Cris,

the point that rational people make is that the stuff coming from the airplane exhaust stays indeed the same, but what’s changing is the situation around the plane. At one day there is dry air, at annother there is a lot of humidity. (See my explanation how the latter can happen when a front is approaching.)

If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.

By the way, that is a well-known plausibility argument against chemtrails - no plane is able to carry the mass equivalent of even a small persistant trail (search “ice budget”).

““i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.”

i think you need to look up the definition of dictatorial fenton. banning people here simply because you can would more fit the definition than me suggesting someone take a drink from a mug.

as far as honesty goes, i really doubt you have a leg to stand on there, because if i were to believe you really want me to “have a nice day” instead of it being a smarmy glib sarcastic jibe, then id be as gormless as josh, who still cant seem to understand the fact that nothing he can say here, in his role as unqualified mendacious shill, is of any interest to me.

further on honesty, you say “i think we can all agree that a plane hit the pentagoin” - not verbatim, but its close - so perhaps you can show us what you base that falsehood on?

further on honesty you continue to pretend chemtrails are a non issue, disregarding the concerns of thousands more qualified than you.

further on henesty, you call this site truthnews…

have a shitty day <—- at least im honest

Burden of proof. Clever legal chess play.
Isn’t it the case that those that rule us do so in deference to our sovereignty.
Isn’t it the case that .many of us do not consent to the above mentioned rulership.
Isn’t it the case that if one were to ask one of the said rulers to write down and sign at their own individual unlimited commercial liability that geoengineering, including but not limited to “chemtrails”, for the purpose of weather manipulation is not being conducted that there would be a refusal.
Is it not the case that a refusal to the previous proposition would amount to tacit agreement that what is referred to is happening.
The burden of proof rests on him who affirms not on him who denies….but there are ways snaring the slippery.

“If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.”

if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present, ones that have not come out the back of an aircraft. if the humidity is there, you wouldnt need an aircraft going past in order for clouds to appear in an otherwise perfectly clear blue sky.

appareently fenton likes truth here, yet not only does he tolerate your lies, he encourages it.

not the first sign of hypocristy we see from him though. still cant tear himself away from facebook i see )

Andrew Adams,

you say “if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present”.

And there often are other cirrus clouds around when contrails persist for long! In clear blue skies, contrails are quite often not persisting. Both does not always apply though; see quote further below which has the reason for that.

The process I described is how persistent contrails form; it’s not just a claim I make. Read NASA’s contrail pages for a starter. It has to say:

“Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide), but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air.” (Emphasis is mine)

Or read Ulrich Schumann’s concise 2005 paper on contrails, which contains this sentence:

“Contrails evaporate quickly if the ambient air is dry; they persist, evolve into more extended cirrus clouds and grow in particle size by deposition of ambient water vapour on the ice particles in the contrails if the ambient air is humid enough.” (Emphasis is mine)

In the conclusion of the paper, you’ll find a hint why it’s quite possible that there may be persistent contrails without surrounding clouds:

“Many aspects of contrail formation are well understood. Contrails from for thermodynamic reasons when the ambient air is cold enough. Persistent contrails form in ice-supersaturated air masses. In such cases often contrail cirrus forms where no cirrus would form otherwise because ice supersaturation is often too low for natural cirrus particle nucleation.” (Emphasis is mine)

Now can you tell me where you think there is a lie?

josh dumdum,
you still seem incapable of comprehending the simple fact that i consider engaging seriously with you a complete waste of time..

your only qualification from the school of sophistry does not qualify you to pretend you are some sort of expert on anything, and again, nothing you say is of any interest to me. you have failed time and time again to prove people should not be concerned.

i dont need you to tell me anything, nor does anyone else. there are plenty of qualified experts who are not afraid to put their names to their claims who id trust way before someone who spends an inordinate amount of time on nondescript websites trying to “debunk” the truth…

that is the lie.

There is no reason on earth why one should keep on talking about contrails vs chemtails just because those who launched this aerosol spraying decades ago thought that it would be nice to have the contrails cover story. The starting point for discussion is the claims by geoengineering advocates (such as Clive Hamilton in Australia) that solar radiation management would be a good idea and that aerosol spraying for geoengineering or other undisclosed purposes is not already a global reality. And the onus of proof is on them, i.e. those that are making this claim.

Wayne Hall,

what is your evidence for the aerosol spraying that you are referring to?

Andrew Adams,

you have argued that there would always be natural clouds present if conditions were right for persistent contrails.

In my reply I quoted an atmospheric scientist who spends his life with researching contrails. He says that persistent contrails can form in levels of ice supersaturation that are not yet high enough for natural cirrus formation.

Do you think he is wrong?

unqualified anonymous lying disinfo shill josh… blah blah blah blah blah
stfu

Cris,

you wrote “Burden of proof. Clever legal chess play.”

It’s not clever, it’s reasonable. If someone makes an accusation, he must bring evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty. Do you object to that?

