Airplane Chem-trails.  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 02:52:23 pm
content: As you all may be aware, one of the many conspiracy theories is the one about airplane chem-trails. Which according to the conspiracy theories, no one really knows who is behind them or the real purpose, but it must likely be the Illuminati, Bill Gates or George Soros which are spraying them to control, somehow, the World’s population.Or words to the effect.I could give a rat’s ass about it, if it were not by the fact that my very dear twin brother is one of them.Now, I could argue with him, but when arguing with someone I love dearly, mental block sets in.I would appreciate it if someone could provide talking points I could use to explain this to him. He is not irrational, he has changed his worldview if presented with well-thought talk.Now, if you believe that instead I am the one full of shit, please say so but provide solid reasons. I promise thatI am not going to fight backwith anyone. I will simply listen.

author: hexreader
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 03:51:25 pm
content: Forget chem-trail conspiracy bullshitAeroplane travel is not good for the planet in scientifically verifiable ways.If "chem trail conspiracy BS" reduces aeroplane traffic, then maybe it could be a good lie/delusionPity there is no conspiracy BS against ocean shipping.Luckily I am 66 years old and will be dead long before the planet fries.Sorry to be selfish

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 04:19:45 pm
content: I agree that excessive airplane travel is not environmentally sound.But my concern is essentially the Chem Trails, that airlines somehow carry loads of mysterious chemicals over long distance flights, to spray over people for unknown, but certainly nefarious, reasons.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 05:49:07 pm
content: When something like this gets going it is very hard to put it back in the box. Generally believers think that we are the "sheeple" and the possession of the truth puts them in a favourable position versus the sheeple- hence they are very resistant to giving up their beliefs. All I can suggest is a careful study of the sky where one will find on certain days all high flying aircraft will leave persistent trails and on other days the trails will disperse quickly. The pertinent question is , are all aircraft spraying on some days and not doing it at all on other days? Maybe a telescope to determine what aircraft one is looking at but with great care not to look at the sun. A detailed observation like this will show that with the right weather conditions ALL high flying aircraft, regardless of whether civilian or military will produce persistent trails and on other days when conditions are not conducive it does not happen. The possibility that this activity is coordinated across all carriers, the military and private aircraft is, in my opinion, quite remote. One thing that militates against reason here is the huge increase in air travel in the last few decades which means the sky is criss crossed by trails so frequently that some people say it was never like that when they were a child. If I think of anything else I will add it but you may be up against a rigid belief here.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 06:05:21 pm
content: Oh shit, the bullshit is everywhere. A friend of ours is also convinced that the stripes and circles he sees in the skies are chem trails made by planes spraying shit into the air. Trying to convince him is near impossible.Explaining that the exhaust from an engine can create condensation and that other particles in the air might cause discoloration is something he does not buy. Why because often they are "sprayed" in circles. The fact that planes sometimes need to be placed in a holding pattern when there is no landing slot available is not something to consider.Asking about what the benefits would be of this spraying compared to the costs it will bring with it, does not lead to meaningful response either.Inquiring about how he thinks these kind of plains can get clearance from airports to take of and spray what ever nasty shit can't be answered either.Who want's to control world population in a way that it starts to diminish, certainly not rich people that only want to become richer. They need thriving and growing economies to keep the money flowing into their pockets. Politicians don't see benefits in this either, because as is they see lots of problems with aging people and rising costs of everything surrounding them. So only if the shit sprayed is targeted towards the elderly, which won't be that easy, it would benefit them.Leaves environmentalists, but for them poisoning the planet might be an even worse state of mind.About planes being bad for the world, yes, as is every other thing with an exhaust or chimney. A lot of world wide pollution comes from factories that expel tiny particles. These particles can discharge to ground with rain and then be falsely thought to be from the chem trails.Another argument is about cost. I'm convinced if one want's to get rid of some dodgy chemicals it is cheaper to do it by boat and dump it in the ocean.Hope these statements help in convincing your brother of the most likely nonsense of the chem trail conspiracies.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 07:20:40 pm
content: Another factor to point out is that the condensation trails are five or six miles high.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 07:22:46 pm
content: I remember watching those trails in the sky back in 70-s as a kid. Bill Gates was a teen then and World's population has doubled since, so whatever they are spraying seems pretty harmless

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 07:40:14 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on May 24, 2025, 07:22:46 pmIn fact it's more likely to be a fertiliser, so to speak.

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 03:06:30 am
content: It's a delusion. Delusions are not based in fact, so no amount of reasoning will change it. There's no point arguing; they should be talking to a clinical psychologist, not you or me.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 03:14:04 am
content: I don't know its pretty god damn sad that they need to spray fuel out before they land. I can perfectly understand that someone has a concern if something is spraying kerosene up in the sky.I mean I think we realize by now that the whole "its a big world, the ocean is deep, the canyon is deep, the river flows fast" industrial attitude towards waste disposal never works correctly. Its like uneducated.But this is supposedly a emergency procedure. Not sure if there is a list of if this happens (it would be nice)

author: TERRA Operative
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 05:18:14 am
content: Why spray chemicals way up in the air where most won't even reach a human, when they can just put it in the water supply or in the processed food for much cheaper cost for more direct dosing?It's all bullshit, but you practically can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 06:57:35 am
content: How are these chemtrails meant to affect only the target audience and not also the lizards that rule over us and breathe the same air?

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 07:51:02 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on May 25, 2025, 03:14:04 amFrankly in an emergency if it's a choice between dropping some kero into the atmosphere or the aircraft potentially dissembling itself on landing I know what I'd rather deal with.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 07:55:20 am
content: So does anyone know what, exactly, the chemtrail nutjobs claim is being released into the atmosphere? Specific chemicals?Yeah, I know it's all bullshit; just wondering if any of the believers have come up with anything remotely close to a plausible explanation.(Not including silver nitrate and friends, right? We know what that's used for.)

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 08:54:37 am
content: Quote from: BradC on May 25, 2025, 07:51:02 amstill, maybe it can be built better so the procedure is not dumping fuel. Imagine the kind of fiasco there would be if a truck did the same thing LOL. If anything BUT an airplane leaks fuel or oil it turns into a circus. Say a boat.Airplanes get alot of lee way with all sorts of stuff..I wonder if they can dye the fuel so you can for sure know if its contrails or airplane fuel being dumped..I am just saying there might be some design improvements to make there

