[smart (OP)]

Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions. This is "evidence" that whatever substance being sprayed is altering atmospheric conditions. A normal contrail will not progressively dim the sun and cool the weather. By the way, your analysis is correct for describing a contrail, which cannot be seen under normal conditions.

http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/chemtrail-information/weather-modification.html

http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/chemtrail-information/contrail-coverup.html

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dimming-the-sun/

[Bored chemist]

Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions. This is "evidence" that whatever substance being sprayed is altering atmospheric conditions. A normal contrail will not progressively dim the sun and cool the weather. By the way, your analysis is correct for describing a contrail, which cannot be seen under normal conditions.

I have seen them. I said I saw them.
What evidence do you have for calling me a liar?

Also, since you can see your breath on a cold day, why would the much bigger cloud from a jet be invisible.
Not only is your assertion libellous- it's absurd.

There's another problem with your claim: you say
"Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions. This is "evidence" that whatever substance being sprayed is altering atmospheric conditions. "
but you don't provide any evidence.
As I said, it's like saying "there must be water on mars, or the Martians would have nothing to drink".
It only supports the idea that there is water if you can prove that there are Martians.

Unless you can show that this "Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions" is true, then you can't rely on it to "prove" anything.

As I have said before- the big problem is that you don't understand evidence.


Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.

[smart (OP)]

I have seen them. I said I saw them.
What evidence do you have for calling me a liar?

What you saw was most likely a contrail. A contrail do not persist and do not reproduce the chemical clumping behavior of aerosol particles.

There's another problem with your claim: you say
"Chemtrails progressively generates overcast conditions. This is "evidence" that whatever substance being sprayed is altering atmospheric conditions. "
but you don't provide any evidence.
As I said, it's like saying "there must be water on mars, or the Martians would have nothing to drink".
It only supports the idea that there is water if you can prove that there are Martians..

I have observed for many times the progressive overcast cloud cover the day after I've seen clandestine geoengineering activity. (This is confirmed by multiple sources from the Internet.)

This phenomenon is known as "global dimming":

It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Causes_and_effects

So, either I don't know what evidence is or you have a big attitude problem. My guess is that you believe in the government-sponsored disinformation rather than reality because your logic is flawed. 

[Bored chemist]

"What you saw was most likely a contrail. A contrail do not persist and do not reproduce the chemical clumping behavior of aerosol particles."
You have not shown that clumping effect to exist. So, as usual, you have no evidence.

"I have observed for many times the progressive overcast cloud cover the day after I've seen clandestine geoengineering activity."
Everyone has seen cloudy days- they always did.
You, with no logical justification, blame it on aircraft.
As usual, you have no evidence.


" (This is confirmed by multiple sources from the Internet.) "
Not really.
Here's an internet source that shows  that clouds existed before planes.
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/constable-cloud-study-n06065/text-catalogue-entry

Any number of web pages saying "I think it's cloudy because of planes" don't show anything unless that can explain that the clouds are different.


"It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action."

"So, either I don't know what evidence is or you have a big attitude problem. "
OK, you finally accept the truth.
Mankind produces lots of soot- and has done since the industrial revolution. Nobody ever disputed that.
That's the man made aerosol (there are, of course, natural ones too)
That's the cause of the aerosols.
It's not geoengineering.
So it's not my attitude- it's your failure to understand the bloody obvious.

You don't look at a phenomenon- like clouds- and check whether it could have a different cause than the one you are desperately hoping to shore up.
You just say "This proves it"- even when it is something monumentally stupid like the water in jet fuel.

And that's the sense in which you don't understand evidence.

So, as you say, its' either my attitude or your lack of understanding; and it's not my attitude.



re"My guess is that you believe in the government-sponsored disinformation rather than reality because your logic is flawed.  "
I wish the government had sponsored the flight home from my holidays, but they didn't.
So, what I believe is the evidence of my own eyes- and it's evidence I have known about since I was a little kid who noticed that my breath steamed in cold weather.


Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.

[yor_on]

Telling Bored chemist that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he choose to discuss is pretty stupid tkadm. Don't do that, either answer his questions, or shut up.

[smart (OP)]

Telling Bored chemist that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he choose to discuss is pretty stupid tkadm. Don't do that, either answer his questions, or shut up.

I'm not pretending BC is ignorant. However pretending chemtrails do not exist is just a plain lie. Likewise, suggesting that planes emits "cirrus aviaticus" clouds is propaganda.

http://www.neonnettle.com/videos/517-cia-director-admits-government-is-using-chemtrails-to-block-sun

I'm not the one that needs to shut up. Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. It's pathetic BC don't realize how deceitful his claims are. We need to address the implications of chemtrails for human health and the environment, not lying about the existence of this activity.

yor_on, why don't you put forward your thoughts on the subject? Do you think geoengineering is destroying life?

Thank you.

[Bored chemist]

Telling Bored chemist that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he choose to discuss is pretty stupid tkadm. Don't do that, either answer his questions, or shut up.

I'm not pretending BC is ignorant. However pretending chemtrails do not exist is just a plain lie. Likewise, suggesting that planes emits "cirrus aviaticus" clouds is propaganda.

http://www.neonnettle.com/videos/517-cia-director-admits-government-is-using-chemtrails-to-block-sun

I'm not the one that needs to shut up. Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. It's pathetic BC don't realize how deceitful his claims are. We need to address the implications of chemtrails for human health and the environment, not lying about the existence of this activity.

yor_on, why don't you put forward your thoughts on the subject? Do you think geoengineering is destroying life?

Thank you.

When you wrote this nonsense
"There's simply not enough water (30ppm) in jet fuel to become a source of persistent aerosol. http://www.liquisearch.com/jet_fuel/water_in_jet_fuel"
you were trying to pretend that I'm the ignorant one.
It turned out that you had no idea what you were talking about.
Do you accept that you were stupidly wrong about that?

"However pretending chemtrails do not exist is just a plain lie. "
I'm not pretending, I'm pointing it out.
You have yet to show (in spite of my asking many times) that these so called "chemtrails" are anything but water left behind from jet fuel combustion.
You have sought to claim that they are different in that they are "persistent" however, in the examples I posted of ordinary contrails,
(1) you said they were persistent so they were chemtrails. and yet
(2) the gaps in them showed that they were not persistent.

You have also failed to grasp the fact that clouds are quite often persistent so there's no reason why contrails shouldn't be.

Feel free to explain that one sometime.


And this
"Likewise, suggesting that planes emits "cirrus aviaticus" clouds is propaganda. "

 is another bit of stupidity, for two reasons.
The first is the pictures of planes emitting them. The second is a linguistic  error on your part.
Clouds from flying things are "cirrus aviaticus" regardless of the mechanism by which they are produced.

And, it's a straightforward lie to claim that the video says that "-cia-director-admits-government-is-using-chemtrails-to-block-sun"
He says no such thing.
About 10 seconds in he says that things could potentially be done but, as I have pointed out before, that's not the same as saying it is happening. He says it COULD provide time to transition from fossil fuel. He says it would cost about $10Bn- that's not the same as saying it does cost that.
Then he points out that it wouldn't  solve the problem (notably the ocean pH) and that it would probably start a war.

There is no point in that video where he says that geoengineering is actually happening.

So, let's be clear about this.
You cite "evidence" from websites that clearly tell lies, and then you accuse me of propaganda.
re.
"it's pathetic BC don't realize how deceitful his claims are. "
get a mirror- I'm not the one who is seeking to deceive.
You say "We need to address the implications of chemtrails for human health and the environment, not lying about the existence of this activity."

Well, stop lying, stop saying that CIA bloke says that Chemtrails are real- he does nothing of the sort. That's just your wishful thinking.
So, as I said before
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
and, in the meantime, stop telling such obvious lies.

