Since the spraying program is covert, officialdom assures us the lines in our skies are just harmless condensation trails or contrails.

Wikipedia defines condensation as:

“the change in the state of water vapour to liquid water when in contact with a liquid or solid surface or cloud condensation nuclei within the atmosphere.”

In other words, water cannot change from gas to liquid without something to attach to, a condensation nucleus. Neither product of jet exhaust – hot CO2 and water vapor – are condensation nuclei.

The only way water can change phase from gas to liquid (or solid) in the absence of a condensation nucleus is when the air is supersaturated – greater than 100% relative humidity. In layman’s terms, unless it’s completely humid (100% or more) water evaporates instead of condensing. Condensation trails cannot form or persist.

Southern Oregon was heavily sprayed from September 7th to 9th – and then it abruptly stopped on the 10th. 60 miles west of Chiloquin, there is a Wyoming Soundings weather station in Medford, where weather balloons are sent up twice a day to record, amongst other things, relative humidity. I took the precaution of saving the data in a pdf.

On September 8th when the skies were filled with so-called contrails, the relative humidity at cruising altitude (33,000 feet) was 23% – less than a quarter of the humidity required for condensation to form. Here’s a picture I took at 7:42pm.

9-8-16-final

But three days later on September 11th after the spraying stopped, I took another photo in the same location. But although it was almost 50% more humid than the heavy spray day (relative humidity 31% – still too dry for condensation to occur) not a trail could be seen in the sky.

9-11-16-final

Since this proves condensation nuclei are present on days where the skies are filled with persistent trails, what are they? Could it be that the widely publicized “proposals” to spray us with sulfates, Welsbach materials, nanoparticulate alumina, barium, strontium, titanium and other toxic metals are in fact a currently deployed program? Observational data, including rainwater analysis and mortality statistics back this up.

Some argue they are contaminants in jet fuel, or soot from incomplete combustion. If that’s the case, shouldn’t there be more trails in the sky when the relative humidity is 50% higher?

One of the main proponents of the condensation trail myth is Mick West, who runs disinfo sites Metabunk and ContrailScience.com. I made this video for him:

UPDATE – two hours after challenging Mick West on the Wyoming Soundings humidity data, the University of Wyoming conveniently took most of it’s data offline, including all of North America’s. Good thing I saved a pdf of the damning info.

Here’s a screenshot – the map should be covered with clickable station codes, but there are none:
wyoming

UPDATE 2 – One hour after Tweeting the disappearance of the Wyoming Soundings data, it mysteriously reappeared. Nothing like a public shaming to reveal the truth. Still no response from Mick West, though.

wyoming-before-and-after

71 Comments

  • It’s a good question, because it shows that you are aware that contrails actually CAN persist and spread.

    Contrails need a relative humidity over with respect to ice of over 100% to persist and spread. This is nothing to do with the presence r absence of nuclei, as they need nuclei to form regardless.

    100% RHI is about 60% RHW (the more common RH value, and the one given in the soundings, with respect to water).

    Soundings unfortunately are a terrible way of getting local humidity at high altitudes in cold air. Firstly they are spaced apart, in time by 12 hours, and in space by around 200 miles. Humidity can vary vastly in a few hundred feet, which is why we sometime get individual clouds instead of huge sheets.

    An equal problem is that the reading for humidity basically stop working below -40°, and are quite inaccurate at lower altitudest. See Figure 2 here: http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Refsonde-GRL.pdf

    • Mick West – as usual you are very wrong about contrails and what air conditions they need to naturaly form. It is not scentificly correct that 100% RHI is equal to 60% RH, and is it not either scentificly correct that contrails do “persist and spread” at 100% RHI/60% RH.

      Instead, there are 3 types of natural contrail types, 1. short-lived non-persistent contrail (SLNPC), 2 Persistent contrail, non-spreading (PCNS) 3, Persistent contrail, spreading (PCS). As natural comulus clouds needs 70% RH to start form, the first types of contrails SLNPC needs a minimum of 60% to START form just to disapeare only seconds later. The no 2 contrail type, PCNS needs 100% RH to start spread but do not persist even at 100% RH. Instead to evolve to no 3 contrail type it is required far OVER 100% RH and as much as 145-165% RHI. (And requires below minus 55-70 C att the same time too)

      The surten airmasse where the RHI can reach such extrem RHI levels in the atmosphere (and is VERY cold) is called “supersaturated airmasse” and do mostly accures over cold landmasses as Antarctica, Canada, Alaska etc. In Sweden for exemple that surten airmasse is only 2-7% (pending on different hPa pressure) of the total airmasse, which mean that PCS is extremely rare to form naturaly in Scandinavia (and many other places). As supersaturated airmasses also only accures in the upper troposhere and the lower tropopuse, the airplanes travelling in the northern and southern hemisphere at fl 33- 40.000 feet by that can NOT make any natural PSC trails!

      That is because on the northern/southern hemisphere the lower Stratosphere begins at 33.000 feet, which mean that airplanes in that region of the world only can make natural PCS trails within a were short time spann while climbing/decending betwin flightlevel 26-33.000 feet in a supersaturated airmasse. Thereby, with a climb/decent rate of moderate 2000 feet/min there are only a window of 3,5 min to create a PCS trail, but if no supersturation is avalible at the same time there can be no PCS trails at all.

      With that said, when we see the air covered of hugh amount of PCNS AND PCS trails day out and they in – there are no way the can be natural. That is not even scentificly possible as supersaturated airmasses ONLY RARELY DO accure over the most places on earth.

      • The relationship between RHi and RHw is complicated, but for contrail purposes it can be approximated as
        RHw = RHi / ( 0.89 – (0.0148 * t) )
        That’s accurate within 1% from -70C to -30C
        Or you can use this table, which shows what RHw is for RHi=100 at different temperatures.
        -40, 67.5
        -41, 66.8
        -42, 66.1
        -43, 65.5
        -44, 64.8
        -45, 64.2
        -46, 63.6
        -47, 63
        -48, 62.3
        -49, 61.7
        -50, 61.1
        -51, 60.5
        -52, 60
        -53, 59.4
        -54, 58.8
        -55, 58.2
        -56, 57.7
        -57, 57.1
        -58, 56.6
        -59, 56

        which is derived from the Wexler formula.

        Persistent spreading contrails (PCS) ONLY require ice supersaturation, i.e. 100% RHi. The RHw needed varies based on the temperature as described above.

        Consider that contrails are made of ice, and if the temperature is below freezing, and the air is ice supersaturated, then the contrail MUST persist. And if it’s slightly over 100% RHi, then the ice crystals MUST grow (causing eventual spread)

        • Mick – you are wrong about all you claims. The RHI value does not apply on contrail formations before the moist in the air reach 100% RH. As där are no 101% measurement of RH when it get over-saturated, the measurement for humidity in very cold eniviroment is then beginning to be measured with respect to ice instead, as ice can hold much more humidity/water then liqued water. ( = >100% RH)

          Your claim,s are also false in the regard that only short-lived, non-persistent contrails (SLNPC) do NOT START TO FORM unless the atmospher holds a minimum of 60% RH. Period. Thereby it is irrelevant for SLNPC – trails if the RHI value should count as 0% or 3000% at the same time, it does NOT START TO FORM unless the humidity reaches 60% RH and more. And for the persistent and spreading types of contrails to accure they realy need much more then 100% RH in an ice-supersaturated air masse to take shape.

          The RH term is always applayed summer as wintern by all meterologic institute worldwide and the term RH does NOT shift to RHI even if the weather in the winter in same places in the world goes down to minus 20-30 C and it is icy-cold . Nor do the measurement via weatherballons in the upper atmospher, who always measure the humidity by the 1-100% RH value, wheras thats also the term always used when determend when different kind of contrail-types do start to form.

          Let me also citate your self Mick on your own website, where you sept 8, 2012 wrote:

          ”Contrails need RHW temporarily raised over 100% to form, and then RHI ambiently over 100% to persist and grow”

          That say it all and is a confirmation even from your self that it is reqiured over 100% RH to form a contrail who can persist and spread!

          And…as the atmosphere at cruise altitude very rarely get over 100% RH, we all by that in other words can state to; Contrails very rarely do form, spread and persist.

          Thank you.

          • ”Contrails need RHW temporarily raised over 100% to form, and then RHI ambiently over 100% to persist and grow”

            Okay, let me ask you a question. If RHW is 60% and it’s -52°C, then what is the value of RHI? I get 100%

            I ask this because there seems to be some confusion about the relationship between RHW and RHI. I said you need over 100% RHI for contrails to persist and spread. But then you said you need over 100% RH. What RH are you referring to? RHW, or RHI? And if it’s RHW then why? Contrails are ice, so the “over ice” RH (RHI) is the relevant number that needs to reach supersaturation.

          • Mick – it seems that you have misconcepted the thing with atmospheric principles, contrails, and when they form, so let me enlighten you about the matter.

