Contrails v Chemtrails: The Science That Debunks The Conspiracy

Contrail over Kildare. Image Author

Contrail over Kildare. Image: Author

There are those who claim that the trails we see behind aircraft high in the sky are not the normal condensation of water vapour from the hot exhaust gases but are in fact chemicals that are being deliberately sprayed upon us by government agencies for some dark and sinister reasons. When asked to prove their claims, however, their response is invariably either just a video or blog of someone else making the same unsubstantiated claim, or a simple “Well why don’t you prove that they’re NOT chemtrails!”. Proof has been given time and time again but ok, here it is one more time, using only sound scientific methods and no political mumbo-jumbo.

Actually, it should not be for me or any reasonably-minded person to reprove something that has always been a normal and scientifically-accepted fact of life. If others come along and claim that it is something totally new and different then it is actually up to them to provide evidence that proves beyond doubt that the original theory is wrong. The simple fact is that this evidence does not exist, but this does still not deter them from making these claims and denouncing anyone who tries to argue against them.

I am not denying that geo-engineering, still just a theoretical exercise, could be easy enough to try out, given the right modifications to an appropriate aircraft, or that cloud-seeding experiments have been carried out (but these only consist of silver iodide crystals from burning flares and not actual dumping of material). I am actually totally against the whole idea of trying to geo-engineer our way out of what is really not a problem, in my opinion.

What I AM denying is the claim that the trails we see from normal commercial airliners, both with our own eyes and in the photos of our readers, are chemtrails, as is claimed by a certain number of conspirators every time a reader shares a photo with us. Using such sites as it is so easy to check at any minute of the day what planes are flying overhead, generating the contrails we are seeing. To claim that these planes are not just innocent airliners but are being used for dumping harmful chemicals requires specific proof.Has anyone ever seen a refueling truck loading anything other than fuel into the tanks as you board a plane? Have you ever spotted nozzles on the wings spraying these chemicals as you look out the window as you fly along? Do you think the airlines are in on this and agree to carry the extra weight of these substances?

No, didn’t think so.

Anyway, what are contrails (CONdensation-TRAILS)? They are plumes of ice-crystals formed by the condensation and freezing of water vapour in the exhaust-gases of an aircraft flying at high altitudes and under the right conditions. As fuel (petrol, diesel, avgas, Jet-A1, kerosene, natural gas, etc.) is a hydrocarbon, burning it produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O), along with other materials, such as nitrogen oxides, sulphates, hydrocarbons, soot, metal particles, etc. This applies to planes as it does to trains, cars, trucks, buses, motorbikes, lawnmowers, boilers, etc. Different fuels contain different additives and produce different levels of these by-products, but they all produce CO2 and water vapour. That is basic Junior Cert chemistry and something that cannot be denied. The difference with planes is that they operate in conditions very different to these other vehicles.

I am now going to take the main arguments that the conspirators use in their claims that the clouds we see can not be simple contrails, and will give a scientific explanation of why they are wrong and what is actually happening. In each case I will first give some simple analogies to illustrate the reason, then give a deeper scientific explanation. That way no one can claim it’s above their comprehension.

But first, some definitions:

Dewpoint: The temperature at which condensation (fog/cloud) will occur if air is cooled enough. Humid air has a higher dewpoint than dry air. The relative humidity is 100% when the dewpoint and temperature are equal.

Relative humidity: The amount of water vapour in the air, expressed as a percentage of the total amount of water vapour the air can hold at that temperature and pressure. Warm air can hold a lot more vapour than cold air. 100% means the air is totally saturated and condensation (fog/cloud) will form.

Conspiracy Claim 1.“Contrails only last for seconds but these ones lasted for hours, therefore they must be chemtrails”.

ACTUAL REASON: Contrails can last from seconds to hours, depending on the relative humidity at cruising altitudes. If it is above around 70% then the contrails can last for hours.

ANALOGIES: In summer you don’t normally see your breath, in cold winter you normally do. In summer you don’t see truck exhausts form water vapour clouds, in winter you
normally do, and they can last for relatively long times (especially in places like Siberia). If you throw a saucepan of boiling water in the air in summer it will
simply fall to the ground as water, with some of it evaporating on the way. If you do the same in winter (below around -20 °C) then it will freeze instantly into a cloud of fine ice particles and hang around a for much longer. This video illustrates this perfectly. Seen from below we see the larger ice-particles falling quickly to the ground but the main cloud of tiny crystals remains suspended and drifts slowly, just like a contrail.