This, below, is the head comment from Hereward Fenton on the matter of chemtrails. Clearly he sides with the shills, useful idiots/useful tools that deny the chemtrails that are sprayed all over OUR planet. The science regarding so many things has always been claimed to have been “settled”. Such as the fact that the sun revolves around the earth. (wrong), The earth is flat (wrong), Cane toads will solve all the cane farmers problems. (wrong), Governments wouldn’t spray The People with chemtrails (wrong), We, The People have caused global warming (wrong), etc., etc., ad infinitum. I have decide to rename this web-site http://www.fictionews.com.au
Synonyms for truth = fact, reality, certainty, accuracy, genuineness, precision, exactness and legitimacy, wherein none of these apply to this web-site. If Fenton, Josh Anonymous and other shills had any experience in my field, aviation maintenance engineering and flying, they could engage in rational debate and explain from their personal experience, not the claims from web-sites and their personal conjecture, their claims regarding “lingering” contrails, which amount to three fifths of five eights of SFA regarding the formation of cloud and the result of the passage of turbine aircraft through the upper atmosphere.

From FENTON;
“All those who passionately believe that “contrails dissipate quickly” whereas “chemtrails linger” and are deeply offended by the sceptical position that TNRA takes in regard to these claims, are free to “unlike” Truth News.
If, on the other hand, you would like to engage in rational debate, you’re most welcome to do so.
However, please be advised that the information I have to impart may be shocking and difficult to grasp if you have been a “chemtrail alarmist” for a long time.
The often cited claim that “normal contrails dissipate quickly” is total bunkum.
There is not a shred of science to backup that claim.  Nothing, nada, zippo!
Those who promote this idea are simply repeating something they read on a web page without checking sources.”
Cheers,
LEONARD CLAMPETT who has much more important things to do that argue with idiots because they have had far more experience than I.

To Leonard Clampett…You sound like you may have good points but one thing puzzles me.
Not having a go at you but if you don’t like TRNA or Herewards presentations why is your name in the members list?  Just curious that’s all, why would you support someone with whom you disagree with?
I am confused.

Dear Confused,

I can but assume you mean “with whom you disagree.” I am amused by the juvenile attempts by the shills to deny that there is chemtrail spraying occurring all over the planet.

To Leonard Clampett…You sound like you may have good points but one thing puzzles me.
Not having a go at you but if you don’t like TRNA or Herewards presentations why is your name in the members list?  Just curious that’s all, why would you support someone with whom you disagree with?
I am confused.
By Confused on 2014 11 05 - 11:16:08
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.

gormless anonymous lying disinfo unqualified waste of time shill josh

“If someone makes an accusation, he must bring evidence.”

there are countless thousands examples of evidence that shows why many are reasonably concerned by what they see when they look up. just because you wish to ignore all this, and say there is nothing to be concerned about, does not refute any of it. you are not the person people are seeking answers from. you are unqualified to refute any of this. no one cares for your lumpen retarded opinion. get that simple fact through your ridiculously thick head.

http://gumshoenews.com/2014/02/22/melbourne-chemtrails/

http://markdice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122:chemtrails-facts-a-fiction&catid=66:articles-by-mark-dice&Itemid=89

@ confused.. a while back fenton blocked all from commenting here unless they had an account. he didnt like having his hypocrisy exposed, or his obvious bias. i can only assume he didnt get enough people signing up and his dog and pony show disinfo site, truthnews looked like a deserted craphouse..  so he has opened up the comments again ..

he also says things like ” i think we can all agree a plane hit the pentagon” - ha! - based on what!? he doesnt/wont/cant say..

Andrew Adams wrote:

“gormless anonymous lying disinfo unqualified waste of time shill josh”

Is that you, Skywatcher ??

Back to the subject: I have refuted claims by referencing scientific papers. What specifically do you think I ignored?

So far, no evidence was brought forward in this discussion that normal contrails cannot persist. The arguments in favour of that claim were based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations that I have pointed out.

There are many things to be concerned about, but persistent contrails are not on top of that list.

Leonard, I wasn’t questioning your views on chemtrails et, I actually agree with you.  I just find it a bit strange that you would be a paying member of TRNA when you think the content is wrong/misleading.  I also find it a bit weird when people refer the themselves as the 3rd person as you demonstrated.  As I said I am not having a go at you, just my observations.

Poldo,
Not sure how you interpret this as being referring to third person. It is clearly written by me as i refer to “I”.
Cheers,
LEONARD CLAMPETT

Cheers,
LEONARD CLAMPETT who has much more important things to do that argue with idiots because they have had far more experience than I.

There are many things to be concerned about, but persistent contrails are not on top of that list.

is that so?...  next time someone asks for an anonymous unqualified retarded opinion to help them make up their mind about something, I’ll send them to you. As it stands, I dont think anyone here actually cares what you think about anything.

Hi, this is Hereward Fenton, founder of Truth News Australia.

Do you often feel confused about what’s really going on in the world? I certainly do!

lol - yep - thats where i want to get my news from, someone not sure if hes arthur or martha.. maybe fenton should stop reading his own website for a start..  and instead of having begging pop ups .please send me your monies - im broke!. if youre that short of cash, have you thought of getting a job and working for a change?

Andrew Adams wrote:

“As it stands, I dont think anyone here actually cares what you think about anything.”

I posted references about what science thinks about persistent contrails. Can you point out where science has got it wrong?

BTW, any readers able to think for themselves - probably directed here by a search engine - will certainly take note who is falling back to insults, wild personal accusations and various distractions instead of discussing the actual issue.

On 40 pages of discussion no evidence was brought forward that contrails cannot persist. The science (and the article we are commenting on) still stands.