            The atmospher on altitudes betwin 30 – 40.000 feet where airplanes has there cruise altitude is on enviroment where the humidity normaly varys constantly betwin 1 – 60% RH, where it only rarely gets higher (up to 100% RH) It is also a place where the temperature increases with hight, so the higher the colder there are (but the higher less humid it gets)

            Contrails are cirrus-like clouds, and are the only type of cloud´s that need ”dirt particles” to form, in contrast to other clouds that are made of only condensed water dropplets who has freezed in to ice cristals.

            To form a contrail, the tiny micron sized exhaust particles must act as an nuclei, whereas the surrounding air too must have a sufficient degree of moist and coldness at the same time, who can ”enclose” the tiny particles in moist and freeze it temporary to ice-cristals.

            However, on cruise altitudes in the atmospher, the air most of the time is to dry and to ”warm” (in relative terms) to hold the tiny exhaust particles in a ice -freezed state for more then some seconds or minuts, before the ”ice-cristal exhaust particles” has disolved again. The threshold temperature and humidity needed in the surrounding air TO START make the tiny exhaust particles in to contrail – ice cristals, is -40 C and 60% RH. But as said before, the atmospher on cruise altitude constantly varys betwin 1 – 60% RH, which means that even short lived contrails often has a hard time to form in such a dry changable enviroment.

            Then, to move to contrails who CAN stay longer and even spread out to contrails-cirrus clouds; you first need enough exhaust and atmospheric ”dirt” particles in the air to act as multiple nuclei´s. Then, at the same time, you need a very specific ice-supersaturated air masse present and you need a MINIMUM of minus 55 – 60 C within that air masse. In that condition, with an air masse who has already exceeded the 100% RH mark and is VERY cold, the superhot tiny exhaust/dirt particles right away get heavy enclosed in the OVER-SATURATED air and ”super-freezes” into pretty large and thick ice-cristals. Further, if the air stays in that ice-supersaturated state for a longer period, the ”superfreezed, heavy saturated, nuclei´d ice cristals” have the potential to spread out to contrail-cirrus cloud formations.

            Your misconcept of what condition contrails NEEDS to start form, persist and spread, is beacuse you is to keen to look att RHI values instead of the RH values. And even if the air SHOULD be 100% RHI (at 60% RH) as you claim, it does NOT mean that the air (in respect to ice) is SUPERsaturated, it only mean that the air is SATURATED at 100%. And SATURATION is needed before even short-lived, non-persistent contrails can take shape, exactly as you meansioned in the quote above. But RHI-saturation of 100% is NOT ENOUGH to hold the tiny exhaust particles in a freezed ice – cristal state for more then seconds/minutes as the atmospher constatly varys in humdity. Instead it is required up to 145-165% RHI (= >100% RH) of SUPERsaturation and that the exhaust particles ULTRA quickly SUPERfreezes at -60 C at the same time, to form long lasting, persistent and spreading contrails and/or contrails-cirrus cloud formations.

            Thank you!

          • I’m also curious as to where you get this claim: ” But RHI-saturation of 100% is NOT ENOUGH to hold the tiny exhaust particles in a freezed ice – cristal state for more then seconds/minutes as the atmospher constatly varys in humdity. Instead it is required up to 145-165% RHI (= >100% RH) of SUPERsaturation and that the exhaust particles ULTRA quickly SUPERfreezes at -60 C at the same time, to form long lasting, persistent and spreading contrails and/or contrails-cirrus cloud formations.”

            I’ve read a lot of books and papers on contrail formation, and they don’t specific this at all. All that’s required is >100% RHi (101% is fine, higher is better). That’s basically the green areas here. http://www.instantweathermaps.com/GFS-php/showmap-conusupper.php?var=RH&lev=300mb

            Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JAMC2056.1
            “persistent contrail formation occurred when the relative humidity with respect to ice was 100% or greater and the temperature was less than or equal to 226.6 K [-46.5 C]”

          • And this is not new. Here’s a 1951 report on persistent contrails.
            http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/692117.pdf
            “Contrails consisting of ice particles … will persist for hours if environmental conditions exceed ice saturation i.e., exceed ambient relative humidities of approximately 60% to 70%”
            All sources I’ve looked at agree on this, so I’m unclear what you are basing your claims on. Perhaps you could cite something?

          • Also, can you explain:
            “Contrails are cirrus-like clouds, and are the only type of cloud´s that need ”dirt particles” to form, in contrast to other clouds that are made of only condensed water dropplets who has freezed in to ice cristals.”

            Given that every source I’ve read says that ALL types of cloud require condensation nuclei. Example: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/clouds/cloudwise/learn.html
            “In one form or another water is always present in the atmosphere. However, water molecules in the atmosphere are too small to bond together for the formation of cloud droplets.

            They need a “flatter” surface, an object with a radius of at least one micrometer (one millionth of a meter) on which they can form a bond. Those objects are called nuclei.

            Nuclei are minute solid and liquid particles found in abundance. They consist of such things as smoke particles from fires or volcanoes, ocean spray or tiny specks of wind-blown soil. These nuclei are ‘hygroscopic’ meaning they attract water molecules.

            Called “cloud condensation nuclei”, these water molecule attracting particles are about 1/100th the size of a cloud droplet upon which water condenses.

            Therefore, every cloud droplet has a speck of dirt, dust or salt crystal at its core. But, even with a condensation nuclei, the cloud droplet is essentially made up of pure water.”

          • Mick – it is strange to me that someone who owns two websites dealing with the contrail v.s chemtrail phenonomena for many years – where you btw act as you are the ”godfather” of ”knowing all about it” and others who say different is always totaly wrong in your opinion – actualy don´t seems to know as much after all when one only starting to scratch the surface hmmm.

            Eeeh you know that airplanes from1951 is totaly different in all areas then ultra new modern fuel effectiv planes like B787, A380 etc is today, or? You know that the studies and reasearch of the atmospher has developed with many new conclosions, knowings and understanding since then, or? You know that the atmospher is in constant change, is way different now then 1951 and that 2016 has been the warmest year on150 years time, or?

            To use a 1951 studie to try to explain how modern jet engines of to day produce contrails is like taking a Hudson Hornet from 1951 to try explain how a brand new 2017 Toyota Prius works! It don´t work, especially as the 1951 studie is based on that era of planes who produced very different exhaust emisions with much much more water vapor, who of course didn´t need as much humidity in the air to produce contrails, and also did it on much lower altitudes then what the modern era of aircraft fleet flyes on. The studie you refered to also only meansion ice-SATURATION and claimed that contrails could persist for MANY hours only by that air condition,

            But as modern peer reviewed studies have reveled, it does need SUPER-saturation to get a contrail to persist and spread, which means that the 1951 studie only by that is pretty useless to use 2016 when you want to debate this thing. As SUPER in this case mean ”far beyond”, or ”extra”, or ”much over” SATURATION-state, 101% RHI will NOT do the trick and are NOT consider as SUPER in this matter. Surely you must understad that Mick, or? The air masse considering from apox 110% RHI is btw even called ”week supersaturation” and have the potential to form persistent contrails in some cases IF it is supportet with very low temperatures at the same time. (> -55 C)

            About the 300 mb map you showed, it seems pretty normal in oktober that Northern US, Canada and Alaska has 90-100% RHw (and the rest of US mostly have low RHw) as that´s the most common region where ice-SUPERsaturation occure which also scientist has confirmed.

            Although: ”The data available from various weather sonde systems sharply contradicts NASA’s claim that persistent contrails are a common atmospheric response to jet aircraft emissions. The U. Wyoming is one source that aggregates atmospheric conditions collected at many sites around the US, Europe and beyond. The data above 26,000 feet reveals that conditions for formation of of so-called “persistent contrails” due to high relative humidity above 70% is “rare”. https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/08/16/debunking-nasa-persistent-contrail-myth-using-weather-sonde-data/

            About very changable humidity on flightlevel : It is not uncommon, as countless examinations throughout the previous two years plus have disclosed, for the relative humidity at flight altitude to range between 10 and 60 percent. This should not be surprising in any particular way, since it is easily established that most cloud layers form at lower altitudes where the moisture levels commonly exceed relative humidity levels of 70%. This is not the case for upper regions of the atmosphere, which is the favored domain of jet aircraft traffic. https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/08/15/persistent-cont/

            Thank you!

          • Bengt, can you provide some references that back up your assertions, particularly:

            “But as modern peer reviewed studies have reveled, it does need SUPER-saturation to get a contrail to persist and spread, which means that the 1951 studie only by that is pretty useless to use 2016 when you want to debate this thing. As SUPER in this case mean ”far beyond”, or ”extra”, or ”much over” SATURATION-state, 101% RHI will NOT do the trick and are NOT consider as SUPER in this matter.”

            The AMS article I linked only said >100% RHI, and the American Metorology Society likewise says:
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JAMC2056.1
            “persistent contrail formation occurred
            when the relative humidity with respect to ice was 100%
            or greater and the temperature was less than or equal to
            226.6 K, which is the critical temperature for contrail
            formation at 250-hPa, when RHI 5 100% and the aircraft
            fuel combustion efficiency is 0.4.”