THE SCIENCE: Many days we don’t actually see any trails at all from aircraft flying high above us as the trails dissipate as soon as they are formed. The air at cruising altitudes is very cold (-40 to -60 °C) and usually very dry (low relative humidity). The water vapour from the exhaust gases alone is not enough to form a contrail. Knollenburg (1972) gives a breakdown of typical components of aircraft exhaust gases, with around 1.37 kg of water vapour released per kg of fuel burned. The study found that exhaust gases contained around 1.7 g of water vapour for every metre flown, but found actual persistent contrails to contain at least 30,000 times that level (20,700-41,200 g per metre). This means that the overwhelming majority of the water in contrails comes from the atmosphere, with only around 1 in every 30,000 molecules originating from the burning of the fuel. It is therefore clear that relative humidity at cruising altitude needs to be relatively high for contrails to form and be visible, and very high (above around 70%) for them to persist for long periods.

We get these conditions from time to time and place to place, especially a few hundred miles ahead of an approaching depression (warm front), and to the west of an upper ridge-axis, among others. We normally see natural cirrus clouds (thin, high, wispy clouds) in these conditions, but even when conditions are not quite humid enough for natural cirrus to form on their own they can be right for contrails, as the exhaust particles (soot, etc.) act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) around which water vapour can condense and freeze into ice-crystals. This is why we can sometimes see contrails without natural cirrus, but normally we would see some cirrus too, even if just a few random wisps. If the relative humidity is below around 60% then the ice-crystals can sublimate (turn from solid directly to gas) fairly quickly and dissipate but if it’s above around 70% this sublimation process is much slower and the contrail can last for hours. Contrail ice-crystals are also much smaller (0.001 – 0.1 mm) than cirrus crystals (0.01 – several mm), which allows them to remain suspended for longer.

Conspiracy Claim 2. “I saw two aircraft flying in the same area. One aircraft’s contrail dissipated within a few seconds, the other’s grew and lasted for hours. The second aircraft was obviously spraying chemicals”.

ACTUAL REASON: They were simply flying at different altitudes and/or were different types of aircraft (engine).

ANALOGIES: Your bathroom mirror doesn’t fog up when you first take a shower. It only does so after a while, when there is enough vapour in the room to increase the dewpoint to the temperature of the mirror, allowing the vapour to condense onto.

A small cup of coffee makes a smaller steam cloud than a large open pot of coffee. The pot has a larger volume of steam rising and condensing off it, which rises to a greater height before evaporating, just as a larger engine produces more emissions than a smaller one.

THE SCIENCE: Cirrus clouds are very high up but relatively thin (sometimes only a few hundred metres deep), therefore there is only a narrow layer in which conditions are right for their formation. The same goes for contrails. Two identical aircraft flying at different altitudes can therefore produce very different contrails as the temperature and humidity can be very different.

Look at this sounding (plot of temperature, dewpoint and wind measurements from an instrument attached to a weather balloon) for Camborne, in the extreme southwestern
tip of England, around the middle of the day on August 22nd, 2013.


Airliners cruise at between around 30,000-40,000 ft (9,000-12,000 m). The sounding shows cold and mainly dry upper levels (the temperature and dewpoint curves are far apart), however there is a very thin humid layer just below 300 hPa (9,500 metres), where the dewpoint curve (left) shoots over to almost meet the temperature curve (right), meaning high relative humidity. We would expect very few contrails in this scenario as only those planes flying exactly within that humid layer will produce contrails. Other layers are just too dry. The actual data points from this sounding show that humid layer to be at around 9,116 metres (around 30,000 ft), with a relative humidity of 78%. Sure enough this high-resolution MODIS satellite picture for 11:40 UTC (around 20 minutes before the sounding) shows just one fresh contrail just south of Lands End, which shows as United Airlines flight 43, a Boeing 767-400 flying at 30,000 ft. It shows dozens of other aircraft at different heights all over southern England and the English Channel, but not one of these is producing a contrail as the levels they’re flying at are too dry. Not surprisingly they’re not producing chemtrails either!

Sometimes we see broken or very short contrails, i.e. with breaks, as in my photo at the top of this article. This can be caused by an aircraft climbing through a humid layer, or by the effects of gravity waves at altitude. The plane enters and exits humid areas as it flies along, given a broken contrail. We also see this type of effect with natural transverse cirrus bands along which form perpendicular to the jetstream flow (strong winds at altitude). An aircraft flying parallel to the jetstream will be passing in and out of the humid areas that are causing the transverse cirrus, so its contrail will be discontinuous.

tranverse cirrus

Transverse cirrus bands form perpendicular to the jetstream wind, shown by the wide swathe of fibrous cirrus.