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 11:27:45 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on May 25, 2025, 08:54:37 amAircraft hold a *lot* of fuel. A *lot* of fuel weighs a *lot*. Aircraft burn a *lot* of fuel during normal service, and therefore they weigh a *lot* less when they land. As every "unit of weight" in an aircraft costs money in fuel to lug around, aircraft are designed to weigh as little as possible. This means they are designed to withstand the structural load of the plane, its cargo and passengers when it hits the ground in a controlled manner based on having burned a *lot* of fuel.If an emergency happens and a plane has to land just after takeoff, it will have a *lot* of fuel on board and will therefore weigh more than its structure and landing gear is designed to hit the ground with. So the right thing to do is circle for hours and burn off enough fuel to get the weight down, or dump that shit and get on the ground as quickly as possible.Of course we could do it your way and ensure each aircraft was designed to land at its MTOW (maximum take off weight), which would cost more in structure, weigh more and therefore use more fuel.Again, I'll take the occasional (and it really is occasional because fuel costs money and airlines balance operating costs against dead people and trashed aircraft, so they won't be dumping fuel unless they really, really have to) fuel dump vs mangled wrecks where the fuel from the wings sloshes out onto the runway and burns up anyway.Aircraft don't leave "contrails" of fuel, they go out over the nearest body of large water and dump that shit as quickly as possible and they only dump the minimum they need to in order to prevent the thing falling apart when it hits the deck.FMD.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 12:09:13 pm
content: 2N2646/7, I am still looking for ideas that may help. If one looks at a high altitude plane the trail comes from the engine exhaust, some distance behind, where condensation occurs. Now that gives us two possibilities (1) the "chemicals" are mixed in with the fuel or (2) they are sprayed into the propulsion nozzle by a system separate from the fuel system. The problem with (1) is that what is alleged to be used, barium and aluminium(these two I remember from long ago but I am sure there are many more) would wreck a jet engine in short order. Option (2) would require an add-on system that aircraft technicians could not help but notice. The need to do any of this in a covert manner would require the silence of tens of thousands of aviation personnel and knowing human nature leaks of knowledge would be unavoidable.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 01:00:41 pm
content: Lots of shit in them according to this site:https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-7-2012-002906_EN.htmlQuoteNo levels mentioned though, but if true and with elevated levels we would basically all be dead by now.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 01:15:01 pm
content: It is not fuel dumping, trails can be see behind military planes climing up at steep angles. Would not make sense to dump fuel just right after take off and climing, would it.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 01:20:05 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on May 25, 2025, 11:27:45 amthe max landing weight is taking into account what won't damage the structure with the hardest allowable landing, highest sink rate and being able to do a go around (I think with one engine out)so you can likely land over max landing weight with no issue, the plane just have to be inspected for damage afterwards

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 04:47:42 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on May 25, 2025, 06:57:35 amExactly!I think this is probably the best argument. Simple and straightforward.I’m going to try and use it, and see what counter-arguments he comes up with.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 04:52:35 pm
content: I am still annoyed the EPA can get you really good for a leaking boat motor (the water police go bananas) but the giant air plane (boeing) can do it. needs better suspension or something. I really wonder if they got lobbyists to help them not have to design something more durable lol. It's hard not to think about certain big aerospace companies as rather shady now. They don't even wanna put the things together properly and that makes me not have too much faith in their engineering processes either'...I have a hunch that maybe something like this exists but was never designed in because they can get away with it for now. I think every single design suggestion goes through a lawyer that tells them if they absolutely need it or if its good for now.I saw similar things with enviromental changes I tried to get done in manufacturing. Even with substantial cost savings they laughed at me because its currently unregulated and they don't wanna deal with it (a recycler I designed for a certain 'safe' and also expensive freon that seemed to be leaking through the books (the small portion I got access to) per year), they don't sell it, claim its never lost, costs probobly ~$20k / year. If you want your employees to inhale that shit and also lose thousands of dollars per year then OK (we could have build it from parts we have with maybe spending $500) aerospace industry culture. It could have bought some side cutters that work LOLalways the same explanation that the space is big and its diluted.It made me understand why they zone factories so much. If they had better policies people would not care so much. There is a general 'do not trust these people' thought going around (correct).

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2025, 05:05:10 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on May 25, 2025, 04:52:35 pmI feel the need to remind you that dumping fuel is the exception - it is not routine. It only happens when something unexpected happens that invalidates the calculations for the take-off fuel load.

author: jh15
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 01:41:35 am
content: It is OK to let 2-stroke oil/gas exhaust underwater boat engines used on a water supply lake I know of. They say the products rise to the surface and evaporate. However if, while putting in your boat, You step in the water, sneaker on or whatever, a ranger/watcher/whatever he is called, will ticket you. Another lake of a theme park would exhaust a few quarts of oil per cruise in it's worn out engine.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 01:53:38 am
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on May 24, 2025, 02:52:23 pmThe first thing to do, is listen to his (so-called) rational explanation.For the moment, ignore facts (if any). Listen to the reasoning and argumentative structure.If the reasoning is loaded with logical fallacies, then you will need to correct them before proceeding to facts.Here's a starter list. It's not comprehensive, but still extremely useful to evaluate arguments.1a. Hypothetical Syllogism (Conditional Reasoning)Structure:If A, then B.If B, then C.Therefore, if A, then C.Example:If it rains, the ground will be wet.If the ground is wet, the game will be canceled.Therefore, if it rains, the game will be canceled.1b. Hypothetical Syllogism (Fallacious Version)Structure:If A, then B.If C, then B.Therefore, if A, then C. (Invalid)Example:If I drink coffee, I stay awake.If I take a cold shower, I stay awake.Therefore, if I drink coffee, I took a cold shower.Why it's fallacious: The conclusion assumes equivalence where there’s none — just because two causes lead to the same effect doesn’t mean they’re related.2a. Disjunctive SyllogismStructure:Either A or B.Not A.Therefore, B.Example:Either we go out or stay in.We're not going out.Therefore, we stay in.2b. Disjunctive Syllogism (Fallacious Version – False Dilemma)Structure:Either A or B.Not A.Therefore, B.Incorrect, when the options are not truly exhaustive.Example:You're either with us or against us.You're not with us.Therefore, you're against us.Why it's fallacious: This assumes only two possible options when there could be others — a classic false dilemma.3a. Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent)Structure:If A, then B.A.Therefore, B.Example:If I study, I will pass.I studied.Therefore, I will pass.3b. Modus Ponens (Fallacious Version – Affirming the Consequent)Invalid Structure:If A, then B.B.Therefore, A. (incorrect)Example:If it’s a dog, it has four legs.This animal has four legs.Therefore, it’s a dog.Why it's fallacious: Many animals have four legs — having four legs doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a dog.4a. Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)Structure:If A, then B.Not B.Therefore, not A.Example:If it’s a dog, it barks.It doesn’t bark.Therefore, it’s not a dog.4b. Modus Tollens (Fallacious Version – Denying the Antecedent)Invalid Structure:If A, then B.Not A.Therefore, not B. (incorrect)Example:If it is raining, the ground is wet.It is not raining.Therefore, the ground is not wet.Why it's fallacious: The ground might be wet for other reasons — sprinklers, a spill, etc.5a. Inductive ReasoningStructure:Specific observations → General conclusion.Example:Every swan I’ve seen is white.Therefore, all swans are probably white.Note: Inductive reasoning leads to probable (not certain) conclusions.5b. Inductive Reasoning (Fallacious Version – Hasty Generalization)Example:I met two rude people from New York.Therefore, all New Yorkers are rude. (incorrect)Why it's fallacious: Drawing a broad conclusion from an unrepresentative or small sample is a hasty generalization.6a. Abductive ReasoningStructure:Inference to the best explanation.Example:The grass is wet.It probably rained last night (best explanation).Used in scientific reasoning and diagnostics.6b. Abductive Reasoning (Fallacious Version – Ignoring Alternative Explanations)Example:The grass is wet.Therefore, it rained last night.(But in reality, the sprinklers were on.) (incorrect)Why it's fallacious: This is a faulty causal inference — jumping to the most convenient explanation without ruling out others.7a. Analogical ReasoningStructure:A is like B in many ways.A has property P.Therefore, B probably has property P.Example:The brain is like a computer.A computer processes information.Therefore, the brain probably processes information.7b. Analogical Reasoning (Fallacious Version – False Analogy)Example:A watch has gears and a designer.The universe has parts and complexity.Therefore, the universe has a designer. (incorrect)Why it's fallacious: The analogy is weak — the universe and a watch are fundamentally different kinds of things. This is a false analogy.Bear this in mind for now, we are not evaluating the facts at this stage, we are evaluating the logical reasoning. Correcting the logical reasoning can be as fraught as the conspiracy itself!

