I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[GregMc]

Not sure if this point has already been raised and I missed it....

The oceans comprise about 70.8% of the earth's surface.
They also represent open territory mostly outside national boundaries and territorial claims. Largely an overflight free for all.
So if a geoengineering campaign was being secretly conducted surely it would be logical that the majority of flights would be undertaken over the oceans.
In fact the percentage of ocean to land is so large that it is logical that few if any geo-engineering flights would need be conducted over land and raise suspicions or concerns.
Instead we simply see the majority of flights simply the result of normal passenger flights, and satellite imagery of the oceans shows no such proportional distribution of flights as would be expected of worldwide geoengineering.

[George B]

No, I mean if you were doing it, what would the non-global missions be?

I guess it depends on your definition of local . . . ? City, county, state region, national. . . .? This would dictate the altitude, flight vectors, and weather conditions for release. . . This was what all that experimentation in the 1950s with Zinc Cadmium Sulfied was all about. . . .

COLD WAR ERA HUMAN SUBJECT*
EXPERIMENTATION*

http://www.archive.org/stream/coldwa...0unit_djvu.txt

[George B]

Not sure if this point has already been raised and I missed it....

The oceans comprise about 70.8% of the earth's surface.
They also represent open territory mostly outside national boundaries and territorial claims. Largely an overflight free for all.

So if a geoengineering campaign was being secretly conducted surely it would be logical that the majority of flights would be undertaken over the oceans.
In fact the percentage of ocean to land is so large that it is logical that few if any geo-engineering flights would need be conducted over land and raise suspicions or concerns.

Instead we simply see the majority of flights simply the result of normal passenger flights, and satellite imagery of the oceans shows no such proportional distribution of flights as would be expected of worldwide geoengineering.

1) If most of my efforts to geo-engineer are using pre-existing missions, military, commercial, etc. . . . Why go to the added expense to add flights . . The Japanese ionized radiation and Chinese pollution
have no problem circulating in at least the Northern Hemisphere. . . . The key is getting the materials as high as is practical
on a scheduled basis . . . and as close to the base level of particulates as possible. . . I would simply be supplementing nature's and anthropomorphic pre-existing loadings anyway. . . .

2) Second. . . If flights on nontraditional routes were detected . . . How would they be explained. . . That would beg for further investigation. . .

[George B]

Since you collectively been active in debunking sources and concepts. . . I just ran upon this. . . .It is from David Ickes' stuff. . . And yes I know who he is . . . He refers to a Dr. McKay. . . .

My own (graflok's) summary of the 4 reasons for chemtrails (as I understand the above info):

1. aluminum oxide or a compound with similar properties to block the rays of the sun thus lowering*
surface temperature and reducing UV radiation.

2. (most secret) a barium salt aerosol (possibly with fibers) to facilitate the US Navy's Radio Frequency*
Mission Planner (RFMP). This is a system that allows one to visually see battlefield terrain in 3 dimensions*
(3-D) on a television screen. This system allows the computer operator to develop familiarity with the*
environment before a battlefield war mission occurs by playing a variety of "what-if" virtual warfare*
scenarios on his computer screen. The aerosol also allows enemy high frequency communications to be*
monitored more easily.*

3. barium salts as part of a weather modification scheme (in conjunction with HAARP) to withhold rain,*
cause floods, cause drought, cause storms, withhold sunshine, damage food crops, and bring any country*
to its knees without firing a shot.

4. barium salts to produce atmospheric and ground conditions detrimental to human and animal health but favorable*
to the growth of harmful molds and fungus.

graflok

Chemtrail reasons

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=2104

*Here's some interesting info from a Dr. Stephen D. McKay regarding his research into chemtrails. My own summary of the information (as I understand it) is at the end of the post.

reference (excerpted below, as told to Victoria Hardy):
http://www.americanchronicle.com/art...rticleID=21473

Dr. Stephen D. McKay recently sent me an email and shared the news that he has been contacted by the BBC and Channel 4 in the U.K. to work on two documentaries about weather modification and geo-engineering projects, including the chemtrail issue. And yesterday I received his findings after six years of research into the subject.