            I see no source that suggests supersaturation means anything other than >100%

            Please provide citations for you claims.

          • Mick – in fairness, didn´t I ask you som Q last time and provide you with vital info that the atmospher RARELY exceeds the humidity levels needed for contrail persistens?? I think it would be polite of you to respond on my last reply first then just ignore it and start asking me more Q back instead.

            But to answer you somewhat right away, have you heard anyone talking about SUPERsaturation when the level of RH is 100%? Eeh no you haven´t because at 100% humidity level the term is called and always in all times have been called: SATURATION. It is not any different with RHI, which your invalid research paper from 1951 did get an great proof of when you self citate:

            ”Contrails consisting of ice particles … will persist for hours if environmental conditions exceed ice saturation i.e.,…”

            I don´t believe that was a ”missprint” in the 1951 paper and that it actualy also mean what it say that it exceeds ice-SATURATION. With that said; SUPERsaturation must be (and also is) something else, something quite far beyond that, otherwise the label SUPER would not exist and be added thogheter with the wording ”saturation”. And it could not EXCEED ice-SATURATION if the humidity could not be measured/have values beyond 100%. So let me repeat, 101% RHI does not do the trick by far and it is requried quite a lot more humidity over 100% RHI to make contrails be visualy present longer then some sec/min.

            That it is something extra is also proven in many peer review papers when ice-supersaturated air masses is talked about and explained. It is not usualy a common air masse type in most places around the world and who normaly mostly occures within specific regions, which I have wrote about before. Therefore, to claim from your side that the air often is (and can be) ice -supersaturated to aid persistent contrails in the atmospher, in all places all over the world every day, is very far from the truth and I think many people in the contrail v.s chemtrail debate frankly is quite pissed of at you Mick when you often give such scientificly false claims about this matter.

            Thank you!

          • Again, please provide some citations. Everything I’ve read says contrails persist at >=100%RHi, which is around 60% RHw

            If you think otherwise, then provide some citations, otherwise it’s just your opinion.

          • Mick – again, I asked YOU some Q FIRST who I think would be polite if you answered me FIRST, then I will answer your new Q.

            But to answer you quickly, no it is not ”just my opinion”, because I have studie the contrail vs chemtrail saga very many years, read tons of material from every angel it can be of the issue and have debated this in at least 3 years in different domestic and international forums. Because of that I fore sure can citate how much I want when I want to do it everyday the rest of this year if it so should be reguired. But for the moment that is not of interest as you not even get have give respons to the things I already have citate here, so why should a bring any more citate then???

            Because of that, let my repite one of the Q I want YOU to answer; how can you claim that the air often and everyday in all places of the world is/can be ice-supersaturated to provide for persistent contrails, when both scientist and weather sond data say that that is not the case? When it is even are backed up from weather instuites who says that the atmospher RARELY hold such amount of RH so supersaturation can occure and persisten contrails can form?

            Please answer my questions Mick.

            At last, as said before, SLNPC contrails START form at 60% RH, but disapates quickly as the air is not sufficient cold or humid to hold the aerosol exhaust particles in a ice-cristal state. What in thise fact have you not get understand, as is pretty basic knowledges for all ones starting studie atmospheric and meteorologic principles in relation to when, where, how and why contrail formation can occure and can not occure if one want to understand what the contrail-chemtrail fuzz is all about.

            Thank you!

          • Please provide citations for your claims. If you’ve studied it, you should be above to cite it.

            Your question:
            “how can you claim that the air often and everyday in all places of the world is/can be ice-supersaturated to provide for persistent contrails, when both scientist and weather sond data say that that is not the case? When it is even are backed up from weather instuites who says that the atmospher RARELY hold such amount of RH so supersaturation can occure and persisten contrails can form?”

            My Answer:
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD900526/full
            “In situ measurements of water vapor and temperature from recent aircraft campaigns have provided evidence that the upper troposphere is frequently supersaturated with respect to ice. ”

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/1689/2008/acp-8-1689-2008.pdf
            “The radiosonde data showed that the upper troposphere
            was very often supersaturated with respect to ice.
            Relating the radiosonde
            profiles to concurrent lidar observations reveals that
            the ISSRs almost always contained ice particles. Persistent
            contrails observed with a camera were frequently embedded
            in these thin or subvisible cirrus clouds.”

      • Mick – about the citate you brought about ice-supersaturation occurency, you know that the upper tropospher only reaches to 10 km hight or 33.000 feet (except for the northern and southern hemispher where the Stratospher begins at 33,000 ft)?. That mean that airplanes almost only travels in the tropopause as there have there normal cruise altitude between 32-40.000 ft, and in the tropopause the ice-supersaturation only occures in very thin fragmented horizontal layers within special regions at hPa pressures between 250-150.

        By that, once again: ”The data available from various weather sonde systems sharply contradicts NASA’s claim that persistent contrails are a common atmospheric response to jet aircraft emissions. The U. Wyoming is one source that aggregates atmospheric conditions collected at many sites around the US, Europe and beyond. The data above 26,000 feet reveals that conditions for formation of of so-called “persistent contrails” due to high relative humidity above 70% is “rare”. https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/08/16/debunking-nasa-persistent-contrail-myth-using-weather-sonde-data/

        • Mick, some citate for you:

          The process how jet aerosol particles develops to contrails/contrail-cirrus.

          Page 161:

          ”As an illustrative exemple of how cloud ice particles form, the homogeneus ice formation process within a adiabic air parcel that is subject to steady cooling and free of supercooled water dopplets (containing only liquid aerosol particles) is described below. This simplified replicates common cirrus formation condition. The relative humidity over ice (RHI) is equivalent to the (fractional) ice-supersaturation. When cooling starts (e.g.. ice-stauration, RHI = 100%) RHI starts to increase. The amount of supersaturated water vapor condensing onto the haze particles, acts to reduce RHI, but this amount is very small.Therefore in absence of cloud ice particles, RHI increases with time in proportion to the rate of cooling. Homogeneous ice nucleation in the supercooled aerosol will not commence until high ice-supersaturation (RHI ~150%) is reached. Once ice cristals form, the begin to grow by depositing water wapor, reducing RHI towards ice-saturation on a time scale that are inversely proportional to the number concentration of nucleated ice cristals. The nucleated ice cristal numerber scales approximately with the cooling rate (or the equivalent updraft speed) and is determined by the balance between cooling and depositional growth around the point where RHI reaches it´s peak value”

          ”…The lower the temperature , the slower the ice growth and water vapor depletion, the longer the RHI stays at is peak value and the more cristals form”

          Once again Mick: The relative humidity over ice (RHI) is equivalent to the (FRACTIONAL) ice-supersaturation. When COOLING STARTS (e.g.. ice-stauration, RHI = 100%) RHI START to increase.” And: ”Homogeneous ice nucleation in the supercooled aerosol WILL NOT commence until HIGH ice-supersaturation (RHI ~150%) is reached.

          https://books.google.se/books?id=q45NjC4ljAMC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=ice+supersaturation+is+not+common&source=bl&ots=35_N7VPH8O&sig=TTVzmdp7A_Pmu7fGMePQQDjLDfA&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyk_7kkOzPAhUjCpoKHdfDDRUQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=ice%20supersaturation%20is%20not%20common&f=false

          About the relation between RH(w) and RHI from www,meteor.iastate.edu/classes/mt342/ m342_5.ppt ”FORMATION AND GROWTH OF ICE CRISTALS”:

          ”Air initially saturated with respect to water will be supersaturated with respect to frozen droplets”

          ”A water saturated cloud has high super-saturation relative to ice.” (high= ~150%, my add, in relation to what said above .)

          ”Equilibrium vapor pressure:
          Vapor saturated with respect to liquid water is super-saturated with respect to ice.”

          • Mick – more about that contrails not easily do form, persist and spread:

            sid 57:
            ”Contrails are formed by particles from the engines exhaust acting as a condensation nuclei. Forming contrails need a cold ice-supersaturated air mass to form. Given that contrails are only formed under very particular atmospheric conditions, operational measures to reduce the frequency of their formation may be most appropriate. In fact, contrail avoidancy maybe possible through small changes in flight level due to the shallowness of ice-supersaturation layers.

            Once again Mick: ”Given that contrails are ONLY FORMED under VERY particular atmospheric conditions,…” Och: In fact, contrail avoidancy maybe possible through small changes in flight level due to the SHALLOWNESS of ice-supersaturation layers. (in the tropopause, my adding)

            https://books.google.se/books?id=3PV9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=ice+supersaturation+is+not+common+on+flight+level&source=bl&ots=UbyfgH9nMv&sig=b7mb9Ra1HyNcxQBFT4X2zAxt8o0&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwpJras-zPAhUGQpoKHTiXDckQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=ice%20supersaturation%20is%20not%20common%20on%20flight%20level&f=false

          • You quoted:

            ”….Avarage supersaturation value in ISSR (in Ice-Supersaturated Regions, my adding) are of the order 15% which usually not is sufficient for natural formation of cirrus clouds but sufficient for carrying persistent contrails”

            Then you go on to say:

            >>>Conclusion: Homogenoeus freezing of (jet) aerosol particles do NOT occure before the RHI reaches ~150%. Supersaturation only occure 15% in ISSR and contains only of thiny shallow horizental layers on flight altitude 33-40.000 ft in the Tropopause, which mean that contrails are only formed under very particulare atmospheric conditions.<<<

            But as noted, contrail formation is not Homogeneous ice nucleation. Your 150% number here is meaningless.