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 02:44:19 am
content: Your example for 4a is incorrect. Not all dogs bark, and most dogs don't bark all the time so a finite observation of not barking doesn't prove not dogness.This kind of thing is why it is dangerous to introduce formal logic to a conspiracy theorist. They will pounce on any minor errors you make and use them as an excuse to throw the whole structure out.One question I would explore after the question about how the perpetrators protect themselves is what action your brother proposed to end the conspiracy or protect himself. This might provide information on what arguments to use.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 04:00:36 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on May 26, 2025, 02:44:19 amI prefaced the post with ignore facts for now.I also postscripted the post with ignore facts for now.The structure of my example 4a remains logically consistent.Another logically consistent example of 4a, still ignoring facts for now;If Donald J. Trump is a Democrat, then they are a communist.Donald J. Trump is not a communist.Therefore, Donald J. Trump is not a Democrat.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on May 26, 2025, 02:44:19 amIf they do so, it would be a commission of 5b.Once you've sussed out the logical structure, only then should one expend effort on fact finding.Analysing logical structure is, comparatively speaking, far less effortful than researching facts (and is one of the reasons why consiracy theorists gravitate around fallacies....they can't be bothered with their own research).As such, analysing logical structure is the "low hanging fruit" of debating conspiracy theorists.

author: antenna
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 06:56:25 am
content: Its cold up there, about -90F. If the air is already saturated, the condensate can't evaporate.People who believe an infinite supply of pilots exist who are willing to poison their own families probably won't listen to reason, so don't bother.None of these people have attempted to correlate the sightings with weather data or illnesses, and until they do, their opinion is just that.When they rather get mad than logically defend their position, walk away.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 08:18:38 am
content: Applying facts and logical thinking won't work in the cases where the beliefs are based on emotions, especially fear.Where emotions are involved, storytelling is often a good course of action, but isn't guaranteed.Where fear is the driver, exposure to others being aware-but-unworried might help, possibly followed by gradual inoculation.Ask what could cause them to change their mind. The way they answer can indicate your chances of success, and the answers help guide your conversation.

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 03:44:17 pm
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on May 26, 2025, 01:53:38 amThis list is so good it should be made a sticky.Myself I have copied and saved it.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 03:54:59 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on May 26, 2025, 04:00:36 amYou know, and I know that the structure of logical argument is correct. But is correct only when the prepositions used are correct.My concern was not about the structure, but about convincing a conspiracy theorist that logical structure is correct and useful in evaluating their pet beliefs. I am not personally convinced based on my experience with these people that this approach would be useful. And I am fully convinced that if you attempt to train them in logic using invalid prepositions as examples you will fail.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 04:06:52 am
content: Maybe you meanpropositions?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 07:19:23 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on May 25, 2025, 04:52:35 pmUmm, that’s because oil and fuel in water immediately and often severely pollute the water. Oil sticks around, and fuel and additives in both oil and fuel are often acutely toxic to aquatic organisms.In contrast, jet fuel dumped in the air gets aerosolized as it exits, and since fuel is dumped at altitude, it practically always has time to fully evaporate long before it would rain onto the ground or water.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 07:28:29 am
content: Well, it doesn't just disappear; it still goes into the environment.It's all bad.(Though I certainly understand the rationale for dumping aviation fuel in an emergency.)

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 07:38:18 am
content: hand wavey explanation about evaporation. What it probobly does is (if it even manages to evaporate) is condense in a cloud because it has a high boiling point and very much wants to condense (almost double of water) and then makes kerosene containing rainwas this not the whole explanation about sulfur byproducts? Which then lead to acid rain and global warming too.it turns into a gas forget about it its like its not there. goes into space and aliens vacuum it up for their shipworks perfectly every time because its an ideal uniform temperature and pressure sphere of gas without gravity and seagulls

author: Perrold
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 08:43:39 am
content: Jet-A evaporates easily. Not quite as well as water but a soaked patch of concrete is dry in 5-15 minutes. Actual pooling takes longer yet it disappears just the same. With a fine mist existing at chest level probably half of it is gone before it hits the ground.

author: jh15
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 04:09:01 am
content: UK wants to reduce sun by chem spraying, as if they have to much.Florida, USA just banned doing it, I thought April one was over,am I dreaming?

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 05:20:31 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on May 27, 2025, 03:54:59 amThe term is premise.If the premise is incorrect, then conclusions drawn from the argument will be invalid, even when the form/structure is correct.QuoteIf a person doesn't use properly structured arguments (with untrue facts or otherwise), then there is zero point engaging them, because they fail to demonstrate the ability to draw a valid conclusion from a given premise.Quote from: tggzzz on May 26, 2025, 08:18:38 amThis is number 1. More important than facts, more important than logic.Unfortunately, listening to another person's emotions can also be the most difficult skill to develop. Far harder than the low hanging fruit that is logic. Can also be an issue for some (e.g. those with Asperger's or ASD).

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 05:41:32 am
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on May 26, 2025, 03:44:17 pmYou might also find these handy;https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/https://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2015/01/taxonomy-of-logical-fallacies.htmlBut bear in mind, we are still only evaluating arguments. Evaluating facts is a second part of debunking, but if you value your time, should only proceed if the fallacies are eliminated.As a stats person, my favourite is the base rate fallacy, for example;Imagine a test for a rare disease:1 in 1,000 people has the disease (base rate = 0.1%)The test is 99% accurate (true positive rate = 99%, false positive rate = 1%)Now someone takes the test and tests positive. What's the chance they actually have the disease? Most people say something like “99%” because the test is 99% accurate. But they’re ignoring the base rate (how rare the disease is).The correct way to think about it;Out of 1,000 people:1 person has the disease — likely test positive.999 people don’t ~1% of them (≈10) will still test positive (false positives).So, for every 11 positive tests:1 is a true positive.10 are false positives.Actual probability of having the disease = 1 / 11 ≈ 9%, not 99%.Committing this fallacy can lead to invalid and incorrect conclusions. It may not be relevant to your (so-called) rational chem-trails believer, but it is certainly committed by vaccine conspiracy theorists.

author: zboltman
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 05:29:31 pm
content: Check out the 2008 movie, "TOXIC SKIES". starring Anne Heche.It's kinda an eye opener.This has been going on for a VERY long time now.On another note, I collect rainwater and more than once have found yellow foamish floating on top.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 06:40:42 pm
content: Quote from: zboltman on May 28, 2025, 05:29:31 pmPollen, Sahara/desert sand, etc. It can be caused by a lot of stuff that floats around in the atmosphere, pushed into it by factories, power plants, volcano's or what ever has an exhaust pipe. Pollution does not stick to one place on the planet. Winds will blow it around.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 08:49:37 pm
content: Quote from: jh15 on May 28, 2025, 04:09:01 amWhere did you get that tale from?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 09:14:27 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on May 28, 2025, 08:49:37 pmThe State of Florida did pass such a bill.https://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Offices/2024-2026/President/Documents/Senate_Passes_Bill_To_Protect_Floridians_from_Geoengineering_and_Weather_Modification.pdfAt the end of that pdf: "The bill repeals all other existing weather modification statutes and removes DEP’s authority to conduct programs of study, research, and experimentation and evaluation in the field of weathermodification."Many such things are going on now that include stopping research into climate change, and deleting climate data from public databases.Side-effects include ill-advised reductions in normal weather forecasting by NOAA, who run the National Weather Service.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 09:17:33 pm
content: I was referring to the UK bit. I'm sure it would have made the news here.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 09:18:08 pm
content: https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c5ygydeqq08o

