Chemtrails. The reality.

[advancedboy]

I would also like to start a topic on chemtrails as I have been researching the topic for some time, and I have an opinion with some evidence to support it. Before gong into it, what are your strongest points against or for it. I will join you later, once you have come up with your ideas.

[Chew]

There are no points, strong or otherwise, for it. All there is is people completely ignorant of meteorology hearing about chemtrials for the first time and for once in their small pathetic lives finally look up in the sky and completely misinterpret what they see.

[Echnaton]

I would also like to start a topic on chemtrails as I have been researching the topic for some time, and I have an opinion with some evidence to support it. Before gong into it, what are your strongest points against or for it. I will join you later, once you have come up with your ideas.

The strongest point against chemtrails is that there is no evidence to support the contention that they exist. No matter what you think you have uncovered, the odds that you have anything constituting proof of chemtrails is a long shot.   You are certainly free to discuss what you believe, but if you do, expect a skeptical audience to make a critical appraisal of your presentation. 

[Andromeda]

I would also like to start a topic on chemtrails as I have been researching the topic for some time, and I have an opinion with some evidence to support it. Before gong into it, what are your strongest points against or for it. I will join you later, once you have come up with your ideas.

Um, no.  That's not how this works.  If you have something to present, then please present it.

[Jason Thompson]

You've barely been here 24 hours, 'advancedboy', and you are growing tiresome already. If you wish to discuss chemtrails then just get on with it. Stop dancing around and playing games.

[SolusLupus]

Chemtrails.  Easy enough:  They're simple contrails left by aircraft.

That was easy.

[Chew]

Things I have learned from the ridiculously stupid mistakes the chemtrail conspiracy theorists have made:

Micrograms/L is equal to parts per billion, not parts per million.
Aluminum makes up 8% of the Earth's crust.
Squirting vinegar out of a squirt bottle in your backyard to make chemtrails disappear shows the extent science education in the US has failed.

[twik]

My strongest point against them is that there is no difference between chemtrails and contrails, and contrails have been around almost as long as the airplane.

The number of people who really believe that contrails are something new, that didn't exist before, say, the 1980s, is astonishing.

[ka9q]

Not sure I understand this. Alumin(i)um, chemically combined, actually is about 8% of the earth's crust, but "micrograms/L" (microgram/liter) is not a dimensionless ratio like ppm or ppb. A gram is a unit of mass while a liter is a unit of volume now equal to 0.001 m³. (It used to be defined as the volume of 1 kg of water at 4C and standard pressure, which is almost exactly but not quite the same.)

Sea level air has a density of roughly 1 g/L or 1 kg/m³ (actually 1.2) while liquid water is about 1 kg/L or 1000 kg/m³, almost 1000 times as dense. So I suppose micrograms/L is equivalent to parts per billion when talking about water, and it is roughly equivalent to parts per million when talking about sea level air. That uses the American (not old British) definition of billion, i.e., 10⁹ or giga.

Was it Churchill who said that Americans and the British are two peoples separated by a common language? A few English words do get us in trouble when we don't realize they mean different things on opposite sides of the Atlantic, the classic example being the verb table. (Never mind, Chew, I see you're another Yank -- in both the US and non-US meanings of the word.)

[ka9q]

The number of people who really believe that contrails are something new, that didn't exist before, say, the 1980s, is astonishing.

It's astonishing, especially to astronomers, just how many people never look up at the sky.

[advancedboy]

It is kinda funny how allknowing you are. I will try to show you some videos. All you need is to watch them, and I will try to show you some interesting coincidences.
here is video 1.

Notice how some trails are dissipating while others are lingering for long period of time. Many people argue that it is because of condensation in cold air that could happen at high altitudes about 10km or so. Yet we will see many videos where the air traffic is above big cities, and leaving these huge lasting chemtrails. Airplanes are not flying above cities at 10km , they are approaching  or leaving airports , thus being much lower than 10km, which would exclude condensation trails. This video was shot over Barcelona. I will go into some interesting details about chemtrails a bit later.

[SolusLupus]

Well, I just spent a few minutes of my life looking at pretty contrails in the sky.   

EDIT:  As for "all-knowing", that is because there is a scientific cause for contrails that's well-understood.  It's much like you were claiming we were "all-knowing" because we said Venus often can be seen in the sky and mistaken for a star.

[Jason Thompson]

Wow, four minutes of contrails. Exciting stuff.

Come on, even in the opening still picture you can see that the contrails lead directly from the engines, exactly where they are supposed to be coming from.

Do you have anything that says these are any more than the expected trails of ice and water vapour caused by combustion of jet fuel at high altitude?

[advancedboy]

Jason , the trails are seemingly coming from engines, they are  actually coming from hollowed static  wicks originally manufactured for static eletricity dispersion/accumulation. They use the wicks that are positioned right above the engines on wings. This is just the beginning.

[SolusLupus]

Uh, just saying it doesn't make it so. 

This is just the beginning.

Well, I can't wait, since this has been so convincing so far.