The Weather Channel’s ” weather wizard”, Mark Elliot misrepresents contrail science in an attempt to cover-up the fact that “contrails” in his examples fail to show an invisible water vapor gap between the engine and visible contrails More…
Wigington does a good job explaining the NASA contrail myth however it’s important to distinguish a simple contrail that disappears behind the jet, from a persistent contrail in order to appreciate the magnitude of the giant hoax.
In a high bypass turbofan, a persistent contrail that reaches from horizon to horizon, requires near complete saturation (> 90%) of relative humidity (RH) at flight level – a condition that occurs with a probability approaching “zero”.
The impossibility of persistent contrail formation can be easily confirmed from high altitude data posted at the U. Wyoming where data is collected at multiple sites around the country. Check any station on the US map to see that RH approaching 90% above 28,000 feet is not found anywhere.
The greatest lie ever perpetrated and propagated is the lie of the “persistent condensation trail”. Without knowing any of the related science facts on this issue, anyone with a sense of reason should be able to determine the fact that our skies are being sprayed. Trails that are turned on and off, grid patterns one day and nothing the next (in spite of identical atmospheric conditions). Witnessing one jet leaving a trail from horizon to horizon adjacent to another jet at a similar altitude that leaves virtually nothing. Trails of completely dissimilar compositions and colors. Plumes behind jets that do not match the alignment of the engines themselves causing some of the trails to shoot out to one side of the aircraft. There is also of course the fact that climate science circles and governments around the globe are clamoring for climate engineering to be deployed, though none in these communities of tyrants and cowards will yet admit to the truth. Our society has been well trained to accept the official narrative on countless issues which is how those in power hide their crimes in plain site. The fact that so many official explanations are completely contrary to reason and the laws of physics seems not to matter to most of the population, “ignorance is bliss” as the saying goes.
We are told by all official sources, agencies, and elected officials, that all we are seeing in our skies are “condensation trails”. They say that it is perfectly normal for this “condensation” so stay in the sky for hours or days, widening and spreading until whole horizons are completely blotted out. Yes, what we see is exactly what they say they want to do with solar radiation management (SRM), but they assure us that geoengineering is not actually going on. Those that choose to believe these blatant lies simply do not yet want to wake up. Here is the fact of the matter, all commercial jet aircraft and all military tankers are fitted with a type of jet engine that is by design nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under the most extreme circumstances, the high bypass turbofan. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wh…
The fight to expose and halt climate engineering is a challenge that must be won or nothing else will matter. If we just go about our lives without making this battle a top priority, we are failing in our responsibility toward our children and the greater good. Help us to sound the alarm, make your voice heard, every single day counts.
NASA has performed numerous experiments with releases of chemicals into the atmosphere using aircraft and rockets yet they continue to incorrectly refer to their own emissions as “contrails” even when the synthetic contrails and artificial clouds contain no water vapor or ice crystals. NASA’s obvious “sin of omission” becomes apparent when the convenience of alternate terminology is readily and rationally available using the term “chemtrails”. In fact “chemtrails is already published by the DoD, US government documents and defined in the Oxford dictionary. (Continue).
NASA Announces Rocket Deployment of Aluminum Contrails
NASA ATREX Rockets Deploy Chemical Contrails
NASA Rockets Release Clouds of Lithium Over FEMA Region 3
NASA Rocket Launch Creates Artificial Clouds and Contrails in 1999
Rare Strange and Spectacular Cloud Formation – Weird Chemtrail / Rocket Trail / California Sunset
Clifford E Carnicom
Apr 12 2001
Contrail Formation Model
A preliminary model has now been developed which can be used to predict whether contrails will form or not under reported meteorological conditions at flight altitude. Analytical models for contrail prediction appear to be difficult to acquire publicly, and this model is therefore offered for investigative purposes. This is an original development that results from a variety of sources and methods, including unclassified aerographic manuals, meteorological theory, least squares analysis and regression analysis. It is to be interpreted as an empirical model, and it is subject to further refinement depending on the results that are obtained from its use.
The model offered is as follows:
where c = e(151 – alt) / 19. 5
and t = temperature of the atmosphere at flight altitude in degrees centigrade
and alt = altitude of the jet aircraft in thousands of feet.
RHmin is the minimum relative humidity (with respect to water per conventional standard) that is required at flight altitude for contrails to form. The contrails referred to are those classically and conventionally defined as condensation trails, i.e., composed of water vapor. A standard atmospheric model is assumed within the development. The model is intended to be used only within the range of 30,000 to 40,000 ft. MSL. The model is quite sensitive to small changes in temperature, and consequently, any errors in temperature.
