Australian Science: Chemtrails – Conspiracy Theory?

[FreiZeitGeist]

Can´t believing what this magazine wrotes about the topic:

http://www.australianscience.com.au/...piracy-theory/

It´s mostly a critical description about "What in the world..." but the conclusion in the last phrase is getting me facepalmed:

Over and over there are references that scream sensationalism tactics. Presenting one side of the story as this film does, makes it a bit difficult to really ascertain what the perceived harm is and if chemtrails are really a ploy by governments the globe over to decrease the human race. If it is true, than we should start tracking the whereabouts of aluminium and barium in relation to scheduled flight plans and requesting that our elected officials work with our national scientific organizations to find the answers, while looking for real solutions to climate change that works for the populations and the planet.

Nothing about the physics of contrails in this article. Just a "Who is who" of the people presented in Murphys Video.

Is this "Australian Science?!?"

[Belfrey]

This kind of thing is really irritating to me. The site appears to be generally respectable, but this article is awful. The author basically wrote an article which repeats the claims of the movie, and at most expressed some mild skepticism about some aspects. There was one "thumbs up" comment already posted, I just submitted the following:

Belfrey
December 29, 2012 at 3:15 pm ·
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The primary premise of the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory – that ordinary contrails can’t persist for long periods of time, and thus any trails that do are evidence of chemical spraying – is provably false. Contrails can indeed persist for hours when a plane travels through the right atmospheric conditions. This has been documented both in popular media and in the scientific literature for as long as there’s been high-altitude air travel. Do a literature search for the term “persistent contrails”. Plenty of papers on this topic from the 1950s to today.


Aluminum is the most abundant metal, and the third-most abundant element in the earth’s crust. It is naturally 7-8% of soil on average, much higher in some areas. It has always ended up in air and rainwater via airborne dust. Even the link you give in the article states that “Aluminum occurs naturally in soil, water, and air.” Indeed, it is so commonly found in samples that it is often used by scientists as a reference element, to determine what proportion of other elements in samples comes from the earth’s crust as opposed to other sources – the “crustal enrichment factor”. Barium and strontium are also naturally-occurring in soil and dust, as shown by decades of results reported in scientific journals.


The makers of this movie made no attempt to establish what are “normal” levels of these elements, and instead assume that any results are abnormal (and further, assume that they must have been released aerially). The only really high-sounding results they present came from dirty summer snowpack and pond sludge – both of which naturally have a lot of soil, and thus a lot of aluminum.


Aluminum toxicity has always been a problem with crops in some areas. This is primarily due not to the amount of aluminum in the soil (again, there is normally a lot), but rather the soil pH; when the pH is very low (acidic), aluminum becomes more soluble as Al+++ ions, and that’s when Al toxicity can be an issue for some plants. Some parts of the world have very acidic soil on otherwise good agricultural land, thus the push for aluminum-resistant varieties. Ironically, this film claims that the “spray” is increasing soil pH (making it more alkaline), which if true would make Al toxicity LESS of a problem.


This leaves the geoengineering proposals. Scientists are indeed discussing and studying the possibility of solar radiation management (SRM) programs for the future. However, nowhere is there any evidence that there is an SRM program currently ongoing. In fact, the very same scientists who are misrepresented in this film are on record saying that we should NOT start such a program now.


Rather than writing an article which just describes the claims made in this film, why not do just a little bit of background research into whether those claims are accurate?

[FreiZeitGeist]

This must be a kind of april-fools-day article or something simular...

...filed under "Chemistry"

...tagged with aluminium, chemtrails, climate change, conspiracy theory, contrails,genetic engineering, geoengineering, government, Monsanto, weather control

[Jay Reynolds]

I made a comment, awaiting moderation probably because of links.

Kelly,
Google "Mt. Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests" and at the metabunk.org site you will find two pages explaining that the claims made by Michael J. Murphy's film about aluminum being sprayed are not supported by the tests as claimed. When it was found that the Murphy&Co. tests were showing ordinary aluminum levels, the tests were repeated and only the expected levels of aluminum bearing the signature of mother earth were detected, not some mysterious geoengineering spraying.
http://metabunk.org/threads/137-Shas...Aluminum-Tests

Also, you can google "Historical Aerosol Thickness Debunks "Chemtrails are Geoengineering"" and you will find that data compiled over the past 50 years shows no increase in aerosols as would be happening if geoengineering were taking place.
http://metabunk.org/threads/111-Hist...gineering-quot