[Mick]

1) If most of my efforts to geo-engineer are using pre-existing missions, military, commercial, etc. . . . Why go to the added expense to add flights . . The Japanese ionized radiation and Chinese pollution
have no problem circulating in at least the Northern Hemisphere. . . . The key is getting the materials as high as is practical
on a scheduled basis . . . and as close to the base level of particulates as possible. . . I would simply be supplementing nature's and anthropomorphic pre-existing loadings anyway. . . .

2) Second. . . If flights on nontraditional routes were detected . . . How would they be explained. . . That would beg for further investigation. . .

But why then were you going on about the Open Skies Treaty, and planes flying from other countries? If they are just pre-existing flights, then why the need for that?

I'm afraid your case so far comes down to a whole lot of "maybe", which would easily be countered by "probably not".

[Mick]

Since you collectively been active in debunking sources and concepts

I'm not really. I'm into debunking purported evidence. There's an infinite number of concepts, and sources are only as good as the evidence they bring.

[George B]

But why then were you going on about the Open Skies Treaty, and planes flying from other countries? If they are just pre-existing flights, then why the need for that?

I'm afraid your case so far comes down to a whole lot of "maybe", which would easily be countered by "probably not".

Hmmmm. . . I am going back and forth between ' what I would do ' and trying to answer what some advocates think and trying to find common ground between the two . . sure all covert programs until full disclosure are full of speculation, maybe's, etc. . . .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgCXu...eature=related

[George B]

But why then were you going on about the Open Skies Treaty, and planes flying from other countries? If they are just pre-existing flights, then why the need for that?

I'm afraid your case so far comes down to a whole lot of "maybe", which would easily be countered by "probably not".

I felt it had merit in demonstrating how some of the unknown flights the 'Public' had no real information on could be foreign in their planning and management. . . .

[Noble1965]

I don't have time right now . .. However, circumstantial evidence is used in the courts of this country and many others . . . it is a form of evidence based on inference. . .I feel I can prove that there is a set of such evidence available in the case of the Chemtrail Conspiracy . . .

I'm looking forward to that!

[George B]

I'm looking forward to that!

I have re-evaluated that statement. . . since I have now had a few hours with this forum. . . I have no evidence that this group will accept Any evidence. . . Circumstantial or other. . . I have lowered my expectations considerably. . . .

[Mick]

I'll accept any evidence.

[Noble1965]

I'll accept any evidence.

Me too!

[George B]

I'll accept any evidence.

That was a misstatement on my part I meant to type 'accept as evidence' . .

[Noble1965]

That was a misstatement on my part I meant to type 'accept as evidence' . .

Personally, I knew what you meant. I just can't accept suspicious supposition *as* "evidence". So far, that's all I see.

[solrey]

I'll accept any evidence.

Yup... real, bonafide and verifiable evidence, sure. Speculation and conjecture...not so much.

I also would bet the signatories of the treaty are the countries with the highest concentrations of populations. . . And the countries where the majority of Chemtrail Advocates are being heard. . .

The Open Skies Treaty is basically between NATO and Warsaw Pact members.
Per Wikipedia:

The 34 State Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. Canada and Hungary are the depositories of the treaty in recognition of their special contribution to the Open Skies process. "Depository" countries maintain treaty documents and provide administrative support.

The countries where the majority of chemtrail advocates are being heard are countries with the most commercial air traffic...go figure.

People are seeing primarily, or always seeing, persistent trails from high efficiency engines from high flying long haul aircraft. . . Visibility is simply coincidental. . .

You keep yammering on about high efficiency engines but in reality, high efficiency engines on long haul flights have little to do with the increase in persistent contrails and everything to do with the general increase in commercial flights, regardless of engine efficiency. Just consider the fact that persistent contrails were a major problem for aircraft during WWII and persistent contrails have been studied ever since. An aircraft doesn't have to be on a long haul flight to leave persistent contrails either, all that's required is to be flying at an altitude where the atmospheric conditions are conducive to contrail formation and that could even occur on routes as short as Chicago to Indianapolis.

After monitoring this thread from the beginning, I reached the conclusion early on that George is seriously mis-informed on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

cheers

[George B]

Personally, I knew what you meant. I just can't accept suspicious supposition *as* "evidence". So far, that's all I see.

Do you think it was wise to test live biological or chemical warfare agents in the environment. . . Releasing them from aircraft . . . ?

[Mick]

That was a misstatement on my part I meant to type 'accept as evidence' . .