Commercial flight traffic usually ranges between 35 and 37 thousand feet MSL. A representative case may be considered, therefore, at approximately 36,000 ft. MSL. Standard temperature at 36,000 ft. MSL is approximately -53.5 deg. centigrade.
This model can and will now be evaluated with actual observations in an effort to test it for reliability. Citizens are welcome to submit their own observations for inclusion if they so desire. The value of this model is to identify those meterological conditions which are supportive of conventional contrail formation. Anomalous persistent contrails and subsequent “cloud” decks that result from frequent aerosol operations can also be examined in conjunction with this model.
Contrail formation/dissipation and cloud formation are to be recognized as two separate physical processes resulting from differing conditions and variables for each. It is important that any analysis of these two processes be appropriately and separately understood before any mutual connection is to be made.
A history of observations is available on the aerosol report page.
The model presented will be modified, revised or further developed as circumstances require.
Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 22 2001
“contrails become visible roughly about a wingspan distance behind the aircraft”
A model has been developed to estimate the distance behind the engines that a contrail, i.e., condensed trail of water vapor, is expected to form. The results of this model agree exceptionally well with a statement issued by the United States Air Force that “contrails become visible roughly about a wingspan distance behind the aircraft”. There is now an abundance of photographic and video evidence that consistently and visibly demonstrates the repeated formation of aerosol trails in much closer proximity to the engines than that which is established by the Air Force, as well as that which is predicted from the model described below. These trail formations are in direct contradiction to a statement of fact issued by the United States Air Force. This evaluation now adds to the multitude of studies which conclusively demonstrate that the emissions from these aerosol operations are not composed primarily of water vapor. This model is not intended to encompass all variables that may be in effect, but does represent a rational attempt to model the physics of contrail formation times involved. Any corrections to this study will be made as is appropriate. This model is in addition to that previously developed related to expected contrail dissipation times, as well as originating relative humidity studies at flight altitude.
The model is developed as follows:
Let us assume that the temperature of the exhaust emissions of the aircraft is approximately 1000 deg. C., which is an apparent reasonable estimate (see Principles of Jet Engine Operation). The model can easily be generalized to encompass any reasonable ranges in temperature that are expected within the combustion process and subsequent exhaust emissions. The model is not highly sensitive to expected changes in temperature at this level, and if a more accurate value becomes available, it will be used in the future.
Let us assume the temperature of the atmosphere at flight altitude, approximately 35,000 ft. MSL is -50 deg. C. Again, each variable within the model can be generalized as needed, and the sensitivity of the model to these changes can be evaluated.
The amount of heat extraction required to cool the exhaust vapor can be given as follows:
H = dH(ice) + dH(melting) + dH(water) + dH(vap) + dH(steam)
for the sake of initial example and simplicity, and to demonstrate numerical results, let us apply this to 1 gram of water:
-H = (1 gm) (.5 cal / (gm * K) ) ( 50 deg. K )
+ (1 gm) (80 cal / gm )
+ (1 gm) (1.0 cal / (gm * K) ) (100 deg. K )
+ (1 gm) ( 540 cal / gm )
+ (1 gm) ( .33 cal / gm ) * 900 deg. K)
H = -(25 + 80 + 100 + 540 + 300) cal. = -1045 cal. required to cool steam at 1000 deg. C. to 1 gm of ice at -50 deg. C.
1 calorie (cal) = 4.1868 Joules (J)
-1045 cal = -4375 J.
Next, to consider a realistic particle size for emissions from aircraft, the Max Planck Institute has stated that the average size of particles emitted from aircraft is approximately 30 to 200 microns in size. As a side note, the average particle size of cloud nuclei is stated by Vincent Schaefer, Atmosphere, to be from 0.2 to 0.3 microns. Let us assume an average size of 115 microns on each side of a cube particle.
Since 1 gm. of water = 1 cu. cm in volume, a cube particle size of 115 microns in dimension on each side has a volume of:
(115E-6)^3 meters, or 1.52E-12 cu. m.
Since 1 gm. of water has a volume of (1E-2)^3 meters, the volume of a gram of water is (1E-6) cu. m.
The ratio in volume of a particle of dimension 115 microns to a gram of water is:
1.52E-12 cu. m. / 1 E-6 cu. m
The amount of heat required to cool the 115 micron particle is therefore
(1.52E-6) (4375 J) = 6.654E-3 J. for a particle 115 microns thick and corresponding to a temperature change of 1050 deg. C. [note units are therefore: J / (m * K)]
Now evaluate the thermal conductivity of the medium in which the particle exists, i.e., air. From the REA Handbook of Mathematical, Scientific, and Engineering Formulas, Tables, Functions, Graphs, and Transforms, the thermal conductivity of air at – 50deg. C. is given as .012 Btu / (hr * ft * deg. F).