Two different types of aircraft flying at the same altitude can still produce different contrails. Different engines produce different-sized exhaust plumes, and newer engines produce cooler exhaust-gas temperatures than older engines. Cooler exhaust temperatures allow the contrail to form quicker, before the gases have a chance to mix with the ambient air, as the gas needs less time to cool to condense the vapour into ice-crystals. Engine contrails can also be affected by the aerodynamics of the aircraft wings, etc., and even the weight of the aircraft, which can strengthen wake-vortices and enhance contrails. In fact, some contrails are not even related to the engine exhaust gases at all and are merely condensation formed withing the wake-vortices, where the pressure is locally lower than the surroundings. We can see that when landing or taking off on a very humid day.

To an observer on the ground it can be very difficult to accurately estimate the relative heights of two aircraft flying near eachother. They may SEEM to be at the same altitude but in reality they could be a few thousand feet apart and therefore in possibly very different ambient conditions.


These planes look they’re colliding but they’re actually at least 1,000 ft apart vertically.

Conspiracy Claim 3. “Those trails are in regular criss-cross patterns, so there is obviously some systematic spraying going on”.

ACTUAL REASON: Planes fly many different routes (called airways), which can cross eachother at points called Intersections.

ANALOGY: No need for one here, it’s pretty straightforward!

THE SCIENCE: Ireland’s airspace is very busy with transatlantic traffic, with hundreds of morning eastbound and afternoon and evening westbound flights every day. Ireland has actually done away with the upper airway system within its airspace, instead allowing aircraft to fly their own direct routes between intersections along the eastern and western borders of the airspace. This saves the airlines time and fuel, but also means no real set published flight paths, as there used to be previously. Planes cross paths all the time, depending on what the intersections they are flying between. Just off the east coast these flights all converge at a few intersections, which can give a more regular contrail pattern to an observer on the ground. The link above also shows the complexity of the airway system over the UK airspace and this video shows how busy traffic gets throughout different times of the day, especially the afternoon and evening in Europe.

Conspiracy Claim 4. “I never saw this many contrails when I was a kid so it must be chemtrails that I’m seeing now”.

ACTUAL REASON: There are more flights now than years ago. Engines are larger and produce cooler exhaust gases, which make it easier for contrails to form, as explained

ANALOGY: A room full of kids is a hell of a lot louder than a room with just one kid!

THE SCIENCE: Pretty much explained in the other points above. We should not, however, compare what we are seeing now to what we remember as kids. We all think that the
summers were better back when we were young, but there are no data to back this up. Our minds as kids were different to what they are now, having developed through all
the stages of cognitive development. In the same way, we were most likely not counting contrails back then and wouldn’t have probably noticed them much in any case.

Conspiracy Claim 5. “Children have lots of respiratory problems now and it’s due to chemtrails”.

ACTUAL REASON: This has to be the craziest claim I have heard from a conspirator. There are many more plausible and well-documented reasons for children’s health problems. The use of a sick child as proof of chemtrails is stooping to a new low.

THE SCIENCE: The science of the previous explanations debunks this claim as it proves that the chemtrails are not there in the first place. Increases in children’s health problems are well-documented and can be due to increased obesity, poor diet, less excercise, more time spent indoors, etc.


Satellite imagery is a perfect tool for spotting contrails. Visible imagery is good, but there are other types of imagery (IR, Water-vapour, RGB, Dust RGB, etc.) that show them up to varying degrees. These images are formed by filtering various wavelengths, which show up differences in cloud physics, such as small or large ice-crystals, thin or thick layers, etc.

The Eview image below of the Iberian peninsula at 1800 UTC this evening shows an area of persistent contrails over Biscay and the northern and northwestern parts of Spain and Portugal, with none showing up elsewhere. Comparing this image with the predicted 300 hPa relative humidity chart from the GFS model (underneath) shows that the contrails are forming right inside the area of >75% relative humidity, which stretches from the Pyrenees to central Portugal and up to Galicia. Other areas are too dry for contrails. This is a good example of how we can actually predict the areas that will have contrails.

Eview image of Iberia at 1800 UTC, 8 September 2013. Persistent contrails are visible over northern and northwestern Spain and Portugal. Image: Eumetsat

Eview image of Iberia at 1800 UTC, 8 September 2013. Persistent contrails are visible over Biscay and northern and northwestern Spain and Portugal. Image: Eumetsat

GFS 300 hPa relative humidity chart for 1800 UTC, 8 September, 2013. Image:

GFS 300 hPa relative humidity chart for 1800 UTC, 8 September, 2013. Image:


It only requires one test to prove a theory wrong, but in this article I have given several. Sometimes we see things that we cannot explain. Various theories circulate to try to explain them, and invariably some of these theories take on a political theme – a Them versus Us kind of thing. Some people are more prone to accepting these theories than others, and a quick check of the Facebook profiles of many of the conspirators on our page will confirm that. This has been an effort to explain why their chemtrail theory is false on so many levels, and maybe some of them will finally see the light and accept that science rules over our imaginations 100% of the time.  I can, however, forecast even now the responses I will get to this article, as some people just want to believe in the alternative, for whatever reasons. I can do nothing about that. We are all different, but ignorance is no excuse for stupidity at any time.