            The 15% number is the average supersaturation amount, meaning it's 15% above 100%, i.e. it's 115% RHi on average, in an ISS.

            Here's another cite saying supersaturation is above 100%
            http://weather.ou.edu/~chomeyer/assets/diao-et-al-2015.pdf
            "—regions of ice supersaturation (ISS, where relative humidity with respect to ice, RHi, is greater than 100%) "

          • Mick – more about contrail formation:

            Page 427:
            ”The schmidt-Appelman criterion only determines whether a contrail will form or not. It does not account for contrail persistency or wheter a contrail can spread out into extended contrail cirrus. Under subsaturated conditions (= >95% RHI, my adding) contrails eveporate during the jet or vortex phase or at the latest when the aircraft wake vortices decay. Persistency is only possible if the ambient air is ice-supersaturated with respect to ice, which means that once the ice-cristals survive the dispersion phase, they can grow until either the air eventually becomes subsaturated (by meteorological processes) or until the ice cristal fall (due to there weight) into lower subsaturated atmospheric layers where they will then eveporate.”

            ”….Avarage supersaturation value in ISSR (in Ice-Supersaturated Regions, my adding) are of the order 15% which usually not is sufficient for natural formation of cirrus clouds but sufficient for carrying persistent contrails”

            Once again Mick: Persistency is ONLY POSSIBLE if the ambient air is ice-supersaturated with respect to ice, which means that once the ice-cristals survive the dispersion phase… And: ”….Avarage supersaturation value in ISSR (in Ice-Supersaturated Regions, my adding) are of the order 15%….”

            https://books.google.se/books?id=0E8eDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=ice+supersaturation+is+not+common+on+flight+level&source=bl&ots=Px_2Q2NSwn&sig=I8a3GN6U9HRznckAhuvFmcEq9n0&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR5fLIt-zPAhUqGZoKHVu8AxEQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=ice%20supersaturation%20is%20not%20common%20on%20flight%20level&f=false

            Conclusion: Homogenoeus freezing of (jet) aerosol particles do NOT occure before the RHI reaches ~150%. Supersaturation only occure 15% in ISSR and contains only of thiny shallow horizental layers on flight altitude 33-40.000 ft in the Tropopause, which mean that contrails are only formed under very particulare atmospheric conditions. Which also is backed up by meteorologic institutes who state that the atmospher on flight levels rarely holds such amount of humidity that persistent contrails can form.

            Just a few citate Mick, just a few…

            Thank you!

          • Mick – read this and you will know for sure that what you claim not only is scientificly false, it is also a proof how you and others trying to disinform the puplic about contrails.

            Part 1:
            ”This article explains why the trails being left in the sky by large aircraft cannot possibly be condensation trails (“contrails”). Once this is understood, then we are left with the ominous question: “What do these trails consist of?”

            NOTE: This article has been opposed on the internet by government-paid disinformation employees. These intentionally-deceptive disinformation programsare using fabricated science to claim that high-bypass turbofans create trails.

            In one example, a false study is being used to convince the public that high-bypass turbofans create trails. This study is not only based on false science and fabricated numbers, it was published after widespread spraying began and is an obvious attempt to fool the public into accepting geoengineering: The largest crime against humanity in human history by convincing the public that jet trails are a “normal result of fuel combustion”, which is simply not true as will be demonstrated below.

            Those in the very highest positions who are responsible for this spraying campaign will do anything to conceal it, even going as far as rewriting jet engine training manuals and courses to teach new mechanics that these engines produce trails. There is no better way to convince the public than to have “expert mechanics” believing trails are normal and relaying this disinformation directly to the public. We see examples of this type of disinformation in the education system right now with the rewriting of the second amendment in school textbooks.”

          • The problem here is that you are just repeating the false “high-bypass = no contrails” theory invented by Russ Tanner. I gave you four references in the scientific literature that show that high bypass engines are MORE LIKELY to create contrails. Your reference is just Russ Tanner, and his response to the scientific literature is to say that they are lying. Do you also think that the four references I gave you are lies? Are you then claiming that EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL JET TRAIL is a “chemtrail”? If so, them why are you even discussing the atmospheric conditions?

          • Mick – I´m not ”repeating any false high-pass = no contrails theory invented by Russ Tanner”, instead I only give you constant proof that your own theory´s about how, when, why and where contrails do exist simply not is true. You claim here and on your own disinfo website, that contrails is a common ”effect” of normal airtraffic when the fact is – who has been proven time after time in many scientific peer review paper through history and even by NASA and USAF – that´s simple not the case!!

            Even the EPA (United States Enviroment Protection Agency) state this things about contrails in there ”Aircraft Contrail Factsheet”:

            ”Depending on the temperature and the amount of moisture in the air at the aircraft altitude, contrails evaporate quickly (if the humidity is low) or persist and grow (if the humidity is high). Jet engine exhaust provides only a small portion of the water that forms ice in persistent contrails. Persistent contrails are mainly composed of water naturally present along the aircraft flight path”

            ”Particles suitable for water droplet formation are necessary for contrail formation. Initial contrail particles, however, can either be already present in the atmosphere or formed in the exhaust gas. All other engine emissions are considered nonessential to contrail formation”

            ”For a contrail to form, suitable conditions must occur immediately behind a jet engine in the expanding engine exhaust plume. A contrail will form if, as exhaust gases cool and mix with surrounding air, the humidity becomes high enough (or, equivalently, the air temperature becomes low enough) for liquid water condensation to occur. The level of humidity reached depends on the amount of water present in the surrounding air, the temperature of the surrounding air, and the amount of water and heat emitted in the exhaust. Atmospheric temperature and humidity at any given location undergo natural daily and seasonal variations and hence, are not always suitable for the formation of contrails. If sufficient humidity occurs in the exhaust plume, water condenses on particles to form liquid droplets. As the exhaust air cools due to mixing with the cold local air, the newly formed droplets rapidly freeze and form ice particles that make up a contrail (See Figure 1). Thus, the surrounding atmosphere’s conditions determine to a large extent whether or not a contrail will form after an aircraft’s passage. Because the basic processes are very well understood, contrail formation for a given aircraft flight can be accurately predicted if atmospheric temperature and humidity conditions are known.”

            https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf

          • Of course it requires certain conditions to create contrails, nobody said otherwise. Specifically it require ice supersaturation if the contrail is to persist.

            However you seemed to be claiming that high bypass engines cannot make any contrails. Do you now accept that they can make them, and in fact will make them over a wider range of conditions than low bypass engines.

          • Mick- Eh what, ”do I now accept that they can make then and in fact make them over a wider range of conditions than low bypass engines”? What do you mean? Have you not understand one bit what I previously have told you or?

            Of course I don´t accept or in any way admit to that, instead I´m trying YOU to understand that high by-pass engines by them self DO NOT contribute to the actual contrail formation due to the fact that they only produce a very small neglieble amount of water vapor, much much smaller then what older jet engines did, which is the cause that high-by-pass engines do not contribute to contrail formation by any water wapor outlet them self make.

            Instead, as I both have quoted and writen about many times now; it is the exhaust aerosol particles who in surten conditions of right humidity and coldness who act as nuclei for ice cristals to freeze onto and who make up the content in contrails. What about that can you not yet understand?

          • Mick – High by-pass engines was introduced 1970 on the B747 and 1984 on the B737, but it was not before 1996 the contrails in the sky suddenly become visualy very different, start to spread out and persist in a way who not have been witnessed before, which lead to invistigators/scientisist start asking why?? If high and ultra high by-pass engines by them self could create contrails, there should ALWAYS by contrails, even in 0% humidity along the aircrafts path , but it is not. And if water vapor from the exhaust should have been the MAJOR, NO.1 FACTOR for contrail formations and how the persist/spread, it would have been massivly MORE contrails in the sky 30-70 years ago with non-bypass water injected jet and/or piston engines then it is today with high by-pass engines, WHO DO NOT PRODUCE ANY WATER VAPOR who actively contributes to contrail formations, but it was NOT. And IF it would have been common with many persistent spreading contrails since the dawn of aviation, NO ONE in 1996 should even have thought about to ponder the Q: ” Ooh why is it so many contrails nowadays, that I newer have seen before?” becuase that would have been the ”normal” for every man on earth, but it was NOT!

            Even EPA do state cleary in the citate above by saying, once again:

            ”Depending on the temperature and the amount of moisture in the air at the aircraft altitude, contrails evaporate quickly (if the humidity is low) or persist and grow (if the humidity is high). Jet engine exhaust provides only a small portion of the water that forms ice in persistent contrails. Persistent contrails are mainly composed of water naturally present along the aircraft flight path”

            When will you start to learn thise things and stop spread disinfo Mick?? Many many people do wonder…

            Thank you!