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2025, 09:30:34 pm
content: Florida is sunnier than the UK. Perhaps crazier, as well.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2025, 12:46:28 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on May 28, 2025, 09:14:27 pmBecause, as we know, weather forecasting is the Devil's work. Man isn't supposed to be so prideful as to think he can predict the weather.But seriously, I listen to the local NWS broadcast every day. (They were off the air for a few days last week due to a software upgrade, after which, of course, the broadcast loop was all screwed up for most of a day, but it's back on track now.) I'll have to monitor their forecasts, see if anything's changed.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2025, 10:01:36 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on May 27, 2025, 07:38:18 amNo, it’s not a question of “if” it evaporates: it definitely does, and it definitely does not subsequently condense into clouds that later rain down. What would compel you to make proclamations about something you very clearly know nothing about??Jet fuel is composed almost entirely of hydrocarbons, practically all of which are VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and, when dumped per regulations (>6000 feet, and other rules), atomized into droplets of around 270 μm and quickly evaporate completely. The Swiss aviation authority states that with no wind, less than 0.1% of the fuel makes it to the ground as aerosols, and that those are quickly decomposed microbiologically. The gaseous VOCs in the air quickly disperse over large distances into large volumes of air, where it photochemically decomposes into water and CO2. The authority continues to state that there are no known cases of soil contamination due to jet fuel dumping. (And this from an authority in Switzerland, a country with extremely strict environmental laws.) (https://www.bazl.admin.ch/dam/bazl/de/dokumente/Politik/Umwelt/treibstoffablassfueldump.pdf)On rare occasions, like in the video, the fuel does not have a chance to evaporate and can make it to the ground, but it then evaporates there. That is newsworthy precisely because it isnota normal occurrence: it happened because the pilots for some reason ignored regulations and dumped at low altitude over a populated area. AFAIK the pilots in that case never did produce a viable explanation for their decision.As for acid rain: that is the result ofcombustion byproducts. At the combustion temperatures, oxygen and nitrogen combine to make NOx, which then react to create nitric acid, and sulfur in fuel oxidizes to SOx, which then react to form sulfuric acid.So arguably, it is less bad for the environment to dump fuel than to burn it (ignoring the fact that dumped fuel doesn’t get to do any work, of course).

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2025, 02:16:23 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on May 28, 2025, 09:14:27 pmSo, hurricanes won’t be nuked, as previously suggested by a certain Florida resident?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2025, 02:53:51 pm
content: Yes, that is now banned in the State of Florida.

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2025, 10:07:12 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on May 25, 2025, 04:52:35 pmDumping fuel is an emergency situation (i.e. unexpected), not SOP that is performed every time they want to land. Not only would that be environmentally unsound, it would cost the airline a lot of money to waste so much fuel. A boat motor leaking oil is down to poor maintenance and is easily avoidable.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2025, 10:39:51 pm
content: of course oily stuff never condenses thats why you can leave something out for about 15 minutes after cleaning before its dirty with oil again. especially on freezing cold or frozen cold rain dropletsgood paint would be very easy if it just stayed a gas. But what happens, of course is that it gets a oil coating from being out in the air some how. And as usual, the concentration of such oil in the air is much greater in cities, near factories, pissing airplanes, etc.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2025, 06:15:52 am
content: @coppercone2: You might want to take a look at this doc fromNOAA's Office of Response and Restoration, titled "Kerosene and Jet Fuel Spills". It's only 2 pages but has some interesting info:Quote

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 05:19:11 am
content: Ah, Chemtrails are a tough subject to pick apart:First of all, in Oakland, the chem trails appear on hot days, especially when several hot days occur, in a row.My conclusion is that the powers that be, at various levels of state and Federal, don't want the climate crisis to be perceived as such a threat.So, Chemtrails laid out criss-cross and efficiently, are supposed to cut out just enough sunlight, so that politically potent numbers don't get in the news. Extremes past 120 degrees F, for example.The clue word here is HOT DAYS. Some various arguments have stated that water vapor freezes, way up there at 15,000 ft.But...wait a second now: that's freezing in COLD conditions. The chem trails dispute mixes up extra-COLD, with extra HOT (days).So I see that argument as flawed.That's maybe the biggest argument flaw tip-off. But generally, at least in American Culture, just about anything or anybody can become an argument 'boogyman', always running to extreme 'theories' and bogus explanations. This means that any analysis must always be some nut-case wacko, to even engage the subject.But, yeah, I'm sticking to the argument that high heat should be coo related with LESS condensation of vapors, not more.What are those efficiently criss-crossing trails then, natural ?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 05:31:18 am
content: Sorry, Rick, but if you really do believe in chemtrails, then you truly are an idiot.And I say that with all due sympathy.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 07:39:28 am
content: Thanks, but (see what I mean), how about something resembling discussion, if you care about the topic, or original author, rather than this flame thing you are passionate about.Give it a rest ? Ah, now that's an impossibility ?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 07:49:33 am
content: So you really believe that airplanes are intentionally dispersing ... stuff into the atmosphere besides just jet exhaust?What do you suppose they're dispersing?And why? What's the master plan here?Who's behind this nefarious enterprise?And why don't we hear from dozens--no, hundreds--of pilots blowing the whistle on this? You suppose this is going on without their knowledge?

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 07:57:55 am
content: I'm saying it's fishy the responses given, and thus the whole claim of BOGUS theory is flawed. I don't see any counter-argument that makes sense or destroys some flawed points...just a really strong desire to, somehow, some way, discount the questions.It's the 'Im right because you're a Ninny' argument.About as convincing as the lame COVID vax baby-talk.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 08:05:42 am
content: See how this works:You take my own words, explaining that leaders wish to avoid extreme weather being reported. But then, waving arms in fake distress, you asked for explanations, inferring that nothing has been supplied.I don't always know what response to issue. Questions from every quarter. Think I should put you on my 'annoying, tries to flare up brief arguments, seems upset, somehow...ignore list'

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 09:49:43 am
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 10, 2025, 05:19:11 amContrails, short for "condensation trails" form when hot exhaust gasses from the jet engines meets cold air. Jets fly at high altitudes (30-40,000 feet) where the temperatures are extremely low even on hot days. Contrails are more likely to persist when the air has higher humidity such as after prolonged hot spells.Quote from: RJSV on July 10, 2025, 05:19:11 amThere are ~45,000 flights a day in the US, would you really expect none of the flight paths would cross?

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 02:30:55 pm
content: Exactly what mikerj mentioned.Commercial jets fly at the Tropopause atmospheric layer where it is always below freezing, even on hot days at ground level.But I also know that it is beyond impossible to convince conspiracy theorists with facts that don’t fit their narrative. I respect that, but don’t attempt to convince me that you are right and I am wrong.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 03:37:47 pm
content: Facts are for losers.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 04:42:25 pm
content: High flying piston engined aircraft will also produce chemtrails(oops!, sorry CONTRAILS)

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 09:30:48 pm
content: Quote from: mikerj on July 10, 2025, 09:49:43 amThis is just one airline (United) out of many:

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 09:40:39 pm
content: That's why the sky over Chicago is totally blue...On a nice summer evening, we can go out in front of our house (due east of O'Hare) and see three parallel lines of incoming aircraft, with maybe three planes visible in each line: one over Bryn Mawr Ave, another over Foster Ave, and the third over Lawrence Ave (1/2 mile between those east-west streets).