Converting this value to SI units,
.012 Btu / (hr * ft * deg F.) -> (1055 J / Btu) / ((3600sec/hr) * (.3048m/ft.) * ((5/9)deg. K / deg. F))
or the thermal conductivity of air at a temperature of -50 deg. C can be given as
.02075 J / (s * m * K)
Therefore the amount of time required to cool the particle from 1000 deg. C to -50 deg. C is given by:
(6.654E-3 J / (m * K)) / (.02075 J / (s * m * K)) = .321 seconds.
Now for an aircraft traveling at 500 mph, this translates to approx. 733 ft./sec.
Therefore, the particle evaluated will cool to the ambient temperature in approximately:
(733 ft./sec) * .321 sec = 235 feet behind the engines of the aircraft.
A Boeing 757 measures approximately 155 ft. in length. The distance from the rear of the engines to the tail of the aircraft is approximately 80 feet (scaled). Therefore the contrail is expected to form approximately (235 ft. – 80 ft.), or approximately 155 ft. behind the tail of the aircraft. The wingspan of a Boeing 757, being used as a representative example, is approximately 125 feet in width. The results of this model agree quite well (approx. 30 ft. coupled with the transition zone) therefore, with the expected physics and chemistry of water vapor as well as with the statement provided by the United States Air Force. The model will show itself to be sensitive to particle size. “Contrail” formation in front of, or immediately adjacent to the stabilizer region of the aircraft, is not to be expected either from the results of this model, or from that statement issued by the Air Force.
Significant deviations from these results as well as from the USAF statement, as they occur repeatedly in conjunction with the aerosol operations, are tangible evidence of non-water vapor emissions that are involved.
Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 22 2001
THE BREATH OF A DECADE Clifford E Carnicom Dec 18 2010 – Edited Jan 10 2011
This paper is written to let it be known that the basic problems related to environmental contaminants disclosed over a decade ago remain essentially the same. An airborne filament sample has again been received and it has been properly documented. This material is identical in form and structure to that sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for identification. This agency refused identification of the material and declared that it was not their policy to do so. All available evidence indicates that the general populace has been subjected to the ingestion of these materials through airborne methods for more than a decade, at a minimum. The filaments have been analyzed in detail to the degree possible with available resources and they have been reported on extensively within this site.
The filaments have been shown to contain (and continue to do so with this report) complex internal structures and biological components. These environmentally dispersed filaments have been shown to have a high degree of similarity and correlation with those that are characteristic of the so-called “Morgellons” condition. Human samples of filaments representative of the “Morgellons” condition have been cultured extensively, and they continue to show the same level of similarity with the environmental samples that are disclosed here.
I shall not belabor the issue as ample opportunity and notification to the public has been provided as to the seriousness of the case. The purpose of this paper is to inform the public that:
1. The problems as identified more than a decade ago remain.
2. All evidence indicates that the general populace has been repeatedly subjected to the ingestion of these airborne filament materials. The airborne filaments, at the smallest level of division, measure at the sub-micron level in thickness (less than that of asbestos fibers).
3. The filaments contain a complex internal structure and they contain biological components, potentially related to chlyamydia-like organisms. Erythrocytic forms have also been repeatedly identified or cultured from both environmental and human filament samples.
4. The characteristics of these environmental filaments and those of the so-called Morgellon’s condition appear to be essentially identical.
5. From a statistical standpoint, it appears that the general populace is subject to the so-called “Morgellon’s” condition.
6. Proper identification and analysis of both the environmental samples and the “Morgellon’s” condition remains undone.
7. The Carnicom Institute has the desire to have the proper work completed in a publicly accountable fashion with the proper resources; the Institute is dependent upon public participation and support to further this cause. Significant resources will be required to make further progress. Public service and government agencies, environmental organizations, health institutions, academia and private organizations have failed to serve the public’s environmental and health needs.
8. The vitality and viability of human existence and life on this planet, as it has been known to exist, is under threat.
The Effect of Relative Humidity on Jet Contrail Formation
Summary: The argument given that upper atmospheric conditions in Santa Fe NM allow for persistent contrails and subsequent cloud formation is refuted with an analysis of upper altitude relative humidity data. The more plausible explanation is direct chemical spraying from aircraft active over this same area, as documented with abundant photographic evidence.
