chem trails

Depends on the atmospheric conditions. AFAIK, all clouds and contrails are formed by a difference in air pressure. Diffuse water vapor droplets are forced closer to each other, where they cling together and form contrails. How long they stay together depends on wind conditions and other factors in the area.
 
Here's what I think.
Old-style contrails probably disappeared fairly quickly because there was not much particulate matter in the air.
I think that the reason why contrails persist nowadays is because there is more PM in the air, from the plane itself.

You guys still have not been able to give a definite answer as to why contrails are so persistent now, but were not so in the past. You have only given guesses as to why that might be. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that my guess is just as good as yours.
 
You've never presented any evidence that contrails are more persistent today than they used to be.
 
MacGyver1968 said:
You've never presented any evidence that contrails are more persistent today than they used to be.
Click to expand...

There's so much evidence available of this fact, it would seem trivial and redundant for me to actually present the evidence.

But obviously the most important source of evidence, at least for me, is one's own memory. Personally, I remember the way that contrails used to be. Although I must give that my memory is far from perfect, and susceptible to being fooled. But seriously, don't you remember the old contrails?
 
matthew809 said:
There's so much evidence available of this fact, it would seem trivial and redundant for me to actually present the evidence.

But obviously the most important source of evidence, at least for me, is one's own memory. Personally, I remember the way that contrails used to be. Although I must give that my memory is far from perfect, and susceptible to being fooled. But seriously, don't you remember the old contrails?
Click to expand...

If there is so much evidence available, then why not present some? Surely there have been published studies done on this, right?

From my memory, they don't look any different than before...just more of them as airline traffic has increased.
 
matthew809 said:
There's so much evidence available of this fact, it would seem trivial and redundant for me to actually present the evidence.
Click to expand...
Really?
The last time you claimed you had "evidence" you had to admit you were lying because you had nothing.
matthew809 said:
BTW, I could send you mountains of evidence, studies, research, and testimony to back up any claim I've made here.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2579497&postcount=17
matthew809 said:
Ok I give in. You're right. I don't have the evidence.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2579972&postcount=34
Your credibility is exactly zero.
If you have actual evidence present it. Otherwise get an education and STFU.

But obviously the most important source of evidence, at least for me, is one's own memory.
Click to expand...
Memory is not evidence.

But seriously, don't you remember the old contrails?
Click to expand...
As someone who's been an aircraft fan for more than 50 years, visited a minimum of one air show per year in my life and is the sort of idiot that will still run out of a building if I hear an aircraft I can safely say that I do remember the "old contrails": and there's very little (if any) difference between "then" and "now".
 
The only evidence I can imagine that would satisfy you guys is global 24/7 video of the sky since the time that airplanes began flying. There is no such evidence. In fact, I don't even think that would be satisfactory for you. You'd probably much prefer to skip the video, and read through the studies from reputed officials who watched the video, and no doubt found everything to be just as it should. Video-as-evidence is for the brainless u-tube idiots and crackpot hacks. Real scientists read reports and studies, and use math and technical jargon.

On that note... Here's an interesting video showing a normal contrail and a persistent contrail in the same shot. I'm not saying it's proof of anything. It just shows the difference between the 2 types of trails, and how predominate the persistent one's are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9KLLqEL96Y
 
Last edited:
matthew809 said:
The only evidence I can imagine that would satisfy you guys is global 24/7 video of the sky since the time that airplanes began flying. There is no such evidence.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that? You're the one that claimed there was tons of evidence for contrails being more persistent...yet can't seem to produce any.
 
matthew809 said:
The only evidence I can imagine that would satisfy you guys is global 24/7 video of the sky since the time that airplanes began flying. There is no such evidence.
Click to expand...
In other words you were lying about there being evidence and you expected us to take your word (on your memory) for it.
I was wrong.
You have less than zero credibility.