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 10:02:08 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 10, 2025, 09:40:39 pmWell, at least you don't live close to Midway ("runway excursion city"), as it's boxed in on all sides.Although I always much preferred to fly in and out of Midway if possible; much less hassle, especially after the CTA extension went there.BTW, I heard that "ORD" stood for "O'hare Richard Daley". Izzat true? or just a random designation?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 10:22:50 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 10, 2025, 10:02:08 pmBefore the civilian airport (O'Hare) was built, there was a private field named "Orchard" at that location for a WW II bomber factory , hence the abbreviation.The CTA 'L' serves both Midway ("Orange Line") and O'Hare ("Blue Line").The Northwest Ordinance (1785, before the Constitution) reserved one section (square mile) of each township (36 square miles) for funding local education.From a Chicago website: "An example is the square mile school section Midway Airport sits on. The section was apparently little used for the first 100 years. Then in 1926 the Board of Education leased 600 acres to the City for use as Municipal Airport. Ten acres were reserved for Hale Elementary School. The school remained at the end of the runway of what became the world’s busiest airport until 1953. Finally in 1981, the school board sold the land to the city."

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 10:33:34 pm
content: So have you ever flown in or out of Meigs Field?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 10:44:23 pm
content: I never used Meigs: it was essentially for General Aviation.Its location directly on Lake Michigan caused it to be closed often for weather reasons: it's now a park.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 11:47:54 pm
content: Going back and re-starting reading this I realize you are looking for arguments to reinforce your own position (I believe flawed position, like many). My focus is on the argument styles and attempting to find patterns, like in my first post here. Logically, high heat effects and cold effects don't happen simultaneously.Your position is fine, and stated clearly. However, others 'argue' while they skip over the points made, as if the person is generally bogus, and so no real response is called for.I would appreciate doing a survey: How many respondents ,(here) get their concerns DIRECTLY ADDRESSED, vs. a dismissal, or just plain ignored. Nothing wrong with OP, it's just that the arguing discourse is somehow discouraged.I enjoy taking the 'snarky' role. When a conspiracy theory comes up, and illuminati and 'Koch brothers' (pronounced 'coke') get mentioned I remember; one has died, and so I've adopted a corrective tone, uttering:"You mean 1/2 of Coke Brothers, now ?".Or, another favorite, is mangling words, as is the trend 'everywhere'. Actually I should be saying 'almost' everywhere, for argument accuracy.Thus you might read:'Mis-dis-information' ...an actual term someone is using, to discredit their argument opponents. A bit hilarious, really, if you consider (my) sarcasm has roots in what I've read or heard.That one is subject to further sarcasm, as in 'Dismiss-your-nformation' as a declaration of bogus material or BS, (rather than actual factual arguments). I like to tailor my style to what's out there,...much better and laugh-able material.But when folks are ready, sure, I have properly formed thoughts on the chem trails subject to contribute. Who is ready ? I could go in, right now, and analyze how many POSTS, here, actually get properly addressed, vs the blow-off. Again, not directly criticising OP activity, it's a great topic, with actual science, if we cultivate a genuine attitude, and stop with the misdisinformation, from Russia...or even from Latvia !

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 12:20:34 am
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 10, 2025, 11:47:54 pmMore word salad here aside:I'm ready. Now. Right this minute.So if you please, do present your "properly formed thoughts" on chemtrails. (The more properly-formed the better.)Please, if you would, stick to the topic ("the proposition: chemtrails are real, and here's why I believe that ..."), not devolving into meta-topics like how people argue against that position, marginalize chemtrail believers, etc., etc.Like Sgt. Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, ma'am".Seriously: instead of complaining about how people react to conspiracy theories, or whatever it was you were doing up there (I'm still not sure), why don't you lay out your arguments showing why you believe in chemtrails?That way we can judge those thoughts/arguments on their merits, instead of bickering about how people argue for/against such theories. Just lay your cards on the table, if you would.I'm ready.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 06:58:07 am
content: Well, certainly the folks supporting that it's all a BS topic, deserving of ridicule, take the majority here. My main point hasn't been a yay or a nay, but rather that the argument and debate 'structures' are flawed.The sheer volume of statements, like 'you're a stupid Ninny' if you believe would not be up to debate standards. I perceive just a sheer (near-panic ) RUSH, to discount and discredit anybody opposed, and that's what gets my attention.What does appear as a good and well placed debate item is in reply #59, by reader mikerj. He helps counter my argument about heat waves by the fact that condensation will linger during a heat wave. Thus it is consistent with the lingering cross hatches seen. Ok partial loss there, in a debate team setting.So that would be an example, of a dynamic I expect, in a debate.There is more to it, though. My real-time observations don't fit, with the explanations, as the process I observed was a progressive, cross-hatch pattern, with one single airplane apparently spewing out a line, slowly, across and back for another, just a short distance away.Of course I have to deal with some snark, in this, with side comments issued: like, "If your account is correct".What the hell do I do, with that confrontational gas lighting ?Attempt to explain ? It's been demanded, now, that I present everything inferred. A collosal waste of time, as demands come, to explain how Bill Gates wants to kill mass numbers of us. Ridiculous arguments come from both sides.My tentative theory is, (again), that there is a simple desire to tamp down the record heat waves, by simple sun blocking. It's not a solid belief, as the implementation of any program like that would involve virtually enormous leaks and investigative journalists would, likely uncover a conspiracy to block sunlight, and tamp down an excessive heat wave. So, these things I'm not sureBut, what is very clear, is that people will fight like hell, to discount any person raising questions, even a question like:"Why such a fuss, to discredit anybody with doubts or questions?"THATS the rub, here.

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 08:39:08 am
content: You said you were going to give properly formed thoughts, and you were asked to lay them out clearly without a bunch of rambling word salad. You haven't yet done that.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 09:03:47 am
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 11, 2025, 06:58:07 amAnd yet the interactions of contrails and warming are a bit more complex than that :https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/9405/2021/With the reduction of flights over the COVID period, cooling was observed in places not predicted and warming wasn't as intense as predicted in others. So it's all very handwavy.Quote from: RJSV on July 10, 2025, 11:47:54 pmListening any time you're ready.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 09:18:12 am
content: Partially, right there, reply #71 discusses enough for someone to dispute. To repeat that: I had noted the style of the pattern, and the appearance of the cross hatch, is definitely not a 'crowd' of airplanes, each contributing a continuous little bit of the cross-hatch, it might be a lot more random lines, each from a different airplane, in a different patch of sky, and not in a continuously laid down pattern.I guess I could list the other places where I delved into this type of description, and REPEAT the lines of text, yet again. The term conspiracy theory is bandied about, but not to be used here, you've said.I figure if it's good enough (metadata ?) for the rest of this thread, then I could also discuss the terms and now you wish to restrict that.I did wish to mention that I like the logic terms brought by Andy Chee as that helps get some science into this.Not sure if you will ever consider my response to meet your standards, but try go back and read reply #71, at least. What's your reaction to that ?Unclear ? Do I re-format the exact same communication, or what needs to be more clear. Just that one piece of explanation can be responded to, you don't need it 'all' for a couple seconds here. THEN, I can assume you are sincere !