Fergal – Irish Weather Online

509 thoughts on “Contrails v Chemtrails: The Science That Debunks The Conspiracy

  1. I’m actually gob-smacked at the audacity of the man. He has been very selective with his examples of what “public subscribers” are being called, not one mention of the personal insults he has inflicted on others.
    It appears he has pricked his own guilty conscience, yet it hasn’t been pricked enough for him to apologise for his foul language which is where the remark “disgusting” came from.
    Meanwhile, I’m not sure if he is confusing me with an admin or not, as he tries to insult us both; “Big Daddy and Lapdog”.
    Very, very few people on this thread have actually asked questions, those that have asked were given a civil and positive reply. The only people on here that never got a civil reply were those that attacked the thread accusing us of being “shills”; trolls, “paid to disseminate false information”; “disinfo shills on payroll”; “psychopaths that hide behind false names”; we “have no balls”; we “talk Bull****”. that’s just a few of the insults bandied by the chemtrail enthusiasts. but Dec, you call me a “S**t stirrer”; Grumpy; “Big Daddy”; I “make inane comments” and I suffer from “tunnel vision”; I’m a “bad father”. That’s just a very few of your comments, Dec that you conveniently left out.
    I don’t mind commenting on your pathetic attempt at pretending to be shocked. You must have been researching me if you know one of my names is Big Daddy, others being, Big Yin and Big Bill, take your pick, I haven’t been offended by the names yet :-)
    You may well think that my comments are inane, but they are comments based on the huge holes and contradictions in your posts. They are many and yet you offer no reply to clarify, so yes, your only way out is to say my comments are inane designed to lure you out. I think your disgusting, yes. You are incapable of discussion without reverting to profanity. If I used the term pretentious, then that is because you are, that and grandiose, refer to your making a video for channel 4. Scurrying like cockroaches, yes. That is what comes to mind when the paranoid conspiracy theorists come out, make an attack on something then go running away again without offering facts. I did call some chemorons, but don’t think – I might be wrong – I called them chemmorons. If they believe YouTube videos above all else, then that is my opinion of them.
    I’ve asked everyone on here for answers to my questions, you included, When anyone made a statement on here that made no sense to me at all, I asked questions. Please note, not one of you have offered an answer.
    You didn’t mention my use of fraud and fraudulent. Does that mean you can see the fraud so you think it’s OK for me to use it? I accused you of lying in regard to the making of the video, do you now admit you lied and it’s OK for me to use it?
    I’m rude and verbally abusive to people who are rude and verbally abusive to me. I doubt very much if I will change. Just as I doubt you will stop pretending and having grandiose ideas. You have no intention of getting any truth on here, you just jump in to stir things up yourself. If you haven’t seen this sort of thing going on with the internet in the last 19 years, then I don’t think you have really been on the internet half that time.
    Perhaps you would like me to email you a copy of my posts for approval before I post it? Just to make sure I’m not getting in the way of your insults and abuse.
    Now, lets use your phrase here shall we? This is another question that I doubt you will answer, where is your hard facts for all this causing 150,000 deaths per year? Where has anyone denied the people the science of contrails? Why is it, if you ask questions you think you have a God-given right to demand an answer but if I ask a question I have no such right, I’m being self-serving? I’m stopping no one from informing themselves, I never have, I’m stopping people from forcing their paranoid delusions on me, nothing more, I said it before, if you all answer my questions and the facts add up, then count me in. You on the other hand pretend to sit on the fence, you are blind to what’s going on. I have the conviction to stand up and be counted, only the spineless sit on the fence.
    I will say this once more only, I won’t repeat myself again. I am not an admin of this site, I am a visitor with the same rights as everyone else, my opinion. Answer my questions. Don’t make paranoid accusations. Just answer my darned questions for goodness sake. I am being paid by no one. Who are you lot being paid by.
    Finally. I am subject to being banned the same as you are. You may, if you wish, petition the admins to have me banned. Especially if you feel my posts have been any worse than yours. But I’ll say this, you would all have been banned from my site long ago, it wouldn’t have been tolerated, so before you start trying to tidy up any one’s posts and opinions, get your own house in order.

    • Well said, Bill, but a lot of bytes wasted on someone like him. I encourage everyone to search his comments to see just how often he switches allegiances, but just be warned; he has posted under 3 different usernames: Dec, Dec Irwin and Declan Thomas Irwin.