Furthermore, you mention a common sense approach to actually identify the planes seen. That was my suggestion as well to Mr. G. Edward Griffin, co-producer of the film. When he did this he found that they were ordinary commercial jets. You can view the exchange by googling "Debunked: Only Four Airliner Flights/Day over Mt. Shasta, CA" for the details.
http://metabunk.org/threads/622-Debu...ll=1#post10664

Lastly, the hallmark of science is when data is fully disclosed and openly discussed. All of the above information showing the gross errors in Murphy's film has been received by him, but he refuses to discuss those matters or correct his errors. You can view details on this by googling " Proposal for a "Chemtrails Information Freedom Aagreement".
http://metabunk.org/threads/267-Prop...agreement-quot

The bottom line here is that the producers of that movie are interested only in maintaining their bottom line, despite being made aware that there is no basis for their claims.

[TWCobra]

Interesting website... Australian Science but most of the contributors are not Australian.

my comment below was also deleted...

Michael GlynnDecember 29, 2012 at 9:03 pm ·
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
As an airline pilot I find it disturbing that a supposed science magazine even countenances the idea of “chemtrails”. The crucial qualifications that all believers in this silly hoax lack is expertise in either meteorology or heavy jet aviation. Knowledge of either squashes this hoax at the very early stages. Please do not feed this hoax any further as the zealotry of some is beginning to manifest as threats to pilots and aircraft. Feel free to contact me for a pilots point of view.

[Jay Reynolds]

Interesting website... Australian Science but most of the contributors are not Australian.

my comment below was also deleted...

My comment got in, and probably yours will too. Michael J. Murphy sent Barry Kolsky out for a non-response.

[TWCobra]

You were right Jay... It did eventually.

[PCWilliams]

It looks like Kelly Burnes posted a closing thought that pretty much rebukes the film ...

From http://www.australianscience.com.au/...piracy-theory/:

At first glance, the movie “What in the World are they Spraying” seems to be a professionally made film with a genuine concern for the public and contains information that is worth thinking about. However, after examining some of the facts presented in the movie a little more closely, it is readily apparent that information had been twisted or ignored.

[Mick]

It looks like Kelly Burnes posted a closing thought that pretty much rebukes the film ...

From http://www.australianscience.com.au/...piracy-theory/:

Unfortunately that was a post by "Arby". Kelly's post was:

Content from external source:


Thank you to all those who commented on this article.

I believe Australian Science is committed to communicating topics that get people talking and asking questions about science. And obviously, and quite unexpectedly, this article did.

As stated in the piece, I had never heard of chemtrails till mentioned by the editor. Within minutes after the start of the film, I was dubious of the claims being made. After further research I remained unconvinced, but that doesn’t mean the topic is not worthy of examination and conversation. As a commentator in this forum it is beyond my purview to present a definitive thesis. Rather I attempt to assess the main points on both sides and provide recommendations and links that allow the reader to access more in-depth information should they wish. And I encourage anyone with an interest in this topic to do so.

This topic of chemtrails is definitely not “hard science” and I don’t believe in giving time to conspiracy theories. However, I think it’s important to present different aspects of science to inform people and encourage debate. I also think it important to not forget the bigger picture at hand: climate change. Although the root cause of climate change may still be open to debate. Regardless of what one believes is the cause, action is definitely required.

It's the old "false balance" problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Content from external source:

An example of issues sometimes handled with false balance are pseudoscience, as when a national nightly news program in the United States gave coverage to a backyard inventor who claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine; the program presented scientific authorities to explain why such a device was impossible, but since they gave equal time to the claims of the inventor, it may have created a false impression with audiences that his claims were credible, although they were not.

[Belfrey]

If her goal with the article was to "assess the main points on both sides and provide recommendations and links that allow the reader to access more in-depth information should they wish", then I think she failed rather miserably. She did not discuss any science-based information regarding persistent contrails, and the only external links she provided were to the Truth Media blog, an article about cloud engineering, and a link about aluminum exposure and human health.

[Trigger Hippie]

Content from external source:

As stated in the piece, I had never heard of chemtrails till mentioned by the editor. Within minutes after the start of the film, I was dubious of the claims being made. After further research I remained unconvinced, but that doesn’t mean the topic is not worthy of examination and conversation. --Kelly Burnes

But is it worthy of examination and conversation on Australian Science, a website that claims to be a "privately-funded initiative dedicated to advancement of science, technology and education in Australia."? There is no scientific evidence of chemtrails, so there is no scientific evidence to examine or discuss.

