Congratulations for learning your lessons well on how to debunk chemtrails.

I may, as need arises, refer to that site, but you see my world does not revolve around persuading you, or people like you, of anything.

Wayne Hall,

yet you continue to add long posts and various links purportedly supporting your views ...

Oh, come on, of course you want to convince others to stop considering the “persistant contrail” question !

When I say “people like you” I mean people who refuse to move past the first step in the discussion.  And I can’t help you do it. You have to help yourself.

Wayne Hall,

isn’t it you who refuses to make that first step?
Without it, there are no further steps unless you want to defy logic by somehow “moving past” and accept it as a dogma (sic!) that there are actual “chemtrails”.

No, it isn’t me. Listen to some of the other people who are posting here also, rather than just arguing with them all the time as if you know things that you don’t know.

Troll:

1. Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

2. A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them.

Trolls should be excluded and their posts deleted.

This is one I shot. I am clearly flying for extended periods in “Chemclouds” here… yet inexplicably.. I survive….

Comments please.

The first photo proves nothing as it is from ‘British Bombers in 1944’.  Those planes were probably Lancansters or something like it which were prop powered planes and not jet powered planes.  Contrails (legitimate ones) are formed by JET engines.  The trials in the photo were probably some kind of exhaust smoke lingering on a still day.

A diatribe on ‘how contrails form’ is also kind of pointless as it doesn’t explain the frequency and patterns of chemtrails hundreds of kilometres away from commercial airspace.  I’ve personally witnesses one of these commercial like jets doing loops back and forth behind large cloud banks where the chemtrail stops as the plane emerges, turns around the starts again as it goes behind the cloud bank again. Sorry, I’ve seen too much to doubt the existence of chemtrails anymore.

Contrails are formed by any engine that creates water as part of the combustion process, reciprocating engines included. I don’t where some of you get all this bad information.
Clouds, by definition, exist in supersaturated air so is it any wonder that aircraft can begin to contrail when approaching a cloud? That’s basic science. The circles are holding patterns BTW.

Holding patterns are for planes waiting to land, where I witnessed that particular event was nowhere (and I mean hundreds of KM away from)near any airport.  If it was a plane in a holding pattern then why haven’t I seen more planes in the same holding pattern before or since?  Why is it that the one plane in a ‘holding pattern’ just happened to be spraying trails?

The trails formed by the prop blade tips aren’t contrails but vortices. They stem from a lowered dewpoint due to lower pressure and disappear as soon as the pressure returns to normal.

I’ve seen contrails and I’ve seen chemtrails, I know the difference and I’ve heard all the apologists arguments and they simply aren’t sufficient to explain the evidence.

So we are reverting to the contrails vs chemtrails dialogue of the deaf, which is the discussion the architects of geoengineering wanted us to continue having, and to have forever.

Mike Glynn, given that nobody seems to be able to answer the question you asked, or if able to answer to be interested in joining this particular discussion, surely you are the one who should start making enquiries to find out the reasons for the alleged lack of symptoms in yourself and among your passengers. All that I know, for we are not talking about my life experience or my professional working space, is that the reason is not because of the non-existence of unexplained (probably because illegal) aerosol spraying from aircraft.

Noobs, holding patterns can be hundreds of miles from airports. Wayne, you don’t do rhetorical questions very well do you? The reason I am in good health is because there isn’t any chemicals in the air apart from what nature put there. Did you see me try to avoid those clouds at all? If I thought for a second they were laden with chemicals I would have avoided flying through them. The only clouds I am at pains to avoid are thunderstorms… For obvious reasons. The rest we just plow straight through, as you saw.
I don’t get you guys. I give you bona fide evidence that you fears and suspicions are unfounded, yet you seem to want to have this conspiracy theory confirmed… Confirmation bias writ large. There are no chemtrails. If they were there I should be dead by now. You saw me flying blithely through clouds identified by activists over and over as Chemclouds…. Yet nothing happened. How much proof do you need to real use you have been duped?

You have not answered some questions I have asked you, either, Mike Glynn. Questions that are more relevant to political decisions that are being made without ever being opened to coherent and comprehensible public discussion.

What happens is that one half-truth is fed to one half of the political spectrum and the other half-truth is fed to the other half of the political spectrum.

Then people engage in endless repetitive wrangling as at this forum, with arrogant chemtrails debunkers absolutely sure that they are wiser than everyone else.

If aircraft emissions contribute to global warming, why are they proposed by geoengineers as a medium for mitigating global warming?

The problem is touched on obliquely, and in Aesopian language in this paper (doubtless one of many such):
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/aviation_tyndall_research.pdf

Growth Scenarios for EU & UK Aviation:
contradictions with climate policy

Find out yourself why you are not dead, Mike Glynn. It is not because aerosol spraying programmes are not being conducted almost everywhere, for geoengineering and/or other undisclosed purposes.

josh..mike glynn.. et al; youre not qualified to ease the concerns of a large percentage of the population that want answers for what they see with their own eyes that causes them concern.

nor is hereward, or anyone else.

as with the events of 911, the only suitable solution is an independent transparent unfettered investigation, where all evidence is presented, and expert testimony from both sides can be heard under oath and cross examination, until a verdict can be reached beyond all reasonable doubt.

your unqualified opinions, and articles like this, do nothing but contribute more hot air, and like the defenders of the 911 myth.. you have to ask why people are so determined to win arguments on internet forums on topics they dont believe in..

do you also go around denouncing leprechauns.. or unicorns?

if not, why not? do you believe that they might be real?

hereward still is yet to “moderate” a post i made last week.. not surprising because he has proven himself to be less than genuine in the past..