[smart (OP)]

When you wrote this nonsense
"There's simply not enough water (30ppm) in jet fuel to become a source of persistent aerosol. http://www.liquisearch.com/jet_fuel/water_in_jet_fuel"
you were trying to pretend that I'm the ignorant one.
It turned out that you had no idea what you were talking about.
Do you accept that you were stupidly wrong about that?

"However pretending chemtrails do not exist is just a plain lie. "
I'm not pretending, I'm pointing it out.
You have yet to show (in spite of my asking many times) that these so called "chemtrails" are anything but water left behind from jet fuel combustion.
You have sought to claim that they are different in that they are "persistent" however, in the examples I posted of ordinary contrails,
(1) you said they were persistent so they were chemtrails. and yet
(2) the gaps in them showed that they were not persistent.

You have also failed to grasp the fact that clouds are quite often persistent so there's no reason why contrails shouldn't be.

Feel free to explain that one sometime.

Contrails is a pure lie. There's no such thing as a "contrail". Quit the stupid disinformation nonsense.

And this
"Likewise, suggesting that planes emits "cirrus aviaticus" clouds is propaganda. "

 is another bit of stupidity, for two reasons.
The first is the pictures of planes emitting them. The second is a linguistic  error on your part.
Clouds from flying things are "cirrus aviaticus" regardless of the mechanism by which they are produced.

And, it's a straightforward lie to claim that the video says that "-cia-director-admits-government-is-using-chemtrails-to-block-sun"
He says no such thing.
About 10 seconds in he says that things could potentially be done but, as I have pointed out before, that's not the same as saying it is happening. He says it COULD provide time to transition from fossil fuel. He says it would cost about $10Bn- that's not the same as saying it does cost that.
Then he points out that it wouldn't  solve the problem (notably the ocean pH) and that it would probably start a war.

There is no point in that video where he says that geoengineering is actually happening.

So, let's be clear about this.
You cite "evidence" from websites that clearly tell lies, and then you accuse me of propaganda.
re.
"it's pathetic BC don't realize how deceitful his claims are. "
get a mirror- I'm not the one who is seeking to deceive.
You say "We need to address the implications of chemtrails for human health and the environment, not lying about the existence of this activity."

Well, stop lying, stop saying that CIA bloke says that Chemtrails are real- he does nothing of the sort. That's just your wishful thinking.
So, as I said before
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.
and, in the meantime, stop telling such obvious lies.

Bored chemist, you have to understand I'm passionated about clandestine geoengineering activity. You, however, don't seem to give a bloody reason why this subject is important for you or your beloved ones.

There's no bloody such thing as a cirrus aviaticus cloud. Please remember that. If you live in UK then you should know the meaning of freedom. Clandestine geoengineering activity is an assault on freedom. Now, why would you not care about this? This seem like a potential scientific discussion, and I would like to preserve proper scientific discourse.

yor_on, if you feel like giving your opinion don't hesitate.

[Bored chemist]

What you saw was most likely a contrail.

Contrails is a pure lie. There's no such thing as a "contrail". Quit the stupid disinformation nonsense.


Bored chemist, you have to understand I'm passionated about clandestine geoengineering activity.

You seem to be very passionate about it.
You don't seem to understand that  your passion is clouding your judgement.
However, since you have now accused yourself of lying, perhaps you will realise that you are talking nonsense.

Failing that, Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.

[smart (OP)]

There's no such thing as a contrail under normal conditions. The formation of CCNs is a evidence that an aerosol is producing the persisting particles to nucleate ice. Water, under normal (atmospheric) conditions, does not condense to alter clouds.

Clandestine geoengineering activity is an assault on freedom to breath non-polluted air. The contrail lie is an effort to disinform us with nonsense. You should stop accusing me of lying when you constantly attempt to create disinformation about the nature of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).
 
By the way, clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact. You should at least attempt to understand the concepts behind it before claiming its not true. Your attitude is an evidence of your stupidity and arrogance toward the unknown.