          • It’s well known that most of the water in a persistent spreading contrail comes from the ambient air. The classic paper on this is from 1972:
            http://cires1.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf

            Water vapor content in high and low bypass exhaust is basically the same, if you burn a gallon of fuel, you get over a gallon of water. The primary difference is that the high bypass exhaust is a little cooler than high bypass exhaust, and so more likely to make contrails.

            Remember though this water is only responsible for temporarily raising the relative humidity enough for water to condense out (and then freeze) quite quickly after that the ice deposition will only be from ambient air.

          • Mick – but you are wrong. As you just have learned some days ago , burnt Kerosene do make soot particles as wast products not mainly water; let me citate this again:

            ”….the burning of fossil fuels produces black carbon soot, not water as claimed by some websites. You can see this black soot being expelled from the engines as you watch jets take off from an airport”

            ”If you go to an airport and watch jets take off, you will see that they emit a faint trail of black carbon soot, which is typical of burnt jet fuel (kerosene), but you will not see water vapor.

            If there was any chance that high-bypass turbo fans would create enormous plumes of water vapor, it would occur in high-humidity conditions during high thrust. High thrust only occurs during takeoff and the highest humidity occurs at ground level as the air at higher altitudes has very low humidity levels. We don’t see these enormous plumes of white water vapor during takeoff because these engines simply do not produce them”

            Then, what it is you not get with the differences between non- and low-bypass vs high-bypass engines? High-bypass do NOT burn nearly as much fuel that non-and low-bypass engines did by every nm traveled , which make your references and claims invalid. High-bypass also use a very different engines tech and burn much less fuel as 80% of the thrust is developt by the by-passing air who not get combustied. Lets do some citate :

            ”Only a fraction of the air that enters the engine is taken in by the turbine engine. This air is mixed with jet fuel (essentially kerosene), combusted, and then exits the engine under very high pressure and high temperature. Condensation formation requires a decrease in ambient air pressure to form, but the output of the turbine is under very high pressure which prohibits the formation of condensation trails.

            Physics also tells us that, under the right conditions, condensation can form when air is cooled. Since the exhaust of the turbine engine driving the high-bypass turbofan is very hot – and remains hot for a long distance behind a jet, condensation formation is – once again – prohibited. (Hot air holds much more water without producing condensation.) Furthermore, the burning of fossil fuels produces black carbon soot, not water as claimed by some websites. You can see this black soot being expelled from the engines as you watch jets take off from an airport.

            Furthermore, the ratio of air-to-fuel used in high-bypass turbofan engines is as high as possible (lots of air but relatively little fuel) so as to keep engines efficient and cost-effective, so the reduced amount of fuel in this ratio results in a lack of water in the exhaust, and this is yet another reason high-bypass jet turbofans cannot produce condensation trails.

            In short, the more efficient the engine, the less fuel it uses per unit of air moved, and this renders high-bypass turbofans virtually incapable of producing condensation trails, unless they use water injection, which is extremely rare today”

            Which tell us once again; contrails do ONLY occure in very special ice-supersaturated air masses and that contrails acctualy only happens rarely not often as bi-product of avation. Thereby can not the big amount of trails every day in the sky all over the world simultanius be natural made, as there simply are not such high amout of ice-supersaturation available and present at the same time in the atmospher to contribute to that phenomena.

            Thank you!

          • Jet fuel is a type of hydrocarbon, basically kerosene. If you burn it you get mostly carbon dioxide and water. If you think otherwise, then please proved a citation. But really you are barking up the wrong tree here.

            http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Hydrocarbon_combustion
            “Regardless of the type of hydrocarbon, combustion with oxygen produces 3 products: carbon dioxide, water and heat”

            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154099991370396&set=a.10150428768655396.417477.685100395&type=3&theater
            “The current push trying to state that high bypass engines are incapable of producing CONTRAILS is highly irresponsible and is very harmful to the Chemtrail movement. This is wishful thinking with NO basis in fact. The Jet A1 fuel still produces 1.2 kg of water vapour for every 1kg of fuel combusted and the exhaust products are very hot…600C so the products and conditions are still present for contrails to form…. that does not mean that methods to artificially nucleate contrails are not used… but the danger of this disinformation is that trolls and shills can have a field day embarrassing the Chemtrail movement because of this folly.”

            That last one is from Max Bliss, maybe you should take it up with him?

          • Mick – what are you not understanding in what I try to tell you? High-bypass engines burn far less fuel per nm traveled then what non-and low-bypass engines did, therby the exhaust emmisions of water vapor and other stuff is much less too per nm traveled. It is quite basic knowledges if you do study the different principles of the different jetengines generations through history. You can not deny that high-bypass engines are far more fuel efficient then older generations, so your claims are pointless and have no meaning.

            BTW exhaust emmisions do hold aprox 900 C in high-bypass engines, not 600 C.
            It is very interesting that you do not comment and have no respons on other things I write about, it tells very much about you Mick …

            Thank you!

          • But the exhaust is the same. Consider on a cold day a small child breaths gently, compare a large horse breaths heavily. Both have clouds of condensation from their breath, just different sizes.

            Consider a small business jet with low bypass engines, compare to an A380 with high bypass engines. The exhaust from each is basically the same (CO2 and Water) when it mixes with the cold air, then a contrail is formed.

            And in that example the high bypass engine is burning vastly MORE fuel per mile than the low bypass engine. So it makes a much bigger contrail. That’s exactly what we observe. A380s leave very large contrails. Business jets leave smaller contrails.

          • Mick – you are not only very scientificly wrong by your new claims, it is also that you do not seems to remember anything I previuosly have told you.

            NO: The exhaust from a small business jet with low-pass engines is VERY different from the exhaust from a A380 with a ultra high-bypass engine, because the low-pass engine need almost 100% av the combustion phase to thrust the airplane forward in comparision with the A380 who only needs 20% av the combustion phase to thrust the airplane forward, hence produce far far less engine emmisions with far lower fuel consumption per engine and km traveled.

            Then of course, if you do compair a big heavy V12 trailer truck with a small compact car, you of course can say that the trailor track consume more fuel per km then the small car, but such comparison is very useless if one want to compair a old engine with a new engine in an equaly heavy and large aircraft.

            Yet, this is what the avation industry say them selfs, quote:

            “”For a passenger in one of today’s new generation aircraft travelling across the Pacific or Atlantic, the rate of fuel consumption is around three litres per 100km – almost exactly the same as a small family car.” (I reapeat what the avation industri them selfs tell us: THE RATE OF FUEL CONSUMTION in todays new genaration aircrafts is 3 LITRES PER 100 KM – almost exactly the same AS A SMALL FAMILY CAR)

            EfficGuideWebreso-112424A.pdf

            By that your claims are not only false they are also again very invalid in the contrail vs chemtrail debate, as usual Mick…

            Thank you!

          • Mick – i didn´t say that, read my other respons and you will now better what the quote from the avation industri whas suppose to meant.

          • Think of a simple comparison here:

            (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft)
            The modern A380 burns 13.78 kg of fuel per kilometer.
            The older 737-300 burns 3.55 kg per kilometer

            Now I’m sure you would agree that they both burn all that fuel in the combustion chamber, right? They don’t just burn a bit of it and spit the rest out. It’s all burnt, and when you burn jet fuel you get mostly carbon dioxide and water, right? For 1 kg you get about 1.24 kg of water – that’s simple chemistry right.

            So over one km:
            The modern A380 produces 17.1 kg of water vapor.
            The older 737-300 produces 4.4 kg of water vapor

            So the A380’s exhaust contains more water than the 737’s exhaust.

          • Mick – you are a funny guy who do not seems to want to understand what is told to you of scientific facts about the diffrencies between old jet engines vs new jet engines. Why is that, and why do you not respond on my prevously respons where I took severel quotes directly from the avation industri THEM SELFS with the likes of Boeing, Airbus, Pratt&Whitney, Rolls-Royce etc who say something way diffrent then you.

            Lite me take some qoutes again:

            ”For a passenger in one of today’s new generation aircraft travelling across the Pacific or Atlantic, the rate of fuel consumption is around three litres per 100km – almost exactly the same as a small family car.”

            ”Historic trends in improving efficiency levels show that aircraft entering today’s fleet are around 80% more fuel efficient than they were in the 1960s. These efficiency levels have been achieved with step changes in design – such as the introduction of turbofan engines with increasingly high bypass ratios (see page 10) – coupled with year-on-year ‘incremental’ improvements to engine design and operation”

            ” The world’s most widely used jet aircraft is the Boeing 737. The first commercial version, the Boeing 737-100, took to the skies for the first time in 1967 and could carry 124 passengers over 2,775km with a total payload of 12,701kg. A recent version, the 737-800, can carry 48% more passengers 119% further with a 67% increase in payload, while burning 23% less fuel – or 48% less fuel on a per-seat basis”

            Do you see? The avation industri them selfs tell us that the fuel consumption of todays aircrafts with High-bypass engines is 80% more fuel efficient the they where in 1960. And the B737 do burn 23% less fuel – or 48% less fuel per seat basis – today then the first version of the aircraft did.