I think this is the crux of your communication problem George. You are very willing to accept anything as evidence. But you are equally unwilling to accept anything as counter-evidence.

Take your 27 point list. It's basically a list of things that have perfectly reasonable explanations that do not involve any kind of conspiracy. Or it's things that are essentially meaningless. Take point #27

27. Do you have any reason to believe some type of coordinated, high tech, aerosol injection program from altitude, dispersed by some type of airframe has not, is not, or will not be implemented ?. . . No

That's not evidence. That's just the equivalent of:

Do you have reason to believe that to some kind of covert surveillance program might not have used, or will not use in the future, some kind of robotic animal? . . . No.

And using that as evidence that there's robot spy cats in my neighborhood.

All you've established is that it's possible that something might be happening that might involved aerosols, and possibly planes.

You've no evidence of anything in particular or for anything in particular.

How can I accept something AS evidence, if you can't say what it's evidence of?

And why would I accept it as evidence of one incredible thing, when there are twenty more mundane things it could equally well be evidence for.

27 highly tenuous inferences do not add up to one solid inference.

[Mick]

Do you think it was wise to test live biological or chemical warfare agents in the environment. . . Releasing them from aircraft . . . ?

No. But if you are referring to operation LAC, that's not what they did.

[George B]

No. But if you are referring to operation LAC, that's not what they did.

I am not referring to LAC . . . I am referring to later tests . . .

[Mick]

I am not referring to LAC . . . I am referring to later tests . . .

Like what? All releases from aircraft I know of used analogs that were thought to be safe. None of them used actual agents.

[George B]

Yup... real, bonafide and verifiable evidence, sure. Speculation and conjecture...not so much.



The Open Skies Treaty is basically between NATO and Warsaw Pact members.
Per Wikipedia:


The countries where the majority of chemtrail advocates are being heard are countries with the most commercial air traffic...go figure.



You keep yammering on about high efficiency engines but in reality, high efficiency engines on long haul flights have little to do with the increase in persistent contrails and everything to do with the general increase in commercial flights, regardless of engine efficiency. Just consider the fact that persistent contrails were a major problem for aircraft during WWII and persistent contrails have been studied ever since. An aircraft doesn't have to be on a long haul flight to leave persistent contrails either, all that's required is to be flying at an altitude where the atmospheric conditions are conducive to contrail formation and that could even occur on routes as short as Chicago to Indianapolis.

After monitoring this thread from the beginning, I reached the conclusion early on that George is seriously mis-informed on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

cheers

'The countries where the majority of chemtrail advocates are being heard are countries with the most commercial air traffic...go figure.' . . . you made my point . . . thanks . .

'You keep yammering on about high efficiency engines but in reality, high efficiency engines on long haul flights have little to do with the increase in persistent contrails and everything to do with the general increase in commercial flights, regardless of engine efficiency.' . . . .

http://ozone-uv.defra.gov.uk/reports...ertainties.pdf

Page 31 or 69 . . . para 3.3.2

[George B]

Like what? All releases from aircraft I know of used analogs that were thought to be safe. None of them used actual agents.

This is an example of one of a few. . .

"
Pacific atoll called Johnston . . .*tularemia

"For more than two decades testing continued — not just in Maryland laboratories, but in ventilation systems in Washington, D.C., on the streets of St. Louis, on the shores of San Francisco Bay, and in the desert of Utah. The most conclusive tests took place in 1965 near a Pacific atoll called Johnston, when a single military plane sprayed a long line of germs that cause a deadly disease, tularemia. “These field tests demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt the feasibility of biological warfare,” says Bill Patrick, former chief of product development at Detrick. “We infected animals some sixty, seventy kilometers downwind from the point of spray. And that is why we know that one particular agent, when properly stabilized and properly disseminated is a very effective weapon system.”*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...-introduction/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ltti...e_gdata_player

Experimental Biological & Chemical Weapons

[Mick]

'The countries where the majority of chemtrail advocates are being heard are countries with the most commercial air traffic...go figure.' . . . you made my point . . . thanks . .