Skywatcher,

I don’t think we should start talking about qualifications. Otherwise the same doubt can be voiced about chemtrail promoters who obviously have no knowledge about atmospheric processes and meteorology.

Now, would you please point out just one “unqualified opinon”, preferably on the topic of the article?

And then let’s discuss the facts behind that opinion, with references to solid evidence, papers and studies.

BTW, if you believe your own eyes more than common knowledge, you should be convinced that the earth is flat.

ok josh…

its impossible to turn contrails on and off right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dVMHpQ_1Nxg

my intellectual integrity allows me to know that the explosive destruction of the WTC towers was not a mere gravitational collapse, as it also allows me to differentiate between contrails, and aerosol spraying that doesnt dissipate, instead spreads out and blankets the skies.

no qualifications needed.

re youre earth is flat comment.. i couldnt think of a more lame retort.. good job well done. stop trying to look clever, it doesnt suit you.

One of the first declarations of geoengineering policy was Edward Teller’s 1997 paper, summarised here: http://www.hoover.org/​publications/hoover-digest/​article/6791

This was a declaration of climate change scepticism accompanied by a proposal for using geoengineering to solve a problem of whose reality Teller was sceptical. This is a non-viable stance for anyone other than the late Edward Teller. For geoengineering to proceed, what are needed are two separate clienteles: one clientele to say there is a problem of global warming or climate change; the other clientele to say that geoengineering is the solution to it.

The first task was assigned to ecologists, the second at first just to a few specialists such as David Keith and Ken Caldeira (later they would be joined by .
repentant former “climate change sceptics”).

There was a legal difficulty with deliberate aerosol spraying from aircraft. If it could be construed as being for military purposes it was banned under the ENMOD convention, ratified by the US in 1980. If it could not be construed as being for military purposes there were still difficulties, as I outlined in the first article I wrote on this subject:
http://www.lightwatcher.com/​chemtrails/strategies_hall.html

The unresolved status of geoengineering under international law is an issue that was being investigated, in the mid-nineties, by the environmental lawyer Bodansky. Among the questions he raised were: who should make geoengineering decisions? Should all countries be able to participate in decision-making? (since all will be affected and there will be both positive and negative impacts). How should liability and compensation for damages be handled? From the legal viewpoint, schemes to inject particles into the atmosphere are purportedly among the most problematic of all geoengineering proposals because the atmosphere above any country is part of its airspace. Nations lay claim to their airspace and may act on the claims, for example, by shooting down aircraft. Geoengineering activity in the atmosphere could be viewed as infringements of national sovereignty. Obviously, the simplest way of dealing with legal problems of this kind, pending negotiation of the necessary adjustments to international law, is to deny that any such activity is occurring.

Policy therefore was to postulate a “chemtrails hoax” and say that the new type of trail appearing in the sky was not new, and was not “deliberate”. It was just emissions of the same type as had been familiar since the emergence of jet air travel.

The part of the scenario assigned to ecologists was, as indicated, the assertion that there was a problem of anthropogenic climate change. So this what the ecological organizations focused on, marginalizing “conspiracy theorists” who tried to introduce extraneous issues. The task or marginalizing was made easier by the fact that the majority of chemtrails activists have been, and remain, anthropogenic climate change sceptics.

Through the input of Al Gore and other “realpolitikers” of the ecological milieu, the environmental concerns of global warming activists were harnessed to muster support for emissions trading schemes, whose scope in the EU was extended to include aviation. (There is great potential dissonance between the agenda of the activists against aircraft emissions and the agenda of the geoengineers because the former see aircraft emissions as contributing to global warming; the latter propose the utilization of aircraft emissions to mitigate global warming.)

In any case, as indicated, ecologists were exclusively focused on the idea of global warming as a problem and spent most of the first decade of the 21st century fighting with the climate change sceptics to have their orientation accepted. The situation began to change towards the end of the decade, as by this time emissions trading schemes had mostly been written into law so that the political support of ecologists was no longer so necessary. At this point, just before the Copenhagen Climate Summit, the sceptics were unleashed again through the mechanism of the Climategate scandal.          (to be continued)

(continuing)

Climate change scepticism gained a new lease of life and many ecologists fell into confusion. But there was a stranger transformation. Although Climategate could easily be seen as discrediting the authenticity of the anthropogenic climate change scenario, after Climategate a number of prominent climate change sceptics renounced their “scepticism”, on the understanding that geoengineering should be seen as the appropriate solution to the climate change problem which these former “sceptics” now recognized. This transformation of sceptic into non-sceptic advocate of geoengineering did not include only high-profile politicians like George W. Bush. Mass-media “scientists” like Bjorn Lomborg, who had made a career for himself as a climate change sceptic , underwent the same change.

The climate change debate has largely gone out of fashion. Top politicians can no longer be mobilized to attend the climate summits. In its place a new debate is emerging, at the grass roots, the debate on “Financialization of Nature”.

Ecologists were needed prior to passage of emissions trading legislation to say that global warming/climate change is a problem. Their instincts did not make them very likely candidates for the job of promoting geoengineering. This was something that had to be left to “repentant” “sceptics”.

Skywatcher,

you are right, it is not possible to turn contrails on and off.

The accepted explanation is that the atmosphere is far from homogenous; this includes humidity. Contrails need a high (relative) humidity - if a plane is leaving an area with high humidity, the contrail will stop in the dry air.

You can see the variation of humidity if you look at clouds: high humidity inside, less humidity around it - with a clear boundary in between.

So, no switch required, just flying through variable air pockets may create those broken contrails.

Don’t take my word for it: google “broken contrails”.