Aircraft contrails spoiling the weather again.

[qwert 10]

Yep, there are well document accounts of interceptors using persistent contrails to find enemy bombers during the second world war.

 

And there are plenty of photos of WWII contrails after fighter engagements and the like - like this one - http://www.allmystery.de/i/t10a943_Contrails.jpg

 

 

Here's one by Ansel Adams from 1953 - http://depletedcranium.com/aarailsandjettrails.jpg

 

I think the image I posted above has been cleaned up, rather than painted, but there's no shortage of pics of heavy bomber hi-alt contrails - http://acepilots.com/archives/Photos/b17-contrails.jpg

 

I think what you're noticing is an exponential increase in civilian airliner traffic. Passenger numbers have more than tripled since 1970.

 

Contrails, under the right conditions, have always been persistent.

 

Then it should be easy to find me examples of persistent contrails seen incidentily rather than what could be photos of early experiments.

 

The last link says I don't have permission to view, the one above doesn't look like a normal contrail, was the pilot drunk or something?

[Phanerothyme 12]

Links all work for me.

 

Whether the pilots were drunk, I doubt it. But that photo is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, on account of being famous.

 

And there are indisputably persistent contrails in it.

 

All the links work for me. Not sure what sort of problem you're having, but if you want pictures of WWII high altitude bomber contrails, then google is your friend.

[Guest]

Links all work for me.

 

Whether the pilots were drunk, I doubt it. But that photo is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, on account of being famous.

 

And there are indisputably persistent contrails in it.

 

All the links work for me. Not sure what sort of problem you're having, but if you want pictures of WWII high altitude bomber contrails, then google is your friend.

 

He's right.... "Sorry, visitor coming from http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10563904 at 194.159.145.70. You don't have permission to see /archives/Photos/b17-contrails.jpg "

[altus 537]

He's right.... "Sorry, visitor coming from http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10563904 at 194.159.145.70. You don't have permission to see /archives/Photos/b17-contrails.jpg "

 

The site seems to insist on having JavaScript enabled and gives a misleading message if you don't.

 

 

It's not just that. They check the HTTP referrer and display the message rather than the image if there is a referrer but only if JavaScript is disabled. If you have JavaScript enabled or you go direct (i.e. paste the url into the address bar) it displays OK.

Edited July 1, 2014 by altus

[truman 10]

The last link says I don't have permission to view,

 

Copy and paste the link into a new window rather than jumping to it from the thread....

[qwert 10]

Links all work for me.

 

Whether the pilots were drunk, I doubt it. But that photo is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, on account of being famous.

 

And there are indisputably persistent contrails in it.

 

All the links work for me. Not sure what sort of problem you're having, but if you want pictures of WWII high altitude bomber contrails, then google is your friend.

 

I don't thanks. I want to see persistent contrails caught on film, in the background of something from the eighties or nineties will do. I see them regularly on TV made recently so there should be many examples.

Like if you happen to see them while watching a film or something from that era.

There should be thousands of examples shouldn't there.

 

---------- Post added 01-07-2014 at 14:26 ----------

 

Copy and paste the link into a new window rather than jumping to it from the thread....

 

OK I'll have a look.

 

Maybe again that's a picture of a screening experiment being conducted by the military. Some of the planes aren't leaving a trail and are perhaps monitoring the experiment.

 

Something similar to this

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=y7qyU8TuELHe7Aa644G4AQ&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D4_cKdYWJ6V4&cd=1&ved=0CB4QtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNEqB7HVgdo3NR9S5DE9SwEHXBXoIg&sig2=caHcGMXgX5KHJzDEgm4DWQ

Edited July 1, 2014 by qwert

[dosxuk 10]

Maybe again that's a picture of a screening experiment being conducted by the military. Some of the planes aren't leaving a trail and are perhaps monitoring the experiment.

 

When you have to start inventing conspiracies to explain natural phenomenon it's clear that sanity has left the conversation. I'm sure the chemtrail theorists would love to have you on board.

[qwert 10]

When you have to start inventing conspiracies to explain natural phenomenon it's clear that sanity has left the conversation. I'm sure the chemtrail theorists would love to have you on board.

 

If you can't have a conversation without suggesting I'm insane I think you'd better keep out of it. How rude.

[dosxuk 10]

If you can't have a conversation without suggesting I'm insane I think you'd better keep out of it. How rude.

 

I'm sorry, but you're inventing theories to fit your evidence, which is an insane way of trying to find out anything about anything. You don't believe that long lasting contrails existed until a few years ago, so you've had to jump on the chemtrail fantasy to explain them from before then. Then confronted by a common image of some aircraft producing contrails while others don't, you've invented your experiment / observing aircraft theory to explain it, rather than just acknowledging that aircraft are often observed in the same area of sky with only some of them emitting contrails - normally due to altitude.

 

Why you would expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when you're happy to just invent ideas with no logical reasoning or evidence to explain anybody who questions your beliefs.

 

But don't worry, I will be keeping out of it, because it's become clear you're only interested in posts from people going "OMG! UR Right ther are more chomtrains than tere was when iwas kid!!!!!1!!", rather than any sort of productive discussion.

[Phanerothyme 12]

I don't thanks. I want to see persistent contrails caught on film, in the background of something from the eighties or nineties will do.

[/color]

Why not the 40s, 50s or 60s?

 

 

 

My thesis is simple, and requires minimal 'special circumstances'.

 

For every kilogram of paraffin you burn to create thrust, whether that's a piston engined WWII heavy bomber, or a high bypass turbofan on a modern airliner, you create about one and a half kilos of water.

 

That will condense or stay as water vapour depending on atmospheric conditions. This is what gives rise to contrails.

 

So if contrails are different today, there are a limited number of plausible explanations, which have all been done to death in this thread.

 

These can be deduced from commonly available information, and don't really require shonky video 'evidence', so much as sound powers of reasoning.

 

---------- Post added 02-07-2014 at 00:17 ----------

 

The site seems to insist on having JavaScript enabled and gives a misleading message if you don't.

 

Yep sorry, always browse with JS switched off by default. Missed that. (but not that time it seems)

Edited July 1, 2014 by Phanerothyme

[qwert 10]

This morning another good example. When I went out this morning at 7.30 the sky was clear other than the many contrails striping across the sky. Now, less than 2hs later the contrails have spread out causing near total cloud cover.

[Cyclone 10]

You keep repeating this as if it somehow backs you up. Nobody has denied that contrails contribute to cloud formation. We know it happens. We know how it happens.

 

The only point of disagreement is that it has always happened, which you don't believe for some reason.