author: Rafiki
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 12:18:31 pm
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 11, 2025, 09:18:12 amAre you a real human or some sort of so called AI? Mind I would say more precisely AnI because I don't think there is much intelligence involved when people talk about the output of some AI. But that's another story.Really when I read your answers to previous posts I hardly can believe a human being produces that.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 08:33:34 pm
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 11, 2025, 09:18:12 amOK, let's look at what you posted there. I'm extracting only those parts that deal directly with chemtrails, not your ruminations on argumentation, etc.:QuoteOK, let's look at that: it sounds to me as if you're proposing that a single airplane is going back and forth across the sky in some kind of crosshatch pattern to cover that area with chemtrails. Is that what you meant? (I don't want to put words in your mouth that don't belong there.)Because if that is really what you believe, then that really is kooky, implausible, and would demand alotof supporting evidence for us to even consider it within the realm of possibility. Planes trekking back and forth to spew chemicals into the atmosphere? What would those flight paths look like?You do realize that there are ways that flight paths can be, and are, tracked: they're even accessible to anyone with an internet connection. (Sorry, I don't know any specifics, but I know they exist.) You could start by taking a look at these and see if you can find any patterns that match your speculation here.QuoteWell, like with a lot of kooky ideas, there's an element of truth in this:It is possible to affect temperature changes by putting stuff into the atmosphere. How effective that is depends on what exactly you put there and at what altitude.It was observed after 9/11, when practically all domestic flights were cancelled, that temperatures rose slightly but measurably because of the lack of jet exhaust in the atmosphere.The concept of putting stuff (usually solid particles rather than exhaust gases) into the atmosphere to lower temperatures is calledglobal dimming. It's a real thing, even if it's a somewhat crazy idea itself, one which is highly impractical and which probably has unintended consequences. But it's real.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 08:35:00 pm
content: Quote from: Rafiki on July 11, 2025, 12:18:31 pmHe's real. I've interacted with Rick via PMs. He's a decent, smart guy, if a bit confused and hard to understand.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 10:28:59 pm
content: I did think of a flaw in my own presentation, on the cross cross patterning, observed near Oakland, CA.If the case was that there was a cross wind pushing each separate 'lkne' of exhaust, that could explain the cross hatch pattern, over a large swath of sky dome. That is, each line would be put down and then could be blown sideways, to form the parallel lines of the bigger pattern.That kind of argue-back is the kind of thinking that I can appreciate, as I only want to figure out the phenomenum correctly, even if I got it wrong.Ignore the cryptic guy, is advice I've been hearing. But some folks keep coming back, with more aggressive .....(Running out of words to describe). Surprised I don't get THE NEXT response BEFORE I post, now. Parked in my driveway, almost.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2025, 11:46:58 pm
content: Flight tracker.com is one way to track airplane flights.A cross hatch pattern is not surprising for a location near Oakland. There are three fairly busy airports nearby (San Francisco, Sacramento and San Jose) with arrivals and departures going every direction of the compass (LA basin, Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas and many others).Airport operations these days tend to cluster arrivals and departures together so that people can transfer to another flight without waiting all day. You can verify this by spending a day at a major airport. There are intervals where they are very crowded with people rushing to, from and between planes. And other intervals where the concourses are echo chambers, nearly empty of people.All of this is then consistent with your observation. Lots of planes following not too far apart (departures after the interchange interval) on slightly different flight paths (different destinations).It would be relatively easy to check and verify that all of those flights delivered passengers or cargo. Doesn't prove they didn't also have chemicals on board to spray out, but it does put relatively tight limits on how much there could be. Airplanes don't have unlimited weight carrying capacity. A little more math would give rough bounds on the mass of material involved in contrails and would show that the only thing that is carried and left in the air in that kind of volume is fuel, and even that doesn't really cut it because there isn't enough of it.Spend a little time analyzing this with the care you would use in figuring out a circuit. You will find that the chemtrails explanation just doesn't add up, while the water vapor explanation is consistent with easily verifiable facts.I find chemtrails to be much like the explanation one older gentleman gave me when I was doing power line survey work for an electrical utility as a summer job during college. He had done some looking at the power lines near his home, and concluded that they collected the sunlight during the day and stored it in the big bottles that hung here and there on the utility poles in the area. Then delivered it through the wires leading to his house for use in light bulbs. He was quite convinced, and the story loosely hangs together. But he had no explanation for how his vacuum cleaner turned the light into suction.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2025, 12:15:51 am
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 11, 2025, 10:28:59 pmNow that sounds like a good approach to this.(phenomenon)

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2025, 02:28:15 am
content: One possibly stray bit of news relates to this thread, and the whole 'rumor control' memes. That is the recent Los Angeles area tunnel collapse, where one news story starts delving into how'Banks are funding SECRET TUNNELS', under LA downtown.OMG what a mess, when attempting to cut the true 'conspiracy' story, from the pile of whacko stories and theories. Us Chemtrail questioners don't need the bulk of delusional ideas, added to the valid mix on the sky phenomenum !But certainly I don't have to shoulder the burden, of splaining how 'Bill Gates wants to reduce the world's population....', as I'm not on board with the illuminati but, that's a ridiculous exaggerated meme, used to discredit the whole lot of us.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2025, 07:06:21 pm
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 12, 2025, 02:28:15 amI didn't even know about that incident.After checking out the news reports about the tunnel collapse, it turns out to be kind of a nothingburger.All 31 sanitation workers made it out without any injuries.I'd file that under "shit happens". These kinds of accidents happen with some regularities:Workers buried in improperly-shored ditches or other excavations.Dunno where you get that "sekrit tunnels" stuff from; that's in koo-koo land.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2025, 09:54:56 pm
content: @RJSV: Just saw this video about cloud-seeding, about how the CEO of a cloud-seeding company in Texas has been accused of causing the recent catastrophic floods there and has actually received threats to himself and his family as a result:https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/11/us/video/cloud-seeding-texas-floods-fact-check-augustus-doricko-digvidThis shows that the irresponsible blaming of operations like his, or of "chemtrails" for bad results like the floods, is a real danger here. Not the technology but its use as a scapegoat by such dunderheaded ignoramuses as Marjorie Taylor "Jewish space lasers" Greene, the poster child for "know-nothingness" in American life, who thinks it should be banned.Yes, cloud seeding is a real thing, and it does work, but on a limited scale. And if you watch the video, the CEO expresses that this is a technology with real-world consequences and that he believes it should be regulated and well understood, and not just practiced by anyone without training, certification, etc.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 03:34:52 pm
content: Agree 100%. Cloud seeding does work but is very limited and expensive(silver iodide particles) but it no way could produce what happened in Texas. The very idea that science has the power to control weather on that scale is ludicrous.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 06:12:50 pm
content: Quote from: paul cotter on July 13, 2025, 03:34:52 pmJust for reference, the CEO in that interview stated that they released 70 grams of silver iodide into two clouds on that occasion.