On that note... Here's an interesting video showing a normal contrail and a persistent contrail in the same shot.
Click to expand...
You mean it's a video of contrails forming at different heights (despite the woo-woo's claim that they're at the same altitude). Where the temperatures are different, as is the wind speed. And the contrails are formed by different engines running at different temperatures with different fuel and mass flows.
Well, that's certainly convinced me.
I suppose I should check the rest of Youtube, just in case there's video proof of Bigfoot, aliens and ghosts too. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Dywyddyr said:
You mean it's a video of contrails forming at different heights (despite the woo-woo's claim that they're at the same altitude). Where the temperatures are different, as is the wind speed. And the contrails are formed by different engines running at different temperatures with different fuel and mass flows.
Well, that's certainly convinced me.
I suppose I should check the rest of Youtube, just in case there's video proof of Bigfoot, aliens and ghosts too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I said that it wasn't proof, just an interesting visual of the 2 types of trails being discussed here.
 
There's so much evidence available of this fact, it would seem trivial and redundant for me to actually present the evidence.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for all that evidence.
 
matthew809 said:
Let's reverse that. How about you give me visual evidence showing that persistent contrails were more prevalent than the short-lived "normal" contrails from before 1990.
Click to expand...

You're the one who made the claim. You are the one who said there was tons of evidence to back this claim. Obviously, you were full of shit, or you would have produced the evidence. Trying to reverse the burden of proof to me shows just how weak your argument is.
 
MacGyver1968 said:
You're the one who made the claim. You are the one who said there was tons of evidence to back this claim. Obviously, you were full of shit, or you would have produced the evidence. Trying to reverse the burden of proof to me shows just how weak your argument is.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought you would say.

It's a lot harder to produce evidence than it is to simply sit back and say say "show me the evidence", isn't it?
 
matthew809 said:
Let's reverse that. How about you give me visual evidence showing that persistent contrails were more prevalent than the short-lived "normal" contrails from before 1990.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean "prevalent" doesn't it?
By definition persistent contrails hang around longer than transient ones and therefore are visible for longer - thus being more noticeable.

So when you claimed
There's so much evidence available of this fact, it would seem trivial and redundant for me to actually present the evidence.
Click to expand...
what you actually meant was that you have no evidence and therefore it was redundant of us to ask for any.

I'll just mark this up as yet another lie from you.
 
matthew809 said:
That's what I thought you would say.

It's a lot harder to produce evidence than it is to simply sit back and say say "show me the evidence", isn't it?
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one claiming to have the evidence. You did.

You're not very good at this..are you?
 
MacGyver1968 said:
I wasn't the one claiming to have the evidence. You did.

You're not very good at this..are you?
Click to expand...

You seem pretty sure that chemtrails do not exist. So I was wondering- exactly how sure are you? 80%.... 90%.....100%? And why? How well do you actually understand the physics of contrails and cloud formation and everything else involved in this atmospheric dynamic?

And, hypothetically, what if the government really is spraying chemtrails? For the sake of argument, how would you go about finding out the truth? Would there be a tell-tale sign that you'd expect to be evident? Or, in this hypothetical situation, is there a 100% chance that nobody would ever discover the truth scientifically due to the fact that chemtrail activity is identical to contrail activity?
 
matthew809 said:
You seem pretty sure that chemtrails do not exist. So I was wondering- exactly how sure are you? 80%.... 90%.....100%? And why?
Click to expand...
So you've gone from claiming there's "so much evidence available of this fact, it would seem trivial and redundant for me to actually present the evidence" to asking how we are sure there aren't chemtrails.
I.e you can't provide any evidence of the positive so you're asking us to prove the negative. :rolleyes:

How well do you actually understand the physics of contrails and cloud formation and everything else involved in this atmospheric dynamic?
Click to expand...
And your knowledge of this subject would be...?

And, hypothetically, what if the government really is spraying chemtrails?
Click to expand...
Hypothetically, what if we're all brains in a tank somewhere and it's ALL made up?

Or, in this hypothetical situation, is there a 100% chance that nobody would ever discover the truth scientifically due to the fact that chemtrail activity is identical to contrail activity?
Click to expand...
So now you're claiming there's no difference between the two?
 
matthew809 said:
And, hypothetically, what if the government really is spraying chemtrails? For the sake of argument, how would you go about finding out the truth? Would there be a tell-tale sign that you'd expect to be evident?
Click to expand...

So the govt. is up to something secret and they put it in the sky where everyone can see it. Nah, afraid not. Nothing here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top