      I have a suspicion that he runs the ChemtrailsEire Youtube channel, as a lot of the material there seems to have his stamp all over it. He made this video too (which he posted months ago), in which it is claimed that kids are being brainwashed by introducing contrails into cartoons, etc. Actually, it is the maker of this video who has actually photoshopped them in, and has done a terrible job of it too. The opening photo is one that he shared here a week or two ago.

      One by one these guys are being found out. I see Davoud hasn’t shown his face since being exposed as a fraud.

  2. I’ve spent a fair bit of time on that video, replaying parts and watching it right through several times. Most of the “evidence”, if not all, is Photoshopped. Some of it poorly done. I really can’t understand the mentality of people that produce such blatantly false information to convince people. I honestly don’t.
    You know, even if only one picture in that video was Photoshopped then it contaminates and undermines the whole video, it all becomes fraudulent information. Why on earth do they do it?
    I then read through the comments; a couple of people saw the obvious Photoshopping, one even knew of one of the photos used that it had been proven a fake already. The other commentators, I’m afraid I couldn’t help feeling sorry for them, they had just looked at the video and accepted it as fact right away. Like lambs to the slaughter.
    I can understand why Davoud does this and promotes this false belief, he’s hoping to con a lot of people out of hard cash. But I don’t understand the incentive of the others; what is it? Are they being paid by people like Davoud to promote it? Do they get a commission from the donations they encourage? The only other reason I can think of is that they just have nothing to do and they are just trying to make a name for themselves. They are lacking something and find it much easier to become popular through false YouTube videos, Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
    The actual basis of Facebook and Twitter is actually quite genius, but unfortunately they have both lost their way because people use them for the wrong reasons. YouTube is also an excellent media as well, but again, more likely caused by TV programmes devoted to showing the most viewed clips etc., it has become a place where some people flood it with unrealistic and false videos so they can catch “views”.
    Dec, you need to come clean about being affiliated with this unreliable evidence, you also need to find the courage to stand up and say you believe in this conspiracy, because if you do that much, then there is some hope for you, if not, then we can’t help you and I certainly don’t want to read any more of your ramblings.
    Isn’t strum/strummer one of his names?

  3. Very interesting. I’m looking through Strum’s videos one by one. I would advise it. He claims he really isn’t sure about chemtrails. He asks for comments to advise him on where he is wrong in his video, he wants accurate information because he isn’t sure, but … debunkers and etc are not welcome to leave comments, in fact he tells them to “p**s off”! I’m not sure how he is going to tell the difference between a debunker leaving a comment and someone leaving scientific facts to point out where he is wrong, because someone with scientific facts is going to be a debunker. I think he only wants believers to comment, that would strengthen his case. It would be interesting to know what his definition of debunker is. He goes further, he claims to be now going to show hard evidence, proof, that they are spraying chemicals. He shows a picture he has taken, it shows a bit of sun-glare, he assures his viewers that it isn’t sun-glare because he can take a shot directly of the sun and his “excellent Canon camera” never shows glare. Well I have an excellent Canon camera and it does show glare. There hasn’t been a camera made that won’t show glare, they will all show glare to a certain extent. He keeps saying in the video that he is an artist. Like he does on here. He may be an artist but he is a hopeless photographer. He started off the video explaining his evidence for chemtrails and contrails, his evidence amounted to nothing more than what the other theorists have pumped into his head, the chemtrails, basically, last far to long to be contrails. Contrails are very short lived etc., ad nauseum.
    At the top right hand corner of his YouTube video with a link to his website DÚN LAOGHAIRE. Further proof that this is Dec and that he is a believer of chemtrails, it also appears he is a believer of depopulation by spraying chemicals as evidenced in his video.
    Dec, your caught, my man :-)
    I’ll be very surprised if you ever comment on here again.

    • Caught! Hahahahaha! :D :D :D

      I’m beginning to like you Inspector Jacques Clouseau, aka Bill Hunter, aka Billy the Silly. I might write a song about that haha. ;)
      My friend, if you had read the above comments when I responded to Fergal saying yes I am me you would have saved yourself the bother of all the searching to try and discredit me in some way. I have no worries about ANYBODY knowing my identity. I’m a friggin Artist man! Why would I hide it? What a puerile search you went on. Duh!
      Yes I’m Dec, DecIrwin, Declan Thomas Irwin, Strum, StrumStrummer, StrumTStrummer, Arfurarseache, Chelsealmond, MyraMaynes, Plecstrum, and loads more if you want to look them up. 16 years on the Internet, not 19 as you misquoted. 19 years ago was before dialup even, that would have been some achievement in Irealnd. :D
      But what’s your point? Knowing my activities? I am completely transparent unlike you mate.
      So now you know me. So what? Wanna buy a Painting? :)
      What about your TV interviews etc? Can we all see them and decide for ourselves how credible you are?