If Australian Science is going to give scientific credibility to chemtrails, then I expect they would be willing to publish articles on the Abominable Snowman and hollow earth theories as well.

[Mick]

Well, essentially it's a popular science site. Not a particular big one (Alexa says it has less traffic than Metabunk), so it's not like nature.com publishing a similar article.

The author is not really a scientist, and it's clear she's not really looked into the science, or even thought much about it, with statements like "aluminium that falls as pellets from the sky". While it does seem like she recognizes that it's probably not good science, she's just not looked into it enough to recognize it's not even science at all, and falls into the trap of giving "balance" to the subject.

It's unfortunate, but probably not a big deal - hopefully the comments there will give people some better perspective.

[GregMc]

She indicates they want to give balance to opposing viewpoints. She doesn't actually give any detail at all to the scientifically supported fact of persistent contrails.
That follows the lazy journalism fad of adversarial drama to get more readers and viewers rather than informative revelation of science concepts and processes.

Throw out to the public unfounded and well founded conflicting concepts with no background discussion of what reality has been determined already by scientific research and let the public guess at what is right .
The public knows best right? Surely they will have the motivation and research skills to look up obscure scientific texts written in detailed scientific terminology and discern what is right.
One half of the folks disseminating the conflicting and WRONG viewpoints featured in the story were incapable of doing that but surely the reader will do better without guidance?

That's a fun easy approach for a lazy journalist.
Think about how that approach works in the case of communication about a subject like ... say... HIV transmission.

We need to give the public equal time to conflicting viewpoints and approaches so how about an article that spends at least half of its coverage detailing how voodoo practitioners in Southern Africa think a man can cleanse himself of Aids by having relations with Virgins.

Briefly compare that with some pesky gobblegook about T cells and recombinant thingamabobs and let the readers experiment amongst themselves to see what works best.
That sure worked great in South Africa didn't it?
http://draust.wordpress.com/2008/12/...pseudoscience/

[Joe]

whats coming out of the tail ?

[GregMc]

Poor Damo (a friend of Peekay22 ) STILL doesn't know what a heated drain mast is, even though it was explained clearly to him over a year ago, with links sent to him of technical diagrams etc.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=He...w=1168&bih=910


http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lloyd...-ER/0916934/L/


A drainmast is a heated tube that takes wastewater from sinks and galleys on board an airliner and it releases waste water (not the toilets flushes though) out through the belly of the plane.
Because the water is only room temperature and not engine heat, it comes out as liquid and doesn't leave a clear gap of a metre or more before becoming visible.
A sink full takes about a minute to empty sometimes, so at 500mph that makes a white ice crystal trail that could be 8 miles long or so depending on atmospheric conditions if it persists for a while.

The drain mast is only releasing whatever water comes out of a sink through a very small hole and since it is a sink, it often comes out in fits and starts The engines on a 747 are releasing 12 TONS of water per hour through 4 very big holes. That's quite a difference and that is why the trails are very different in size in his vid.
Releasing a small amount of water from a sink makes a small short lived trail like the one seen in Damo's video.
When the flight attendants dump a pot of unwanted cold coffee down a sink, there goes another mysterious "third chemtrail" (of 5th for a 4engine plane) !


The main contrails in his video also exhibit some spiralling crow instability. He does not seem to bother thinking through the fact that the contrails start out straight and begin to distort over time due to turbulence left in the atmosphere by the wings. Most forms of energetic turbulence vortices start out small, fast and tight then increase in dimension as they slow down .
He should have a careful read about wake turbulence.
http://expertaviator.com/2011/04/29/...ound-incident/

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

http://www.far-wake.org/IMG/workshop..._10_Delisi.pdf

Damo is then mystified by out of focus insects flying in front of his camera lens.
The so called "giant UFO's " he has never observed with the naked eye, even though if they were at altitude they should be bigger than a jet liner.
He only notices them after studying his videos frame by frame, but never noticed them when viewing in person. He rejects the idea that an out of focus small object close to camera like a bug would look transparent and blurry or spherical.

TheDamo63 asks questions about things he observes but immediately blocks anyone who tries to answer accurately and deletes their responses apparently without reading them.

Treasure, since most of us are blocked from supplying accurate answers to Damo you might care to head him in the right direction.
Don't want the poor chap mystified and bewildered for too long!