[yor_on]

Well Tkadm. Geo engineering should mean something planned to change the environment at a global level as I read it. And it's very seldom, or possibly never, any smarter than what the planet has come forward with on its own under 'geological time'. When it comes to chem trails I don't think you have to worry though, although there will be local temperature differences soon after that day all aircrafts are grounded. But that has its ground in that the exhaust will express itself as 'clouds' of sorts and they reflect sunlight at daytime. At night time they do the opposite though, becoming blankets keeping the heat in.

It doesn't make sense assuming that people would mix 'clandestine stuff' with normal aviation fuel. and to make it stick you would have to assume that it should be the same all over the world.

[Bored chemist]

Water, under normal (atmospheric) conditions, does not condense to alter clouds.

By the way, clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact...

Clearly nonsense because there were clouds before there were aircraft.
Do you ever actually think about the implications of what you post?


If it's a fact then you should have no difficulty providing evidence for it. You have not done so; why not?

Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.

[smart (OP)]

Clearly nonsense because there were clouds before there were aircraft.
Do you ever actually think about the implications of what you post?


If it's a fact then you should have no difficulty providing evidence for it. You have not done so; why not?

Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.

"There's no such thing as a contrail under normal conditions. The formation of CCNs is a evidence that an aerosol is producing the persisting particles to nucleate ice. Water, under normal (atmospheric) conditions, does not condense to alter clouds."

Contrails do not create clouds. Stop speaking nonsense.

[alancalverd]

Contrails certainly nucleate clouds round here, but not every day. So either the conditions are a bit critical or Big Brother is taking the piss by distributing nonnucleating gunge from my plane some days but not others. How would I know? I'm only a pilot. It's damn clever because we only have one fuel bowser on our airfield and there are no "contrail" taps or switches on the instrument panel, so they must be loading the stuff into some part of the plane I've never seen, even when it's stripped down to its knickers in the workshop. And the stuff appears to be weightless 'cos the plane flies just the same on contrail, nucleating contrail, and non-contrail days. And it's not distributed through the engine 'cos I've generated a contrail from a glider!

[Bored chemist]

Contrails do not create clouds. Stop speaking nonsense.

So, what you are saying is that the trails left by aircraft don't create clouds, but the trails left by aircraft create increased clouds.
Or are you saying there's a difference?
Because if you are then guess what?
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.

Having just read Alan's post, I'd be happy to see you answer his points first, then get back to mine later.

[smart (OP)]

Contrails certainly nucleate clouds round here, but not every day.

I think chemtrails can chemically nucleate ice crystals. Thus the use of artificial cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) is probably required to nucleate clouds. A "contrail" evaporation rate is too high to nucleate ice.

[smart (OP)]

So, what you are saying is that the trails left by aircraft don't create clouds, but the trails left by aircraft create increased clouds.
Or are you saying there's a difference?

Contrails do not create clouds. What creates clouds is the effect of chemical CCN agent which alters clouds composition.

[Bored chemist]

Contrails do not create clouds.

You are ignoring reality.
It has already been pointed out that they do.
Show us evidence that the clouds left by planes are not just water, or shut up.

[Bored chemist]

I think chemtrails can chemically nucleate ice crystals. T

This is a science site.
Nobody cares what you "think".
What can you provide evidence for?

[chiralSPO]

tkadm30, I am pretty tired of the one-sided nature of this discussion. Bored (and others occasionally) have offered evidence- and logic-based answers to your questions, and your only responses have been "lies, all lies!" and insistence that this is very important. While I would agree that it would be very important if, there were a concerted and massive effort to change the climate by spraying aerosols in the sky. But given the evidence presented (essentially none) and the incredible nature of the claims, I remain unconcerned.

I will lock this thread unless the next post from tkadm30 contains some attempt at backing up these claims (that contrails are not water, that normal jet fuel doesn't produce contrails, or that billions have been spent on creating the infrastructure necessary for this feat) using scientific reasoning or trustworthy references. If a reasonable effort has been made on this front, then the conversation can continue.