      This is all just an attempt at distraction from the original post. Contrails v Chemtrails.

      I made those videos as I said from the first time I spotted these new “Clouds” “Trails” over Ireland, something I had never seen before in my entire life in our skies, and yes 2nd January 2009.
      I wanted to record / log them for “possible” future developments. I was extremely naive at the time too, because this was a new phenomena over our heads.
      I ceased capturing them a few years back; so many others were recording them, because it was impossible to keep up with it, instead I decided to make a credible Documentary/Film/Video/Short/ whatever you want to call it instead, with credible people.
      Yes four years in the making. I don’t want to come across as a stupid paranoid idiot do I?
      I need People like you and Fergal to present your knowledge to the Public on this Documentary/Film/Video/Short/ whatever… to put People’s paranoid minds at rest.

      The “Trails” “Clouds” in Ads/Film/Music Vids etc, as you can see on the page was the last vid I compiled and uploaded. All from screenshots. I agree that if one is photoshopped then you may consider the rest to be dodgy aswell, but I guarantee you, I DID NOT alter any of the photos, if they were altered, shame on the People who even bother to do it because it’s not necessary. But the screenshots I took from Films are real, as are the Ads, and Cartoons, and Music Band Videos and and…

      • You see? I rest my case. You just can’t get past the opening paragraph of any response you make without trying to insult someone. Just like your defiance with answering questions, you answer questions by asking questions. Yet you are supposed to be shocked and concerned by others insulting people. Again, I rest my case.
        I really don’t know where you get the idea I have an expertise in this, I have stated several times now that I don’t, I use my eyes and I read the illogical, paranoid scribblings of the theorists to make my mind up. You aren’t paying attention, again, I rest my case.
        My TV and Radio interviews have no bearing on this subject, my expertise is solely with orchids and rearing plants for reintroduction to rain forests. So don’t waste your time, it’s all about doing something useful with my life, not wasting it in the pursuance of paranoid conspiracy theories.
        I beg your pardon in relation to my mistake between 19 years and 16 years. But that is really unimportant, it’s the claim you made that still stands as being wrong.
        I’m still waiting to hear about where you found the information on 150,000 deaths caused by this each year. It’s quite an important statement.
        You aren’t transparent, you lie! If those videos you made and uploaded to YouTube were done when you “extremely naive” then why haven’t you removed them and replaced them with something more accurate?
        Nothing on here is a distraction from the original post, you conspiracy theorists came on here on the attack, insulting people and using profanity. Everything else is in reply to you all. The point about finding more information about you was not to show how clever I am, but to assist with exposing you as a phony, job done. You masquerade as ChemtrailsEire yet pretend you have no affiliation with the theorists.
        You know how you are tired of fergalt repeating himself when he quite rightly says; read the article and the comments? Well I’m pretty fed-up of you continuously claiming to be an artist. It’s all the way through this thread and through your videos. I’m an artist, fergalt’s an artist, we’re all artists, Dec. Do I want to buy a painting from you? I doubt it very much. Even on the slightest chance that you are a decent artist, I doubt very much if any of your art would fall into a category that I collect or even interest me. I have enough art anyway that I bought from friends that are artists and from my late brother who was an artist. None of them spent several times a week telling people they were artists to garnish attention, like real artists they got on with painting and if people wanted to buy them they sold them.
        I’ve said it several times, I’m very transparent, you can easily find my website and see what I do. I’m easily found on Facebook and you can confirm what I do. You can easily find me on twitter, LinkedIn and Google, although the latter 3 I never bother with much. You think I’m not transparent because your too lazy to check. You on the other hand have been on here lying and deceiving people about where you stand, hence my reason for checking you out. Plus, look at all the different false names you use; why?
        It’s not really about the one picture in any of the videos being proved as a known fake, it is blatantly obvious that many, if not all, are faked, one in particular that comes to my mind is the cartoon but the background is a real photo of the sky with a real airplane Photoshopped onto it. If it’s true that you were naive and not really on any side then by now you should be at the very least admitting to your viewers that it has come to your attention that the information in your videos can’t be relied on because much of it is fake. But you don’t. One person wrote a comment about that, yet you took the theorists side and said something like “open your eyes and look”. I can’t remember your words exactly, but it was an attack on his very observant view which you didn’t acknowledge.
        This I won’t repeat again either. I have no expert knowledge on this subject, I’ve been presented with information from both sides, well actually from one side, the other has done nothing but write paranoid, delusional scribblings. Based on what I have read from both sides I have decided that I’m on the side of contrails. Interviewing me for your YouTube video (lets not go on pretending it is anything else) would be futile. Neither you or anyone else has the right to say my decision is wrong, unless you can all be sensible and give me good reason to believe otherwise. Until then you have no right to attack my beliefs or insult me, if you do, then you can expect me to insult you, as I do, you then have no right to tell me not to do that.
        Unless you give me answers I’ve asked for I have no further interest in responding to you. I won’t waste my time with dishonesty, grandiosity and just plain ridiculous scribblings. You can post on, but your now going to have a very lonesome discussion.
        I’ll say one thing more, Dec. Just because you don’t understand science, it doesn’t mean science is wrong.