'You keep yammering on about high efficiency engines but in reality, high efficiency engines on long haul flights have little to do with the increase in persistent contrails and everything to do with the general increase in commercial flights, regardless of engine efficiency.' . . . .

http://ozone-uv.defra.gov.uk/reports...ertainties.pdf

Page 31 or 69 . . . para 3.3.2

The reduction in exhaust temperature has only been a small contributor to the increase in contrail sightings. Probably around 5%. If the engines were low efficiency and hot, then the skies would not look much different. See:

http://metabunk.org/threads/226-Engi...uency-How-much

Future increases in efficiency might make this rise as high as 20% highly significant from a climate point of view. But that's still just a fractional increase from the visuals.

[Mick]

This is an example of one of a few. . .

"
Pacific atoll called Johnston . . .*tularemia

"For more than two decades testing continued — not just in Maryland laboratories, but in ventilation systems in Washington, D.C., on the streets of St. Louis, on the shores of San Francisco Bay, and in the desert of Utah. The most conclusive tests took place in 1965 near a Pacific atoll called Johnston, when a single military plane sprayed a long line of germs that cause a deadly disease, tularemia. “These field tests demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt the feasibility of biological warfare,” says Bill Patrick, former chief of product development at Detrick. “We infected animals some sixty, seventy kilometers downwind from the point of spray. And that is why we know that one particular agent, when properly stabilized and properly disseminated is a very effective weapon system.”*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...-introduction/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ltti...e_gdata_player

Experimental Biological & Chemical Weapons

Ah, I thought you meant where it could come into contact with people, like with LAC.

So I'll modify my answer: No I don't think it's a good idea, unless it's in some remote uninhabited location, and the agent won't spread. (and assuming the tests are actually necessary, for defense purposes).

I also don't think it's a good idea to explode nuclear weapons.

What's your point?

[George B]

The reduction in exhaust temperature has only been a small contributor to the increase in contrail sightings. Probably around 5%. If the engines were low efficiency and hot, then the skies would not look much different. See:

http://metabunk.org/threads/226-Engi...uency-How-much

Future increases in efficiency might make this rise as high as 20% highly significant from a climate point of view. But that's still just a fractional increase from the visuals.

Please don't take this as a criticism of your powers of deduction and analysis or credentials . . However, I have not seen from an authoritative source the percentage of trails now being seen differentiated by category of cause. . . I have never indicated that an increase in aviation is not the major player. . .

The information is what I post. . . Note that the hot links are old and some may not work. . . You will notice. . . I included your Forum as well. . . .

"IMO there are at least three types of CHEMTRAILS . . . :shitstir2:

1. Low grade TRAILs are the newer persistent Contrail: Most visible and thus the cause of much emotional responses . . . these are the majority of those seen and responded too. They are caused by long haul aircraft using high efficiency jet engines http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/156 that produce exhaust aerosols higher in relative humidity and at lower temperatures than the older type engines. . http://contrailscience.com/persistin...ing-contrails/ *. . this results in more visible and persistent TRAILS than the earlier versions and along with the relative increase in long haul flights and the steady increase in the high efficiency engines' use the prevalence of the*
Trails and their public knowledge has also increased. * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...70963800010622 *This type of Trail follows the same atmospheric laws that contrails do . . . and cannot be distinguished from contrails, except they have a greater chance to be persistent and form cirrus cloud banks. * These trails are not all together harmless because they have the potential to change the climate. http://ozone-uv.defra.gov.uk/reports...ertainties.pdf *NOTE: They are indistinguishable from contrails. *There is much data and knowledge known about this type of TRAIL. *They have been studied in detail by IPCC *http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3285COLOUR.pdf and http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/..._SSWP_V_Ou.pdf ,NASAhttp://www.areco.org/minnis.pdf * and http://afreserve.com/?:Base:Youngstown and http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/scitech.2.html *http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/scitech.2.htmland , NOAA*
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/.../contrails.pdf , and DOE. http://stopnwo.com/docs3/possibility.pdf , The long term affects are the only thing in doubt. http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02r...ywood09JGR.pdf *andhttp://consciouslifenews.com/uk-to-report-chemtrails/115385/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gagEy...er_embeddedand **
http://www.archive.org/details/ge_04435 * *High Efficiency bypass jet*
engines . . . *http://ozone-uv.defra.gov.uk/reports...ertainties.pdf Paragraph: *3.3.2. http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.a...11_Sridhar.pdf 2% increase in fuel and 70% decrease in TRAILs. *Contrail avoidance research. . . .http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V002/1TOASCJ.pdf*"

Future increases in efficiency might make this rise as high as 20% highly significant from a climate point of view. But that's still just a fractional increase from the visuals.[/QUOTE]

[solrey]

Most of the increase in efficiency of TurboJet engines, and the decrease in exhaust temps, is the result of adding a bypass fan and extra turbine rotor to the standard core turbojet, otherwise known as a TurboFan. The exhaust gas is cleaner primarily due to cleaner fuel having less contaminants, however any difference in water vapor produced by combustion is negligible.

cheers

[Mick]

Please don't take this as a criticism of your powers of deduction and analysis or credentials . . However, I have not seen from an authoritative source the percentage of trails now being seen differentiated by category of cause. .