            To take a even more relevant comparison to see that modern jetengines do burn much less fuel and by that produce much less engine emissions, where the water vapor in the high-bypass engines is negliable and do not contribute to contrail formation (as said many times before), lets compare the first B747 from 1970 with the new one of to day. The old one used first generation of High-bypass turbofans, with a bypass ratio of 5:1, who consumed 61,16 kg fuel per km!!

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT9D

            Today the B747 use engines with a 9:3 bypass ratio and consum ”only” 12 kg per km, by that one can see that the new high-bypass engine of today burn 49,16 kg LESS FUEL per km then the old ones did. Thats a much better referens then use a old light short and medium haul plane to compare with the newest, biggest and heaviest long haul plane there are, as I told you Mick the last time. And as the burn far less fuel today then in old days, less emmision in the exhaust do they produce and less contrails then in old days can be a bi-product of avation activies in the sky above us

            http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm

            Thank you:

          • Well you can’t really argue that a 787 pumps out less water than a 737, can you?

            In some ways though the AMOUNT of water is irrelevant. The amount of water produced is the same per gallon of fuel burnt. The composition of the exhaust gases are basically the same regardless of the bypass ratio. What changes with high bypass are two things:

            1) The exhaust is cooler, as more energy is extracted to turn the fan. Cooler exhaust is more likely to create contrails.
            2) The exhaust mixes with the bypass air before mixing with the outside air. This has a minor effect, in that the bypass air is warmed a little by the engine, but it’s pretty minor compared to the cooler exhaust. The net result is still a higher contrail factor.

            I think you’re thinking that the bypass air is part of the engine exhaust. It’s not. The engine exhaust is what comes out of the combustion chamber. There’s a good illustration of this here:
            https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Turbofan3_exhaust-animated.gif

          • Mick – finaly so good that you do admit that the amount of water produced in the exhaust is irrelevant. Therby as a consequence, it also means that you do admit to that high-bypass engines do produce far less water via the exhaust as it consume far less fuel then the old jetengines did.

            What about the high-bypass engines you meansioned and how they operate, I did explained that before in severeal responses, but I can do it again so you know much better why contrails are very unlikely in high-bypass engines exept under the most rare atmospheric conditions:

            Cogeneration is a term that describes the thermodynamically efficient use of fuel that re-uses the heat produced by combustion instead of releasing it directly into the environment as “waste heat”.  WIKI

            In a High Bypass Turbofan (HBT), heat from the combustion phase is not discarded into the environment as waste heat but is put to use a second time to heat the air traveling through the bypass phase.

            The HBT is known as a flow-cycle engine as opposed to a simple, no-bypass “jet” engine. The ingenious design employs a cogeneration process where “waste heat” from the combustion chamber is used a second time to heat the air from the bypass phase in order to provide 80% of total thrust. This design greatly reduces the potential for contrail formation where 80% of the thrust is developed without adding water vapor to engine exhaust. Furthermore, any water vapor from the combustion phase that could contribute to contrail formation is mixed with the non-combusted bypass thrust, thereby causing the water vapor exiting the combustion stage to be negligible as it is subsumed by the larger volume of ambient bypass air mixing at the point of engine exhaust.

            https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2015/08/09/the-contrail-deception-revealed-by-examing-the-high-bypass-turbofan/

          • If you burn a gallon of fuel in a high bypass engine, then how much water is produced?

            How does this vary from a low bypass engine burning a gallon of fuel?

          • Mick – it´s vary because, once again; high – bypass do not need to use as much from the combustion phase to thrust the plane forward as low – bypass did. Instead it uses 80-85% from the bypass phase to thrust the plane forward, meaning: high-bypass do not need to consume as much fuel as low-bypass per min to thrust the plane forward every km/nm.

            Or in other words if you want: High-bypass can travel many more km/nm on every gallon of fuel consumed then low – bypass could, hence emit far less exhaust emmisions per km/nm to it´s destination.

            I have explained this many times now Mick, when will you start to learn and remember what I write to you in my responses??

            Thank you!

          • But the exhaust is chemically exactly the same. Just a bit cooler. So it’s more likely to make contrails.

            Do you think that what comes out of the combustion chamber is different between high and low bypass engines? How so?

          • Mick – your Q is irrelevant as once again; high-bypass engines consume far less fuel per km/nm travaled then non-and low-pass did, because the plane is thrusted by 80-85% of the by-pass air and only by 15-20% from the combustion phase. That is far less from the non- and low-pass engines who needed to use all or almost all power from the combustion phase to thrust the plane forward, hence use more fuel to make the plane travel forward. By using less fuel per km/nm travel, less engines emmision will be the bi-result too, making it less possible to contribute to contrail formation. Who btw is determind almost only by the present atmospheric condition it self, meaning; as non-and low-pass engines did produce much more engine emmisions like water vapor in the old days then modern engines do today, we would have seen far more contrails in the sky back in time then today if the value of water vapor had anything to do with contrail formations, but that is and was not the case. Instead the numbers of contrails in the sky just exploded by 1996 and suddenly was very different then before, which was the starting point for many scientist´s and researcher to try to understand why.

            Mick, it is very well documented, presented and confirmed from many intel sources, even by US senate documents, that geoengineering via chemtrails is ongoing since many many years, so it is just patetic of you to spend all your waken time in different forums to try to deny it. Isn´t you too concern over the health state of the planet and all people on it, where numouros reports tell us that weather related issues have killed, destroyed, poisoned, and ruined many millon people´s lifes only in the last decade? Why are you try to desinform about it and act as it was not happening, when almost all ones with there own eyes open can notice what geoenginnering via chemtrails and HAARP do on daily basis over there local area worldwide?? Whats your gain to be such denier of the truth the rest of us enlighted already know about??

            Please answer my Q Mick, we are many who want to know this from you.

            Thank you!

          • Mick – you said some weeks ago in your comments here that there was no different in the exhaust heat between non-and low-pass and high-bypass so it is hard to take you serously now when you claim something different. As said before many times and which has been proven by links to scientific facts; high-bypass turbofan engines do not contribute to contrail formation and is kind of patetic you are not understanding that. Even if you don´t understand that, you at least do understand that it is the ambient air and its current condition who do determind wheter or wheter not a visable contrail can form or???

            But besides that, please answer my Q I asked you last time, that is much more importent for the moment to know from you.

            Thank you!

          • Mick – please answer my questions as we are very many people who is very curios to know your answers!

            Thank you!

          • Have a look at some actual figures.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

            The modern A380 burns 13.78 kg of fuel per kilometer.
            The older 737-300 burns 3.55 kg per kilometer

            Hence the A380 makes bigger contrails. Ir makes nearly four times as much water per mile.

            If you go with the most modern large plane there, the Boeing 787-9, that’s still 5.8 kg per km, so still more than the older 737.

            Again though, this does not affect if the plane makes a contrail or not, just how big it initially is.

          • Mick – what a realy bad and invalid comparision you made!! It is realy a great exemple how you mix fact with desifo so it shall ”look good” for the puplic, when it instead it´s far way from the real truth about it.

            Your claims get invalid as you NOT can compair a old two engine short and medium haul airplane who is very light in comparison with the new, biggest, heaviest four engines long haul airplane there are in the world. You can not foul anyone Mick to claim that old non-bypass and low-bypass engines consumed LESS fuel then new high and ultra high – bypass engines do. Not even the avation industri do back you up what you are saying instead there are a total consensus of that new engines are far more effectiv and burn much less fuel then old ones did.

            And do you not know; not only has the new engines them selfs lower the fuel consumtion for ever nm (or km) traveled for the most airline comp, new lighter material, wing design etc is also a key factor to it.

            So lets us use your exemple of a old B737 (in my next respons) and compair it with a new, who is a much better and fair thing to do, so you self by that Mick can see how you try to desive people with your mix of fact and false desinfo claim to suit your own agenda.

          • This is a pdf called ”Beginners Guide” produced of the Air Transport Action Group with the assistent of Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe, Airbus, Airports Council International, Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, Boeing, Bombardier, CFM International, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation, Embraer, GE Aviation, Honeywell Aerospace, International Air Transport Association, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, SESAR Joint Undertaking

            Citate 1:
            ”For a passenger in one of today’s new generation aircraft travelling across the Pacific or Atlantic, the rate of fuel consumption is around three litres per 100km – almost exactly the same as a small family car.” (I reapeat what the avation industri them selfs tell us: THE RATE OF FUEL CONSUMTION in todays new genaration aircrafts is 3 LITRES PER 100 KM – almost exactly the same AS A SMALL FAMILY CAR)

            Citate 2:
            ”Historic trends in improving efficiency levels show that aircraft entering today’s fleet are around 80% more fuel efficient than they were in the 1960s. These efficiency levels have been achieved with step changes in design – such as the introduction of turbofan engines with increasingly high bypass ratios (see page 10) – coupled with year-on-year ‘incremental’ improvements to engine design and operation” (Once again Mick: Historic trends in improving efficiency levels show that aircraft entering today’s fleet are around 80% more fuel efficient than they were in the 1960s”

            Citate 3: (Here comes the proof you are very wrong with your claims with B737)

            ”Fuel efficiency in action”

            ” The world’s most widely used jet aircraft is the Boeing 737. The first commercial version, the Boeing 737-100, took to the skies for the first time in 1967 and could carry 124 passengers over 2,775km with a total payload of 12,701kg. A recent version, the 737-800, can carry 48% more passengers 119% further with a 67% increase in payload, while burning 23% less fuel – or 48% less fuel on a per-seat basis.