      • I like you more and more Bill. Ok, I’ll respectfully answer your questions within reason. About the 150,000 deaths, I will keep that for the Docu. I may leave it out though because it’s an outragous statement without concrete evidence. That’s another story. We’ll see.

        The Chemtrailseire page, I told you I stopped about 5 years ago, no harm in leaving it there for now for maybe future reference.

        Numerous usernames? Over 16 years mate? Yes. Not to hide anything though.

        I’m impressed with your horticultural knowledge and enviornmental issues which begs the question. Are you not worried in the slightest about these so-called “chemtrails” that MAY be harming our ecological system?

        RE: exposing you as a phony, job done. You masquerade as ChemtrailsEire yet pretend you have no affiliation with the theorists.

        I have said already I was merely logging these trails for future reference. And here we are.

        STOP calling me a friggin Theorist mate. I don’t pander to any unbelievable sh*ite. I think Davoud is probably a Born-again Christian nut. I have absolutely NO affliation with ANY of these People and don’t want to either. I am merely going by my own observations.

        The reason I repeat that I’m an Artist / Photographer is not to promote myself but because because I paint Skies, Landscapes, Seascapes etc and these “trails” are a new phenonoma in our World as we know it now.
        2008 I was asked to make a CD cover for a Band and the theme was “Head in the Clouds” so I spent weeks taking photos for it. Some normal Contrails like I’d seen since I was a kid…but none of these persistant “contrails” we see now. A few Months later, 2nd Jan, 2009….there they were.

  4. Thank you, Dec. Perhaps a normal debate can start.
    It’s not up to me to tell you, but if you are still not sure about chemtrails, then my advice would be to remove the YouTube videos. Especially if it was done during a period of naivety, it gives the wrong impression of you especially if you are not a conspiracy theorist as you say. It appears as if you only want theorists to make comments, anyone making comments based on the science is going to be marked as a debunker, it’s a no-win situation for science and a win-win for theorists. If you are truly neutral, then you have to be neutral in everything you do or write until you pick a side (side is for want of a better word at the moment).
    No, I’m truly not worried about there being chemtrails damaging the ecological system. Mainly because I don’t believe they are chemtrails. Again, I base that on the science for chemtrails and the distinct lack of scientific evidence for chemtrails. I’ll never be able to subscribe to the chemtrail theory because the believers are blinkered, they won’t listen to the science, but want us to believe them by listen to their theories which have absolutely nothing to back them up. Again, I say, if they or anyone else provides the evidence and scientific data to back up chemtrails and I think it outweighs contrails, then I’ll happily accept it, but as you have seen on here, they won’t debate or provide evidence, they attack and abuse. The whole thread deteriorated into a junk pile because of that. At the moment, I’m mainly concerned with the ecological damage done to rain forests where they slash and burn thousands of hectares of Brazilian forest per DAY so that rich farmers can force the natives out of their land and grow millions of tons of soya bean because the yuppie-types in Europe and America want soya milk and processed soya meat alternatives. I’m concerned about the thousands of hectares of rain forest in Thailand and Papua and New Guinea so rich European and Americans can plant with sterile Oil Palm so they can produce millions of gallons of Palm oil to feed the Wests craving for alternative fuels and cooking oils. They destroy hectare upon hectare so they can produce cheap beef for the big burger chains. That’s my primary concern because when all that forest goes, we won’t need to worry if they do decide to spray us.
    I won’t call you a conspiracy theorist if you don’t behave as if you are one. I don’t think Davoud is a born again Christian. He wasn’t born a Christian in the first place. At least I would put my money on the chance of it being unlikely as he is from Iran. I honestly believe he is a fraud and is trying to get money from people to supplement his benefits now that he is likely unemployed. Check him out.
    I really don’t think that the increase in contrails is anything other than the science says above. Planes, in my basic understanding, are flying in greater numbers than they were, also higher. I would disagree with a sudden start in 2009. I’ve seen them much earlier.
    I’ve been accused many times of not looking at the sky, not using my eyes and not paying attention, of being blind, of having tunnel vision. I shall now let you into a secret I have. As an ex-inhabitant of Lockerbie, I’ve had an uncontrollable urge to watch the skies where ever I am. I’m pretty certain that most inhabitants, current or ex have the same uncontrollable urge. Believe me, a tragedy like that changes you. I have an uncontrollable urge to learn what I can about airplanes. Had I been able to afford it, I would have not stopped flying lessons after my initial half-hour trial lesson, I would have my pilots licence by now. I have an absolute craving to get my licence, but unfortunately it is a hunger that I can’t afford to sate. So I am a fastidious sky watcher and have seen contrails increase over the years, and believe me, there have been many long-lasting contrails since long before 2009.
    I’m confused as to why you claim to be neutral on this. Each time you post, you appear hostile towards the science. You appear to, although you say your not sure, think there is something to the chemtrail theory, yet they can’t provide any science for it.
    As a very young boy in the 50s and 60s they told us they were experimenting with weather. They told us they had developed a system. It was actually quite exciting. However, they stopped it very soon after it started. They stopped it because it was both unreliable and expensive. Of course there are patents on things like that, there will probably continue to be. But, a patent means nothing. When you invent something, the first thing you do before announcing it is take out a patent, that way you safeguard it from your competitors. Those patents don’t mean it works or is financially viable, the patents don’t actually mean it’s being used. The theorists have nothing to back up their claims, the only documentation they have is the patents, the other stuff they have is ex-FBI men and the wandering minds of others.
    There is far too many problems we need to sort out before we worry about chemtrails. Let the theorists worry, I just wish they would stop trying to save me!