Perhaps because they all have the same cause?

The increase to to high-bypass engines comes from the papers linked here:

http://metabunk.org/threads/226-Engi...uency-How-much

[George B]

Most of the increase in efficiency of TurboJet engines, and the decrease in exhaust temps, is the result of adding a bypass fan and extra turbine rotor to the standard core turbojet, otherwise known as a TurboFan. The exhaust gas is cleaner primarily due to cleaner fuel having less contaminants, however any difference in water vapor produced by combustion is negligible.

cheers

Yes, technology has helped change the percentage of persistent trails . . . the smaller water droplet size that results from these engines is thought to be a factor as well . . . so what is your point . . . I don't really think we disagree . . .

[George B]

Perhaps because they all have the same cause?

The increase to to high-bypass engines comes from the papers linked here:

http://metabunk.org/threads/226-Engi...uency-How-much

I was saying no authoritative source has classified a percentage of Persistent Contrails which are now being seen by observers to be caused by High Efficiency Engines over the older less efficient engines types . . .and since we are in an era of almost all higher efficiency engines I don't know if anyone can definitively answer that question . . .

[Noble1965]

Do you think it was wise to test live biological or chemical warfare agents in the environment. . . Releasing them from aircraft . . . ?

Nope, I don't. It was a mistake...

And some things that I have seen listed as "testing" involved monitoring the SPREAD of chemicals that were thought to be benign, which turned out not to be. But that doesn't mean anyone is spraying anything now. And I'm quite surprised that you would connect such dots with your supposed science background. It's wild speculation that one thing has ANYTHING to do with the other...other than "airplanes"...and "sky".

I'm sorry, but what you present as evidence...isn't even close. It seems to me that you have such a distrust for these people you are willing to throw anything out there just to say "See, this is what these people are capable of!!!" Capable doesn't mean anything. Evidence is what matters. And by evidence. I'd need to see a product, a tanker of some sort, caught in the act...and a better explanation as to what the product is supposedly being used for.

I see so many wild scenarios being proposed as truth...they can't all be right...yet, the people presenting them are equally convinced as you are.

Global warming mitigation
population control
Nano bots
mind alteration
The list goes on and on....Yet, there is STILL no evidence of any substance being "sprayed" into the atmosphere for these purposes.

[George B]

Ah, I thought you meant where it could come into contact with people, like with LAC.

So I'll modify my answer: No I don't think it's a good idea, unless it's in some remote uninhabited location, and the agent won't spread. (and assuming the tests are actually necessary, for defense purposes).

I also don't think it's a good idea to explode nuclear weapons.

What's your point?

Hmmmm . . . My point . . .

1) Government agencies and contractors have historically conducted experiments without the consent or knowledge of the public . . . experiments which no one knew the true long term effects of such experiments . . . the intent is really irrelevant . . .
2) People even wanting to do good or even highly patriotic can do harm
3) There is no guarantee similar activities are not being conducted as we speak . . . the timeline for disclosure for such activities can be decades if ever . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethic..._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_Stat es
In 1950, in orderto conduct a simulation of a biological warfare attack, the US Navy usedairplanes to spray large quantities of the bacteriaSerratia marcescens - considered harmless at this time - over thecity of San Francisco, California, which causednumerous citizens to contract pneumonia-like illnesses, and killed at least oneperson.^{[30][31][32][33][34][35]}The family of the man who was killed sued for gross negligence, but a federaljudge ruled in favor of the government in 1981.^[36]Serratia tests were continued until at least 1969.^['

Serratia marcescens now a recognized nosocomial Infection . . .

[George B]

Nope, I don't. It was a mistake...