            The latest generation Airbus A320 is around 40% less expensive – and more fuel-efficient – to operate than the aircraft it replaced. In fact, Airbus spends $265 million per annum on research and development in further improving the efficiency of the A320 family of aircraft. In the coming years, further improvements will be made to narrow body aircraft efficiency in the Boeing and Airbus models, as well as new developments from Bombardier (the CSeries) and Embraer’s E-Jet family”

            Mick when the airline industri them SELFS say that the B737 of to day can carry 48% more passengers, 119% further, with a 67% increase in payload, while BURNING 23% LESS FUEL – or 48% LESS FUEL on per-seat basis then the old B737 you where refering to – everyone can see just an exemple what false invalid claims you constantly do of the contrail and high-bypass subject. Why are you trying to foul and lure people about it? It make no sense Mick!

            One last thing, fuel efficiency gains since the early jet age, has per engine gone down 49% in fuel consumtion and aircraft burn fuel per seat by 82%, which conterclaims your suggestions earlier that non-and low-pass engines did burn as much as new high- and ulta high-bypass engines!! (Who you btw now with your last respons have changed your mind about as it seems and instead try to claim that old jetengines consumed far less then todays high-bypass by doing a invalid referens betwin a new A380 and a old B737.)

            EfficGuideWebreso-112424A.pdf

            Thank you!

        • You said:

          >>>Once again Mick: The relative humidity over ice (RHI) is equivalent to the (FRACTIONAL) ice-supersaturation. When COOLING STARTS (e.g.. ice-stauration, RHI = 100%) RHI START to increase.” And: ”Homogeneous ice nucleation in the supercooled aerosol WILL NOT commence until HIGH ice-supersaturation (RHI ~150%) is reached.<<<

          However that has nothing to do with contrails, which form (like most clouds) by heterogeneous ice nucleation – i.e. they have a nuclei of a different substance.

          • Mick – I just brought you the scentificly peer reviewed explaination how cirrus cloud ice particles do form. And as contrails IS labeled as cirrus clouds and contrails is made up of jet aerosol particles – the citate is 100% valid to explain the process of how contrail form.

            So once again: ”As an illustrative exemple of how cloud ice particles form, the homogeneus ice formation process within a adiabic air parcel that is subject to steady cooling and free of supercooled water dopplets (containing only liquid aerosol particles) is described below. This simplified replicates common cirrus formation condition. The relative humidity over ice (RHI) is equivalent to the (fractional) ice-supersaturation. When cooling starts (e.g.. ice-stauration, RHI = 100%) RHI starts to increase. The amount of supersaturated water vapor condensing onto the haze particles, acts to reduce RHI, but this amount is very small.Therefore in absence of cloud ice particles, RHI increases with time in proportion to the rate of cooling. Homogeneous ice nucleation in the supercooled aerosol will not commence until high ice-supersaturation (RHI ~150%) is reached. Once ice cristals form, the begin to grow by depositing water wapor, reducing RHI towards ice-saturation on a time scale that are inversely proportional to the number concentration of nucleated ice cristals. The nucleated ice cristal numerber scales approximately with the cooling rate (or the equivalent updraft speed) and is determined by the balance between cooling and depositional growth around the point where RHI reaches it´s peak value”

            ”…The lower the temperature , the slower the ice growth and water vapor depletion, the longer the RHI stays at is peak value and the more cristals form”

            Then I don´t know what you argue about the 15% supersaturation value, I only draw that conclosion that I now just by a few citate have proved that hot aerosol particle nuclei need ~150% RHI to get to an ice cristal state, that contrails only rarerly form on flight level according to scientific researches and that is needed very special conditions in the atmospher before contrails can form. By that, the atmospher very often DO NOT hold the condition for natural contrail formation, which means; that trails seen on days with atmospheric condition not possible for contrail formations NOT in no way can be ”natural made”.

            That´s must be something you to must understand, Mick – when MILLIONS of other people already understands it since many many years – as it is pretty logical!

            Thank you!

          • There’s two issues here, formation and persistence. Yes, cirrus cloud formation happens at (very roughly) 150% RHi. However the critical difference is that cirrus cloud formation requires the AMBIENT AIR to reach that level.

            Contrail formation does not need the ambient air to be at 150% RHi. It does not need this because the jet exhaust ADDS WATER TO THE AMBIENT AIR

            Hence to form persistent contrails, the air only needs to be at 100% RHi, which at cruise altitude is around 60% RHw

          • Mick – sorry to say but you are very wrong about what you claim. Jet exhaust in modern high by-pass engines DO NOT add any water who contributes to contrail formation. It is only the ambient air condition of humidity and coldness who contributes to contrail formations, therefore your claims is not only scientificly false they also go against all reaschers in peer reviewed papers of how contrails form, persist and spread into contrail-cirrus formations. Even NASA states that it is only the ambient air condition who descides the formation of contrails and by that it is very strange that you do not seems to know more about when, how, why, where contrail can form and not can form when you have debated this matter for many years.

            Then you also make another strange claim by saying: ”Hence to form contrails, the air only needs to be at 100% RHI, which at cruise altitude is around 60% Rhw”. But that is not true Mick, have you not read anything of what I have wrote to you before? And have you already forgott that you self on your own webpage have said this which I already have citate once before:

            ”Contrails need RHW temporarily raised over 100% to form, and then RHI ambiently over 100% to persist and grow”

            Here you self are stating that contrails need RH over 100% to form and the RHI ambiently OVER 100% to persist and grow…so why do you go against your own statements on your own webpage and say something completely different here now??

            Yes contrails need FROM 60% RH to START form, but it is only then the short-lived, non-persistent contrails (SLNPC) who DO FORM at those atmospheric conditions, where they only minutes or seconds later disipates. To form PCS-typ of contrails (persistent contrail spreading), who IS the no.3 contrail type – and who even can develop to contrail-cirrus clouds (who your self just above confirmed needs at least 150% RHI (= >100% RH(w)) thank you) – it is needed a very special and stable ice-supersaturated air mass who is very cold and very humid, and for that 60% RH (= 100% RHI, your claims) is not enough by far Especialy as the atmospher varys contantly from 10-60% RH at flightlevel as I both have said and even citate before.

            I urge you to start educate your self much better in this matter Mick before constantly keep making false claims when you want to debate it.

            Thank you!

          • A better question to ask is what are these supposed contrails forming onto. You said on September 17th: “there are plenty of condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. There’s even more in jet exhaust.” Since neither CO2 nor gaseous water vapor are condensation nuclei, what are these condensation nuclei in jet exhaust and why are they more prevalent today despite increased turbine efficiency?

          • Patrick, condensation nuclei are not more prevalent now than they were in the past. There’s actually two types – the normal ones that are already in the air (on which natural clouds form), and the extra ones that the combustion creates. The combustion nuclei are typically soot (carbon black) and sulfuric acid – but there can be others. This paper describes the variety of nuclei found: https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/15534/Twohy%20and%20Gandrug%20GRL%201998.pdf?sequence=1

          • Mick – I have explaned above the process for contrail formation. If you think it is water from the exhaust who make contrails you realy do not seem to understand and know anything about the contrail formation process. I´m realy suprised about your comments Mick, you who act as you are the one who know ”everything” about contrails vs chemtrails.

            Do you realy think it is water from the engines who creates contrails? What? Don´t you know that modern high by-pass engines do not produce any water (vapor) who can contributes to the process? It was the old low-pass engines who did that, not the modern ones.

            Thank you!

          • Bengt, high bypass or lowpass, jet engine burn fuel, and burning fuel makes water. So the exhaust contains extra water, does it not?

            Otherwise, how do you think exhaust contrails form?

          • Mick – as said plenty of times now, contrails form when jet exhaust aerosol particles super freezes into ice-cristals when the ambient air condition hold sufficient amount of both humidity and coldness (= over 60% RH (w) for SLNPC och over 100% RH(w) for PCS)

            Old low-pass and new high-pass engines is very different in the way they operate, where the former did produce way more water vapor and aerosol particles directly into the enviroment then the later part who who only produce a negliable amount of water vapor who do NOT and CAN not contribute to contrail formation:

            Here is the reason why:

            Cogeneration is a term that describes the thermodynamically efficient use of fuel that re-uses the heat produced by combustion instead of releasing it directly into the environment as “waste heat”.  WIKI

            In a High Bypass Turbofan (HBT), heat from the combustion phase is not discarded into the environment as waste heat but is put to use a second time to heat the air traveling through the bypass phase.