author: norbert.kiszka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 07:31:57 pm
content: Quote from: hexreader on May 24, 2025, 03:51:25 pmMost popular airliner Boeing 737-800 has a range 4000 NM at full payload. Seats times range ratio is 476353.Being realistic, let we say, airline configured this plane for only 80 seats. To get full range, we need a lot of fuel. Total fuel capacity of 737-NG family (including 737-800) is 21000 kg.4000 nautical miles is the same as 7408 km. Im little lazy right now and lets say that we need all three tanks being full to take those 80 people to fly safely with this distance 4000 NM.21000 kg divided by 80 people gives 262.5 kg per trip for every person.Our travel is "just" 7408 km. 262.5 divided by 7408 gives ~0.035 kg or ~35.435 g per every km.In Europe we measure how many liters car consumes per 100 km. So our plane needs 3.54 kg for the same distance.Turbofan engines uses kerosene, which is made from petroleum and chemically it's very similar to diesel. Being precise, it's something between diesel and benzine, but it behaves more like diesel.Kerosene density is very similar to diesel, which is 775-840 g/L (depends on the temperature and additives). Average is 807.5 g/L. That means our plane burned 26006.2 L in total or4.384 L per 100 km.Don't forget that planes can fly for 30-60 years for a couple hours per each day until it's being scraped for parts and fuselage is converted to razor blades. People likes to change cars much more often or crash them, because of speed of other dangerous/stupid behaviors.Now please tell me, which method of transportation of 80 people for 4000 NM is more ecological and more economic than airliner? Even popular and very old (training) plane Cessna 172 with four seats burn less fuel than most of the cars.Give me any calculations to prove me wrong, instead of myths created from greedy companies that competes with that method of transportation.I completely understand if some people are stupid. But I can't understand of being lazy and gullible at the same time.More of that, some people like to say numbers like 737 can burn 80 tons of fuel. Yeah, if You fill fuel in all three tanks, whole cargo compartment, every technical compartment that is, flight deck, passengers compartment and You put same fuel inside tires instead of nitrogen - it will not be able to fly at all. Gears will collapse with that weight.Once in a short movie I heard number like 200 tons of fuel per every flight. And many idiots believed that. This is even too much for a fully loaded AN-225, which was the biggest world plane, until only one existing AN-225 was almost completely destroyed in 2022.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 07:42:25 pm
content: What you wrote seems correct, so absent any objections to it here, I'll accept it.One thing, though: unlike automobiles, jets spew their pollution high up in the atmosphere instead of at ground level.Now I'm not a climatologist, but there must be some significant differences in how this distribution of the pollution affects the planet as a whole compared to ground-level dispersion. (There are things like the ozone layer to be taken into consideration here.)Even if they're spewing less pollution up there than cars down here, it's still not good to spew pollution like thatat all.

author: norbert.kiszka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 08:15:09 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 13, 2025, 07:42:25 pmSo You have better solution to make a transport without making any pollution at all? Even writing this comment You made a lot of pollution. By breathing and by using electrical energy - by phone/computer, network systems and servers. The more You use them, the more energy they consume, which makes more pollution from power stations. Maybe grab some very old book (not new one), but You have to wait until sunrise, because every method of artificial lighting also makes pollution.Quote from: Analog Kid on July 13, 2025, 07:42:25 pmYes, You are right. Planes burns much less fuel at higher altitudes. Also it's much safer, because in case of many failures, including all engines flameout, You can glide and land. Gliders and planes are the same thing, but gliders usually doesn't have engine(s).

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 08:23:23 pm
content: The turbulent nature of our atmosphere ensures mixing of pollution emitted at high altitude but there is a temporary effect with aircraft emissions that does not happen at ground level and it is the subject of this thread- contrails. Contrails have a short lived dimming effect on solar radiation but I don't see that as a problem. The big danger for the ozone layer is chlorofluorocarbons and they are banned at this time and are slowly decaying.

author: gerbay
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 08:28:31 pm
content: It's a big lie that chlorofluorocarbons deplete the ozone layer. If that were the case, the depletion would occur in the Northern Hemisphere, not the Southern Hemisphere. The reason for the depletion, and in part, the depletion of the ozone layer is the nuclear tests conducted over the Antarctic.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 09:30:54 pm
content: Nuclear testing as the real cause of ozone layer depletion?Probably not.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2025, 10:10:22 pm
content: Since the banning of many fluorocarbons, the ozone depletion has reversed a bit.https://www.britannica.com/science/ozone-depletionNuclear testing in the Antarctic exists only in sci-fi movies.Castle Bravo (at Bikini atoll) was slightly north of the equator (roughly 10o).Others ranged further south, to Australia and approximately the tip of Africa.More than you will read about atmospheric testing is inhttps://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOENTSAtmospheric.pdfSee alsohttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/8/29/visualising-the-2056-nuclear-tests-conducted-since-1945andhttps://www.abomb1.org/images/tstmap1a.gif

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2025, 01:42:53 am
content: Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 13, 2025, 07:31:57 pmI certainly agree that your calculations are close enough. But you are perhaps computing the wrong thing. Your formula applies if 80 people have to travel that distance. But much travel is not necessary. Much business travel could be replaced by a telephone call or video conference. Nearly all vacation travel is unnecessary and really didn't exist for most people until about 50 years ago.So the way to use less fuel than an airplane is to not go at all. As someone who has spent far too many hours in airplane seats I heartily endorse this approach. I think less than 20% of the trips I took were necessary and that is being generous, saying that bereavement trips were necessary and counting marginal business trips as necessary.If there is a greed theory, it is that transportation companies (of all kinds) have created an artificial need to travel.

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2025, 09:40:35 am
content: Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 13, 2025, 07:31:57 pmAn extremely ironic statement, but far from surprising. Of the ~35 million flights every year, do you suppose that they are all necessary to the functioning of the world as it is? Do you suppose that even the majority are necessary?

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2025, 11:11:32 am
content: Quote from: mikerj on July 15, 2025, 09:40:35 amReminds me of the time I saw a large truck drive by, and it was carrying parts to build more trucks.

author: norbert.kiszka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2025, 12:12:28 pm
content: Quote from: mikerj on July 15, 2025, 09:40:35 amHow did You calculated those 35 milion flights? Did You counted also smallest single-person planes that uses 2000 tons of fuel per minute?Did You compare it with anything else? How many pollution is created by cars? How many by house heating? Im afraid any of those two alone creates much much more pollution than planes. But go ahead with Your imagination, cognitive bias and make some more myths without giving any numbers or giving something that lazy people will not check if it's the case.Aviation is the one of the smallest sources of pollution. But people are too dumb, to use Google or DuckDuckGo to check if they are correct or they repeat myths like most of us.If You want to make significant reduction in pollution, don't use Your car and turn off completely Your heating in winter. Even if You fly to another continent, that one passenger more will do less pollution than heating any house with probably any known method.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2025, 11:56:56 pm
content: Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 15, 2025, 12:12:28 pmNo, typical western lifestyles have aviation as a comparable contributor to heating and ground transport:https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtmlNow the particular energy to pollution ratios are all over the place, but Aviation is notable as having almost ZERO environmental controls.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2025, 12:02:06 am
content: Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 13, 2025, 07:31:57 pmSo you compare a half full airline with a car of only one passenger... easy failure of logic.Half full car only needs some 3l/100km in reality, or less if you take some best case hyper efficient car.Bus, railway, much lower again.https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_121.shtml