The following preliminary meteorological study has been made on August 26, 1999:
Please note the following information from UNISYS WEATHER
“The relative humidity field is a good predictor of cloud location and thickness. Areas of relative humidity less than 60% generally are clear or have partly cloudy skies. Areas of 60-80% are generally overcast or mostly cloudy. Areas greater than 80% are overcast with a high likelihood of precipitation as relative humidity approaches 100%.”
The following monthly averages of relative humidity in Santa Fe NM at 30,000 ft. above mean sea level have been obtained from the Climate Diagnostics Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Jan 1999 38%
Feb 1999 34%
Mar 1999 33%
Apr 1999 28%
May 1999 32%
June 1999 26%
July 1999 32%
Aug 1999 33% (Aug 1-Aug 26)
The average humidity for this eight month period is 32%, with a sample standard deviation of 3.7%.
The previous relative humidity field description would lead one to conclude that Santa Fe would generally have skies at 30,000 ft. that are often very clear. This is, in fact, the meteorological norm for Santa Fe.
Now introduce 21 days of chemtrail activity. These days represent the most obvious and blatant examples of spraying, of which numerous cloud progression photos and telephotos of offending aircraft have been presented. These days are:
Feb 14, 16, 17, 25, 28 (27.5, 38, 60, 50, 32.5% respectively)
Mar 2, 6, 24 (55, 48, 20%)
April 7, 11, 12, 18 (25, 35, 28, 32.5%)
May 7, 17, 28, 29 (33, 35, 42.5, 50%)
July 9, 13, 14 (35, 25, 55%)
Aug 14, 26 (21, 40%)
The average relative humidity at the same 30,000 ft. above mean sea level of these 21 days is 37.5%, with a sample standard deviation of 11.7%. This data was also obtained from the Climate Diagnostics Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the same reasoning, one would have expected these days to be generally clear at that altitude, but that is not the case.
On each of these days, almost without exception, the morning sky began as clear, and as the planes progressed with the spraying, a cirrus cloud layer was created which often transformed itself into a cirro-stratus layer. In short, a clear day became generally cloudy or hazy.
USAF Publication, “Contrail Facts”, Pg 13:
“The rate at which contrails dissipate is entirely dependent upon weather conditions and altitude. If the atmosphere is near (water vapor) saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.”
By any standards, the average relative humidity of 37.5% at 30000 ft. MSL determined on observable spray days in Santa Fe NM would be considered a dry environment, and according to the previous reference any contrails should dissipate. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that clouds have formed from these trails.
This statement reiterates for the third time the foundation that low humidity conditions are not conducive to persistent contrails, or subsequent cloud formation. Such events do occur, however, on all 21 documented spray days in Santa Fe itemized above. An average relative humidity of 37.5% is to be considered low, and therefore by all references one would expect the ‘contrails’ to rapidly dissipate. The photographs on this page and elsewhere on this web site provide ample evidence that this is not the case.
One should ask, why are there clouds in our skies on these days if meteorological conditions do not normally support their formation? One reasonable explanation is that there are aircraft leaving chemical trails. Photographic evidence shows cloud formations progressing in direct correlation with aircraft activity, ground sample photographs show materials that have originated from the sky during chemtrail activity, and aircraft telephotos of spray configurations have been captured
Upper atmospheric data from Sterling and Wallops island reports low relative humidity at flight level. As defined by NASA, conditions for formation of “persistent contrails” did not exist.
Wallops Island, VA — Sterling, VA
TERRA Satellite Subset 4 – Maximum Resolution
AQUA Satellite Subset 4 – Maximum Resolution
NASA and the US Air Force make it clear in their own publications that conditions of high relativity humidity are required at flight level before a jet aircraft is capable of producing a “persistent contrail”.
Since there are only rare exceptions to this fundamental rule of water vapor contrail formation, it’s a simple task to distinguish between normal persistent contrails and persistent contrails containing undisclosed, chemical aerosol pollutants.
NASA: “Persistent (non-spreading) contrails look like long white lines that remain visible after the airplane has disappeared. This shows that the air where the airplane is flying is quite humid, and there is a large amount of water vapor available to form a contrail.”
USAF: “The rate at which contrails dissipate is entirely dependent upon weather conditions and altitude. If the atmosphere is near (water vapor) saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.” Contrail Facts, Pg. 13.
Now let’s examine the case of an Air France, Airbus A-380 – registration number (F-HPJA) – where the timeline and conditions are well documented in order to effectively demonstrate how persistent contrails can be far more than citizens have been led to believe.