And some things that I have seen listed as "testing" involved monitoring the SPREAD of chemicals that were thought to be benign, which turned out not to be. But that doesn't mean anyone is spraying anything now. And I'm quite surprised that you would connect such dots with your supposed science background. It's wild speculation that one thing has ANYTHING to do with the other...other than "airplanes"...and "sky".

I'm sorry, but what you present as evidence...isn't even close. It seems to me that you have such a distrust for these people you are willing to throw anything out there just to say "See, this is what these people are capable of!!!" Capable doesn't mean anything. Evidence is what matters. And by evidence. I'd need to see a product, a tanker of some sort, caught in the act...and a better explanation as to what the product is supposedly being used for.

I see so many wild scenarios being proposed as truth...they can't all be right...yet, the people presenting them are equally convinced as you are.

Global warming mitigation
population control
Nano bots
mind alteration
The list goes on and on....Yet, there is STILL no evidence of any substance being "sprayed" into the atmosphere for these purposes.

1) In spite of everything you have said . . . have we not proven that simulants, biological warfare agents, bacteria, chemicals, etc. have historically been dispersed from aircraft at altitude by the agents of the US government . . .

2) Some of these materials were dispersed without the knowledge, consent, or approval of the citizens

3) These same agencies sought to with hold the information about these activities until many decades after they were accomplished . . . and then under duress by a hostile Congress . . .

I think that is pretty significant . . .

[Noble1965]

Hmmmm . . . My point . . .

1) Government agencies and contractors have historically conducted experiments without the consent or knowledge of the public . . . experiments which no one knew the true long term effects of such experiments . . . the intent is really irrelevant . . .
2) People even wanting to do good or even highly patriotic can do harm
3) There is no guarantee similar activities are not being conducted as we speak . . . the timeline for disclosure for such activities can be decades if ever . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethic..._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_Stat es
In 1950, in orderto conduct a simulation of a biological warfare attack, the US Navy usedairplanes to spray large quantities of the bacteriaSerratia marcescens - considered harmless at this time - over thecity of San Francisco, California, which causednumerous citizens to contract pneumonia-like illnesses, and killed at least oneperson.^{[30][31][32][33][34][35]}The family of the man who was killed sued for gross negligence, but a federaljudge ruled in favor of the government in 1981.^[36]Serratia tests were continued until at least 1969.^['

Serratia marcescens now a recognized nosocomial Infection . . .

Just more evidence of why you WANT to "believe" in "chemtrails". But not evidence of chemtrails themselves.

You have said that even though you know persistent contrails are the trails we all see in the sky, you still classify them as "chemtrails". But, you have also stated that you classify things as "chemtrails" because "they" don't have your permission and are "spraying" without telling people.

Well, I don't see where commercial aviation NEEDS your permission...and people are free to learn about persistent contrails all they want...in fact, 99% of the people on the planet couldn't care less about them.

I'm sorry, despite your definition of what a "chemtrail" is...the trails we all see are contrails. You can't just rename things that already have names just because you like to reclassify things.

[Noble1965]

1) In spite of everything you have said . . . have we not proven that simulants, biological warfare agents, bacteria, chemicals, etc. have historically been dispersed from aircraft at altitude by the agents of the US government . . .

2) Some of these materials were dispersed without the knowledge, consent, or approval of the citizens

3) These same agencies sought to with hold the information about these activities until many decades after they were accomplished . . . and then under duress by a hostile Congress . . .

I think that is pretty significant . . .

1) I don't CARE about proving such things.

2) LOTS of things are done all around us by private companies, the military...average citizens, that no one has knowledge about...or given consent to. So? Some of the most hazardous chemicals in history used to be available to home owner to do with what they please. And some of these things ended up en storm drains...or were overused on properties. Some people pour engine oil into sewers/storm drains without your approval or consent...why aren't you complaining about that?!

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your argument...and how absurd arguments along similar lines can be created. Just because I think your arguments are absurd...that doesn't mean I'm trying to be insulting...just honest.

3) I happen to think secrecy is a good thing, as far as national security goes. It's a shame that a few have been sacrificed over the years for the greater good...in MANY ways.

People have had to die to change automobile designs...does that mean they were INTENTIONALLY sacrificed so we could learn better ways to accomplish things? Should they have been warned that if they drove these cars that they might die? Do automobile manufactures need your consent before they make a change? Do you think we should be sharing information about military airplanes or strategies with all the people so "they" can have consent?