author: norbert.kiszka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2025, 10:22:04 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 15, 2025, 11:56:56 pmI don't see how it was calculated, which countries etc. It take into account many things, but not important thing like a production of things that people buy from Temu, Aliexpress etc. Production of this toys generates huge amount of pollution, but still main focus is on the aviation. Yeah, "everybody is evil, but not me".EU has calculated to generate 6.25 % (something above 6% - Im writing from memory) from global CO2 pollution. They (politicians) wants to make our life much worse and about 10 times more expensive, to save maybe 0.1%, but production companies either goes bankrupt or either goes in another continent, especially where there are no regulations, making higher pollution in the result...Quote from: Someone on July 16, 2025, 12:02:06 amIt's almost like You said everybody uses bicycles, but Im afraid that's not true. Most of the cars I see is with the driver only. Maybe Your country is different. I don't know.Quote from: Someone on July 16, 2025, 12:02:06 amIn reality, I oversimplified my calculations, because I didn't want spent too much time on it. Somewhere earlier, like one year ago I did more precise calculations and it was much less than 4 l/100km, but I will not try to find this comment on FB.I wonder, in which country, average is 6 L / 100 km.Quote from: Someone on July 16, 2025, 12:02:06 amI could only imagine how people will do same thing as airlines which are crazy about lowering fuel usage. But Im afraid that wouldn't happen soon.Quote from: Someone on July 16, 2025, 12:02:06 amRailways are not my specialization, and I don't have any trust for such articles created by some cheap or free HTML 4.0 generator (CTRL+U in almost any web browser and it's clear). If somebody was not able to learn HTML (one of the easiest things in IT), then why I should believe for numbers without any source? At least, make a document in PDF if You are too lazy to learn HTML. So I will not get into details if railways creates more or less pollution.Also, railways will not get You everywhere, like the planes can. There are many areas, where making tracks will generate extreme costs, both in money and pollution. But some planes can land almost anywhere and stop in couple meters. This is crucial for many remote areas, where air is the only method to deliver supplies, like a food or even water.In a matter of safety for long distances, I prefer air. In a matter of my health problems with long journeys, I also prefer air. And the same just for the experience. So go ahead and scream again that aviation is the worst of everything that humans created.Earth is extremely overpopulated. Buying single use trash from China is more and more popular. You should fight with those two at first, if You want to save this planet.And why You use internet instead of reading books? Doesn't it make more pollution? It's funny when people scream at each other for being bad, but they are not trying to fix themselves first.Humans are very easy creatures. Some of them created science called psychology. We all are chasing for the dopamine andwe are making bad assumptions literally everyday.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2025, 10:50:26 am
content: Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 16, 2025, 10:22:04 amQuote from: norbert.kiszka on July 16, 2025, 10:22:04 amAh, so you look at a freely distributed version of a book. Fully referenced that walks through the calculations and sources step by step. Claim is has no explanation and is questionable because is it presented plainly?Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 16, 2025, 10:22:04 amLike they in fact do! Free, but you instead don't look and just put others down without checking the facts first.Right..... we should trust you over some well respected and referenced work. Your credibility is only going down here. Pretty much all your reply is without substance.Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 16, 2025, 10:22:04 amCitation required. Sounds like you're off into conspiracy theories there, just like the thread topic on chemtrails.

author: norbert.kiszka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2025, 11:58:32 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 16, 2025, 10:50:26 amYou gave me the link. So what else should I read/judge/etc?Quote from: Someone on July 16, 2025, 10:50:26 amI can say the same thing to slander you in the same way. Instead of "well respected and referenced work" I only see html generated by some very old software. After many years with IT and electronic engineering, I know that I can't trust to such articles. Even if that's a copy of something else.Quote from: Someone on July 16, 2025, 10:50:26 amIn one sentence You accused me of the same thing You just did. I don't have the time to look for the original (and official) source, so instead I used web search to find any numbers for continents/coutries and this is the first better result:https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region?time=earliest..2023Confirmation bias is a very strong drug. No matter what I will say and no matter what proofs I will give You, always aviation will be the biggest pollution source in Your eyes. It's a waste of my time to talk with people like You.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2025, 10:08:10 pm
content: Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 16, 2025, 11:58:32 amSo where does any of that support 10 times increase in "expensive" life, for 0.1% reduction in CO2? That is just hand waving fear mongering without any substance.You can take something true and then add some nonsene editorialisation, just because part of it is true doesnt mean it all is. Your conclusions are the faulty bit, not the data going into it.I have not said aviation is the largest source of pollution. But it is comparable in scale to other significant things such as ground transport and HVAC.You can look the other way and claim everyone else is wrong, but then you'll stand alone as yet another nut job who cant be trusted.

author: Doctorandus_P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2025, 02:56:59 am
content: For a practical experiment, just use your own breath. Normally you don't see the exhaust from your mouth, but on cold winter days, you're blowing out clouds. And passenger airplanes have big motors that burn a lot of fuel, and all the hydrogen in the fuel is combined with oxygen from the air, and as a result, water (or water vapor) is left.And the temperature up there is around -40c (No Idea what that is in F. units, but it's pretty cold). Also, that you see the trails forming only a significant distance from the plane suggests it's temperature related. The plane exhaust needs to mix with the cold air and cool down enough before the water condensates. It's like steam from a kettle with boiling water. You don't see the steam coming out of the kettle, but at some distance above the kettle, the vapor condenses into droplets and you see them.For the rest, I did not read the whole thread, so others may have written something similar (or complete nonsense).

author: jh15
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2025, 03:02:09 am
content: I always could never correlate c vs f in my head without a slide rule. minus 40 f and c confused me. sort of like a point in German and non uk English words never agree at any point.

author: norbert.kiszka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2025, 04:12:10 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 16, 2025, 10:08:10 pmSo what is the reason for this topic? Complete nonsense.I will not waste my time to try to understand rest of Your comment, because You are living in a imaginary world. You are always looking for every possibility to blame everything for pollution (including aviation as most of people like to), but not Yourself.And here is Your switch to flip:

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2025, 04:24:45 am
content: Quote from: jh15 on July 17, 2025, 03:02:09 amAll I know, being a 'Murican, is that 20° C = 68° F (room temp.), 0° C = 32 F (water freezes) and 100° C = 212° F (water boils at sea level).Of course, if I were a pointy-headed scientist or worked in a lab, I'd be much more familiar with that "other" temp. scale.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2025, 07:08:50 am
content: Quote from: Doctorandus_P on July 17, 2025, 02:56:59 amThis ^Internal combustion engine exhausts are in round figures something like 78% nitrogen, 10% CO2 and 10% water vapour. Nitrogen for the most part goes through unaffected, depending on combustion temperature. The remaining 2% are the likes of CO, NOx, HC and maybe some particulate matter. So there is definitely water vapour present. You can easily see this in a car exhaust on a cold day for a short while after a cold start.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2025, 08:45:34 am
content: Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 17, 2025, 04:12:10 amYou just figured that out? Sheesh; took you long enough.The reason is the idiots out there who believe in chemtrails. Not just the upper-atmospherepollutionthat jets emit, that we got sidetracked on here the last few days, but those supposedly intentionally-injected-into-the-atmosphere chemicals--god knows what, but they're sure that "they" are spewing them to control us through the weather, or some such bullshit.As that picture you attached shows nicely. "Hey, Harry, we're at flight level 330; time to flip on the you-know-what switch."

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2025, 10:30:50 am
content: Mildly amusing that no-one here seems aware that -40 Celcius is the same temperature as -40 Fahrenheit

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2025, 02:41:24 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 17, 2025, 10:30:50 amHaving been born in Northern Minnesota, I am well aware of that, and being of part-Swedish ancestry, I know how to spell “Celsius”. Note that Anders Celsius’ actual temperature scale (1742) ran from 100oat freezing to 0oat boiling, but the metrologists thought that the agreement of initial letter made the name a good replacement for “centigrade”.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2025, 05:25:52 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 17, 2025, 02:41:24 pmMeh... was typing it on my phone. Spotted the missing "h" in Fahrenheit, but not the missing "s".

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2025, 09:18:49 am
content: Quote from: norbert.kiszka on July 13, 2025, 07:31:57 pmThere is no need to guess the average density of jet fuel, as it is strictly definedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Typical_physical_properties_for_Jet_A_and_Jet_A-1For the Jet A-1 fuel used around the world except USA, it’s 820 g/L.