[PCWilliams]

Poor Damo (a friend of Peekay22 ) STILL doesn't know what a heated drain mast is ....

Awesome information. I went to his video and posted a link back to this message. Let's see how long my post lasts.

[Joe]

Poor Damo (a friend of Peekay22 ) STILL doesn't know what a heated drain mast is, even though it was explained clearly to him over a year ago, with links sent to him of technical diagrams etc.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=He...w=1168&bih=910


http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lloyd...-ER/0916934/L/


A drainmast is a heated tube that takes wastewater from sinks and galleys on board an airliner and it releases waste water (not the toilets flushes though) out through the belly of the plane.
Because the water is only room temperature and not engine heat, it comes out as liquid and doesn't leave a clear gap of a metre or more before becoming visible.
A sink full takes about a minute to empty sometimes, so at 500mph that makes a white ice crystal trail that could be 8 miles long or so depending on atmospheric conditions if it persists for a while.

The drain mast is only releasing whatever water comes out of a sink through a very small hole and since it is a sink, it often comes out in fits and starts The engines on a 747 are releasing 12 TONS of water per hour through 4 very big holes. That's quite a difference and that is why the trails are very different in size in his vid.
Releasing a small amount of water from a sink makes a small short lived trail like the one seen in Damo's video.
When the flight attendants dump a pot of unwanted cold coffee down a sink, there goes another mysterious "third chemtrail" (of 5th for a 4engine plane) !


The main contrails in his video also exhibit some spiralling crow instability. He does not seem to bother thinking through the fact that the contrails start out straight and begin to distort over time due to turbulence left in the atmosphere by the wings. Most forms of energetic turbulence vortices start out small, fast and tight then increase in dimension as they slow down .
He should have a careful read about wake turbulence.
http://expertaviator.com/2011/04/29/...ound-incident/

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

http://www.far-wake.org/IMG/workshop..._10_Delisi.pdf

Damo is then mystified by out of focus insects flying in front of his camera lens.
The so called "giant UFO's " he has never observed with the naked eye, even though if they were at altitude they should be bigger than a jet liner.
He only notices them after studying his videos frame by frame, but never noticed them when viewing in person. He rejects the idea that an out of focus small object close to camera like a bug would look transparent and blurry or spherical.

TheDamo63 asks questions about things he observes but immediately blocks anyone who tries to answer accurately and deletes their responses apparently without reading them.

Treasure, since most of us are blocked from supplying accurate answers to Damo you might care to head him in the right direction.
Don't want the poor chap mystified and bewildered for too long!

Thanks for the explanation makes sense but even sink water can be pretty gross . I thought it would just been a insect but it did appear to be above the contrail? Blocking anyone even if you disagree is wrong . unless they just mock and insult .

[A380]

Hi,

a similar trail sometimes can be seen after takeoff in summer:




It is fuel from the overflow valve, when the tank is full and the fuel heats up and expands. The overflow valve is by Boeing in the front of the wing.

[Mick]

Hi,

a similar trail sometimes can be seen after takeoff in summer:



It is fuel from the overflow valve, when the tank is full and the fuel heats up and expands. The overflow valve is by Boeing in the front of the wing.

Interesting, but is that what your photo is showing? The trail seems to be coming from the body, not the wing. Shouldn't it look like this:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sunwi...86N/2073991/L/

[A380]

Interesting, but is that what your photo is showing? The trails seems to be coming from the body, not the wing. Shouldn't it look like this:

Yes, that is the number 1 wing tank. My example is the auxiliary fuel tank:



(Edit: Sorry, wrong picture)

[MikeC]

Auxiliary fuel tanks are not that common though - they go in the front or rear cargo/baggage compartments, and take up valuable space. You would not expect to see them fitted for normal airline ops, unless there was a requirement for considerable rang - eg the 737-700 has a 300 mile range normally, but that can be increased to 5775 on the ER model with 9 auxiliary tanks (Boeing data)

But the 737-700ER has a lower practical seating capacity than the straight -700 - only 126 vs 137 in 2-class. Theoretically it can cram in as many as the -700, but then you can't carry all that extra fuel, so what's the point!

Some more info on auxiliary tanks on 737 up to the "Classics" is here

Anyway - I suspect the shot of the 737 with the "fuselage contrail" is probably just a sink drain.

[Joe]

Awesome information. I went to his video and posted a link back to this message. Let's see how long my post lasts.

