Contrails form clouds

[PCWilliams]

Hi All,

Question: What kind of clouds do persistent contrails create? A persistent contrail is technically a cloud, correct? And given the altitude, it would be a cirrus cloud, correct?

The reason i ask is, somebody who viewed my video (Chemtrails and Chemclouds debunked: http://tinyurl.com/cllnq45) made the point that, if contrails form cirrus clouds, then showing cirrus clouds from 1905 is pointless - it proves nothing. I disagree with him.

Thoughts?

[Mick]

They are generally considered to be a type of cirrus. They are high altitude ice clouds.

I don't understand his point though. The old photos show that the new photos are not photos of a new phenomenon, that's all that is being proven.

Is he suggesting that chemtrails are cirrus clouds, but somehow they are BAD cirrus clouds? Is he even suggesting chemtrails, or does he just think there are too-many contrails?

[PCWilliams]

I'm not sure what his point is Mick. He seems to be saying, "contrails form cirrus clouds, you show cirrus clouds from 1905, therefore you haven't debunked anything."

I wrote this in my last response to him:

"Chemtrailers point at certain clouds and say they exists because of chemicals. I point to the same clouds and prove they're made naturally.

The point is, the existence of certain clouds doesn't prove chemicals are involved. That is all i'm proving."

Then he responded:

"The thing is you can’t prove all cirrus formations are formed naturally since persistent contrails can create them, that’s what I’m saying. "

Is all debunking this confusing? LOL! What do you think?

[Mick]

Content from external source:

"The thing is you can’t prove all cirrus formations are formed naturally since persistent contrails can create them, that’s what I’m saying. "

Nobody is trying to prove that. Nobody is claiming all cirrus formations are formed naturally. We know that contrails quite often form cirrus clouds.

[PCWilliams]

Content from external source:

"The thing is you can’t prove all cirrus formations are formed naturally since persistent contrails can create them, that’s what I’m saying. "

Nobody is trying to prove that. Nobody is claiming all cirrus formations are formed naturally. We know that contrails quite often form cirrus clouds.

That's a great macro picture of the argument. I think i lost sight of the bigger picture. I'm ready to get back into my debate with him.

Thanks Mick!

[Mick]

Solar power in Australia posts moved to their own thread:

http://metabunk.org/threads/532-Are-...n-in-Australia

[Des O]

There are several articles that refer to cirrus derived from contrails as contrail cirrus. Look it up in google and a number of studies will show up. I use these articles frequently to debunk chemtrailers as they often refer to the formation process of a contrail, and then detail how these contrails can persist and spread into a thin cirrus like cloud. Here are a few links.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1068.html

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...l.JClim.04.pdf

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...s_JAMC2006.pdf

http://www.dlr.de/pa/en/desktopdefau...25_read-29898/

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spri.../Widlansky.pdf

[PCWilliams]

There are several articles that refer to cirrus derived from contrails as contrail cirrus. Look it up in google and a number of studies will show up. I use these articles frequently to debunk chemtrailers as they often refer to the formation process of a contrail, and then detail how these contrails can persist and spread into a thin cirrus like cloud. Here are a few links.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1068.html

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...l.JClim.04.pdf

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...s_JAMC2006.pdf

http://www.dlr.de/pa/en/desktopdefau...25_read-29898/

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spri.../Widlansky.pdf

Excellent. I'm going to read and save for future reference.