Again, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your argument...and how absurd arguments along similar lines can be created. Just because I think your arguments are absurd...that doesn't mean I'm trying to be insulting...just honest.

None of these things are evidence that "they" are purposely injecting aerosols into the atmosphere.

[Mick]

I was saying no authoritative source has classified a percentage of Persistent Contrails which are now being seen by observers to be caused by High Efficiency Engines over the older less efficient engines types . . .and since we are in an era of almost all higher efficiency engines I don't know if anyone can definitively answer that question . . .

I linked you to a paper that discussed that precise issue:

http://elib.dlr.de/9281/1/AIAA-2715-2000.pdf

Early turbojets achieved overall efficiencies of about 0.2, lowbypass-
ratioenginesmade available in the early 1960s offeredoverall
efé cienciesof about 0.25,whereas early 1990shigh-bypass-ratio
turbofans have achieved substantial improvements in both thermal
and propulsive efficiencies and offer about 0.35 overall efé ciencies.
Even higher overall efficiencies, perhaps in the region of 0.50 may
be possible after 2010 with ultra-high-bypass-ratio turbofans, such
as propfans and advanced ducted propulsion systems

For an increase of g from 0.3 to 0.5, the threshold formation
temperature of contrails for kerosene-driven aircraft increases by
4.2–4.9 K (for 0–100% ambient humidity), implying 650–760 m
lower altitude in the standard atmosphere (Fig. 1); the altitude difference
increases with RH. The present global mean cover of the
Earth by contrails is about 0.1%. If g grows from 0.3 to 0.5 in a
future fleet of aircraft, contrail cover is expected to grow by about
20% of its value for otherwise fixed conditions.1

20%, a fractional increase.

[Mick]

Most of the increase in efficiency of TurboJet engines, and the decrease in exhaust temps, is the result of adding a bypass fan and extra turbine rotor to the standard core turbojet, otherwise known as a TurboFan. The exhaust gas is cleaner primarily due to cleaner fuel having less contaminants, however any difference in water vapor produced by combustion is negligible.

If anything, there will be LESS water vapor, as the engines burn far less fuel. But the planes themselves tend to be larger.

The amount of water vapor is not going to be hugely important to the size of contrails in ice-supersaturated conditions (where you get persistent spreading contrails). More important is the volume of air that is raised above the water saturation point.

[George B]

I linked you to a paper that discussed that precise issue:

http://elib.dlr.de/9281/1/AIAA-2715-2000.pdf


20%, a fractional increase.

Who knows what the tipping point is for humans to discover visually what they ignored before . . . I think this issue is relivent but not critical to the conspiracy . . .I think a larger issue is . . . are there more AIC (Aircraft Induced Cloudiness ). . . .and is there causual connection between a higher number of cirrus cloud banks and a stimulus from the nuclei from the high efficiency engines. . . ???

[Noble1965]

If anything, there will be LESS water vapor, as the engines burn far less fuel. But the planes themselves tend to be larger.

The amount of water vapor is not going to be hugely important to the size of contrails in ice-supersaturated conditions (where you get persistent spreading contrails). More important is the volume of air that is raised above the water saturation point.

Doesn't one thing cause the other? The more water vapor created, the higher the volume which will be saturated?

[Mick]

Doesn't one thing cause the other? The more water vapor created, the higher the volume which will be saturated?

Kind of, the volume of air is the amount of air that is blown out of the back of the engine that is mixed with the water vapor. High bypass engines blow out a lot more air. That then turbulently mixes with the ambient air. That mixing will increase the mass of the air that will contribute to the contrail.

The question to consider is how big a given parcel of air is at the moment it reaches the dew point. If you start out with a small parcel of hot air (low bypass), will it have mixed with enough ambient air to increase it's mass/volume the same as the larger parcel of cooler air (high bypass) at the same dew point?

Hmm, not entirely clear.

[Mick]

I think a larger issue is . . . are there more AIC (Aircraft Induced Cloudiness ). . . .and is there causual connection between a higher number of cirrus cloud banks and a stimulus from the nuclei from the high efficiency engines. . . ???

AIC has shown a steady increase since the 1950s. They were reporting on this back in 1980:



Based on this paper:
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/CR/ISWSCR-236.pdf