write an explanation that first *gets the science right* about the conventional explanation, and then explains in scientific terms how scientists have been getting this explanation wrong for decades. But the problem with that is, again, that the science behind contrail formation is such basic stuff, based on principles that are easily demonstrated and that have been studied extensively for a very long time by a large number of scientists. That's probably why you never see chemtrail theorists who seem to have even a basic understanding of how scientists (think they can) explain contrail phenomena and have done so for decades.

But jet fuel residue is not good for living creatures. It is pollution, if nothing else. Unnatural clouds caused by extra water vapor can change our climate, reducing sunshine and the normal cycles of evaporation and cooling.

Nothing to disagree with there! Even the 1980 video from NBC I posted noted that the contrails had enough of an effect to increase cloudiness and affect the weather. (" In the absence of natural clouds, given the correct atmospheric condition, jet aircraft in high frequency can almost completely cover the atmosphere, visible atmosphere, with clouds." and "Weather researchers, studying cloud cover in 10 Midwestern states, found a sharp increase in cloudiness with the increase in commercial jet travel ..."). If the effect was noticeable 33 years ago, it's certainly going to be more pronounced today.

This doesn't support chemtrail theory in the slightest, but it does suggest that we should be aware of how human efforts on a large scale can have unintended effects. (Ironically, in that 1980 video they were saying that the climate effect was a *good* change.)

Vapor trails also alert us to the activity of planes. Many are not passenger planes. It is fair to inquire what those planes are and where they are traveling. They are in our airspace above our properties.

I don't think anyone would dispute that there are a lot fo planes up there that aren't carrying passengers. There are military flights and freight-only flights. Fedex, UPS and the USPO alone would account for a significant number of the planes up there. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but so far nothing you've said supports the chemtrail theory.

There are open documents recording and suggesting military and scientific uses for deliberate release of various substances in the atmosphere by planes. This has been done without the knowledge or approval of the general population.

Certainly there have been deliberate efforts to use planes to release various things into the atmosphere. Cloud seeding has been around for a long time for example. Some of the "what are they spraying" photos are of planes dumping water or chemicals on fires. There have been proposals for other things that could be done, like deliberate attempts to affect the climate. And I wouldn't automatically rule out that there could be efforts by the government to spray things into the atmosphere for any number of reasons.

But what's left of the chemtrail argument? If you accept that contrails, including the ones that spread out and linger, have been observed for as long as we've been burning fossil fuels at high altitudes and that the scientific explanations that have been used to explain these phenomena have been studied in depth for decades without finding any reason to doubt that basic principles of condensation, freezing, sublimation, etc., explain everything we observe and have for decades, then you've wiped out most of the chemtrail theory case. If you look at how flight patterns and the number of flights differ now from twenty years ago, for both passenger flights and for all the cargo flights that are up there also, then it's not surprising that you see more.

What's left *is* perhaps a reason for being suspicious. If something is possible to do, and it would be a bad idea but possibly appealing to someone in power, then you can't rule out the possibility that it's actually being done. But then the next step would be to look for evidence that it actually *is* being done. Instead what you get is the "look up at the sky" and "I don't remember this from when I was a kid" arguments, and massive scientific ignorance about even the most basic principles.

Then again I were a government official trying to cover up some top-secret spraying program, I'd have people out there spreading that kind of ignorance and posting photos of firefighting planes dumping chemicals on fires and posting things like that video of a refueling tanker (be sure you find the original on that one), etc.

Think about it. If there is such a program, you couldn't hide it from scientists working in the relevant fields. It would be almost trivially easy for them to unmask. So you have to get the scientists not to look. What better way to get them not to look than to have chemtrail theorists out there pointing to ordinary contrails doing ordinary things that they've always done, and chemtrail theorists showing that they don't even have a high school level of understanding of principles like freezing, condensation, sublimation, high-atmosphere conditions, the non-uniformity of atmospheric conditions, etc.? It virtually guarantees that scientists will dismiss the whole thing.

That's why I said that the way to get it taken seriously would be to start by getting the science right. But that won't happen because doing so tosses 99% of what people offer as evidence for chemtrails right out the window.

It's not an easy thing to prove.

Thanks for thinking about it seriously, though. I hope that air pollution from planes will be taken more seriously. Cloud seeding should be illegal. Planes should have tight standards for emissions, even if it is only water vapor. I'm sure there can be a technological way to re-capture water vapor from the jets if there was will enough. Until private landowners once again own the air above their property, we will have to hold the government accountable for the pollution that is being allowed. The airlines can be persuaded by customers who want clean air, but other planes will still be flying.

I wish there was a small-gov answer.

Interesting questions

First, I don't know that cloud seeding (assuming we're both talking about cloud seeing to cause rain) should be illegal. That's done at much lower altitudes than the contrails we're talking about, and it's done by seeding rain clouds that are already in the sky. In any case it's a different issue from contrails/chemtrails.

Recapturing the water vapor? I'd be very surprised if there's a technologically feasible way to do that. The water vapor is produced when the fuel burns, combining with the oxygen in the air. I've read that burning a pound of jet fuel produces slightly more than a pound of water vapor (the oxygen from the air, which combines with the hydrogen from the fuel, accounts for some of that weight). So it's a lot of water vapor, and it's very hot and it's moving very fast (a couple hundred miles an hour, google says). To capture it you'd have to slow it down and cool it, so there would be a high cost of doing that. But since it's the momentum of that air/vapor mixture being thrown out the back of the jet engine that makes the plane move forward, even if you could find a way to do it I don't think it would turn out to be a good idea.

On the other hand, since the formation of contrails is well understood it would be possible to restrict flights where contrails are most likely to form. In some cases that would mean flying at lower altitudes, for example. The water vapor is still released but it doesn't form contrails, so doesn't affect the climate as much. It would cost more to fly those non-contrail routes, but apparently there have been proposals for those sorts of restrictions based on the link between contrails and higher average temperatures.

Optical Illusion?

What do you make of the photographic evidence from decades past then?


Blinking Dot Optical Illusion

Upvote just for Minecraft

Upvote just for Minecraft

Cyril's picture

Indeed.

After all our government hasn't been exactly honest and sincere with us on any issue, has it?

Indeed. It hasn't always been... There is at least one significant look-alike precedent :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210415/Revealed-Arm...

I like what our fellow DP'er, Paul, often says, and as I see it to be truth of wisdom, AFAIC :

"Government has to be considered GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT."

YMMV.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Sunspot number today is 61.

Sunspot number today is 61. Geo-Engineering to control man-made global warming is totally unnecessary.
http://www.spaceweather.com/

Thanks to the Grand Solar Minimum;
"Farmers' Almanac" predicts a "bitterly cold" winter
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57600023/farmers-almanac...

You're an idiot. Take a

You're an idiot. Take a freshman level science or engineering class, then come back and read this and see how ridiculous you sound.

Cyril's picture

LMFAO !

LMFAO !

Take a freshman level science or engineering class, then come back and read this

... says the tool who that can't even figure the purpose of a specific hyperlink given in the middle of an argument :

http://www.dailypaul.com/296505#comment-3177019

Mouarf ! Mouarf ! Mouarf !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You keep bringing this up and

You keep bringing this up and I still have no idea what point you were trying to make. And instead of making the point, well, you act like you are now.