Link doesnt work ?

[A380]

Anyway - I suspect the shot of the 737 with the "fuselage contrail" is probably just a sink drain.

It seems to come from the right wing base, here is a sector of the picture:



A mechanic says that it could be water, but then it would be on the left hand site. Here is an example for the vent for the auxiliary fuel tank on the right hand site: http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel_tank_vent.htm

The plane was UR-GAJ and started on a very hot day in TXL. On the photo is the plane approximately 6 m behind the airport in the climb. It ascended very slowly.

[Billzilla]

It seems to come from the right wing base, here is a sector of the picture:



A mechanic says that it could be water, but then it would be on the left hand site. Here is an example for the vent for the auxiliary fuel tank on the right hand site: http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel_tank_vent.htm

The plane was UR-GAJ and started on a very hot day in TXL. On the photo is the plane approximately 6 m behind the airport in the climb. It ascended very slowly.

APU venting something maybe? The inlet for it is just ahead of there as well.

[MikeC]

It seems to come from the right wing base, here is a sector of the picture:



A mechanic says that it could be water, but then it would be on the left hand site. Here is an example for the vent for the auxiliary fuel tank on the right hand site: http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel_tank_vent.htm

Yes - he would be right - all the drain masts are on the left of the aircraft because all the ground servicing is done on the right hand side - it helps keep the vehicles away from them. Even the APU drain is on the left side.

The plane was UR-GAJ and started on a very hot day in TXL. On the photo is the plane approximately 6 m behind the airport in the climb. It ascended very slowly.

UR-GAJ is a 737-500 (as an aside an airline I was working for was goign to get -500's in hte late 1980's...then the 1887 crisis hit, and suddenly Fred Packer had 5 years of BAe-146 production he had monopolised for overnight freight in Europe had no market and had to fly somewhere - so all his interests around the world got 146's - Australia, New Zealand & Sth America that I am aware of)

Tte only feature it is definitely associated with is the APU, but I hesitate to say it is an APU trail because if it only 6 miles from the airport then it won't be very high altitude as you say, and all I can think of from the APU is a fuel mist because the APU isn't actually running but fuel is slowing.

My experience with 737 APU's is quite old and minimal, but IIRC they were totally automatic in operation - in the cockpit there was just an start/run/off switch and a warning light! If they stopped burning they would shut down. Likewise the fuel would not run for long before lighting up.

A smokey APU maybe?

[GregMc]

UR-GAJ : I'm not sure why there is a suggestion of the trail coming from the rhs wingbase. Are you guys referring to the long white specular highlight due to paint shinyness visible on the blue tail section?
Here's an example on on the side of a tail. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../5/0241544.jpg

[PCWilliams]

Link doesnt work ?

I just tried it (http://tinyurl.com/bzz6zin) and it worked over here.

[Joe]

I just tried it (http://tinyurl.com/bzz6zin) and it worked over here.

I ment on YT .

[PCWilliams]

I ment on YT .

Oh. Sorry. My bad. You can't post links on YT so it's customary to throw "[DOT]" in place of the "." in a link.

[Joe]

Oh. Sorry. My bad. You can't post links on YT so it's customary to throw "[DOT]" in place of the "." in a link.

thats what i figured and tried it didnt work for me . Could be just me ?

[jvnk08]

thats what i figured and tried it didnt work for me . Could be just me ?

You might have to replace all periods with "DOT". Try putting spaces around the dots too. I find after some futzing with it you can post a link on YT that is fairly easily reconstructed.

[A380]

Sorry for late answer - much work …

UR-GAJ : I'm not sure why there is a suggestion of the trail coming from the rhs wingbase. Are you guys referring to the long white specular highlight due to paint shinyness visible on the blue tail section?

The plane took off in my direction, and I saw that the strip was left of the fuselage. Unfortunately I had no camera at the moment. When I did, I saw the plane just as seen on the picture.

I know planes from PS (Ukraine International), they came by here very often. I have many photos from this airline, some are here: http://foto-jl.de/bildserie.php?act=...0International. Reflections look different from this trail, the sun came here from top left. The stripes on the aircraft is the extension of the strip behind the aircraft.

And on http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel_tank_vent.htm is:

This vent is forward of the starboard wing leading edge and is the vent for the auxiliary fuel tank, if fitted.

Condensation can be excluded, because it was too hot and dry.

That all would fit together.