  5. Flawed argumentation because you do not quote real science. And real science explain contrails differently:

    “Aviation has been identified as contributor to anthropogenic changes in the Earth’s radiation budget. In particular this is due to the emission of greenhouse gases, soot, aerosols, and the formation of contrails and aviation induced cirrus clouds. Linear persistent contrails occur in an ice supersaturated atmosphere if the Schmidt Appelman criterion is satisfied (1). Cirrus clouds can evolve from spreading persistent contrails known as primary cirrus or contrail cirrus (2). Secondary cirrus occur due to locally increased soot and aerosol concentration, which might lead to theformation of cirrus clouds that would not form in the absence of air traffic (3; 4; 5). An indirect climate forcing of aircraft emissions is possible by changing particle size and ice particle number density of natural cirrus clouds (6).
    Aviation induced pollutants have been identified and assessed in terms of radiative forcing by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Radiative forcing is a metric where the expected steady state equilibrium change in terms of global mean surface temperature is related linearly to the observed radiative forcing of a certain perturbation. Linear persistent contrails and aviation induced cirrus clouds were identified as main contributors to the overall aviation induced radiative forcing. It is estimated that linear persistent contrails contribute approximately 20% to the total aviation induced radiative forcing (7). This estimate considers a year 2000 scenario where cirrus clouds are excluded. Aviation induced cirrus clouds have the potential to cause a radiative forcing which exceeds the radiative forcing of all other emissions due to air traffic combined. Annually and globally averaged total contrail cover and the associated radiative forcing is expected to quadruple during the next decades due to the increase in air traffic (8).
    Depending on the allocated importance of the radiative forcing due to persistent contrails and cirrus clouds relative to that of other aircraft emissions, it might occur that the avoidance of persistent contrails and cirrus clouds becomes the most important and pressing issue to be addressed in the future.”

    • As a layman that knows virtually nothing about the science, I don’t think the argument is flawed, neither is the science. I see the article as explaining the basic reasons for contrails. The science you are quoting I don’t think disputes the information in the article but mainly goes deeper into the science.
      The article isn’t actually about the complete science of contrails but about providing sufficient information to dispute the chemtrail theory, which in my humble opinion it does rather well. I will also say that your quotes and links add enough information to the above article which should put the debate to rest and clearly shows that they have nothing to do with chemtrails.

      • I would add that no one has actually argued for or against contrails role in global warming or global cooling, but I, personally, haven’t seen enough evidence to say that it adds sufficiently to either to be a greater concern to me than other forms of climate change.

    • Thanks for your post. I’m not sure where the differences lie between my science and that you quoted. They are both saying the same thing, in my opinion, and are therefore either both correct or both “flawed”.

      Somewhere in the hundreds of comments I have spoken about radiative forcing of aviation-induced cirrus and how it is a small player in the overall radiation budget. Contrails may account for 20% of aviation’s contribution, but this overall is a small number.

      But as Bill says, your material just goes to reinforce the whole argument against the chemtrail nonsense and will help to prolong the absence of the once vocal activists on this page. They’ve gone to try set up camp somewhere else as they see that they were getting nowhere fast here.

      • Lovely conditions for the past eight days. Not a single Contrail. Looking forward to the Summer. Cheers. :D

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s