            The HBT is known as a flow-cycle engine as opposed to a simple, no-bypass “jet” engine. The ingenious design employs a cogeneration process where “waste heat” from the combustion chamber is used a second time to heat the air from the bypass phase in order to provide 80% of total thrust. This design greatly reduces the potential for contrail formation where 80% of the thrust is developed without adding water vapor to engine exhaust. Furthermore, any water vapor from the combustion phase that could contribute to contrail formation is mixed with the non-combusted bypass thrust, thereby causing the water vapor exiting the combustion stage to be negligible as it is subsumed by the larger volume of ambient bypass air mixing at the point of engine exhaust.

            Mick – ones again: ”This design greatly reduces the potential for contrail formation where 80% of the thrust is developed without adding water vapor to engine exhaust. Furthermore, any water vapor from the combustion phase that could contribute to contrail formation is mixed with the non-combusted bypass thrust, thereby causing the water vapor exiting the combustion stage to be negligible as it is subsumed by the larger volume of ambient bypass air mixing at the point of engine exhaust”

            https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2014/10/26/chemtrails-confirmed-again-modern-jet-engines-incapable-of-producing-contrails/

            Thank you!

          • They produce the same amount of water per gallon of fuel used. The only difference is the exit temperature of the exhaust, and where it mixes with the ambient air.

            What you seem to be characterizing as dilution is just mixing. You know, exhaust mixing with the ambient air, which is what makes contrails.

            Ask Max Bliss, he understands this.

          • Mick – you are scientificly wrong with you claims. As old engines used 100% of combustion to thrust the airplane forward, new engines only use 20% of combustion and 80% of by-passing air to thrust the airplane foward. By that the new ones uses much less fuel per nm – hence; do produce far less water vapor per nm too then the old engines did, which mean that the water vapor produce in high by-pass engines is negliable and do not contribute to contrail formations.

            Thank you!

          • Maybe you could provide some citations for that. Everything I’ve read says that high-bypass engined are more likely to create contrails, as they have cooler exhaust. Citations:

            Schrader, Mark L., 1997: Calculations of Aircraft Contrail Formation Critical Temperatures. J. Appl. Meteor., 36, 1725–1729.
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0450%281997%29036%3C1725%3ACOACFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
            “Contrail factors for bypass engines are higher than those for nonbypass engines because the core exit temperature is reduced by extracting some energy to turn the fan.”

            Walters, Michael K., Jeffrey D. Shull, Robert P. Asbury, 2000: A Comparison of Exhaust Condensation Trail Forecast Algorithms at Low Relative Humidity. J. Appl. Meteor., 39, 80–91.
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0450(2000)0392.0.CO;2
            “Because propulsion efficiency is highest for high-bypass engines and lowest for nonbypass engines, high-bypass engines have the highest contrail factors, and nonbypass engines have the lowest contrail factors ”

            Influence of propulsion efficiency on contrail formation Ulrich Schumann
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1270963800010622
            “Aircraft with more efficient propulsion cause contrails more frequently”

            Lynch, David K., et al, 2002: Cirrus, Oxford University Press
            http://books.google.com/books?id=58v1fg4xeo8C&lpg=PA233&ots=_-uNkL6yUM&dq=contrail factor high bypass&pg=PA233#v=onepage&q&f=false
            “[a type of contrail coefficient] grew from older low-bypass to modern high bypass engines”

            And I think again you are confusing the bypass air with the exhaust gasses. Contrails form from the engine exhaust gasses. The engine exhaust gasses are what comes out of the combustion chamber. The bypass air is just more ambient air, it part of the ambient air that the exhaust gasses mix with. This diagram illustrates this: https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Turbofan3_exhaust-animated.gif

          • Mick – part 2 of the article:

            High-bypass turbofan engines do not create condensation trails. The ratio of air-to-exhaust is much too high to facilitate the formation of condensation because the majority of air expelled from the back of the engine is not combusted. It is passed through the “fan” and simply blown out the back without mixing with any fuel at all.

            Turbine engines are the power plant for high-bypass turbofans. Turbine engines are used in other applications besides powering jets. They are also used to power helicopters and many prop driven planes, yet we never see trails coming from these types of vehicles, and the reason is simple. Turbine engines virtually never produce condensation trails.

            Every Condition is Wrong for Contrail Formation

            The formation of condensation trails requires vacuum (reduction in air pressure), cold temperatures, and high humidity, however, the output side of a jet engine contains mostly outside air that has been pushed through the engine by the large ducted fan (The ducted fan is the set of spinning blades that you see when you look at the front of the engine). This high-pressure at the output of the engine is contrary for the formation of condensation trails because pressurized air has the ability to hold much more water in suspension, without producing condensation.

            NOTE: On very moist days, you may, on rare occasions, see a condensation “tornado” spiraling into the intake side of a high-bypass turbofan engine during high-thrust conditions. This is formed by the extreme, rapid vacuum formed on the intake of the engine. This vacuum induces condensation because air at reduced pressure cannot hold as much water. On the contrary, air on the high-pressure side of these engines cannot condense because it is not under vacuum.
            High school science experiments demonstrate this with a vacuum jar. As the air is expelled, a gentle mist will form. When the valve is opened repressurizing the jar, the mist immediately disappears.

            Only a fraction of the air that enters the engine is taken in by the turbine engine. This air is mixed with jet fuel (essentially kerosene), combusted, and then exits the engine under very high pressure and high temperature. Condensation formation requires a decrease in ambient air pressure to form, but the output of the turbine is under very high pressure which prohibits the formation of condensation trails.

            Physics also tells us that, under the right conditions, condensation can form when air is cooled. Since the exhaust of the turbine engine driving the high-bypass turbofan is very hot – and remains hot for a long distance behind a jet, condensation formation is – once again – prohibited. (Hot air holds much more water without producing condensation.)
            Furthermore, the burning of fossil fuels produces black carbon soot, not water as claimed by some websites. You can see this black soot being expelled from the engines as you watch jets take off from an airport.

            Furthermore, the ratio of air-to-fuel used in high-bypass turbofan engines is as high as possible (lots of air but relatively little fuel) so as to keep engines efficient and cost-effective, so the reduced amount of fuel in this ratio results in a lack of water in the exhaust, and this is yet another reason high-bypass jet turbofans cannot produce condensation trails.

            In short, the more efficient the engine, the less fuel it uses per unit of air moved, and this renders high-bypass turbofans virtually incapable of producing condensation trails, unless they use water injection, which is extremely rare today (see section below).

            Simply said, every condition necessary for contrail formation is absent in a high-bypass turbofan engine.

            If you go to an airport and watch jets take off, you will see that they emit a faint trail of black carbon soot, which is typical of burnt jet fuel (kerosene), but you will not see water vapor.
            If there was any chance that high-bypass turbo fans would create enormous plumes of water vapor, it would occur in high-humidity conditions during high thrust. High thrust only occurs during takeoff and the highest humidity occurs at ground level as the air at higher altitudes has very low humidity levels. We don’t see these enormous plumes of white water vapor during takeoff because these engines simply do not produce them”

            http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/why-high-bypass-turbofan-jet-engines-are-almost-incapable-of-producing-condensation-trails/

            Thank you!

  • I have thousands of photos of planes overhead (central kalifornia), ones with no trail, ones with short trails, and ones with very persistent trails. To me, it’s obvious when I see a real contrail (which I call type1 to type3 whereas type0 is a plane with no trail and type9 is one that goes from horizon to horizon and lasts for hours) that dissipates in 10 to 30 seconds. It’s obvious that a type9 is a chemtrail. Type7&8s are chemtrails, too, but don’t last as long because of drier air. What I’d like to figure out is what type4to6 are, where they last for minutes and expand.
    Also, I go to flightradar24.com to see if I can match a plane/trail to a flight shown. Too often, there is no flight shown going the right direction at the place seen at the time of the trail. It’s been suggested that at least some chemtrails are done by drones and it sure has looked that way a number of times.
    I’d also love to get humidity readings for 30,000 feet as you have, to help determine which planes ought to be making trails and which ought not.
    I’d also love for somebody to contact me about studying this more.

    • Even the short ones are suspect, IMHO. Condensation can’t occur in the absence of condensation nuclei unless the relative humidity is much greater than 100% – supersaturated.

  • It would probably not be a bad idea to have private investigators follow people like Mick West and David Suzuki and Bill Nye around for long enough to understand why
    they seem to tow the line for this insane problem the world is trying to get a grip on.
    Maybe we should also have these people tested for the very ingredients we know they
    should have plenty of. If they don’t then we need to find out why and get us whatever that is so we can walk around saying “Chemtrails shmemtrails. What me worry.” But seriously maybe there are technologies they have been awarded for doing what they do. Or maybe they’re just being lied to as well and haven’t figured that out yet. Either way it’s a win win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *